# Education is it now counterproductive to economy ?



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Loans for business start-up or expansion, generate a financial return that makes repayment possible.

Loans for cars, boats or homes, or for speculation of stocks no production effort is tied to the loan, this adds cost to the economy, not value.

There are a lot of student loans that have added cost to the economy & not any value. ( a lot of kids have school loans & no job related to schooling )

When setting up a business it is best to keep overhead to a minimum. To me it makes no sense to pay to get an education to make more money from a school that does not know how to keep its over head low. This makes me wonder if the students that did get a job from going to school would have been more productive if instead of memorizing & learning based on that which is taught in school did there own thinking.

Teaching kids instead of letting them think independently is it helping or hurting the economy ?

Right now speculation in education is crowded. Crowded speculation is crowded speculation even if it is education, crowded speculation does not end well for the speculator


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

To take it one step further, when I was in school, on the high tech side, I was way more advanced in my knowledge than the courses I was forced to take...to the point of being offered a TA position as a first year undergrad.

For a prof to learn a subject, write a curriculum and begin to teach a subject, you are looking at a 12-18 month window...in high tech that is at least one generation out of date...

What used to work, and still does, for certain subjects is actually detrimental (wasted time) in others...

I always found it ironic that I've certified more students in subjects that I myself am not officially certified in...

That being said, not everyone is capable of self teaching.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

The economy is far different then in the past where you have special orders, high tech changing rapidly, 3D print and modeling and new materials rapidly being introduced into homes through TV shows. The world is also getting smaller and emerging economies demanding more recourses and at the same time we have to keep up with new environmental standards to get them out and the need to communicate with native populations. And i almost forgot the massive need for healthcare and living as so many people are entering their golden years.

Other then learning the essentials like math, science, english and so on the education system must be reading to change quickly and train people in all forms of technology, communication, trades and such to meet the demands. Just educated everyone the same way doing the same things from k- 12 or 13 may not be in the best interest of our nation. We will need professionals to be able to identify in some way the best style education needed for each student to stay ahead of the world going forward.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Education, you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFrYEV07p4I


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I know a young lady who has graduated with a degree in Psychology and is continuing on to her Masters Degree.

She owes $100,000 in student loans..............that will never be repaid. She knows there are few opportunities in her field of expertise, and she isn't interested in it anymore. She only continues on to school to avoid working which starts the clock on student loan repayment. Her parents signed for the loans and they would be liable for the loans.......but they are close to bankruptcy.

At the end of the day...........$100,000 wasted..........except to the people who work at the University.

In the other extreme.......I know a young man who wanted to start a business. There is no money available anywhere for business start ups. All the government offers is some "helpful hints" on some web pages. The advice involves......."get the money to start a business from your parents".

We tell students to get a university education..........but they can't find jobs when they graduate.

We tell students to seek a trade.........but there are few apprenticeships available.

We tell people to start a business.......but there is no money available.

What we have...........is a system that grinds out people destined to work in the service industry.

Maybe that part was planned.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

There is no learning. School is for indoctrination.

Humanities and social sciences, the "useless" degrees, are used for indoctrination into socialism, equalism, and conformity.

Hard sciences and business, the "useful" degrees, are used for indoctrination into corporate obedience. With as much socialism, equalism, and conformity thrown in as time will permit.

I think you would be hard pressed to find more than 1 in 10 people graduating from university with a more open mind and accurate thinking ability than when the entered.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> We tell students to get a university education..........but they can't find jobs when they graduate.
> We tell students to seek a trade.........but there are few apprenticeships available.
> We tell people to start a business.......but there is no money available.
> What we have...........is a system that grinds out people destined to work in the service industry.


That is very well put.
So true.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Probably because, while we may educate people, we rarely teach them to think.

When I was coming out of school, there weren't any jobs...they used to bring in industry people for a class to tell us about our potential futures...they all went "we're not hiring, we've got no plans to hire, and it may be fired next week..."

Somehow I managed to find a low level job. Then, I managed to turn that job into a high level contract. When they trimmed my contract due to budget constraints, I started my own company. When I got injured, I learned about investing...

Many people I went to school with are still looking for the job they were trained for...or hiding in school decades later, or working some menial job, or stuck in a dead end career...or they got lucky when the economy took off.

Perhaps we need to stop "telling" people what to do, and make them figure it out.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

I have a couple hundred apprenticeships available over the next few years. If kids would show up for class and participate I'd pass them and they could get one. Turns out what we're teaching isn't that interesting to them. boo hoo. 

Seems to me if someone spends years of their life in school and tens of thousands of dollars on post secondary and never thinks to ask if there will be a job after.... they might be a good part of the problem.
I have neice who's problem is quite simply that her parents had too much money and thought too highly of her. "Want to go to University in Europe? wow, ok"

Quite a few of my students came to us because they talked to a potential employer and they said "go to this school and complete this course and we'll come there and do an interview with you when you finish"
Most of my grads make their tuition back in 3 to 4 months net salary. Some cover most of it with the paid summer internship. 

My school takes the KPI studies very seriously. The reason they do, is our best students won't take a course unless it has good KPI, and a good job after.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

What was that age old saying? Didn't it go something like:

_"School is for fools."_

:biggrin:


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Those who can, do...those who can't, teach.

Not like we're entrusting our education system to the best and the brightest...heck, I know teachers who still think the brontosaurus was a real dinosaur...when I reality, it's them who are the dinosaur.

Not to mention we spend billions on remedial programs to bring them up to the mean, while ignoring the gifted kids completely so they never reach their potential.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

I can't think of one real in-demand job where anyone would care about one's knowledge of dinosaurs. I have no concern if teachers think Rudolph was a real deer. (when we all know he wasn't one of the original reindeer!!)

If they can inspire kids to develop a foundation of math, communications and general sciences I'm happy. I think there are a lot of great teachers doing just that.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

My calculus teacher in university couldn't do algebra, and he was the head of undergrad math. Hard to do calculus when you need algebra to simplify the formulas...


----------



## Taraz (Nov 24, 2013)

hystat said:


> I have a couple hundred apprenticeships available over the next few years. If kids would show up for class and participate I'd pass them and they could get one. Turns out what we're teaching isn't that interesting to them. boo hoo.


Which industry is that, hystat?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The large company I used to work for hired university graduates as front line supervisors.

I used to ask them if any of their studies were of benefit to their employment.

Their reply was either "no.......nothing"............or "I learned how to do a good Powerpoint presentation..........should the need every arise".

But..........they did land a job with a multi-national corporation.........and advancement is certainly possible for the select few.

And that is worth something......although other than the fact the corporation "could" require university credentials......there was no real need to have any.

The cost of the university education was like a "tax" to get the job.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I have 30+ years of experience in my industry, over 20 of them as a department head. That experience taught me that educated candidates have a greater chance of success than those who lack education that is appropriate to the role. I therefore have become increasingly insistent on giving preference to educated candidates because I want people who can thrive. It works out better for me, for them, and for my company.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

Most General Arts degrees are just filters to provide employers with a rough degree of confidence that the graduate is able to budget their time and perform tasks to a minimum standard given a deadline. Whether it's filling out a TPS report or handing in a term paper, the holder of a BA has been indoctrinated into the way companies and organizations want their employees to behave. It's not to say that you don't have or can't learn those skills if you don't have a degree, but having the paper is a certification by a third party.

The actual content only starts to matter in the sciences and engineering degrees.


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

These last few posts are very correct and I have seen them first hand. The university grads get dumped into a supervisor/manager position that they perhaps know nothing about. Reason being is they have proof they can do research, complete a task and provide a clear informative report/presentation.
Many people are jumping ahead with the idea manual mind tools such as math, language, and world(history/geography/etc..) is useless as everything will be electronic. Its a scary thought. I see it already everyday, people ages 15-50 that can not follow directions as simple as 2 blocks turn left onto "street name", first right, next to "place". So tired of "I need full address for my GPS" - wtf? The world is going to lack creativity and self-reliance very soon. I was sitting at the dealership with the "finance manager" asking how I created a interest spreadsheet, really? 10+ years as a machine designer I'm sure I didn't just make up a list of numbers. As previously stated in another post, I feel one of the most important tools now or soon to be will be multilingualism. If you ever are in need of work, don't be afraid to get your hands dirty.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

Perhaps this is as good as it gets for us humans and it's downhill from here on ... another point of view on automation ... http://hypeangel.com/v/cgp-grey-explains-why-were-getting-replaced-by-robots


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

peterk said:


> There is no learning. School is for indoctrination.
> 
> Humanities and social sciences, the "useless" degrees, are used for indoctrination into socialism, equalism, and conformity.
> 
> ...


Did you get a degree? It really depends on the course and instructor.
Economics isn't generally required for most degrees, they're just partying and having fun, why should the good times ever stop?

There is also a conflict with harder sciences when their funding depends on the government through jobs or grants.

Realistically you won't find many people who understand math and business theory who are socialist, the math just doesn't make sense.

That being said, I had a prof who'd give you near perfect, even for wrong answers, as long as you could argue a reasonable thought process.
I've also had the profs who'd give you a near failing grade unless you simply parroted back their opinion, it's rare that anyone (prof or TA) will mark you bad for agreeing with them, no matter how poorly you execute your argument.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I look at this question in the context of being a parent. Pretty much since birth it has been a statement to our two girls that they will go to university. We have used this language with them for WHEN they go. I don't think they realize there is much of a choice, they are still young though.

I have questioned what the heck is some of this information for? Do they really need to know the dinosaur names or scientific names for plants, history, and other things that I see as not practical used. Then I remember the second piece we are trying to teach them is that they should try to find things they love doing and develope a passion. I don't want my kids just to focus on the practical stuff that will make them money.

However, this lead to the third, is balancing the two. I want my kids to Be able to successfully find jobs that pay well when they are older yet still be passionate. I have also learned that they don't need to be at the same time. 

For me, I view university as a part that is their to prepare them with the skills to work. Hence, I will encourage them to find pursue the partial degrees that have content such as business or sciences that they will be able to find a job. If their passions or interest are different I will help encourage them to find other venues that are less expensive to pursue. 

I don't think necessary think they is a full problem with our universities, I think there is a problem with students not being clear why they are pursuing the degree they are. If it's there to get a job, then pick a degree that will help you, if it's to pursue a passion then do so, but then make sure you know what jobs their are out their . If there aren't any then decide where you are going to get a job.

I was going to pursue a social science degree when I was younger, under the guidance of my siblings, they said where are you going to work after. I was told to research it, I did, and I change my path to business. If I was truly as passionate about psychology and philosophy I would have found a way to pursue afterwards. 

I personally will be guiding my children for their first degree into an area that is practical. We have even used the phase that their second degree can be for theist passion. 

I have also found my business degree very helpful. The positions I had had did not hiring without a degree. I also teach in one of my passion areas.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^^Yes it does indeed depend on the professor a great deal. Professors who are increasingly young, increasingly without tenure, and increasingly being fired and publicly denounced in national newspapers for saying anything politically incorrect or not towing the company (univeristy>government>voter>media>company) line, or slapped on the wrist for being "too hard" on students and "too contoversial"

Lightcycle has got it right, above.

Also, no Brontosaurus? *Mind Blown*


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think many people underestimate the value of some educations...I find psychology to be very useful in design, business and investing for example. I've studied quite a bit of it over the years. The difference is, I don't get sucked into the idea that I need to be a psychologist.

I also find it useful to know if people are smart enough to know facts (like the non-existence of the brontosaurus) or just tend to regurgitate what they've been told...it would influence how I place them as employees (cogs in the machine, or someone who'll figure out a problem).

I've stated many times that my knowledge of history influences my investing and has allowed me to avoid mistakes and make a lot of money.

I've also learned over the years that you can make money doing just about anything...it may not be in the WAY you want but with enough creativity, I could probably even make money off of dinosaurs...there are a lot of dinosaur "museums" and attractions opening up over the last few years, so I'm probably not alone...

I've rarely found education to be a waste...but then I know how to think...most people are looking for the round hole (job) for their round peg (education), and are lost when all there is are square holes.

I encourage my kids to think, question, apply their knowledge, and find solutions...I'm often amazed at the results, but they rarely fail.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

The problem with the education system is that we try to give the same education to people who are NOT the same. 

Some of the smaller differences come from upbringing. The environmental differences that come from their parents behaviours and opinions as well as financial circumstances. The larger difference, in my opinion, comes from the fact that some children are born with a higher IQ then other children. No education can overcome a very low IQ, but we keep trying because it is insulting to state the obvious, that a child is slow. Even if the parents know this they still think more education will solve it. It won't. You can give that child all the education in the world, but it will be a trying experience and most likely they won't figure out what to do with it after they obtained it. Contrast that the a very quick witted child, and they will start to see how the world works before they get to grade 11, and will be well on their way once they graduate college or university.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When I read these threads I can help but think................

Did our parents not have big dreams for us ?

Why are we not all doctors or lawyers ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Smart kids generally don't do well in post secondary...school was too easy for them, so they never learned how to work. The kids who worked for their grades in high school tend to do well in post secondary.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I believe the purpose of education is deeper than an economic purpose. Don't you remember your kids asking why this, and why that? Humans ask why? how? what? when? Education is an obvious way to answer questions and to propose ways to find answers to as yet unanswered questions. 

I have nothing against education aimed at a specific job, but education should not be limited to an economic purpose. For everything there is a season. Some activities that produce nothing of economic value are still immensely meaningful and serve to enrich lives in a way that no money can buy. 

Someone wrote above about learning to think. Learning to think is far more important than memorizing facts. When I look at life there are many types of activities each with their own peculiar logic, or way of thinking. Thinking artistically, socially, historically, culturally, faithfully, economical, mathematically, are different ways of thinking and they are all, I believe, valuable and meaningful. Its a blessing to have economically rich societies as that frees up time and energy to think in ways that are enriching, but have no monetary purpose.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> Smart kids generally don't do well in post secondary...school was too easy for them, so they never learned how to work. The kids who worked for their grades in high school tend to do well in post secondary.


Smart kids do well in everything they do...why, because they are smart.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't know if agree with smart people being successful just because they are smart. IF smart is define as IQ then I would have to disagree. 

Many studies show that many of those who have high IQ are not more successful than those with average IQ. EQ is actually a large factor too. 

There are actually a very high percentage of gifted kids that are high school drop outs because they do get bored. Also, there are many high IQ kids that are double coded with a learning disability because they cannot function in a regular environment! and learn in different ways. They may have been born with good IQ genes, but this does not gaurentee success. Many gifted people have a very difficult time dealing with failure, so though may fail less often, when they do, it's really challenging for them to get back. 

I am interested in what peoples definition of smart is?


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

I've seen examples of so many types of "smart" in my life that make people successful, not just the logical, critical thinking kind of intelligence that is measured with IQ tests.

Personally, I think emotional and social intelligence is the most important kind of intelligence in being successful: the ability to read and react accordingly to others feelings and moods, to accurately pinpoint the motivations of others and use it in a constructive fashion. It's the kind of quality that those in the CEO position possesses over the "smart" techie that everyone calls to fix their computer problem.

But I've also seen other kinds of intelligence that don't overlap with the traditional definitions of being smart. I marvel at those who grasp languages, their native tongue and also learning a new and foreign language. I believe there is also a musical intelligence, especially when I hear supposedly "smart" people try to tap out a rhythm or hum a melody that to me, sounds like it would be quite easy because of the mathematical foundations behind it. But somewhere between the ear and the brain, there is a disconnect or lack of ability to grasp the connection.

Same disconnect with kinesthetic intelligence, the ability to learn new movements and master fine motor control and demonstrate exceptional hand-eye co-ordination. The kind of quality that professional athletes have make them "body-smarter" than the rest of the population, and make those that lack this kind of intelligence seem clumsy and slow.


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

rikk said:


> Perhaps this is as good as it gets for us humans and it's downhill from here on ... another point of view on automation ... http://hypeangel.com/v/cgp-grey-explains-why-were-getting-replaced-by-robots


As someone who has been in the automation industry for almost 15years, I think of this all the time. There is going to become the dividing branch where everyone becomes too involved in what you can do with these new tools and programs that the ones who will win in the end are the creators, developers, and builders. Everyone else will just push buttons or work in retail.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Government's role in education these days has sadly become that of a nanny state.

Govt. tells us that parents are no longer capable of raising their kids, making the right choices, or taking the right decisions for their kids - therefore, it _must_ be the govt. making those choices, taking those decisions, etc. on behalf of the parents.

Parents' responsibility should end after the delivery of the baby in the labor room (of a socially funded hospital, btw).
Thereafter the govt. (provincial in our case) should take over.

Right from determining what to feed the baby, to taking care of the kids from 3 mo. of age and beyond, it is the responsibility of the state.
And, of course, education is 100% the prerogative of the state.
Paper-pushing bureaucrats sitting in an office building will decide all aspects of the curriculum, including the initiation and nature of sex education, financial literacy, and other core life skills.

The parents' role needs to be limited to paying the taxes required to fund this nanny state system.

Everything is being structured in a manner to usurp the responsibility of a child's upbringing and education away from the parents and on to the state/govt.

Ostensibly, this is being done to enable both parents to return to work ASAP.
Full day kindergarten, early childhood care centers, the _Best Start Child_ programs (here in Ontario) have this one objective.

Hurry up and get back to work.
Shut up and keep paying your taxes.
Your kids are in good hands.
We will take care of everything - from diapers to sex education to teaching quantitative thermodynamics theory.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

coptzr said:


> As someone who has been in the automation industry for almost 15years, I think of this all the time. There is going to become the dividing branch where everyone becomes too involved in what you can do with these new tools and programs that the ones who will win in the end are the creators, developers, and builders. Everyone else will just push buttons or work in retail.


I think the point of the presentation is that AI will replace human intelligence in the "creators, developers, and builders" roles, and that intelligent bots will "push the buttons" and "work in retail". I too did automation, headed up a D&D unit for about 10 years ... about 30 years ago ... it's not unreasonable to look back, and visualize AI bots doing that sort of task. I did some limited work in formal methods ... nice stuff for smart systems for example.

Back to humans, their education, and the economy ... hmmmm


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

What is the government's role in preventing child abuse?

Any thoughts on stories of home schoolers that don't actually teach their children, because the rapture is just around the corner? I think it is evil to fail to protect children from abusive parents such as these. There are no christian children, only children born to christian parents. And by losing the genetic lottery, they may be born to parents who will permanently impair their chances in life.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^ Are you saying that in order to prevent child abuse, it is necessary for the govt. to assume full responsibility of raising the child from the day it is born?
Parents are lecherous pedophiles and only the state can be trusted to raise children?

Is that where our current social policy is headed with this full day school, Best Start Child programs, etc?

And what is the basis for saying govt-funded school system is in any way better equipped to prevent abuse?
Remember the atrocities committed under the aboriginal resident school system?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> ^ Are you saying that in order to prevent child abuse, it is necessary for the govt. to assume full responsibility of raising the child from the day it is born?


Nope. Government has a role in ensuring that parents don't abuse their children. It doesn't mean they have to care for them full-time, in residential boarding schools without contact from their parents after birth (or whatever other extreme you are imagining). But that is just a strawman, anyway.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Nope. Government has a role in ensuring that parents don't abuse their children. It doesn't mean they have to care for them full-time, in residential boarding schools without contact from their parents after birth (or whatever other extreme you are imagining). But that is just a strawman, anyway.


The aboriginal residential boarding was an example to illustrate that govt. led schooling is not necessarily free of abuse.

My question still stands whether you are saying that the govt. needs to assume full responsibility of raising the child from the day it is born, which you have not answered.

Note that we are certainly heading in that direction with an increasing degree of _*intervention *_and _*interference *_by the govt. in the upbringing of children.
And it is all to prevent abuse by parents?
Really?

Your only argument in favor of increased govt. intervention is that it is supposed to somehow protect against child abuse.
You have offered no other logic or reasoning.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> Government's role in education these days has sadly become that of a nanny state.
> 
> Govt. tells us that parents are no longer capable of raising their kids, making the right choices, or taking the right decisions for their kids - therefore, it _must_ be the govt. making those choices, taking those decisions, etc. on behalf of the parents.
> 
> ...


Pretty true. Scary thing too is many parents seem fine with this arrangement.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> My question still stands whether you are saying that the govt. needs to assume full responsibility of raising the child from the day it is born, which you have not answered.


I already answered: "Nope."



> Note that we are certainly heading in that direction with an increasing degree of _*intervention *_and _*interference *_by the govt. in the upbringing of children.
> And it is all to prevent abuse by parents?
> Really?
> 
> ...


We could look at history and what outcomes were like when government took a more laissez faire approach to education and child welfare. What were child mortality and literacy rates like prior to public school systems?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I am not advocating home schooling, if that's what you were thinking.
Not at all.
That is one extreme, but we are headed towards the other extreme, where the state wants to take full responsibility of raising children.

I don't think the govt. (at any level) should be providing subsidized day care, subsidized full day kindergarten, "best start" programs, etc.
The scope of "education" has been expanded to include activities that are normally considered parenting, including nutrition, personal hygiene, sex education, etc.

This is how govt. is becoming more intrusive into personal space.

lonewolf's question is whether education is becoming counter-productive to the economy - yes, in many ways it is.
If you allow the govt. to increasingly monetize erstwhile personal/family responsibilities, it will lead to a leakage of productive capacity and cause bloating in that sector.
That is what we are seeing now.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The available evidence supports investment in early childhood education as having a high social ROI. 

Not sure why you would be opposed to a certain minimum standard of education in areas such as those you mentioned (hygiene, sex, nutrition). Nothing prohibits parents from covering these same areas, but not all children receive excellent parenting. Insisting that children can only rely on their parents to teach them reinforces intergenerational poverty, as poorer parents tend to have less time and are less well equipped (from an education perspective) to provide this education to their children.

How many parents do you think are fully up to speed on STIs, and safer sex practices and are willing to have frank discussions with their children about it? The model you propose (low to no info provided on sex) has been a disaster in the US south, with high teen pregnancy and STI rates.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Nope. Government has a role in ensuring that parents don't abuse their children.


And what happens when that definition continues to creep (as it is doing) further and further into the realm of ridiculous? Who will come to your defense when someone else has decided that you are no longer fit to parent because your behavior is "abusive"?

Spanking, shaming, letting kids roam unsupervised, chores around the farm (looking at you Saskatchewan), all parental activities that will catch some serious flak. What's next? Something that your morals approve of I hope. Because god help you if the government or CPS disagrees with you...




> Any thoughts on stories of home schoolers that don't actually teach their children, because the rapture is just around the corner? I think it is evil to fail to protect children from abusive parents such as these. There are no christian children, only children born to christian parents
> .


Universally condemned by modern society, it seems.

How about two women who raise "their" son to wear dresses, pump him full of Adderall, while encouraging his sexuality at age 8 in a way that they would prefer, and nourishing his growing man's body with a hearty diet of flax bread, chick peas and almond milk? All while not "actually teaching their children" a damn thing because they themselves are delusional narcissists. Any abuse going on their? Because according to CPS and the media it is A-OK.

Yes, the example is extreme, but no more extreme than your Christian rapture one. And I would argue that there are a heck of a lot more over-the-top progressive "families" these days screwing up young kids minds and bodies than there are religious nuts job families that are going too extreme the other way with physical/mental/spiritual abuse.

I am completely non-religious, fyi.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

^ +1


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The equivalent of CPS did nothing about the rapture kids either. Society failing children that deserved better.

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion that there are more granola-munching leftists messing up their children than rapture-anticipating home schoolers? There are a lot of home schoolers in the US. Frankly, I think operating on the belief that the world is going to end presently stops being religious belief and starts becoming psychotic delusion.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> I don't think the govt. (at any level) should be providing subsidized day care, subsidized full day kindergarten, "best start" programs, etc.
> The scope of "education" has been expanded to include activities that are normally considered parenting, including nutrition, personal hygiene, sex education, etc.
> 
> This is how govt. is becoming more intrusive into personal space.


I agree 100%. Government should not be providing universal day care, and the like. If parents want that, they should pay for it themselves.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

http://a2zhomeschooling.com/thoughts_opinions_home_school/numbers_homeschooled_students/



> Home schooled numbers change in the rate of growth, however, has been declining, right along with the birth rates. But it took a sudden turn upward when the economy tanked.* Many families can no longer afford private schools, and so have turned to homeschooling.* Others may have decided to home school when one parent lost their job and could stay home and teach.





> Compared to the American school parents as a whole, homeschool parents are more likely to be white and have a four-year college degree, and have a household of two parents and at least three children.


http://www.statisticbrain.com/home-school-statistics/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Don't believe in the rapture........?

Just remember the atheist funeral notice that read............."All dressed up and no place to go".


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> The equivalent of CPS did nothing about the rapture kids either. Society failing children that deserved better.
> 
> Do you have any evidence to support that assertion that there are more granola-munching leftists messing up their children than rapture-anticipating home schoolers? There are a lot of home schoolers in the US. Frankly, I think operating on the belief that the world is going to end presently stops being religious belief and starts becoming psychotic delusion.


I'm not really sure why you are picking on those who believe in the rapture. I thought there was religious freedom in this country. What harm does believing in the rapture do? I doubt that all kids believing in the rapture are being denied an education. Seems to me this Texas situation is an isolated incident. I don't see a reason to expand the nanny state due to an isolated incident.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

andrewf said:


> The equivalent of CPS did nothing about the rapture kids either. Society failing children that deserved better.
> 
> It is of course, unfortunate. But I am not convinced it is something that the government should be involved with. The world takes all kinds.





> Do you have any evidence to support that assertion that there are more granola-munching leftists messing up their children than rapture-anticipating home schoolers? There are a lot of home schoolers in the US.


I'm not sure what that evidence would look like even... some study I suppose? No doubt funded by a conservative or religious source, and therefore discredited for being biased. Much the same way any study conducted today is funded by someone with a biased interest.

My conclusions are based on a recent 10 years as a young high school and university student. I encourage you to go speak with some twenty year olds in college to find out for yourself.



> Frankly, I think operating on the belief that the world is going to end presently stops being religious belief and starts becoming psychotic delusion.


Most certainly.

I would only argue that a great many who have never left a city or been in a conversation with someone outside their insulated big city liberal world view are equally psychotic and delusional. They deep to their core believe that everything in the world can be equal and fair, the economy runs on magic, and that trifling political or emotional slights against them are overwhelming, earth shattering injustices that must be corrected with aggressive force by the government. (e.g. calling someone a mean name, telling someone they can't do something, denying someone something who wants it but hasn't earned it)

I see no difference between the two. Both sides believe the world is something that it most wholeheartedly is not. Equality is the religion of generation Y.


But anyways, to the education topic at hand, I would encourage learning at home (not exclusively) and parental involvement in schools to a maximal amount. A parent is the only person who could conceivably have sufficient investment in the education of a child to see it through. It may differ from person to person, but at least there is true motivation. The teacher is in it for the job, the school board is in it for the funding, and the government is in it to win the next election. The ONLY person who actually wants the best for the children is the parent.

Naturally this interrupts the government's plan for re-election and the smooth continuous increase of power. So it is necessary to reduce parental involvement as much as possible, little by little.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> I'm not really sure why you are picking on those who believe in the rapture. I thought there was religious freedom in this country. What harm does believing in the rapture do? I doubt that all kids believing in the rapture are being denied an education. Seems to me this Texas situation is an isolated incident. I don't see a reason to expand the nanny state due to an isolated incident.


I think it's fine if adults choose to believe in an impending rapture and, say, rack up credit card bills, abuse their health, and fail to save for their retirement since the world is ending in a few months anyway. I'm much less indifferent to imposing those beliefs on children. The problem extends beyond this one issue. There are many faith-based schools that do not accept any element of the curriculum that doesn't conform with dogma, such as certain aspects of biology, geology, astronomy, etc.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Has religion put ethical restraints on reason.

Faith the antithesis of reason. Faith is blind acceptance that something can be true without any sensory evidence. Faith allows for anything to be true. When the laws of logic & principals of thought are not allowed in schools instead faith & memorization takes it place how can kids think & judge that which is true or false.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

^ As Peterk (#49) alludes, 'religion' is not necessarily theological, (in fact political (mainly leftist) dogma is generally more pervasive and intransigent).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nemo, you seem supremely unaware of your own confirmation bias. Or maybe you're just subtly trolling. Conservatives are much less susceptible to unsubstantiated beliefs?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Conservatives are much less susceptible to unsubstantiated beliefs?


Susceptible perhaps.....but less likely than 'progressives', I'd posit, to attempt to inflict/enforce their beliefs on the population as a whole.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I think it's fine if adults choose to believe in an impending rapture and, say, rack up credit card bills, abuse their health, and fail to save for their retirement since the world is ending in a few months anyway. I'm much less indifferent to imposing those beliefs on children.


Another fantastic example!

Please tell me who you think is more likely rack up debt, abuse their heath and fail to save for retirement? A few hundred lunatics for religious purposes, or a hundred million delusional Hillary chanters around the world who have no concept of how reality works in any sense (economical, politcal, health). What exactly are these shining examples teaching their children, may I ask...


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The available evidence supports investment in early childhood education as having a high social ROI.
> Not sure why you would be opposed to a certain minimum standard of education in areas such as those you mentioned (hygiene, sex, nutrition).


As _peterk _said above "_what happens when that definition continues to creep (as it is doing) further and further into the realm of ridiculous?_

It begins with euphemistic rhetoric like _invest in education_, _vote for kids_ (sound familiar?), etc.
But soon there is scope creep (already well underway) and the state begins to encroach upon traditional family responsibilities.

By telling parents that they are not equipped to raise their own kids, the state begins to shape, mould, and control social behavior.

Thus, the education system becomes a tool to be leveraged by special interest groups that want to shape society in their own colors - whether it is on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, etc.

Anyhow, it is laughable that one'd suggest the state taking more responsibility of raising children vis-à-vis parents in order to prevent "abuse".
Incidence of abuse in schools, sports clubs, etc. are far more common than parental abuse.
Even here in Canada.
Just in the last couple of years, just in & around southern Ontario/GTA, there have been numerous cases of public school teachers abusing children.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

At the start of my school years and my dads years abuse was the name of the game. You got spanked at school and at home and if the teacher called home after spanking you then you would get a bonus spanking when you got home. If you had a problem with another kid, bully or not then you would have a fight with them after school. 

You could argue it creating tough people ready to take on the world and be tough when they had to be. It created accountability which we have a lot less of today and people didn't seem to have all these allergies and sicknesses they seem to suffer today.

On the other hand teachers and parents could abuse the hell out of their kids and bullies had their way with whoever they targeted. Violence was an important way to solve all problems in school and the real world. Many smart people may not have been able to shine as they do today and possibly many discoveries that could have happened never did.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> I think it's fine if adults choose to believe in an impending rapture and, say, rack up credit card bills, abuse their health, and fail to save for their retirement since the world is ending in a few months anyway. I'm much less indifferent to imposing those beliefs on children. The problem extends beyond this one issue. There are many faith-based schools that do not accept any element of the curriculum that doesn't conform with dogma, such as certain aspects of biology, geology, astronomy, etc.


1.What makes you associate people who believe in the Raputre with those who do not pay their bills and so on? 
2. Give me an example of schools that do not accept "any element of the curriculum that doesn't conform with dogma, such as certain aspects of biology, geology, astronomy, etc." What's the elements that such schools don't accept? 


All schools are faith based. The fact that public schools teach current politically correct scientific and other dogma, doesn't mean they are not based in faith. They just teach a more widely accepted politically correct faith.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

lonewolf said:


> Has religion put ethical restraints on reason.
> 
> Faith the antithesis of reason. Faith is blind acceptance that something can be true without any sensory evidence. Faith allows for anything to be true. When the laws of logic & principals of thought are not allowed in schools instead faith & memorization takes it place how can kids think & judge that which is true or false.


Faith is not the antithesis of reason. All reason is tied to unprovable beliefs. All logical arguments commence with one or more unprovable assumptions. 

All you are doing in your post is stating your faith. If someone doesn't accept your faith, what would you do to prove it? 

One of your items of faith seems to be, that you need direct sensory evidence to believe something. Right away that rules out evolutionary theory, for example, as the origin of life because it isn't possible for anyone to have observed the origin of life. 
Another of your articles of faith is, "Faith allows for anything to be true". But obviously, that conflicts with your faith in direct sensory experience. According to your faith in sensory experience, you rule out evolutionary origins of life, because you can never observe it. So faith actually restricts what one may believe. 

Are you sure you know what the laws of logic and principles of thought are? Your rhetoric presupposes you do, but that presupposition is a faith, the very thing you claim not to have. 

And considering your faith in astrology, I'm shocked at your denunciation of faith.


----------



## dotnet_nerd (Jul 1, 2009)

"Is our children learning?"

-George W. Bush


----------



## Janus (Oct 23, 2013)

peterk said:


> Another fantastic example!
> 
> Please tell me who you think is more likely rack up debt, abuse their heath and fail to save for retirement? A few hundred lunatics for religious purposes, or a hundred million delusional Hillary chanters around the world who have no concept of how reality works in any sense (economical, politcal, health). What exactly are these shining examples teaching their children, may I ask...


This thread has gone in a very weird direction, but your easy mention of Hillary from Fresh Prince (assuming the reference doesn't need explaining 20 years after the show) is a breath of fresh air.


----------



## rossco12 (Dec 4, 2013)

Life will educate you.
School will train you.

I could elaborate but it would be a novel.


----------



## Gabs (May 7, 2014)

I think many well meaning parents and school kids see university as there only option for higher education and success.

I obtained a masters in the arts and went to law school before really exploring my options and learning a very lucrative trade. If I was to do it all over again I'd go for the trade immediately and skip university


----------



## 30seconds (Jan 11, 2014)

I can make my own interpretation of that but a novels always good to!!


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

I'd say this thread removed any hope of finding intelligent life on this forum.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

It looks like education could be extremely important for Canadians getting the upper hand on the automation that will impact half of Canadian jobs in the next 10 years.

The news sounds bad but it isn't if Canadians are trained and educated in the changing skills needed in the future.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4105713/automation-workforce-canada-human/


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

..


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Another article vague on specifics. 

I have long since concluded nobody has any clue about what is going to happen and the most likely scenario is more people collecting government benefits.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

If everything collapses in a world wide recession or depression then you may be right sags if the government is able to fund it.

Still if it is like the past then new tech and education should change everything and many new jobs will be available if the skill set is there.


----------

