Libertarians Are Sociopaths

[NghtRppr]

So then the proper first step in your brand of unregulated capitalism is to confiscate the land and redistribute it to the people? Do I have this right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

[1714933942]

1714933942

[Rassah]

You seem to be advocating for equality at the cost of uniformity, which terribly reminds me of "The brave new world".  You are basically saying that parents should not have the right to make decisions regarding the education of their offspring

Socialist equality is evil because under it one person chooses not to work, the other works hard, and the one who chose not to is compensated by the hard worker. It both deminishes incentive to work and takes hard workers earnings. Children have no choice. Their wealth or place of residence is no fault of their own. In my 11 year school "career" I went to 9 different schools in 4 different countries. The choice of school or location was never mine to make. If schools were expensive and I was not able to go, at least for the first few grades the fault would have been entirely that of my parents.So, public education does not incentivize laziness or entitlement. You still have to work hard for your grades (in other countries, anyway), and it helps build an educated employee pool beneficial to business. Perhaps if there was no such thing as publically funded education, all schools would be funded by local and international business, teaching using well researched and accepted methods, and school attendance would likely still be free and compulsory. But since that is not the case, businesses will just continue to relocate and hire people from countries with best public education.
Public education =/= lack of choice. I had tutors and went to non religious weekend school as my supplemental education, and am all for parents supplementing the basic stuff their kids learn in school.

An other reason why this is wrong is that nobody knows what is the best education for children, if such a thing exists.  And if it does exists, I very much doubt that public centralization of decision regarding pedagogic methods is the best way to find out what it is.  Giving the responsability of educating millions of children to a few technocrats is a total madness, imho.

I know what is the best education for children. Reading, writing, languade skills, basic math, algebra, geography, llitterature, mechanical physics/engineering, basic biology and chemistry, basic computer science, and basic accounting/financial management. All things that make up the building blocks of other fields, expose kids to what is available, is useful in every day life, and most importantly fairly objective. As for pedagogic methods, they are like scientific methods: adjusted to improve, peer reviewed, tested, and applied. Sadly, that method isn't really used in US, which for some reason is also very skeptical of science, and that may be why other first-world countries that do have a few technocrats educating millions of children using pedagogic methods are so far ahead in quality and level of education.

[MoonShadow]

You seem to be advocating for equality at the cost of uniformity, which terribly reminds me of "The brave new world".  You are basically saying that parents should not have the right to make decisions regarding the education of their offspring

Socialist equality is evil because under it one person chooses not to work, the other works hard, and the one who chose not to is compensated by the hard worker. It both deminishes incentive to work and takes hard workers earnings. Children have no choice. Their wealth or place of residence is no fault of their own.

Although this is true enough, it is not the responsibility of the successful to make up for the inequalities of birth, nor the place of government to act as equalizer.  That said, as a modern compromise to the "social responsibility to the least able" versus the anarchistic "blame your parents if your childhood sucks" question; I would not be opposed to the idea that every child (born to provable, net tax paying, citizens) be allocated a 'defined benefit' social net at birth, to be used as necessary until depleted.  For example, the cost of childhood health care could be subsidized in this manner by granting each newborn a (as an example) $15K Health Savings Account when they are issued a social security number.  (It's really difficult to fake out the SSA and get a new SSN)  The SSA would be in charge of tracking the funds, and parents (or adult account holders) couldn't access those funds directly, but only as a tax fileing reimbursement with evidence that 1) the expenses were real 2) for the child in question and 3) the parents really didn't have the resources to pay for it.  Even if the parents are denied recompensation, the fund remains the asset of the child, forever.  

And I can solve the 'Universal health care' debate in two minutes.  A state block-grant fund wherein any procedure or prescription drug that was medically available to the richest American 50 years prior to the current year could be paid for in it's entirety, regardless of who is asking for it.  Excluding prescriptions that are now over the counter.  And the procedure cannot have an updated version, either.  So no heart surgery, no brain surgery, and very little cancer treatments for the destitute (pretty much exactly like it is now by default, with the 'obligation to treat' emergency room laws) but break a bone and you can go to any emergency room or urgent care center and have it set and cast without so much as the question "are you a US citizen".

These are certainly not libertarian viewpoints, but I think that they would be preferable to even the most hardcore libs to what we have now.

So, public education does not incentivize laziness or entitlement. You still have to work hard for your grades (in other countries, anyway), and it helps build an educated employee pool beneficial to business.

Publicly funded education does not incentivize laziness, by itself.  But add in compulsory schooling, which both forces kids who have no interest in education to attend a public school and also forces the schools to accept them, and you have a condition of devolving morale.  Both for the teachers that must attempt to educate, or at least control, the children who do not wish to be there; as well as the other children who do, but cannot afford a private education to escape the influences of proximity to the other children.

Perhaps if there was no such thing as publically funded education, all schools would be funded by local and international business, teaching using well researched and accepted methods, and school attendance would likely still be free and compulsory. But since that is not the case, businesses will just continue to relocate and hire people from countries with best public education.

History doesn't bear out your assumptions.  There was enither compuslory education nor publicly funded education in the majority of the United States prior to 1890, and was not nationwide until 1910.  The population of the United States of America was more literate and better educated, on aggragate, in 1780 than in 1930, or 1970; if you account for advances in sciences.

Public education =/= lack of choice. I had tutors and went to non religious weekend school as my supplemental education, and am all for parents supplementing the basic stuff their kids learn in school.

Then you are simply for homeschooling and private education, because that is what they are doing.

An other reason why this is wrong is that nobody knows what is the best education for children, if such a thing exists.  And if it does exists, I very much doubt that public centralization of decision regarding pedagogic methods is the best way to find out what it is.  Giving the responsability of educating millions of children to a few technocrats is a total madness, imho.

I know what is the best education for children.

You don't, and can't.  Evidence enought that the professional education establishments the world around do not, and cannot, know the best kind of education for all children is the fact that such educators are constatnly trying to 'reform' a broken system.  If the professionals cannot agree what the best kind of education is, you as an idividual teacher cannot honestly claim to have a monopoly on such information.

[Rassah]

Publicly funded education does not incentivize laziness, by itself.  But add in compulsory schooling, which both forces kids who have no interest in education to attend a public school and also forces the schools to accept them, and you have a condition of devolving morale.  Both for the teachers that must attempt to educate, or at least control, the children who do not wish to be there; as well as the other children who do, but cannot afford a private education to escape the influences of proximity to the other children.

Hmm, not sure where you find these children who have an "interest in education," but I sure as heck never saw anyone like that. Hell, I was a total nerd/dork in school, spent most of my time reading books, and during lunch, instead of playing outside, spent all my time in the library playing on computers, and even I hated studying and homework, preferring to spend my time in front of a TV or my Genesis. That forcing to study also taught discipline, priorities, and that you have to work hard in life. What you aredescribing there is actually the glaring difference I noticed in school cultures here and in Europe and Japan. Whether you have interest or not doesn't matter. You are a part of a class and your class is your team. You all work together and you don't let your teammates down. If you do, your teammates either shun you, shame you, or try to help you. Here, it's the opposite. Everyone is shuffled around different classes, everyone is for themselves aside from meaningless clicks, bad boys are popular, and smart kids are at the bottom of the social food chain instead of the admired guys who can help your class outcompete the other classes. I wasn't even aware of the whole smart kids are antisocial nerdy outcasts thing until I came to this country. So, maybe as with guns, it's not the laws, the regulations, or the money, it's the culture.

Public education =/= lack of choice. I had tutors and went to non religious weekend school as my supplemental education, and am all for parents supplementing the basic stuff their kids learn in school.

Then you are simply for homeschooling and private education, because that is what they are doing.

No, I differentiate between tutoring to suppliment specific areas of education, and straight out home schooling that doesn't involve a public or private school at all. Why is there no home colleging btw?

I know what is the best education for children.

You don't, and can't.  Evidence enought that the professional education establishments the world around do not, and cannot, know the best kind of education for all children is the fact that such educators are constatnly trying to 'reform' a broken system.  If the professionals cannot agree what the best kind of education is, you as an idividual teacher cannot honestly claim to have a monopoly on such information.

I don't really see other countries complaining about broken education systems, or doing any reforming other than tweaking and updating curriculums with more modern material. Certainly not in any of the places I've studied or have friends in. Again, this seems like a very American problem. If you mean the ones here, I guarantee you every one of those educators will agree with my list of essentials. The question mostly ends up being around how to teach it, and what more advanced topics to get into (or whether to teach evolution of sex ed).

[grondilu]

I don't really see other countries complaining about broken education systems, or doing any reforming other than tweaking and updating curriculums with more modern material. Certainly not in any of the places I've studied or have friends in. Again, this seems like a very American problem.

i have difficulties following this overlong thread but I'd like to respond to this quickly.

in France a new method called 'méthode globale' has been introduced recently to teach children how to read.  It basically consisted in NOT teaching kids the alphabet.  Instead, kids were taught to recognized small words directly, as if they were ideograms.  It seemed to helped a few children who had reading difficultes with the classical abc method.   But once this method was generalized, in the long run it appeared to be a freaking disaster.  Many kids were simply unable to read or write correctly once they entered higher schools, and some studies showed that the global method was responsible.

I personnaly think there is no surprise if the State is a poor educator.  To teach kids, it spends money in the worst possible way, according to Friedman:

There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money
on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what youre doing,
and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money
on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then
Im not so careful about the content of the present, but Im very careful about
the cost. Then, I can spend somebody elses money on myself. And if I spend
somebody elses money on myself, then Im sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody elses money on somebody else. And if I spend
somebody elses money on somebody else, Im not concerned about how much it is,
and Im not concerned about what I get. And thats government. And thats close
to 40% of our national income.   Fox News interview (May 2004)

[MoonShadow]

I don't really see other countries complaining about broken education systems, or doing any reforming other than tweaking and updating curriculums with more modern material. Certainly not in any of the places I've studied or have friends in. Again, this seems like a very American problem.

i have difficulties following this overlong thread but I'd like to respond to this quickly.

in France a new method called 'méthode globale' has been introduced recently to teach children how to read.  It basically consisted in NOT teaching kids the alphabet.  Instead, kids were taught to recognized small words directly, as if they were ideograms. 

That's called "sight words" in the US, and was also a freaking disaster.

[Smoovious]

Every time you try and skip over fundamentals in favor of the short-cut when it comes to education, ya end up short-changing the students and end up with less than favorable results.

Sure, we could say "oh well, we tried and it didn't work, and we're out <insert moneys> here.", but then, what of the students involved, who lack the fundamentals they didn't get. Short-cuts have long-reaching results on a very personal level to them.

Teaching to the lowest common denominator also short-changes them. Some have to fail and try again or everyone loses.

-- Smoov

[MoonShadow]

Publicly funded education does not incentivize laziness, by itself.  But add in compulsory schooling, which both forces kids who have no interest in education to attend a public school and also forces the schools to accept them, and you have a condition of devolving morale.  Both for the teachers that must attempt to educate, or at least control, the children who do not wish to be there; as well as the other children who do, but cannot afford a private education to escape the influences of proximity to the other children.

Hmm, not sure where you find these children who have an "interest in education," but I sure as heck never saw anyone like that.

Then you have never spent any time around homeschoolers, unschoolers, or montessori students.  Their lust for subjects that interest them is often palatable.

Hell, I was a total nerd/dork in school, spent most of my time reading books, and during lunch, instead of playing outside, spent all my time in the library playing on computers, and even I hated studying and homework, preferring to spend my time in front of a TV or my Genesis.

You are conflating education with schooling.  You were learning while reading and playing video games. 

That forcing to study also taught discipline, priorities, and that you have to work hard in life.

BS.  How many of your classmates went on to a career that required such discipline?  Very few, indeed.  Yourself included.  Even the teachers' cert is just a hoop to jump through.  You can't honestly tell me that four years of post-secondary education prepared you to be a school teacher, because I know what it entails.  When you finally had your degree, you had to spend a year or so either with a mentor teacher or subbing, did you not?  Or co-oping while still in school yourself.  Otherwise you wouldn't have been prepared to teach.

What you aredescribing there is actually the glaring difference I noticed in school cultures here and in Europe and Japan. Whether you have interest or not doesn't matter. You are a part of a class and your class is your team. You all work together and you don't let your teammates down. If you do, your teammates either shun you, shame you, or try to help you. Here, it's the opposite. Everyone is shuffled around different classes, everyone is for themselves aside from meaningless clicks, bad boys are popular, and smart kids are at the bottom of the social food chain instead of the admired guys who can help your class outcompete the other classes. I wasn't even aware of the whole smart kids are antisocial nerdy outcasts thing until I came to this country. So, maybe as with guns, it's not the laws, the regulations, or the money, it's the culture.

Maybe it is the culture.  It would then still not be the wisdom of the educators then, would it?

Public education =/= lack of choice. I had tutors and went to non religious weekend school as my supplemental education, and am all for parents supplementing the basic stuff their kids learn in school.

Then you are simply for homeschooling and private education, because that is what they are doing.

No, I differentiate between tutoring to suppliment specific areas of education, and straight out home schooling that doesn't involve a public or private school at all.

You differentiate.  That doesn't meant it's different.  Reality doesn't much care how you differentiate.

Why is there no home colleging btw?

There is in many disciplines that don't require a master's or doctorate path. 

I know what is the best education for children.

You don't, and can't.  Evidence enought that the professional education establishments the world around do not, and cannot, know the best kind of education for all children is the fact that such educators are constatnly trying to 'reform' a broken system.  If the professionals cannot agree what the best kind of education is, you as an idividual teacher cannot honestly claim to have a monopoly on such information.

I don't really see other countries complaining about broken education systems, or doing any reforming other than tweaking and updating curriculums with more modern material. Certainly not in any of the places I've studied or have friends in. Again, this seems like a very American problem. If you mean the ones here, I guarantee you every one of those educators will agree with my list of essentials. The question mostly ends up being around how to teach it, and what more advanced topics to get into (or whether to teach evolution of sex ed).

Those are not trivial details.

[Rassah]

Hmm, not sure where you find these children who have an "interest in education," but I sure as heck never saw anyone like that.

Then you have never spent any time around homeschoolers, unschoolers, or montessori students.  Their lust for subjects that interest them is often palatable.

Everyone is interested in subjects that interest them. It's the subjects that don't interest yet are required in life, and subjects that they aren't even aware of, that I am concerned about. All those books I mentioned I was reading weren't teaching me things I would consider important to my life, and I wasn't even aware that subjects like economics or finance existed. I guess parents can simply follow teaching guides when home schooling to make sure they don't miss anything, but then they are still following generally accepted required subjects, and the only difference seems letting kids work and learn at their own pace (life doesn't work that way), and avoid uncomfortable social interraction.

Hell, I was a total nerd/dork in school, spent most of my time reading books, and during lunch, instead of playing outside, spent all my time in the library playing on computers, and even I hated studying and homework, preferring to spend my time in front of a TV or my Genesis.

You are conflating education with schooling.  You were learning while reading and playing video games.  

I see where you're going with this, but personally, I wouldn't call that learning. At least not anything useful. Compared to more valuable alternatives, I was wasting my time.

That forcing to study also taught discipline, priorities, and that you have to work hard in life.

BS.  How many of your classmates went on to a career that required such discipline?  Very few, indeed.  Yourself included.  

How many? I would guess all of them. In all of my jobs and business ventures I was also required to studdy stuff, even if I may not have interest in it, stay disciplined, work hard, and get the job done and on time. I would honestly much rather stay home and catch up on some movies or reading instead.

Public education =/= lack of choice. I had tutors and went to non religious weekend school as my supplemental education, and am all for parents supplementing the basic stuff their kids learn in school.

Then you are simply for homeschooling and private education, because that is what they are doing.

No, I differentiate between tutoring to suppliment specific areas of education, and straight out home schooling that doesn't involve a public or private school at all.

You differentiate.  That doesn't meant it's different.  Reality doesn't much care how you differentiate.

You don't believe there is a difference between going to a public school while being tutored in somewhat more advanced areas of the topic you are learning about, and just getting exclusively homeschooled? Do you equate the education you get from home schooling with what you get in school? (Wait, don't you home school?)

Why is there no home colleging btw?

There is in many disciplines that don't require a master's or doctorate path.  

That's actually a little worrisome. In Russia/Ukraine, a lot of advanced subjects are taught in school. Things like algebra begin in 3rd grade (Italy is even more bruital, with multi-variable advanced algebra already starting in 4th), and by end of 12th grade you're already done with things like advanced calculus and theoretical physics. When you go to college there, it's usually for one focused subject. There are no required lit, language, science, or other stuff, just things you need for your degree. Here, school education is much much slower and greatly lags behind other countries. However, the college here do require all those other classes on top of your degree requirement. In the end, although American students are severely behind in education levels after finishing high school, they quickly catch up to and are equal to students in other countries once they graduate. So, doing a focused home colleging I guess would likely limit you in the same way as getting a certificate from a technical institute...

Those are not trivial details

Granted, but they are also not the topics often debated on regarding what kids should learn, and don't really negate my position that kids should have access to at least those minimums of basic education.

[TiagoTiago]

If kids don't have interest in school, usually it's because they're "special" (retarded or genius, doesn't matter which), in those cases, school needs to adapt to suit those kids as well; you don't just give up on a kid just cause you choose the wrong way to teach them.



edit: of course i know saying "retarded" is not PC, variations on the human mind got all sorts of degrees and spectrums and other complex "coordinate systems", but i felt like being blunt.

[Rassah]

If kids don't have interest in school, usually it's because they're "special" (retarded or genius, doesn't matter which), in those cases, school needs to adapt to suit those kids as well; you don't just give up on a kid just cause you choose the wrong way to teach them.

In Soviet Russia, school adapts you. No, seriously, that's how it was. No interest in school? Tough shit*t. Do the material and learn the subject or else :/

[MoonShadow]

Hmm, not sure where you find these children who have an "interest in education," but I sure as heck never saw anyone like that.

Then you have never spent any time around homeschoolers, unschoolers, or montessori students.  Their lust for subjects that interest them is often palatable.

Everyone is interested in subjects that interest them. It's the subjects that don't interest yet are required in life, and subjects that they aren't even aware of, that I am concerned about.

Such as?  And as for your personal interests, doesn't reading unto itself constitute language practice?  Never discovered a new word in your private reading that was not covered by your teacher?  I've got a great list of fiction works that teach economics, history and civics accidentally.

I guess parents can simply follow teaching guides when home schooling to make sure they don't miss anything,

They can try, but everyone has gaps in their education.  Absolutely everyone.  It's only those who think otherwise who are truely educated fools.

but then they are still following generally accepted required subjects, and the only difference seems letting kids work and learn at their own pace (life doesn't work that way), and avoid uncomfortable social interraction.

Care to guess what the "generally accepted required subjects" are in my home state, as defined by the educational laws?

Math, English (reading & writing) and Civics.  Homeschoolers have to document these subjects every year, everything else is elective which is equally true for the private schools and the public school districts.  If a parent feels the need to have their children tutored on the weekends, then they are just privately educating them by following the direction of the school while they are baby-sat during the school week.  There are many kids who would literally do better entirely on their own, and many have.  It's called child directed education, and is usually called "unschooling" to differentiate from "standard" homeschooling.

Hell, I was a total nerd/dork in school, spent most of my time reading books, and during lunch, instead of playing outside, spent all my time in the library playing on computers, and even I hated studying and homework, preferring to spend my time in front of a TV or my Genesis.

You are conflating education with schooling.  You were learning while reading and playing video games.  

I see where you're going with this, but personally, I wouldn't call that learning. At least not anything useful. Compared to more valuable alternatives, I was wasting my time.

I was wasting my time playing on Qlink, too.  Of course, I also ended up knowing more about html v.1 when it hit the public than literally anyone else I have ever met in person.

My children waste time on Portal, which I bought specificly for the problem solving and critical thinking involved.  I plan to buy my toddlers a copy of the games Spy Fox and Freddie Fish for similar reasons.  Can't learn from play?  Bullsh*t.  That's all I ever did learn from.  I literally studied for precisely one test as a child, and that was the first didterm I had in high school.  I went to private schools my eintire life, and I can honestly say that the best things that they did for me is introduce me to new interests and interesting  people, two things that happen quite often for homeschoolers and rarely occur in public schools.  My children use a curiculum calle Sonlight.com, which has the motto "The way you siwh you had been taught" and it's true.  I've learned huge amounts about my world from reading their school books, and since it's a Charloote Mason derivitive (lit based education, no textbooks except for the hard sciences) they are all fiction stories.  And I haven't the time to read half of them.  My kids eat them up.

[MoonShadow]

That forcing to study also taught discipline, priorities, and that you have to work hard in life.

BS.  How many of your classmates went on to a career that required such discipline?  Very few, indeed.  Yourself included.  

How many? I would guess all of them. In all of my jobs and business ventures I was also required to studdy stuff, even if I may not have interest in it, stay disciplined, work hard, and get the job done and on time. I would honestly much rather stay home and catch up on some movies or reading instead.

Then you are the exception.  Not many factory workers or construction types in your graduating class, I take it?  I've literally met great, hard working and very skilled adult men who couldn't even read, but were some of the best blocklayers, millwrights and pipefitters you could find.  I've met dozens who couldn't do simple algebra if their life depended upon it.  It's patently false that everyone needs the same kind of education, or an education at all in the modern sense, to succeed and live happy and productive lives.  I was once sheltered about these kinds of things too, believing that these people were condemed to hard and short lives.  Their educations were just different.

Public education =/= lack of choice. I had tutors and went to non religious weekend school as my supplemental education, and am all for parents supplementing the basic stuff their kids learn in school.

Then you are simply for homeschooling and private education, because that is what they are doing.

No, I differentiate between tutoring to suppliment specific areas of education, and straight out home schooling that doesn't involve a public or private school at all.

You differentiate.  That doesn't meant it's different.  Reality doesn't much care how you differentiate.

You don't believe there is a difference between going to a public school while being tutored in somewhat more advanced areas of the topic you are learning about, and just getting exclusively homeschooled?

No, I don't.  In part because "homeschooling" is a misnomer.  They don't stay home.  I've met homeschooled children that study music with the Louisville Symphony (http://www.louisvilleorchestra.org/?page_id=320), acting with the Louisville Shakespeare-in-the-Park (http://www.kyshakespeare.com/Kentucky_Shakespeare/Camp_Shakespeare.html) and technical skills with the Louisvlle Makerspace club (http://www.lvl1.org/).  My daughter could do Juliet's major lines at seven years old.  Institutional education, whether public or private, takes vastly more scheduled time than a comparable homeschooled education.  Putting 30 kids into a single math class is time efficient for the teacher and cost effective for the school, but it is not effective for the individual student.  This is why the national spelling bee is regularly dominated by homeschooled children.  Not because they are smarter than their privately or publicly educated peers in the competition; but because their form of education permits more time to be dedicated to the study of spelling for the purpose of competition.

Do you equate the education you get from home schooling with what you get in school? (Wait, don't you home school?)

My children are tested each year.  My 11 year old could easily pass the GED right now, testing at a second semester freshmen in college across the tested subjects.  My son, 8, rings in as an average junior in high school in the subjects of math and reading comprehention, but sucks at actuall reading speed.  He was born without irises, and the public schools would have put him in the Kentucky School for the Blind, where he would have learned to only be dependent upon others.

And yes, he can actually read, with the aid of very expensive perscription glasses that correct & tint to light levels and a set of fresnal lenses to enlarge teh text.  I'm considering a Kindle for him.  He's visicous on TF2, using a monitor that is 35 inches wide.  What does that teach?  Hand-eye coordination, situational awareness, rapid assesment and decision making.

Supposedly games like that are also good for future surgens as well.

Why is there no home colleging btw?

There is in many disciplines that don't require a master's or doctorate path.  

That's actually a little worrisome. In Russia/Ukraine, a lot of advanced subjects are taught in school. Things like algebra begin in 3rd grade (Italy is even more bruital, with multi-variable advanced algebra already starting in 4th), and by end of 12th grade you're already done with things like advanced calculus and theoretical physics. When you go to college there, it's usually for one focused subject. There are no required lit, language, science, or other stuff, just things you need for your degree. Here, school education is much much slower and greatly lags behind other countries. However, the college here do require all those other classes on top of your degree requirement. In the end, although American students are severely behind in education levels after finishing high school, they quickly catch up to and are equal to students in other countries once they graduate. So, doing a focused home colleging I guess would likely limit you in the same way as getting a certificate from a technical institute...

That's just a guess, but how does a tech cert limit you, if that is the field that you want to pursue?  I never finished college either, while my wife did with a BS in Biology.  I work for a major international corporation for a brutal 6 figure income, while my wife home educates the kids.  She was pre-vet, but never becasme a vet.  Didn't want to become an MD, because she likes animals more than people.  A wide based education is right for some people, while a more focused education is better for others, and a vocational trainig course best for yet others.  There is no "correct" educational system, so the publicly defined curriculum is always wrong for someone.

Those are not trivial details

Granted, but they are also not the topics often debated on regarding what kids should learn, and don't really negate my position that kids should have access to at least those minimums of basic education.

Do you believe that homeschooled children don't have access to broad educational resources?  I can cite many more such professionally provided educational resources besides those I already have, that students of institutional schools don't have access to due to schedualing conflicts.

[Rassah]

Focused education can land you in a life of focused jobs. What will those blocklayers and pipefitters do when the tech changes, or when their jobs are out sourced to some other country, or replaced by machines? You know where the economy is going; a steady life-long job is quickly becoming a myth thanks to technological progress. I'm sure they are happy living their lives at their level of income, and that's fine, but I doubt most of them have a choice, either (I don't want to get into a conversation of grownups accepting their lot in life and being happy with it). As example, my parents both have degrees in molecular biology. Dad ended up working in genetic engineering instead. When both of my parents jobs hit a pay ceiling, they both studied and switched to software development. It's not a subject either of them particularly likes, and learning it was difficult, but since school and the rest of life was a difficult education in how to learn, they did ok.
As for learning, the biggest issue is that you can't learn something if you don't know what it is or what it's called. Google is a vast resource, but even it can't help. For example, if you wanted to invest in a mix of stocks/bonds, and wanted to know how to calculate the optimal mix, how would know know what information to even search for if you did't know the terms " markowitz efficient portfolio theory?" Better yet, how would you even begin thinking about it if you didn't know that such a concept even existed? Only bringing this up as example because I actually personally ran into this specific problem myself a few months ago.
As for examples of uninteresting but required subjects, everyone should know how cells, blood, nerves, etc work (anatomy) so you can make informed medical decisions, even if the subject is boring. Everyone should know at least some rudimentary algebra and basic finance to deal with money, loans, investments, and other life things (I just had to use it for te recipe I was cooking up this week), even if they hate math. Everyone should know some basic physics and understand the scientific method, even if only time they'll need it is to pull a car out of a ditch, lest they think science is conspiracy bunk and start believing crazy religious/cultish shit. I think everyone should have some exposure to culture and history, if only to know where they came from and on what foundation to build their life upon. Sure, there are thousands of people that don't have much of an education, work their normal hard low level jobs, and are perfectly happy. Personally, I think they just don't know any better, and that's their business. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
The phrase "I don't know and I don't care" is also something that my family and have never encountered before coming to America. And I think it embodies shameless intellectual laziness. I don't like ignorance or laziness.

[MoonShadow]

Focused education can land you in a life of focused jobs.

It can, certainly.  It's no more limiting than a law degree, a history degree, or a sciences degree is likely to limit the holder to be a lawyer or an academic, though.  A good book on this topic is Rich Dad, Poor Dad.

 What will those blocklayers and pipefitters do when the tech changes, or when their jobs are out sourced to some other country, or replaced by machines?

I don't know, and neither do you.  The basic abilties of literacy and athrimatic are useful skills for most people, I don't contest that.  The few that I've met that were illiterate were certainly limited in many respects, but every one of them attended a public school until eighth grade at least.  The public educational system failed them.  Their parents didn't and neither did they do it to themselves.  All but one of those illiterate men were either black or hispanic, BTW.  The one that was white was quite obviously dislexic and still working in his 60's.  He is likely dead by now, since I met him at 20.  As for those who couldn't do math beyond addition and subtraction, there exist little pocket reference books for tradesmen.  Called "Uglies" books, for whatever reason I know not.  The one for electritians had common trig shortcuts and examples for the accurate bending of conduit, as well as pre-calculated tables for wire capacity selections and such.  Somewhere along the line, an educated electritian decided to write that little book, and have aided his brothers in ways unmeasurable.

Still, if the blocklayer can read, he can get another job if he loses his.  And in my experience, if he is fairly intelligent, he is either going to be running his own company/crew in short order or find a less physically demanding career anyway.

 You know where the economy is going; a steady life-long job is quickly becoming a myth thanks to technological progress.

It's always been a myth.  The average career has been only seven years for at least a generation.  I've had many careers, only loosely related to one another.

I'm sure they are happy living their lives at their level of income, and that's fine, but I doubt most of them have a choice, either (I don't want to get into a conversation of grownups accepting their lot in life and being happy with it). As example, my parents both have degrees in molecular biology. Dad ended up working in genetic engineering instead. When both of my parents jobs hit a pay ceiling, they both studied and switched to software development. It's not a subject either of them particularly likes, and learning it was difficult, but since school and the rest of life was a difficult education in how to learn, they did ok.

Really?  Your own parents didn't stick with their degree subject and yet you ask how a blocklayer is going to be able to maintain his standard of living because he isn't as well educated as his peers?  If he has the desire to educate himself, he will.  If he does not, he won't.  He's an adult, he can make his own choices.  If your parents traded a career they enjoyed for one that they did not but with higher incomes, that's their choice.  Americans generally don't define themselves based upon their occupation.  I work to live, not live to work.  I once knew this electritian who would work every week diligently, but never show up on Fridays.  I asked him, "why do you only work four days a week?" and his response was something like "because I can't make in on three!"

As for learning, the biggest issue is that you can't learn something if you don't know what it is or what it's called. Google is a vast resource, but even it can't help. For example, if you wanted to invest in a mix of stocks/bonds, and wanted to know how to calculate the optimal mix, how would know know what information to even search for if you did't know the terms " markowitz efficient portfolio theory?" Better yet, how would you even begin thinking about it if you didn't know that such a concept even existed? Only bringing this up as example because I actually personally ran into this specific problem myself a few months ago.

How did you ever find Bitcoin?  Did your economic instructor give you the link?  No, you either surfed here by following your own interests or because someone you know referred you here.

As for examples of uninteresting but required subjects, everyone should know how cells, blood, nerves, etc work (anatomy) so you can make informed medical decisions, even if the subject is boring.

While I agree that this is useful knowledge, even the biggest rock I've ever known had the sense to seek advice from a doctor for medical issues.  That is not necessary information for anyone in modern society.  People in third world villiges need to knwo that kind of stuff, adn even then there are books dedicated to that subject targeted at those people.  See Where there is no Doctor by Dr David Werner.

Wait, how did I know that such a book existed!?  I never had that in school!

Everyone should know at least some rudimentary algebra and basic finance to deal with money, loans, investments, and other life things (I just had to use it for te recipe I was cooking up this week), even if they hate math.

Again, I agre that it's beneficial; but to say that everyone must is provablely false.  You don't need math to adjust your recepies, you find it useful.  You could just use a recepie book at it's stated values; or use Recepies.com to make those conversions for you.  Someone needs to maintain those skills for society to function, but to claim that everyone does is patently false.

  Everyone should know some basic physics and understand the scientific method, even if only time they'll need it is to pull a car out of a ditch, lest they think science is conspiracy bunk and start believing crazy religious/cultish shit.

REally?  You don't think that my blocklayer could manage to get a truck out of a ditch without a formal education in the scientific method?

I think everyone should have some exposure to culture and history, if only to know where they came from and on what foundation to build their life upon.

Great idea, but that is not what public education is for, and doesn't do that.  They barely teach history at all.  You could get a much better mastery of US history by watching the History Channel on cable than by attending a public school in just about any city in America.  That might not be true in Russia, but not everyone lives in Russia.

Sure, there are thousands of people that don't have much of an education, work their normal hard low level jobs, and are perfectly happy. Personally, I think they just don't know any better, and that's their business. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
The phrase "I don't know and I don't care" is also something that my family and have never encountered before coming to America. And I think it embodies shameless intellectual laziness. I don't like ignorance or laziness.

Okay, so don't associate with such people.  They don't represent myself or anyone that I know.

[Rassah]

^^^ Noted.
I hope you don't regret spending so much time on me. You make good points. The parents changing careers example was opposite of what you interpreted it to be. My parents often said that "with a good education (and a degree) the world is a lot more open to you. Employers don't care what your degree is in, only that you have proven you are willing and able to learn." That's their explanation for being able to get jobs in database software development with Masters degrees in microbiology. Not sure exactly how much fundamental truth is in that.

I'll leave it at that

[TiagoTiago]

...

Great idea, but that is not what public education is for, and doesn't do that.  They barely teach history at all.  You could get a much better mastery of US history by watching the History Channel on cable than by attending a public school in just about any city in America.  That might not be true in Russia, but not everyone lives in Russia.

...

Perhaps the History Channel is better over there, over here all they got is shows about the end of the world, aliens, reality shows about pawn shops and repair shops, sharpshooter competition, Alaskan truckers,  people that live in the swamps, pest control, the wonder that is glass/steel/powersaws/whatever etc. Mostly i see them talking about things in the present and modern times or fictitious stuff, but history itself? Not that much.

[MoonShadow]

^^^ Noted.
 Employers don't care what your degree is in, only that you have proven you are willing and able to learn." That's their explanation for being able to get jobs in database software development with Masters degrees in microbiology. Not sure exactly how much fundamental truth is in that.

There is a lot of truth in that, but a degree isn't the only way to demonstrate such a skill.

[MoonShadow]

...

Great idea, but that is not what public education is for, and doesn't do that.  They barely teach history at all.  You could get a much better mastery of US history by watching the History Channel on cable than by attending a public school in just about any city in America.  That might not be true in Russia, but not everyone lives in Russia.

...

Perhaps the History Channel is better over there, over here all they got is shows about the end of the world, aliens, reality shows about pawn shops and repair shops, sharpshooter competition, Alaskan truckers,  people that live in the swamps, pest control, the wonder that is glass/steel/powersaws/whatever etc. Mostly i see them talking about things in the present and modern times or fictitious stuff, but history itself? Not that much.

Well, they used to.  And they still have some great documentaries.  The aliens thing annoys me too, but I know it's just marketing.  They don't really buy it either, but do those shows that way to present the history to those who wouldn't otherwise be interested in a documentary of how the Great Pyramid in Egypt was similar to structures of South America.  As for the sharpshooter competition, I love that show!  My whole family watchs that series religiously, and it's one of only a few shows my son will watch.  The winner of Top Shot season 3 was a 28 year old summer camp counselor who was and entirely self-taught natural talent who creamed an entire set of experienced professionals and world class champions using weapons that he had neve seen before.  It was awesome.  He made shots the Marine snipers would have been proud of, after first shooting the Barret 50 that same day.

[TiagoTiago]

I'm not saying some of the shows aren't enjoyable to watch, but they aren't about history.

re:aliens

Usually it's things like "secret" government facilities, lights in the sky, cattle mutilation etc; they did recently come up with a show called Ancient Aliens or somthing along those lines, that one does get a bit more historyish, but that isn't their only aliens show.