Better Education

[CharonY]

https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians

 

There are a fair amount of other studies and sources that have found the same thing, but this one sums it up pretty well.

I agree.

It's easier to get Americans to support "Make the smartest students in the world!" then "Make our kids average grade above average!"

 

It is a bit silly though. On the high end most countries have a couple of kids that perform extremely well. That has never been the big issue. However, raising the broad population is where the heavy lifting comes in.

[Ten oz]

https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians

 

There are a fair amount of other studies and sources that have found the same thing, but this one sums it up pretty well.

That is a theory which even your link pionts out have been rejected by College officials. I don't see how it is helpful to this conversation? I am sure you are familiar with studies that show that facualty take long to respond to emails sent by students with ethic seeming names. Such material is probably better suited for its own thread. It this case the matter is not nearly as straight for as you presented it.

 

In general this this is a bit futile less we address actual policy proposals less you want this to be a perfect world thread where we day dream about best case situations to distract us from the reality of Betsy Devos.

[Raider5678]

That is a theory which even your link pionts out have been rejected by College officials. I don't see how it is helpful to this conversation? I am sure you are familiar with studies that show that facualty take long to respond to emails sent by students with ethic seeming names. Such material is probably better suited for its own thread. It this case the matter is not nearly as straight for as you presented it.

 

In general this this is a bit futile less we address actual policy proposals less you want this to be a perfect world thread where we day dream about best case situations to distract us from the reality of Betsy Devos.

Except, we still are discussing how to improve the education system.

One potential solution is to have each town pay into a state fund for education and then divvy it up between each district on a per student basis.

But that still leaves cities with better schools then small towns.

[Delta1212]

Except, we still are discussing how to improve the education system.

 

But that still leaves cities with better schools then small towns.

There are two points to address there:

 

One is that this means that every school is spending the same amount of money on the education of every student. Largely schools would get more money but would have to spent proportionately more money for the larger number of students, so every student in every school in the state gets an education worth the same dollar value in terms of resources applied to them.

 

Now, the second point is that there are some opportunities for concentration in larger schools that are and would still be more readily available than in smaller schools. If 3% of a grade level is 30 students, you can have a class that specifically caters to the needs and interests of 3% of the

school. If 3% of the grade level is 1 kid, it's much harder to justify paying a teacher to teach that same class to a single student.

 

This is difficult to work around within a single school system. It would be a quite difficult task to equitably balance budgets across schools so that every school can afford the same programs regardless of the number of interested students, and this is also liable to create a lot of waste and wind up bringing the overall average opportunities down across the board.

 

Now, one possible solution for smaller towns would be to establish magnet schools for gifted students or those who have specialized interests or talents that have developed by the time they enter high school. It's easier to offer enhanced opportunities in niche subjects or more advanced levels when you can pool what would have been classes of 1 or 2 kids in each of a dozen schools into classes of 15-20 in a single school.

 

That gives people in smaller towns a more diverse set of options in a cost effective manner.

[Raider5678]

There are two points to address there:

 

One is that this means that every school is spending the same amount of money on the education of every student. Largely schools would get more money but would have to spent proportionately more money for the larger number of students, so every student in every school in the state gets an education worth the same dollar value in terms of resources applied to them.

 

Now, the second point is that there are some opportunities for concentration in larger schools that are and would still be more readily available than in smaller schools. If 3% of a grade level is 30 students, you can have a class that specifically caters to the needs and interests of 3% of the

school. If 3% of the grade level is 1 kid, it's much harder to justify paying a teacher to teach that same class to a single student.

 

This is difficult to work around within a single school system. It would be a quite difficult task to equitably balance budgets across schools so that every school can afford the same programs regardless of the number of interested students, and this is also liable to create a lot of waste and wind up bringing the overall average opportunities down across the board.

 

Now, one possible solution for smaller towns would be to establish magnet schools for gifted students or those who have specialized interests or talents that have developed by the time they enter high school. It's easier to offer enhanced opportunities in niche subjects or more advanced levels when you can pool what would have been classes of 1 or 2 kids in each of a dozen schools into classes of 15-20 in a single school.

 

That gives people in smaller towns a more diverse set of options in a cost effective manner.

But school buildings and events cost money.

Even if it's on a per student basis, they don't spend every last penny on the student. Maybe more like 70% of it(total guess here. Don't quote me.). That leaves 30% of the money received for each student to fund things like maintenance, foot ball games, etc.

Resulting in larger schools having more money then smaller schools, leading to better facilities, and better resources.

Even if the schools receive funds to pay for maintenance and things like that, I still doubt every dollar goes towards the student.

[Ten oz]

There are two points to address there:

 

One is that this means that every school is spending the same amount of money on the education of every student. Largely schools would get more money but would have to spent proportionately more money for the larger number of students, so every student in every school in the state gets an education worth the same dollar value in terms of resources applied to them.

 

Now, the second point is that there are some opportunities for concentration in larger schools that are and would still be more readily available than in smaller schools. If 3% of a grade level is 30 students, you can have a class that specifically caters to the needs and interests of 3% of the

school. If 3% of the grade level is 1 kid, it's much harder to justify paying a teacher to teach that same class to a single student.

 

This is difficult to work around within a single school system. It would be a quite difficult task to equitably balance budgets across schools so that every school can afford the same programs regardless of the number of interested students, and this is also liable to create a lot of waste and wind up bringing the overall average opportunities down across the board.

 

Now, one possible solution for smaller towns would be to establish magnet schools for gifted students or those who have specialized interests or talents that have developed by the time they enter high school. It's easier to offer enhanced opportunities in niche subjects or more advanced levels when you can pool what would have been classes of 1 or 2 kids in each of a dozen schools into classes of 15-20 in a single school.

 

That gives people in smaller towns a more diverse set of options in a cost effective manner.

*the following is what I though of while reading your post and not something I am implying you alluded to.

 

 

Urban sprawl and the focus on class size as an educational benchmark has exacerbated the problem. As mentioned early in the thread the town I grew up in had 4 High Schools. Five if we include the adult school. None of the schools were very nice facility wise. Portable units on fields, dirt tracks, gravel parking lots, etc. The city had to divide up its money. There were 3 towns surrounding mine all with roughly the same population but a little older. Their schools hadn't been built up as a result of real estate market boon and culture shifting sprawl. Despite the town I lived in having higher home values (thus higher property taxes to pay for schools) the schools in the surrounding towns were far larger and facilities far superior. Rather than 4 high school they all had one each. The cities could provide all resources to them. Larger student population with larger class sizes , yes, but they also had real science labs, all weather tracks, indoor pools, brick & motar class rooms, and etc. Of course that isn't always true. In many areas too many families have left the metro and that hurts the larger schools. A school structured fo a few thousand doesn't operate well, especially budget wise, with half the amount of student on campus.

 

I think class size as a gold standard hasn't served us well. When families leave metro areas in search for smaller schools with smaller class sizes it lessons the money everyone has to go around. A high school of a couple hundred students unless centered in a very affluent area simply isn't going to have the money to build the facilities that a school of a few thousand would. Meanwhile a school of a few thousand is never going to be able to reduce the class size to the levels a school with just a couple hundred can. Parents are trading away educational infastructure for the warm and fuzzies they get from schools where they know every faculty member by name. There are countries with higher average class size that out perform us and there are others which don't. I think to an extent many have used class size as both a scape goat and silver bullet. When I was real estate shopping last year every open house my wife and I attended there was information available on the the teacher to student ratio of the surrounding schools. It is a marketing point for real estate.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/

 

Of course the rhetoric of our current govt isn't helping. Trump promotes an image of a crime riddled country where immigrants and gang members are hiding in the bushes outside of school waiting to eat children. Rape, murder, and drugs in the world parents muust navigate to raise their chilren. Who wouldn't want private schools and more school choice in a U.S. where crime is worse than ever and people can't even walk down the street without being shot. We are "basically like a 3rd world country" the President said. Keeping ones children alive and away from "Mexicans Rapists", "Muslims Terrorists", and "The Blacks" takes priority over learning biology, geometry, civics, and etc. That is the environment Betsy Devos and her policies are rooted in. We can mock them but they are impacting the decisions being made.

[Raider5678]

Of course the rhetoric of our current govt isn't helping. Trump promotes an image of a crime riddled country where immigrants and gang members are hiding in the bushes outside of school waiting to eat children. Rape, murder, and drugs in the world parents muust navigate to raise their chilren. Who wouldn't want private schools and more school choice in a U.S. where crime is worse than ever and people can't even walk down the street without being shot. We are "basically like a 3rd world country" the President said. Keeping ones children alive and away from "Mexicans Rapists", "Muslims Terrorists", and "The Blacks" takes priority over learning biology, geometry, civics, and etc. That is the environment Betsy Devos and her policies are rooted in. We can mock them but they are impacting the decisions being made.

Say, where do you live?

Nice suburbs?

Nice apartment in the city?

 

How about a small drug town?

Or a violent area in the city?

Have you ever lived in a place where you hear gunshots every night?

Because those are bad.

 

Now I agree with you, he definitely draws it out on extreme and blames it on blacks and immigrants too much, there's plenty of white muggers, rapists, murders, drug dealers, and more. But there's still a lot of crime in areas that aren't rich.

[Ten oz]

Say, where do you live?

Nice suburbs?

Nice apartment in the city?

 

How about a small drug town?

Or a violent area in the city?

Have you ever lived in a place where you hear gunshots every night?

Because those are bad.

 

Now I agree with you, he definitely draws it out on extreme and blames it on blacks and immigrants too much, there's plenty of white muggers, rapists, murders, drug dealers, and more. But there's still a lot of crime in areas that aren't rich.

I live in Washington DC. I spent most of my adult life living in Oakland CA and San Diego Ca but grew up in a San Francisco CA surburbs.I would say about 60% of more of all my classmates were asian (Indian, Chinese, and Korean mostly). As an adult I have preferred living in large Metro areas. I grew up watching my parents commute multiple hours a day and that just isn't for me. Currently I am able to walk to work and that is a beautiful thing. In Oakalnd and San Diego I use to bike to work which was also really awesome. Yes, Oakland, San Diego, and DC all have "bad" areas. However they all also have average areas, upscale areas, and out of this world wealthy areas. As a general rule I have found that crime is seldom a random thing. More often than not people are murdered, molested, robbed, and etc by people they know. The notion that there are nurmerous neighborhoods around the country that one cannot safely navigate is a bit of fiction. Unless one is involved in nefarious activity they are unlikely to be assualted merely walking down the street. Sadly most women are victimized by a spouse, boyfriend, family member etc. Most children are abused by a parent, family member, or etc. People who believe Trump's rhetoric project their fears outward too much.

 

Crime is current very low. Statistically low as it has been on over 6 decades. Murder was double the rate it currently is today when I was in grade school. When you say there is "still a lot of crime"; relative to what? The Robbery rate per 100k people in 1990 was 250 per and now it is down to 100 per. Significantly better! The murder rate too has been cut is half. It is important to keep in mind crime will never be zero. There will always be crime for politicians to demagogue.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

Fear of immigrants and fear of big city crime shouldn't shape the choices we make in educating the next generation.

[Raider5678]

I live in Washington DC. I spent most of my adult life living in Oakland CA and San Diego Ca but grew up in a San Francisco CA surburbs.I would say about 60% of more of all my classmates were asian (Indian, Chinese, and Korean mostly). As an adult I have preferred living in large Metro areas. I grew up watching my parents commute multiple hours a day and that just isn't for me. Currently I am able to walk to work and that is a beautiful thing. In Oakalnd and San Diego I use to bike to work which was also really awesome. Yes, Oakland, San Diego, and DC all have "bad" areas. However they all also have average areas, upscale areas, and out of this world wealthy areas. As a general rule I have found that crime is seldom a random thing. More often than not people are murdered, molested, robbed, and etc by people they know. The notion that there are nurmerous neighborhoods around the country that one cannot safely navigate is a bit of fiction. Unless one is involved in nefarious activity they are unlikely to be assualted merely walking down the street. Sadly most women are victimized by a spouse, boyfriend, family member etc. Most children are abused by a parent, family member, or etc. People who believe Trump's rhetoric project their fears outward too much.

 

Crime is current very low. Statistically low as it has been on over 6 decades. Murder was double the rate it currently is today when I was in grade school. When you say there is "still a lot of crime"; relative to what? The Robbery rate per 100k people in 1990 was 250 per and now it is down to 100 per. Significantly better! The murder rate too has been cut is half. It is important to keep in mind crime will never be zero. There will always be crime for politicians to demagogue.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

Fear of immigrants and fear of big city crime shouldn't shape the choices we make in educating the next generation.

Weren't you the person saying crime rates where going up because of access to guns?

[Ten oz]

Weren't you the person saying crime rates where going up because of access to guns?

To my knowledge I have never stated, implied, alluded to, or advanced such a notion. It is possible I may have posted something about mass shootings specifically. You either have me confused with another poster or read something I posted out of context. Crime is down and that is a statistical fact I am well aware of.