Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoMoreNicksLeft | Hacker News Reader

What else could possible result?

There are people who don't understand sociology and are only vaguely aware of pathological cultural factors (or possibly, though they are aware of them, wish to deny their existence) and demand that these problems be solved with bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is only able to crudely affect these, and only in the most totalitarian of regimes. Mao or Stalin might have been able to rid their countries of pathological cultural factors (of course, instead of doing such they were more concerned with ridding themselves of potential rivals). California cannot at this point in time do any such thing.

View on HN

> Mao or Stalin might have been able to rid their countries of pathological cultural factors

Mao did rid of the meritocracy-based education system, replacing it with an identity-based system. That is, if you were born with the right identity (blue-collar worker, peasant (not farmer, mind you), and soldier), then you get to go to a university without even any test. If you were born with the wrong identity (the right, the anti-revolutionary, the farmer or any family who has property, the "rich", the "bad"), then you can't go to any college. The results? Just look at China in the 70s. What a fucking hell hole.

As a for Stalin or Soviet, they never gave up their elite education. In fact, elite officers had to be elite students as well. Those who are good at STEM could even get a little leniency when they made the so-called political mistakes.

nearly every other developed country managed to fund their schools system adequately, to provide a uniform system of education without heavy reliance on private schools. While you can't really guarantee equal opportunities for every kid due extracurricular support, at least the possible schools and classes are open to everyone independent of income.

So one should strive to eliminate private schools as much as possible. I entrenches inequality.

I don't think any intelligent person would make the accusation that we don't spend enough on education. On average, the United States spends an absurd amount per student. Even in the places where they spend less than this average per student, they're still spending more than throughout all of Europe.

The question really becomes not if we're spending enough, but what it is that we happen to be buying. How much of any given $1 you spend in taxes purchases textbooks, or pays teacher paychecks? Hell, how much on air conditioning in the summer so kids can concentrate on something other than the sweat dribbling down their foreheads?

How much is spent on the office building downtown that has nothing to do with teaching directly, but with people who manage the teachers? And with people who manage those managers?

> So one should strive to eliminate private schools as much as possible. I entrenches inequality.

If the only equality you can figure out how to manage is hammering down all the nails that stick out, what good is equality?

I wonder whether averages here "average out" the missing spending. I am not surprised that the average spending in San Francisco per kid is higher than most places, especially because of the prevalence of private schools. And, of course, more money is not always a solution if it's not used effectively. I would also guess that absolute spending per child is not really comparable without adjusting for cost of living, you can't outsource your teachers after all. The question is quite complicated.

> If the only equality you can figure out how to manage is hammering down all the nails that stick out, what good is equality?

I have not said that, but opportunities should be well thought out and available to each child. I am also convinced that there is a balance to strike here, classes should be diverse to not entrench inequality too much. Of course young mozart just needs more musical education, young warhol more art and young einstein more math.

The average spending isn't much affected by private schools. Not like you seem to think. No billionaires are spending $10million/year on their kindergarteners.

Public spending per pupil is quite high, when federal and state funding are both considered. Public students aren't being underfunded. The money's just not buying what you think it buys. Is that difficult to believe?

> I have not said that,

I don't know how to parse your first comment other than that. I don't want to live in the same country as someone who would deny my children the education I would provide for them, so that they can be turned into imbeciles in public schools. This is a deeply important issue for me. I will never allow mine to go near a public school.

There is no balance to strike. Let those who wish to do so, go their own way.

Look at a graph of public school spending per student. Now look at a graph of standardized test scores. Contemplate this

Reply on news.ycombinator.com