**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Apparently 53% of the reported rapes in Sweden are dismissed for lack of conclusive evidence.

That's not all that comforting. If half of the reported incidents go unpunished, that doesn't mean that those incidents didn't happen. I find it really hard to believe that 53% of victims are flat out lying. To me, that just sounds like there are a whole lot of rapists who got away with it.

Point being, I see nothing in the statistics to warrant the conclusion of Sweden being some exceptionally rapey place,

The UN statistics say it's the worst in Europe. That at least raises my eyebrows.

and that it's due to immigration. There are though very clear political benefits from creating this narrative.

or squashing it.

[CoccoBill]

Income and neighborhood were already accounted for in the 75%.

You're right. Well, there can still be a myriad of reasons, don't know how much racial profiling is done by Swedish law enforcement or whether there's discrimination in their court systems, but I would think that at least crime committed by a foreigner is more lightly reported than those of native Swedes. On the other hand maybe a 25% increase in crime for people mostly from war-torn oppressed countries compared to these guys is not that unexpected.

[CoccoBill]

That's not all that comforting. If half of the reported incidents go unpunished, that doesn't mean that those incidents didn't happen. I find it really hard to believe that 53% of victims are flat out lying. To me, that just sounds like there are a whole lot of rapists who got away with it.

Well given that 80-95% of all rapes in western countries go completely unreported, that's not the biggest of my worries.

The UN statistics say it's the worst in Europe. That at least raises my eyebrows.

Worth looking into, for sure. Now we did, so let's stop this nonsense about immigrant rape dystopia.

[BananaStand]

On the other hand maybe a 25% increase in crime for people mostly from war-torn oppressed countries compared to these guys is not that unexpected.

Sounds like a solid case for extreme vetting

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sounds like a solid case for extreme vetting

Sounds like an excuse to treat some populations differently than others w/o due process of law.

If there's a need for "extreme" vetting, then it should apply to everyone.

***
Sweden has a solution.



Why do you make me do this?

[Jack Sawyer]

Operation Destroy Milo is underway. Day 1 is a resounding success. He's off CPAC and his book deal is dropped.


He was taken out of context, those trying to destroy him actually don't care about those things when their stars do them (Dunham), and they are those at the spearhead of ruining regular Americans' lives. Looks like patriots and defenders of freedom have to circle the wagons for Milo now. Gotta stop the scoundrels yet again. This might be a real tough one. They planted the pedo supporter label on him with the opening kick. They don't care what they ruin as long as they keep their power.

Milo is apparently a serial provocateur, as I showed in a vid posted with him on Bill Maher. He started calling the other people stupid for no reason, not everyone accepts such acts. That said, he should be allowed to speak his mind on whatever nonsense he wants to where he wants to. I find it pathetic that people prefer to gag others than be exposed to their thought, however heinous these may be.


They did do the same thing to PewDiePie as well as I have showed with vids around these as well, except those were actual jokes (in poor taste) that the dude did. Milo’s case, in that interview with Joe Rogan, seems to be a bit different.


But still, let the man speak.

[BananaStand]

Sounds like an excuse to treat some populations differently than others w/o due process of law.

What 'due process'? What "law"? A Syrian in Syria is not entitled to any constitutional protections, or any kind of due process in the American justice system. Their entry into the US is allowed by our generosity, not any obligation.

If there's a need for "extreme" vetting, then it should apply to everyone.:

Don't you think that's a little xenophobic? If an Argentinian wants to come to America, we want to know if he's a criminal. If claims to not be a criminal, we verify that with a friendly, centralized, Argentinian government, and viola...door is open. If we can verify his identity, work history, education, criminal record, and character with reliable foreign governments and intelligence agencies....then there's not problem. No extreme vetting necessary.

[BananaStand]

Milo is apparently a serial provocateur....

But still, let the man speak.

I'm gonna have to do a little more reading up on Milo. I've only heard of him in the last month or two. But from what I can tell he seems to thrive on attention, and thus says provocative things in order to get himself attention. I'm all for free speech, but he has to realize that not everyone has to listen to him.

If he gets canned from Breitbart because his antics are costing them advertising dollars....fuckin' c-ya Milo. You'll get no sympathy from me. Same thing with CPAC and whatever else he's caught up in. These things don't exist just to be Milo's soapbox. If the people running CPAC feel that Milo's message is not consistent with theirs, or if his presence will bring negative attention to what would otherwise be a positive event....fuckin' c-ya Milo.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm all for free speech, but he has to realize that not everyone has to listen to him.

You are completely correct, not everyone has to listen to him. But still, free speech is free speech, we should not opress the voices of those we don’t like because we don’t want our voices be opressed as well. Let him speak, and those that don’t want to listen, will not listen, as no one forces them to listen anyway. By making something harder to access to, that is when you make people want to search more for that which is forbidden.

If he gets canned from Breitbart because his antics are costing them advertising dollars....fuckin' c-ya Milo. You'll get no sympathy from me. Same thing with CPAC and whatever else he's caught up in. These things don't exist just to be Milo's soapbox. If the people running CPAC feel that Milo's message is not consistent with theirs, or if his presence will bring negative attention to what would otherwise be a positive event....fuckin' c-ya Milo.

This is the tactic of the SJWs, to shitcan the income of those they don’t like. This can backfire greatly. Plus, I will defend his right to speak his shitty mind forever.


Milo isn’t toxic per sé, definitely not more toxic than the Richard Spencer dude. Let him speak, ridicule his speech with actual facts and factual points, make people know WHY you dislike him and what he is speaking is such shit.


Never gag. Gagging means you can not win the argument, ergo your own position is weak AF.

#nevergag

[Jack Sawyer]

For more info on Milo, here you go

[BananaStand]

CPAC is run by a lobbying organization, not any public entity. That lobbying organization can decide who they want on their team. Forcing Milo on them robs them of their free speech, no?

[Jack Sawyer]

CPAC is run by a lobbying organization, not any public entity. That lobbying organization can decide who they want on their team. Forcing Milo on them robs them of their free speech, no?

Ok, but how is Milo being "forced" on them?

[BananaStand]

This is the tactic of the SJWs, to shitcan the income of those they don’t like.

While I agree the SJW's are ass-holes, I do have some faith in a free market to judge right and wrong. Milo can speak wherever his speech doesn't hurt sales.

This can backfire greatly

yes it can.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3e99557336a1

Market has spoken.

[BananaStand]

Ok, but how is Milo being "forced" on them?

He was not, force is probably the wrong word. I was more referring to you call to "let the man speak". I'm just asking...why should they?

[wufwugy]

That's one point of view, here's another:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national...m_source=atlfb

Finland's education system is more competitive than the American system.

Finland's system could be better too. Finland is in a unique situation where it has a small, mostly homogeneous population of people who share similar culture and values. In this kind of place, it's not that hard to have a public system that's generally all right because the subjects generally want the same things. There are still some drawbacks, but they're the kind that Americans care more about and Finnish probably don't.

Transplanting this to a diverse population would spell disaster. The funny thing is that a lot of what American conservatives and Trump supporters are fighting for are things that Finland already values and already has. We want to be able to govern ourselves like you guys do. Finnish government is much more representative of the Finnish people than the American federal government is of American people. Some of our state governments are probably about as representative, but most aren't.

[wufwugy]

They did do the same thing to PewDiePie as well as I have showed with vids around these as well, except those were actual jokes (in poor taste) that the dude did. Milo’s case, in that interview with Joe Rogan, seems to be a bit different.

How so?

From what I can see, he was a victim of child sexual abuse and used gallows humor to address it. Normally the media would call him a victim who is coping the best way he knows how. But because they want to destroy him and what he represents, they're twisting him into a pedo supporter.

[wufwugy]

I'm gonna have to do a little more reading up on Milo. I've only heard of him in the last month or two. But from what I can tell he seems to thrive on attention, and thus says provocative things in order to get himself attention. I'm all for free speech, but he has to realize that not everyone has to listen to him.

If he gets canned from Breitbart because his antics are costing them advertising dollars....fuckin' c-ya Milo. You'll get no sympathy from me. Same thing with CPAC and whatever else he's caught up in. These things don't exist just to be Milo's soapbox. If the people running CPAC feel that Milo's message is not consistent with theirs, or if his presence will bring negative attention to what would otherwise be a positive event....fuckin' c-ya Milo.

I suspect he was given CPAC keynote address just so it could be taken away. The move against Milo (and others) is deep state at its core. Establishment Republicans hate him just as much as the failing MSM. And it isn't even about Milo, but about Steve Bannon and Trump. The power order in the United States that exists regardless of who the President is can only keep their power if they defeat that team of patriots.

[wufwugy]

Never gag. Gagging means you can not win the argument, ergo your own position is weak AF.

#nevergag

A+++

[Jack Sawyer]

He was not, force is probably the wrong word. I was more referring to you call to "let the man speak". I'm just asking...why should they?

Because they already had their agreements. However, much like in the PewDiePie story from a few days ago, or rather exactly like the PewDiePie’s story, reporters went and found 2 year old footage of Milo saying things, and then went to his sponsors and business partners for comment. These people knew about these things I imagine prior to this, but then they presented him as being arguably even more toxic than he already is. The people he ad engagements with, his business parters et.al. had no recourse but to drop him.


SJW tactics are getting more and more out of hand.


A while back, some dude named Thunderf00t on youtube called out a few feminists. She invented some dirt on him, doxed him to find out his real name and who he was, and then confronted his employers with the invented stuff on him.


It’s getting out of control. Whatever you say and people do not agree with you, they will go out of their way to attack your income. It’s pathetic, and now it seems to happen on a larger scale as whole organizations go after individuals.

[BananaStand]

Not to de-rail, but a funny side note on 13 year olds ...

I went out to pick up my lunch this afternoon and the TV inside the shop was tuned to local news. Seems that the government in my state is voting on some significant new legislation today. The new law sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

It's currently 13!! Not only that, it's 14 for boys.

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

[wufwugy]

For more info on Milo, here you go

Fantastic video. I'm very happy he came around to show Salon's hypocrisy in the end, since he showed Salon in a not-unfavorable light in the beginning. The guy says a bunch of quality stuff in there. I may have to look at more.

[wufwugy]

Not to de-rail, but a funny side note on 13 year olds ...

I went out to pick up my lunch this afternoon and the TV inside the shop was tuned to local news. Seems that the government in my state is voting on some significant new legislation today. The new law sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

It's currently 13!! Not only that, it's 14 for boys.

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

Organize society smartly and 13 is probably too young in general but not as too young as people might think. Our current standards are out of whack, and they keep getting pushed back. These days, people generally don't seem to become adults until mid-twenties (or ever?!). The typical 15 year old Amish can run circles around our precious snowflakes.

[CoccoBill]

Finland's system could be better too. Finland is in a unique situation where it has a small, mostly homogeneous population of people who share similar culture and values. In this kind of place, it's not that hard to have a public system that's generally all right because the subjects generally want the same things. There are still some drawbacks, but they're the kind that Americans care more about and Finnish probably don't.

Finland is both population-wise and geographically the size of an average US state. To my understanding schools and their governance operates there on state level, so I would argue that size is of consequence here. What things are wanted from American schools that's different to Finland? I'd think most just want quality affordable education. Just having a few different religions or cultures practiced by the students is not an issue, it's already accommodated in Finland.

Transplanting this to a diverse population would spell disaster. The funny thing is that a lot of what American conservatives and Trump supporters are fighting for are things that Finland already values and already has. We want to be able to govern ourselves like you guys do. Finnish government is much more representative of the Finnish people than the American federal government is of American people. Some of our state governments are probably about as representative, but most aren't.

The key points are to have a single payer system that ensures all kids regardless of background and location have access to the same level of schools for free, there's no competition for best schools since they're all the same. Teachers are respected and you're required a university degree to become one. There's less homework, less standardized tests and more focus on creativity. I don't see how any of this would spell disaster.

[CoccoBill]

Not to de-rail, but a funny side note on 13 year olds ...

I went out to pick up my lunch this afternoon and the TV inside the shop was tuned to local news. Seems that the government in my state is voting on some significant new legislation today. The new law sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

It's currently 13!! Not only that, it's 14 for boys.

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

Where's that? Just so I know not to let my daughter go to college there.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It’s getting out of control. Whatever you say and people do not agree with you, they will go out of their way to attack your income. It’s pathetic, and now it seems to happen on a larger scale as whole organizations go after individuals.

To me, the practice of reporting on someone's private life to their employer is ridiculous, as most gossip is.

The real fault is in the employer treating petty revenge behavior as though it's ethical.

While the tattle-tale is out of line, the employer should just laugh at them and ask what it has to do with their employee's ability to do their job when they are ON the clock.

Firing someone for something they did which is no part of their ability or record of performing their job is a crime against freedom.

***
Also, the broad generalization to "people who disagree with you will go out of their way to attack..." is too far.
There are some bad actors, but I disagree with basically everything everyone does on an individual level, and I've never attacked anyone over it...
Well, not since I was an angsty teenager, anyway.


The hyperbolic rhetoric coming from all sides in this thread is ... SMH.
You guys really are too smart to make these broad extrapolations from such tiny data sets.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

Times they are a changin'.

Throughout most of civilized history, average life expectancy for a human was ~35 years. Getting married at 13 - 15 just makes sense if you only have 20 years left to raise the kids.

***
Note that until the rise of city life, people tended to rove about in bands of ~100 people or so. They might wander across another band only 2 - 3 times a year. Their ailments were not really communicable, out of the nature of the situation. There were no populations big enough for a cold to keep sweeping loops through the populace. Any disease which was too aggressive at infesting their hosts runs the risk of killing all the local hosts. Life expectancy was higher because human pathogens had a much harder time with vectors.

Current advances in health care and hygiene have greatly extended life expectancy back to where it was before the rise of civilizations.
Ugh. The rise of cities is more accurate. My Anthropology professor liked to talk as though humans had no civility until we built cities.
Whatever.

We're figuring out how to live together, guys! It's only taken us like 12,000 years to do it. We're the best!

[MadMojoMonkey]

Inb4 the outspoken anti-pedo guy is found to be a pedo-guy.

Like the anti-gay congressman who was found out to be totes gay.

Or Bill Cosby calling out black people for behaving badly, only to be found out that he's Mr. Rapey McRapester.

[wufwugy]

Finland is both population-wise and geographically the size of an average US state. To my understanding schools and their governance operates there on state level, so I would argue that size is of consequence here. What things are wanted from American schools that's different to Finland? I'd think most just want quality affordable education. Just having a few different religions or cultures practiced by the students is not an issue, it's already accommodated in Finland.

If I can take my own state (approximately the same size as Finland), Seattle and Spokane are two very different places. There isn't a "Washington nation." Seattle has more in common with San Francisco (a couple states to the south), and Spokane has more in common with South Dakota (several states to the east). Some counties, like Yakima, probably have more in common with New Mexico than with the rest of Washington. Bellingham has more in common with British Columbia than it does Spokane.

Washingtonians don't think of themselves as Washingtonians. Well, maybe some Seattleites do, but they're the kind who might think Seattle=Washington=Utopia. We've got a bunch of people from China, from Norway, from Mexico, from other parts of the US. Even though Washington probably does have more homogeneous people and culture than some other places in the US, it's still crazy diverse.

When it comes to what parents in Washington want for their kids' educations, it's all over the place. Some want lots of their specific religions in their schools, others don't. Some want focus on practical skills, others don't. This is the kind of place that would benefit greatly from a private system absent of government funding and regulation. Lots of parents send their kids to private school or homeschool already, and these parents bear a big cost for doing so. The government has made it very hard and expensive to not go to the public school based on your district. Lots of parents would prefer to go private or homeschool but don't due to these costs.

From my personal experience at a community college, I have discovered that if I have kids, they will be homeschooled. I knew a whole bunch of different people there, and the ones who were homeschooled were miles ahead of everybody else. It's pretty astounding actually. I thought "well adjusted teenager" was an oxymoron until I met homeschooled ones.

The key points are to have a single payer system that ensures all kids regardless of background and location have access to the same level of schools for free, there's no competition for best schools since they're all the same. Teachers are respected and you're required a university degree to become one. There's less homework, less standardized tests and more focus on creativity. I don't see how any of this would spell disaster.

In a sufficiently competitive system, products and services aren't that differentiated.

From what I've read on Finland, there is a measure of school choice. This does a fantastic amount of good for competition. In most (or all?) places in the US, we're forced to attend a specific school based on location. Simply being able to choose between a small handful of schools would make our system far more robust.

It isn't that a public system can't be improved. It can. Add vouchers to the US public system, and it will improve vastly. My initial point includes how the kind of problem that has arisen in our public system is the kind that arises due to it being a public system. Also, even though Finland has some smarter elements in its system, I think it would be greatly improved if totally private.

[CoccoBill]

In a sufficiently competitive system, products and services aren't that differentiated.

From what I've read on Finland, there is a measure of school choice. This does a fantastic amount of good for competition. In most (or all?) places in the US, we're forced to attend a specific school based on location. Simply being able to choose between a small handful of schools would make our system far more robust.

I'm not sure what you mean by competition here? That's exactly how things are here, you're pretty much assigned a school based on your location the first 9-12 grades of basic education, after that it's all application based. There is no competition between schools, they aren't even compared to each other, no measuring of performance or any kind of metrics like that. They actually make it a point to not publish statistics on test scores, and nowadays I don't think kids even receive numerical grades until grade 5 or 6. And that was exactly the point of the article, it doesn't matter which school you go to, they're all basically the same. That equality and lack of competition is a key aspect of why Finnish schools perform so well.

It isn't that a public system can't be improved. It can. Add vouchers to the US public system, and it will improve vastly. My initial point includes how the kind of problem that has arisen in our public system is the kind that arises due to it being a public system. Also, even though Finland has some smarter elements in its system, I think it would be greatly improved if totally private.

Making the system private would ensure they wouldn't be of the same quality. Schools would have to employ every strategy imaginable to attract students, like manipulating performance metrics or at least concentrating solely on standardized test performance, which kills creativity. Studying should be about learning stuff, not about learning to perform well in tests.

[CoccoBill]

If I can take my own state (approximately the same size as Finland), Seattle and Spokane are two very different places. There isn't a "Washington nation." Seattle has more in common with San Francisco (a couple states to the south), and Spokane has more in common with South Dakota (several states to the east). Some counties, like Yakima, probably have more in common with New Mexico than with the rest of Washington. Bellingham has more in common with British Columbia than it does Spokane.

Washingtonians don't think of themselves as Washingtonians. Well, maybe some Seattleites do, but they're the kind who might think Seattle=Washington=Utopia. We've got a bunch of people from China, from Norway, from Mexico, from other parts of the US. Even though Washington probably does have more homogeneous people and culture than some other places in the US, it's still crazy diverse.

When it comes to what parents in Washington want for their kids' educations, it's all over the place. Some want lots of their specific religions in their schools, others don't. Some want focus on practical skills, others don't. This is the kind of place that would benefit greatly from a private system absent of government funding and regulation. Lots of parents send their kids to private school or homeschool already, and these parents bear a big cost for doing so. The government has made it very hard and expensive to not go to the public school based on your district. Lots of parents would prefer to go private or homeschool but don't due to these costs.

If you compare cities in Finland, you'll easily find similar differences. The bigger cities here of course also have people from around the world, there are more than insignificant population of Swedish, Russian, Estonian, Somalian, Vietnamese, Iraqi, Albanian, Chinese etc. You don't need to have hundreds of people from a certain ethnicity in a school for it to make an impact, even one person needs to be accommodated. While Finland has been incredibly homogeneous for most of its history, that has been changing fast in the past decades. Over 10% of the population are not ethnic Finns, and in larger cities that number is a lot higher.

From my personal experience at a community college, I have discovered that if I have kids, they will be homeschooled. I knew a whole bunch of different people there, and the ones who were homeschooled were miles ahead of everybody else. It's pretty astounding actually. I thought "well adjusted teenager" was an oxymoron until I met homeschooled ones.

The quality of homeschooling is exactly as good as the person teaching. I wouldn't make any kind of generalizations about it. I would personally be wry of enforcing my own prejudices and limitations to my kids, I'm not an expert on all subjects. BTW in Finland the concept of homeschooling is non-existent and counter to all common sense. Sure I could also do my own electric work and dentistry, but I'd feel much safer getting a professional to do it.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure what you mean by competition here? That's exactly how things are here, you're pretty much assigned a school based on your location the first 9-12 grades of basic education, after that it's all application based. There is no competition between schools, they aren't even compared to each, no measuring of performance or any kind of metrics like that. They actually make it a point to not publish statistics on test scores, and nowadays I don't think kids even receive numerical grades until grade 5 or 6. And that was exactly the point of the article, it doesn't matter which school you go to, they're all basically the same. That equality and lack of competition is a key aspect of why Finnish schools perform so well.

I don't know enough of the Finnish specifics to provide robust input on specifics. This guy argues that the Finnish system has a strong element of choice. Interesting also: he argues that the Finnish system is underperforming in other areas due to its system.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/06...ation-miracle/

Making the system private would ensure they wouldn't be of the same quality. Schools would have to employ every strategy imaginable to attract students, like manipulating performance metrics or at least concentrating solely on standardized test performance, which kills creativity. Studying should be about learning stuff, not about learning to perform well in tests.

I like that you're thinking in terms of cause and effect. Also saying that schools would have to employ strategies to attract students is a good way of putting it. They would. This type of thing works well in other areas of the economy. It should probably be encouraged.

Regarding the idea of "quality," in some ways, yeah, some people might get lower quality education YET get increased quality of life due to their limited resources going to more productive things. I won't go in deep on this, but one element is that I would argue that education is one of the worst things that teenagers can be doing with their time. The incentives for them should revolve around working as much as they can and investing most of their wages. The exponential growth of their investment at that age is an enormous good that nobody talks about. In addition, the most productive way to increase productive skills is to work. Education instead of working for the young carries a colossal opportunity cost that nobody is talking about. If education went private and then it became more beneficial for those on the margins to leave school and enter the workforce, that would be a good thing.



If I could do it all over again, I would drop out of school at 16 (maybe get a GED), work full-time in a restaurant (due to bad regulations, it would probably be two restaurants), start by washing dishes, eventually work up to bartender and maybe management. And the most important thing is that I would, without exception, put 15% of what I earned in each paycheck into a dollar cost averaging investment strategy and 5% into a rainy day fund.

And guess what, my life would be amazing (restaurant work is quite fun), and I would retire a millionaire. We're killing kids when we tell them they need to waste the most productive years of their lives being unproductive. Government policies should revolve around having kids work at as young an age as is reasonable and heavily invest. After a few generations, the amount of millionaires in the country would increase many times over, the level of poverty would diminish to virtual nothingness, the average job would be a pretty decent job that the average person could work, and then school attendance rates would increase due to the new kids having such rich families that there is more incentive for those kids to focus on creative endeavors.

Education was always an aristocracy thing. We can't forget that. Education was never meant as a tool to get people out of lower classes. The modern West has internalized the idea that formal education is a tool for advancement for the poor, and this is causing all sorts of problems. We're leading our kids down the wrong path.

[wufwugy]

in Finland the concept of homeschooling is non-existent and counter to all common sense. Sure I could also do my own electric work and dentistry, but I'd feel much safer getting a professional to do it.

I know, right? And yet, kids that are taught to read textbooks, to do their work when told to, who do not learn laziness by daydreaming in lectures, and who aren't dumped into a sea of teenager politics that teach them to hate themselves, in my experience are doing far better than the rest.

[Poopadoop]

I know, right? And yet, kids that are taught to read textbooks, to do their work when told to, who do not learn laziness by daydreaming in lectures, and who aren't dumped into a sea of teenager politics that teach them to hate themselves, in my experience are doing far better than the rest.

Eh, my sense is the majority of the learning advantage from home schooling comes down to class size.

If there's a social advantage it's prolly pretty much wat u say about being kept away from other teenagers.

[wufwugy]

For sure those are both huge.

[CoccoBill]

I don't know enough of the Finnish specifics to provide robust input on specifics. This guy argues that the Finnish system has a strong element of choice. Interesting also: he argues that the Finnish system is underperforming in other areas due to its system.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/06/is-finland-a-choice-less-education-miracle/

By no means are the schools perfect, I'm just talking about the reasons why they've been doing well on PISA tests. It's true that there is choice, there are a few private schools such as Steiner's, there's are Swedish and English schools etc, but I'd wager 95+% just pick whichever school they're assigned to. I find it a bit of a stretch to claim that amounts to any significant level of competition, let alone that it would be a defining factor in the performance of the schools.

I like that you're thinking in terms of cause and effect. Also saying that schools would have to employ strategies to attract students is a good way of putting it. They would. This type of thing works well in other areas of the economy. It should probably be encouraged.

Norway has a very similar socioeconomical status and culture to Finland, but they're educational system much more resembles the American model, mostly private schools than compete with each other for students. Their PISA performance has been mediocre.

http://www.thelocal.no/20131203/norw...hs-and-science

Regarding the idea of "quality," in some ways, yeah, some people might get lower quality education YET get increased quality of life due to their limited resources going to more productive things. I won't go in deep on this, but one element is that I would argue that education is one of the worst things that teenagers can be doing with their time. The incentives for them should revolve around working as much as they can and investing most of their wages. The exponential growth of their investment at that age is an enormous good that nobody talks about. In addition, the most productive way to increase productive skills is to work. Education instead of working for the young carries a colossal opportunity cost that nobody is talking about. If education went private and then it became more beneficial for those on the margins to leave school and enter the workforce, that would be a good thing.

I would think in the coming years with AI and robotization most jobs that require no education will be obsolete. Not everyone can just run a service business or be an artist. Many people are still enticed by earning more than minimum wage, having benefits and relatively secure jobs compared to entrepreneurship, but I guess that's slowly changing. I don't view education purely as a pragmatic or profitable enabler, but also, if not mainly, as a source of knowledge, culture and understanding.

If I could do it all over again, I would drop out of school at 16 (maybe get a GED), work full-time in a restaurant (due to bad regulations, it would probably be two restaurants), start by washing dishes, eventually work up to bartender and maybe management. And the most important thing is that I would, without exception, put 15% of what I earned in each paycheck into a dollar cost averaging investment strategy and 5% into a rainy day fund.

And guess what, my life would be amazing (restaurant work is quite fun), and I would retire a millionaire. We're killing kids when we tell them they need to waste the most productive years of their lives being unproductive. Government policies should revolve around having kids work at as young an age as is reasonable and heavily invest. After a few generations, the amount of millionaires in the country would increase many times over, the level of poverty would diminish to virtual nothingness, the average job would be a pretty decent job that the average person could work, and then school attendance rates would increase due to the new kids having such rich families that there is more incentive for those kids to focus on creative endeavors.

Education was always an aristocracy thing. We can't forget that. Education was never meant as a tool to get people out of lower classes. The modern West has internalized the idea that formal education is a tool for advancement for the poor, and this is causing all sorts of problems. We're leading our kids down the wrong path.

All I can really say is that we see things quite differently here.

[CoccoBill]

I know, right? And yet, kids that are taught to read textbooks, to do their work when told to, who do not learn laziness by daydreaming in lectures, and who aren't dumped into a sea of teenager politics that teach them to hate themselves, in my experience are doing far better than the rest.

What's your sample size?

[wufwugy]

By no means are the schools perfect, I'm just talking about the reasons why they've been doing well on PISA tests. It's true that there is choice, there are a few private schools such as Steiner's, there's are Swedish and English schools etc, but I'd wager 95+% just pick whichever school they're assigned to. I find it a bit of a stretch to claim that amounts to any significant level of competition, let alone that it would be a defining factor in the performance of the schools.

When people have the choice to go elsewhere yet don't, it's a sign that competition is working.

We want things to be where a marginal shift in consumption results in the need for innovation by producers. 5% going elsewhere than the nearest school might be more than enough to get that.

I would think in the coming years with AI and robotization most jobs that require no education will be obsolete. Not everyone can just run a service business or be an artist. Many people are still enticed by earning more than minimum wage, having benefits and relatively secure jobs compared to entrepreneurship, but I guess that's slowly changing. I don't view education purely as a pragmatic or profitable enabler, but also, if not mainly, as a source of knowledge, culture and understanding.

I think we are overly concerned about this. The trend is always that technology is speculated to reducing employment opportunities, yet each time technology increases them. Maybe eventually things will be different, but the way things are now and will be for a long time is that technology is not pushing simple skills out, in aggregate.

All I can really say is that we see things quite differently here.

I wish I bookmarked the awesome calculator I was using that showed this exponential quality in action. If somebody invests a proportion of their income, a dollar earned at age 15 is hugely bigger than a dollar earned at age 25. A dollar earned at age 15 can be many times a dollar earned at age 55.

I'm sure it's been quantified somewhere. I wonder how how much wages would have to increase for those who do 10th-"16th" grade in order for there to no longer be an opportunity cost to just instead working, assuming the same proportion of income invested. Of course, those numbers will probably be skewed in favor of the formal education group due to the crowding out effect that a society with such emphasis on formal education has.

[wufwugy]

What's your sample size?

I don't recall. Over a dozen but not big. The striking thing was that 100% of those homeschooled I met were significantly above average. I discussed it with a couple of my teachers. They agreed that the homeschooled students were the best. My calculus teacher claims it's because they're used to doing what they're told, unlike kids in the normal school structure, who are used to getting out of doing what they're told.

[wufwugy]

It's funny, I watched this:



Then came across this:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...form=hootsuite

Under budget, ahead of schedule.

[CoccoBill]

When people have the choice to go elsewhere yet don't, it's a sign that competition is working.

When your options are to go to a school, or go to the same school with a Swedish curriculum, who are competing over what? How does the competing alter the behavior of the competitors? How do you decide who's winning?

BTW I looked up the numbers. Of the "comprehensive schools" basic education, grades 1-12,less than one per cent go to specialized schools:
http://www.stat.fi/til/kjarj/2016/kj...ie_001_en.html

We want things to be where a marginal shift in consumption results in the need for innovation by producers. 5% going elsewhere than the nearest school might be more than enough to get that.

What innovation? If your native tongue is swedish or english, you'll probably opt for an international school with teaching in your language, if available. This could be either a public or a private school. Otherwise you'll most likely go to the assigned one. The small amount of "innovation" I can think of is starting a school or courses in a language not yet available.

The only competition that exists is between the private and the public schools. Are you saying that the government is through competition providing a better service?

I think we are overly concerned about this. The trend is always that technology is speculated to reducing employment opportunities, yet each time technology increases them. Maybe eventually things will be different, but the way things are now and will be for a long time is that technology is not pushing simple skills out, in aggregate.

It's already happening, kids starting school these days will face an entirely different market when they graduate.

http://europe.newsweek.com/robot-eco...g-526467?rm=eu

I wish I bookmarked the awesome calculator I was using that showed this exponential quality in action. If somebody invests a proportion of their income, a dollar earned at age 15 is hugely bigger than a dollar earned at age 25. A dollar earned at age 15 can be many times a dollar earned at age 55.

I'm sure it's been quantified somewhere. I wonder how how much wages would have to increase for those who do 10th-"16th" grade in order for there to no longer be an opportunity cost to just instead working, assuming the same proportion of income invested. Of course, those numbers will probably be skewed in favor of the formal education group due to the crowding out effect that a society with such emphasis on formal education has.

Money is a means to an end, not the end goal. Increased income has diminishing returns on quality of life and happiness.

[CoccoBill]

I don't recall. Over a dozen but not big. The striking thing was that 100% of those homeschooled I met were significantly above average. I discussed it with a couple of my teachers. They agreed that the homeschooled students were the best. My calculus teacher claims it's because they're used to doing what they're told, unlike kids in the normal school structure, who are used to getting out of doing what they're told.

It could well be that the majority of parents opting for homeschooling are conscientious and dedicated, I agree that there are merits to it. I'd just be worried about indoctrination and the complete lack of second opinions, variety in teaching methods and lack of expertise.

One reason I can think of why a lot of American kids are subjected to bad influence in schools is exactly competition. The best schools in the US are undeniably among the best in the world, but my understanding is that the majority are not. School selection might be heavily affected by the socio-economical standing of the parents, not everyone can afford to go to a good school, and those not well off will end up in schools with the worst teachers, worst students and the most problems. PISA measures average performance, and that's not so much about how good are the best, but how bad are the worst.

[Savy]

The premise isn't it creates only good schools it's that it gets schools to be better on average.

I'd be interested in seeing some figures with regards to the number of home schooled children who go onto college and their success as a group in that setting. I imagine what you are noticing is actually more down to two things.

1 - Very gifted kids are a lot more likely to be home schooled as it creates a reason for it to happen so you have the random sample of people who are home schooled but skewed top heavy with gifted kids. Kids with very bad behavioural problems and those who struggle massively are much more likely to be in special schools or left in standard education.

2 - The thought of high school - college - university (and us equivalent) is a very standard path for kids in schools. It's where you end up if you don't really put all that much thought into it not to mention all the pressures on kids to take this path even if it isn't what they really want. With homeschooling there is much less likely to be that same pressure (as parents are kid of rejecting state education by homeschooling) so those that end up there are more likely to want to be there.

[CoccoBill]

I understand that's the premise, but I can't find any proof of that actually happening. There seems to be a huge variance in the performance of American schools, and on average they're not achieving good results at least based on standardized tests. My intuition says that competition makes the best better and the worst worse, since being on the short end automatically cuts funding, limits the available expertise and creates a social environment that makes it very hard to achieve results.

It would be interesting to know what is the number of homeschooled applicants to higher education and what their acceptance rates are. It does seem that the ones that get in to colleges/universities perform well or at least on par with others, which seems to support your first point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Supportive

[BananaStand]

I'll be honest guys. All this back and forth about what's the best kind of school seems totally moot to me.

Parental emphasis on education and their involvement is far and away the most influential factor in a child's academic success. A kid whose parent checks homework, communicates with the teacher, reinforces lessons in the home, and closely monitors progress will be lightyears ahead of a kid whose parent just asks "did you do your homework" and only checks in at report card time.

It doesn't matter what kind of disparity there is in the quality of schools between those two kids. One will succeed, the other maybe not.

[wufwugy]

When your options are to go to a school, or go to the same school with a Swedish curriculum, who are competing over what? How does the competing alter the behavior of the competitors? How do you decide who's winning?

If one school is perceived as better than the other and with comparable cost, more parents choose the better one than the worse one. In this regard, school choice isn't going to be much different than something like food choice, hotel choice, girlfriend choice, etc..

What innovation? If your native tongue is swedish or english, you'll probably opt for an international school with teaching in your language, if available. This could be either a public or a private school. Otherwise you'll most likely go to the assigned one. The small amount of "innovation" I can think of is starting a school or courses in a language not yet available.

It appears the measure of choice is still somewhat decent. In most places in the US, there is not this choice. It is either bear very big costs for private school or homeschooling, or go to the public school you're assigned.

Where my sister lives, there are half a dozen schools all within very reasonable driving distance from her home. Some of these schools are better than others. Fortunately she lives in the zone for one of the better ones, so her kids go to that one. But what about the kids who live in the poorer districts? They're not allowed to choose any of the better schools just a few streets down. They're stuck. And it's because they're stuck that their schools never get better. If parents were allowed to choose to send their kids to any of the public schools in their area, each school would then have an enormous incentive to get better results. As it is now, getting results is not a primary concern since the schools get the same funding regardless of results.

A lot of American economists claim that it is because there is little school choice that we have so many shitty schools and so many kids getting shitty educations. There are lots of places in the country where the worst schools are a several streets away from real good schools. Parents would love to drive their kids to the better school each morning, but they are not allowed to. This would cause incumbent bad teachers to lose jobs; the unions are too powerful to let that happen. This would cause SJW know-nothings to cry "unfair!" And it would cause some of those racist elites to accept that there's gonna be some black and brown kids sitting next to their own Ivy League-bound kids.

School choice increases fairness and equality big time.

The only competition that exists is between the private and the public schools. Are you saying that the government is through competition providing a better service?

The government is stymieing competition to some degrees.

It's already happening, kids starting school these days will face an entirely different market when they graduate.

http://europe.newsweek.com/robot-eco...g-526467?rm=eu

My point was that when in history (I do not yet know of any exception) that this kind of claim is made, it turns out to be wrong. They thought the automobile was going to destroy jobs. It didn't, jobs grew vastly because of it in ways nobody expected. The same with the chainsaw, with the internet, with computers, with the tractor.

We have no idea what AI will do. What we do know is that every time there is a claim that a technology is going to make the aggregate job market worse, the claim turns out to be wrong.

[wufwugy]

I'll be honest guys. All this back and forth about what's the best kind of school seems totally moot to me.

Parental emphasis on education and their involvement is far and away the most influential factor in a child's academic success. A kid whose parent checks homework, communicates with the teacher, reinforces lessons in the home, and closely monitors progress will be lightyears ahead of a kid whose parent just asks "did you do your homework" and only checks in at report card time.

It doesn't matter what kind of disparity there is in the quality of schools between those two kids. One will succeed, the other maybe not.

Humans are animals. We're not necessarily going to make great decisions all the time. When you live in a system that incentivizes worse decisions, guess what you're gonna get. When you live in a system that incentivizes better decisions, guess what you're gonna get.

[wufwugy]

2 - The thought of high school - college - university (and us equivalent) is a very standard path for kids in schools. It's where you end up if you don't really put all that much thought into it not to mention all the pressures on kids to take this path even if it isn't what they really want. With homeschooling there is much less likely to be that same pressure (as parents are kid of rejecting state education by homeschooling) so those that end up there are more likely to want to be there.

This selection bias is definitely there.

[wufwugy]

I understand that's the premise, but I can't find any proof of that actually happening. There seems to be a huge variance in the performance of American schools, and on average they're not achieving good results at least based on standardized tests. My intuition says that competition makes the best better and the worst worse, since being on the short end automatically cuts funding, limits the available expertise and creates a social environment that makes it very hard to achieve results.

You're definitely right about there being huge variance. The US system has very little choice, so it isn't choice causing this variance.

[CoccoBill]

If one school is perceived as better than the other and with comparable cost, more parents choose the better one than the worse one. In this regard, school choice isn't going to be much different than something like food choice, hotel choice, girlfriend choice, etc..

I agree completely, but my point is this choice does not exist in Finland. There are several public schools in all major cities, but you're assigned to one based on your address, you can't pick and choose, even by paying money. This is no big deal though, since they're all the same. All free, all pretty much the same level and same quality. If you're an artsy fartsy hippie you can opt for a private school like the Steiner's, if one happens to be in your area, but the vast majority won't. If you're an expat or an immigrant, you may want to apply to an international school. Other than that, there is no choice.

It appears the measure of choice is still somewhat decent. In most places in the US, there is not this choice. It is either bear very big costs for private school or homeschooling, or go to the public school you're assigned.

In Finland you don't have the expensive private school option, and no one takes the homeschooling option, though it is legal. I'm failing to see how Finland in your opinion has more choice, more competition and these are the reasons Finnish schools have been doing so well. Except of course if you're ignoring all facts counter to your beliefs, which state that only competition and choice can produce results. Experts that have been studying this for years have come to the exact opposite conclusion. It's the lack of competition, both between schools and between students, that has produced the results, together with the other issues stated in the article.

Where my sister lives, there are half a dozen schools all within very reasonable driving distance from her home. Some of these schools are better than others. Fortunately she lives in the zone for one of the better ones, so her kids go to that one. But what about the kids who live in the poorer districts? They're not allowed to choose any of the better schools just a few streets down. They're stuck. And it's because they're stuck that their schools never get better. If parents were allowed to choose to send their kids to any of the public schools in their area, each school would then have an enormous incentive to get better results. As it is now, getting results is not a primary concern since the schools get the same funding regardless of results.

Wouldn't it be great if all the schools were good? And wasn't competition supposed to drive even the bad schools to become much better? Who's forcing the private schools to price themselves out?

A lot of American economists claim that it is because there is little school choice that we have so many shitty schools and so many kids getting shitty educations. There are lots of places in the country where the worst schools are a several streets away from real good schools. Parents would love to drive their kids to the better school each morning, but they are not allowed to. This would cause incumbent bad teachers to lose jobs; the unions are too powerful to let that happen. This would cause SJW know-nothings to cry "unfair!" And it would cause some of those racist elites to accept that there's gonna be some black and brown kids sitting next to their own Ivy League-bound kids.

School choice increases fairness and equality big time.

According to wikipedia there's scholarships, voucher programs, charter schools, magnet schools etc. I don't think any of these exist in Finland, at least for K-12 level. On top of those and the regular assigned public school options you have private schools and apparently homeschooling is much more popular there. At least to me that sounds like plenty of choice, at least a lot more than in Finland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice

My point was that when in history (I do not yet know of any exception) that this kind of claim is made, it turns out to be wrong. They thought the automobile was going to destroy jobs. It didn't, jobs grew vastly because of it in ways nobody expected. The same with the chainsaw, with the internet, with computers, with the tractor.

We have no idea what AI will do. What we do know is that every time there is a claim that a technology is going to make the aggregate job market worse, the claim turns out to be wrong.

Like the article describes, that has already happened several times over. The automated gas pump killed hundreds of thousands of jobs. These technological shifts can be catastrophic to the current workforce who find themselves without jobs, their education and skills made obsolete. What you're describing is that at least so far, we've been able to adjust and bounce back over time, and undeniably over time the economy has become stronger for it. However, I don't see any reason to think this will happen every time, no matter how large a chunk of the workforce are replaced. Adjustments may take years, and all the while we'll have pissed off unemployed roaming the streets, getting drunk and voting for Trump or Brexit.

Quick question, do you still think exactly the same about the reasons behind Finland's PISA success as you did last week?

[Savy]

Is there any reason to think that a higher more centralised average is better than a lower one with higher peaks?

In the UK schools with pupils who fall into a certain like low group get paid more for every pupil (it's a considerable amount, ~£1,000/year), teachers/management tend to get paid at a higher rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupil_premium

I think what Finland does is a miles better solution than anything I have seen I just don't think it's optimal.

[CoccoBill]

Define better?

[wufwugy]

I agree completely, but my point is this choice does not exist in Finland. There are several public schools in all major cities, but you're assigned to one based on your address, you can't pick and choose, even by paying money. This is no big deal though, since they're all the same. All free, all pretty much the same level and same quality. If you're an artsy fartsy hippie you can opt for a private school like the Steiner's, if one happens to be in your area, but the vast majority won't. If you're an expat or an immigrant, you may want to apply to an international school. Other than that, there is no choice.

It can be the case that public schools on average will be better if there is less private choice because it doesn't allow more productive people to leave the public schools. This doesn't make a choiceless public school system better than it would be if it was choice-and-public or all private (which means inherently full of choice).

In Finland you don't have the expensive private school option, and no one takes the homeschooling option, though it is legal. I'm failing to see how Finland in your opinion has more choice, more competition and these are the reasons Finnish schools have been doing so well. Except of course if you're ignoring all facts counter to your beliefs, which state that only competition and choice can produce results. Experts that have been studying this for years have come to the exact opposite conclusion. It's the lack of competition, both between schools and between students, that has produced the results, together with the other issues stated in the article.

I don't know what elements of competition Finnish schools have. I'm going off of what the article I linked says and what you say, when it comes to Finland specifically.

When it comes to competition in theory, it is generally that more is better. This doesn't mean that a system without a certain kind of competition can't have better results than one with that certain kind.

Wouldn't it be great if all the schools were good? And wasn't competition supposed to drive even the bad schools to become much better? Who's forcing the private schools to price themselves out?

Government policies. Those policies incentivize people into public schools in very big ways. Private options only compete on the fringes due to these policies.

According to wikipedia there's scholarships, voucher programs, charter schools, magnet schools etc. I don't think any of these exist in Finland, at least for K-12 level. On top of those and the regular assigned public school options you have private schools and apparently homeschooling is much more popular there. At least to me that sounds like plenty of choice, at least a lot more than in Finland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice

There are a bunch of niches in the country. These aren't that normal though.

Like the article describes, that has already happened several times over. The automated gas pump killed hundreds of thousands of jobs. These technological shifts can be catastrophic to the current workforce who find themselves without jobs, their education and skills made obsolete. What you're describing is that at least so far, we've been able to adjust and bounce back over time, and undeniably over time the economy has become stronger for it. However, I don't see any reason to think this will happen every time, no matter how large a chunk of the workforce are replaced. Adjustments may take years, and all the while we'll have pissed off unemployed roaming the streets, getting drunk and voting for Trump or Brexit.

You're describing substitution of labor. Even though the gas pump substituted labor and some people lost jobs, in aggregate more jobs were created due to things like a more efficient allocation of resources. This is in a strictly economics sense. If you ask an economist, he'll tell you the substitution/aggregate thing. I asked one of my professors just the other day on something very similar. That was his response.

Quick question, do you still think exactly the same about the reasons behind Finland's PISA success as you did last week?

I don't know the reasons behind Finland's PISA success. The points I'm making are theory in economics.

[wufwugy]

Is there any reason to think that a higher more centralised average is better than a lower one with higher peaks

If we're talking results in the long run, I suspect the latter would be better.

Let's say we're back before Isaac Newton was born, and we're gonna bet on two different scenarios. Who would you rather bet on inventing calculus: a super genius with IQ 200+ and access to the academia of the time, or a whole bunch of 120-130 IQ people with the same access? I don't know, I might have to go with the super genius.

Let's say an asteroid the size of India is heading towards Earth and is gonna smash into us in 1 year. The world leaders get on TV and say "It's okay, we got 1000 200+ IQ science and creative geniuses working round the clock all across the world and they're gonna stop that asteroid." Or they get on TV and say "It's okay, we got a million above average people working round the clock..." Which one would you have more faith in inventing some new crazy thing that will save the Earth?

Over time, as the people in the tail of brilliance invent more things, being average or in the lower tail becomes exponentially better.

[BananaStand]

I'm still not seeing what's so great about Finland's education system. Spending 15 minutes outside every hour, short school hours, and little homework sounds like a system that's designed to be easy. It's not surprising to me that alot of kids get good grades. It's not totally clear to me how PISA determines what's "best", but I'm skeptical.

I mean, did we not just have two pages of how it's impossible to compare rape statistics between countries? Now you're telling me we can put Finnish schools up against schools in Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, Rio, and Houston...and determine a winner?

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".

Their crowning achievement seems to be 'Clash of Clans', the rest of their economy is supported by cardboard.

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm still not seeing what's so great about Finland's education system. Spending 15 minutes outside every hour, short school hours, and little homework sounds like a system that's designed to be easy. It's not surprising to me that alot of kids get good grades. It's not totally clear to me how PISA determines what's "best", but I'm skeptical.


I mean, did we not just have two pages of how it's impossible to compare rape statistics between countries? Now you're telling me we can put Finnish schools up against schools in Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, Rio, and Houston...and determine a winner?


I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".


Their crowning achievement seems to be 'Clash of Clans', the rest of their economy is supported by cardboard.

Skepticism is good. I like skepticism.


What you write above though, you are dissing Finland. Just because “you’ve never heard of them” does not mean they are shit. Ilari Sahamies and Patrik Antonius would like to have a chat with you


About Finland, and be sure to click on the education link (Spoiler alert: 9.3/10)




http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/finland/

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

An education system should, well, educate the people. Not separating winners from losers, it’s not a competition. It’s not a game. You have to adhere to certain standards, which is what degrees are about, therefore it is of paramount importance that standards are in place. If every institution meets a certain standard, then you can be sure that a person with X degree from Y institution knows exactly the same as a person with X degree from Z institution. Then it’s a question of finding out about the personalities, who can apply what they should know better, who actually gives a fuck, etc.


Some great people have no degrees at all, but as we are moving towards more complex societies, it starts becoming required that education be more complete. This is the importance of making higher education more easily available to all. What is easier than being fully free/no student loan upon finishing? This way, you will also have more people participate in what they actually want to not what they have to.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Let's say an asteroid the size of India is heading towards Earth and is gonna smash into us in 1 year. The world leaders get on TV and say "It's okay, we got 1000 200+ IQ science and creative geniuses working round the clock all across the world and they're gonna stop that asteroid." Or they get on TV and say "It's okay, we got a million above average people working round the clock..." Which one would you have more faith in inventing some new crazy thing that will save the Earth?

Over time, as the people in the tail of brilliance invent more things, being average or in the lower tail becomes exponentially better.

In this scenario, is not cut and dry which group will find the best solution first.

What will be needed is a spark of genius and enough training to recognize that for what it is. That training is easily self-taught outside of formal academia.

I'll take 1 Michael Faraday over 100 "200+ IQ" dancers and playwrights and firemen and whatnot. Just one genius experimentalist, even w/o any formal education is worth more than a million brilliant people who don't care about the subject matter, and whose training is not relevant.

[Jack Sawyer]

Also, the broad generalization to "people who disagree with you will go out of their way to attack..." is too far.
There are some bad actors, but I disagree with basically everything everyone does on an individual level, and I've never attacked anyone over it...
Well, not since I was an angsty teenager, anyway.




The hyperbolic rhetoric coming from all sides in this thread is ... SMH.
You guys really are too smart to make these broad extrapolations from such tiny data sets.

It is saddening, but this is the exact tactic I keep seeing that is employed the moment prominent (or not even so prominent) people are in disagreement with one another. Dig up old dirt, take it as much out of context as possible, then publicly go to the employers (and or any other authority in the vicinity) of the opponent. This is the other kind of gag tactic, the attack the income strategy.


I can make a youtube playlist of times in which it has happened, news stories in general. It’s particularly popular with femenists. Do you remember the Hugh Mungus incident?


It’s low.

[wufwugy]

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

Let's take it further. There always will be relative duds. Simply due to the nature of distribution, there will always be those whose skills will be below average and who need to work jobs that take below average skills.

Take janitorial services for example. They are among the most simple jobs in existence, yet some kinds of janitorial work are unusual enough that it takes somebody to be a career janitor. An example is somebody who cleans commercial floors at night. It's a bad idea to have teens do this part time when they're pursuing something else. It requires people who make lifelong careers out of the work.

What is the best thing for these people? Is it to go to college? No. Is it even to go to high school? Actually, no. Is it to learn math beyond counting and basic arithmetic? No. Is it to learn history, humanities, social sciences? No, no, and no. One of the best things I can think of that a society can do for these people is to incentivize them to work as early as possible and to invest as much as they can. Earlier years are simply more productive than later years, exponentially so. If somebody is gonna make a career as a janitor, he'll be far better off starting at 15 than at 22. Depending on investment quantity and years worked total, that can be a difference of 500 grand or similar by retirement.

Proper incentives can create economic and social equality between duds and smarts. A poor dud who is properly encouraged to work as early as possible and invest (something like dollar cost averaging), could actually end up in the same class by the time he's 65 as a non-poor smart. But he's not gonna get there as long as government policy is not about efficiency.

[Poopadoop]

In this scenario, is not cut and dry which group will find the best solution first.

What will be needed is a spark of genius and enough training to recognize that for what it is. That training is easily self-taught outside of formal academia.

I'll take 1 Michael Faraday over 100 "200+ IQ" dancers and playwrights and firemen and whatnot. Just one genius experimentalist, even w/o any formal education is worth more than a million brilliant people who don't care about the subject matter, and whose training is not relevant.

Agree with the sentiment and I would add that most of the great insights come from hard work and serendipity, with a large helping of lateral thinking.

I've met people with genius level IQs who never seemed to contribute anything useful despite that.

[Poopadoop]

Let's take it further. There always will be relative duds. Simply due to the nature of distribution, there will always be those whose skills will be below average and who need to work jobs that take below average skills.

Agreed.

Take janitorial services for example. They are among the most simple jobs in existence, yet some kinds of janitorial work are unusual enough that it takes somebody to be a career janitor. An example is somebody who cleans commercial floors at night. It's a bad idea to have teens do this part time when they're pursuing something else. It requires people who make lifelong careers out of the work.

Don't see why there's such a need to create people solely for the purpose of this type of job. What is the problem with having a teenager mop floors part time?

What is the best thing for these people? Is it to go to college? No. Is it even to go to high school? Actually, no. Is it to learn math beyond counting and basic arithmetic? No. Is it to learn history, humanities, social sciences? No, no, and no. One of the best things I can think of that a society can do for these people is to incentivize them to work as early as possible and to invest as much as they can. Earlier years are simply more productive than later years, exponentially so. If somebody is gonna make a career as a janitor, he'll be far better off starting at 15 than at 22. Depending on investment quantity and years worked total, that can be a difference of 500 grand or similar by retirement.

There is more to an education that what you learn. Everyone knows the basic chemistry you learn in high school applies to very little if you don't pursue a career that explicitly uses it. Same goes for a lot of other subjects. The point in learning isn't just about the knowledge gained, it's about learning how to learn.

Anyone (janitor included) should have the opportunity to pursue learning. Your idea about pigeonholing people at an early age and then just giving them the bare education level they need to do their job seems pretty state-oriented to me. Doesn't the career janitor have the right to go to school at least to grade 12?

Proper incentives can create economic and social equality between duds and smarts. A poor dud who is properly encouraged to work as early as possible and invest (something like dollar cost averaging), could actually end up in the same class by the time he's 65 as a non-poor smart. But he's not gonna get there as long as government policy is not about efficiency.

You realise you're actually incentivizing smart people to become janitors here right? I mean I don't have to go to school or do anything that involves thinking or hard work I just finish grade 3 , spend a week in mop college, and start earning money.

[wufwugy]

An education system should, well, educate the people.

Are we thinking about this differently? I think an education system should help the people. Education itself isn't necessarily a beneficial thing. I've covered some of the ways in which I think it can be detrimental.

When I look at the world, I see a lot of people who would be better off not being educated. N=1 example: I know some illegal aliens from Mexico who are merely decent at English and who can't do more math than add and subtract, and they make more money excavating construction sites with heavy machinery than the average highly educated college graduate does. Even though these guys are already much better off by not following the average education route, could you imagine how much better off they would be if they were encouraged to do so as early teens and there was, say, a government policy of mandated savings like a 401k for a proportion of earnings?

I think too often our societies' ideas on education are guided too much by how we wish the world is instead of the way the world is.

[wufwugy]

Don't see why there's such a need to create people solely for the purpose of this type of job. What is the problem with having a teenager mop floors part time?

I'm a big fan of teenage part time work. There a bunch of simple jobs they can do. Cleaning floors is even one of them, but not all kinds of floor cleaning would qualify. Some of them are things like midnight to six AM jobs. Teenagers are not going to be reliable at that part time nor would it be beneficial for them.

If this example doesn't fly, there are better ones. Something else teenagers should not be doing part time is cleaning the windows of skycrapers.

Anyone (janitor included) should have the opportunity to pursue learning. Your idea about pigeonholing people at an early age and then just giving them the bare education level they need to do their job seems pretty state-oriented to me. Doesn't the career janitor have the right to go to school at least to grade 12?

I agree. It is incredibly difficult (maybe impossible) to get this right with a public education system.

You realise you're actually incentivizing smart people to become janitors here right? I mean I don't have to go to school or do anything that involves thinking or hard work I just finish grade 3 , spend a week in mop college, and start earning money.

If that is the case, then it means that the system really doesn't work well for those who end up in janitorial work, since it's implied that there is significant room for improvement for those who end up in janitorial work.

As for your explicit point, an increase of smart people in blue collar professions would be a good thing. Blue collar work in the states is in this really weird situation where the work is rewarding and pays extremely well, yet the zeitgeist is that only losers do it. Smart people in blue collar build businesses. I know a few people who started their blue collar businesses from scratch and out of their homes who are millionaires today and employ many others. Smarts can be applied to "simple" fields too. A dud career janitor might be a janitor for 40 years, and a smart career janitor might build a janitorial business that benefits thousands.

[wufwugy]

Agree with the sentiment and I would add that most of the great insights come from hard work and serendipity, with a large helping of lateral thinking.

I've met people with genius level IQs who never seemed to contribute anything useful despite that.

Could you go more into detail about lateral thinking?

[Poopadoop]

Could you go more into detail about lateral thinking?

Problem solving in ways that aren't intuitive - like using a paperclip to unclog a salt shaker.

In terms of art, it's why all hit songs sound kinda familiar and yet kinda new; they borrow familiar patterns that hit the right buttons and arrange them in a way that makes it sound new - the trick is putting something old with something different.

In terms of innovation, if you're trying to build a better mousetrap, you could simply look at an existing design and add a better spring. That would be a linear-thinking improvement but not necessarily a major one. On the contrary if you took a lateral thinking approach you might look at ways to apply new technology such as having a motion sensitive mouse detector rigged to a microwave emitter or laser beam or some such. Or you might start by replacing the cheese with a decoy female mouse dosed with mouse pheromones or a tiny speaker that makes ultrasonic sounds mice are attracted to. These are not really plausible examples cause I'm not a mouse-trap designer but you get the idea.

[wufwugy]

Fake mouse trap designer.

[Poopadoop]

I get called that a lot.

[Jack Sawyer]

Let's take it further. There always will be relative duds. Simply due to the nature of distribution, there will always be those whose skills will be below average and who need to work jobs that take below average skills.


Take janitorial services for example. They are among the most simple jobs in existence, yet some kinds of janitorial work are unusual enough that it takes somebody to be a career janitor. An example is somebody who cleans commercial floors at night. It's a bad idea to have teens do this part time when they're pursuing something else. It requires people who make lifelong careers out of the work.


What is the best thing for these people? Is it to go to college? No. Is it even to go to high school? Actually, no. Is it to learn math beyond counting and basic arithmetic? No. Is it to learn history, humanities, social sciences? No, no, and no. One of the best things I can think of that a society can do for these people is to incentivize them to work as early as possible and to invest as much as they can. Earlier years are simply more productive than later years, exponentially so. If somebody is gonna make a career as a janitor, he'll be far better off starting at 15 than at 22. Depending on investment quantity and years worked total, that can be a difference of 500 grand or similar by retirement.


Proper incentives can create economic and social equality between duds and smarts. A poor dud who is properly encouraged to work as early as possible and invest (something like dollar cost averaging), could actually end up in the same class by the time he's 65 as a non-poor smart. But he's not gonna get there as long as government policy is not about efficiency.

It being free != it being compulsory. But keep in mind also that that specific work, for example, will inevitably be taken over by roombas at one point or another. What then?


Also, there could be some kind of janitorial specialization for those that really want to do that.


People are different. Not everyone can be a superstar. But this should definitely not be decided on the size of their checkbooks.

[wufwugy]

It being free != it being compulsory.

It not being compulsory is very important. It would be cool if it wasn't overly incentivized too.

But keep in mind also that that specific work, for example, will inevitably be taken over by roombas at one point or another. What then?

It is ironic that during the time of continually increasing demand for relatively unskilled labor, the fear that's going away is also increasing.

People are different. Not everyone can be a superstar. But this should definitely not be decided on the size of their checkbooks.

You're right, it should be about what people value.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Not compulsory = only after some arbitrary point.

Pigeon-holing a person as nothing more than an employee is naive both in what a person is and in what a society gains from a good citizen.
Uneducated citizens are terrible for maintaining a non-corrupt gov't.

Still, point well made about windows on skyscrapers. There are countless examples, but that is excellent.

A huge part of early school years is about exposing the young people to new and unfamiliar subjects. You never know what's going to turn you on your heels with how cool you think it is, despite other people not getting into it. A society which fails to inspire the brilliance of its citizens is less innovative.

[OngBonga]

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".

This is such an American thing to say.

In terms of economic output per capita, their economy is on a par with the UK. International trade represents a third of their GDP. Just because you don't get many Finnish goods in America, doesn't mean they are a poor country. They just so happen to trade with Europe and Russia more than they do USA. For a nation with a fuck ton of tundra, they do remarkably well.

Also, I bet you, or someone you know, has had a Finnish phone. Remember the old Nokia? They were far and away the best phones before the smartphone age.

I would say that the old Nokia is a fine piece of Finnish engineering. So that at least fucks your last comment.

[OngBonga]

Finland boast three Formula One World Champions, compared to USA's one. In fact they sit fifth in the all time list by nation. They would be fourth if the current WC wasn't pretending to be German.

[CoccoBill]

It can be the case that public schools on average will be better if there is less private choice because it doesn't allow more productive people to leave the public schools. This doesn't make a choiceless public school system better than it would be if it was choice-and-public or all private (which means inherently full of choice).

Sounds legit. We've established, I think, that in Finland there basically only exists a public option for 99+% of people. In the US 10.4% attend private schools*. So how is it possible, that a system with practically only the public option performs better than one with both public and private options in stark competition with each other?

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...tes#Statistics

I don't know what elements of competition Finnish schools have. I'm going off of what the article I linked says and what you say, when it comes to Finland specifically.

When it comes to competition in theory, it is generally that more is better. This doesn't mean that a system without a certain kind of competition can't have better results than one with that certain kind.

It's understandable you don't, no one can expect that you would know. That's why I've been trying to exaplain to you that there isn't competition, and indeed the system is seen to achieve it's results precisely due to the lack of it.

Government policies. Those policies incentivize people into public schools in very big ways. Private options only compete on the fringes due to these policies.

Government policies force private schools to charge tens of hundreds of thousands per semester? Which policies exactly?

There are a bunch of niches in the country. These aren't that normal though.

Well depends what you define as niche, over half a million students attend those niches all the time, 5700 charter schools, 2700 magnet schools etc.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/pesscho...s/table_02.asp

You're describing substitution of labor. Even though the gas pump substituted labor and some people lost jobs, in aggregate more jobs were created due to things like a more efficient allocation of resources. This is in a strictly economics sense. If you ask an economist, he'll tell you the substitution/aggregate thing. I asked one of my professors just the other day on something very similar. That was his response.

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. At least so far, we've been able to adapt and create new jobs to replace the lost ones. It is however quite a different challenge whether we are replacing a few thousand gas pump attendants, or losing 6% of the total jobs in 4 years: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...rrester-report

Significant measures should already be underway to address this, especially in education, healthcare and social services etc.

I don't know the reasons behind Finland's PISA success. The points I'm making are theory in economics.

I thought that's why we've been having this conversation. Let's recap:

1. You said "Public education is so bad."
2. I pointed out that some of the best school systems, according to statistics, are public.
3. You claim that Finland is doing better than the US due to more competition, based on one opinion piece you found, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.
4. I try to show that there is no competition, or at least much less of it than in the US.
5. You declare you don't know, but it must be so because economics.

Economic theories are nice and all, but proof they are not. Wouldn't a reasonable person when faced with evidence or suggestions that conflict with their views at least entertain the thought, that there may be something else going on, not just dig in their heels? Could that, in your mind, possibly be signs of confirmation bias?

[CoccoBill]

I'm still not seeing what's so great about Finland's education system. Spending 15 minutes outside every hour, short school hours, and little homework sounds like a system that's designed to be easy. It's not surprising to me that alot of kids get good grades. It's not totally clear to me how PISA determines what's "best", but I'm skeptical.

What in your mind is then the purpose of education, if it's not educating kids? The education performance is measured currently with the performance of the students in standardized tests such as PISA. Should Finland start maybe making the system harder for kids, would that make it more great?

I mean, did we not just have two pages of how it's impossible to compare rape statistics between countries? Now you're telling me we can put Finnish schools up against schools in Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, Rio, and Houston...and determine a winner?

In education there are standardized tests. In rape, as we've talked about, those do not exist. So yes, I'd say it's much easier to compare the schools. Not in a perfect manner, of course, but at least in a much a much more objective way.

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".

Their crowning achievement seems to be 'Clash of Clans', the rest of their economy is supported by cardboard.

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a car from Wyoming either, nor been to a restaurant from there. I'm not convinced the measuring stick of the performance of an educational system is engineering innovations exported, but yeah we got Nokia, Angry Birds, sauna, linux and molotov cocktails. And while we're bragging, guess which country has the all-time most olympic medals per capita?

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

Well, I would. If someone is bright and motivated, they're likely to excel in almost any environment. I wouldn't say America has so many more innovations and successful businesses than Finland because of your educational system, but because there's 320 million of you and 5 million of us.

[BananaStand]

What in your mind is then the purpose of education, if it's not educating kids?

Define "educate". Are we trying to pass tests, or are we trying to create citizens who can excel in a competitive economy?

Finland has the lowest income inequality in Europe. Is that good, or bad? Personally, I wouldn't be thrilled about it. It's income mobility that matters much more in my opinion. And Finland sucks at that.

The education performance is measured currently with the performance of the students in standardized tests such as PISA. Should Finland start maybe making the system harder for kids, would that make it more great?

Probably. Meritocracy is awesome. I don't think anyone thinks that Chinese schools are easy. Did you notice who actually scores best on those PISA tests?

In education there are standardized tests. In rape, as we've talked about, those do not exist. So yes, I'd say it's much easier to compare the schools. Not in a perfect manner, of course, but at least in a much a much more objective way.

GTFO with that man. If a woman says "yes" it's not rape. If She says "no" it is. The PISA test has alot more moving parts. I'm doing a little digging right now myself. Did you know in 2006 the US's results were disqualified because of a misprint in the test? So what are we even comparing here?

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a car from Wyoming either, nor been to a restaurant from there. I'm not convinced the measuring stick of the performance of an educational system is engineering innovations exported,

Wyoming's not a country, and I'm sure you've pulled up to many American cars. So I'm not seeing your point. Did Finland put a man on the moon?

but yeah we got Nokia,

Huh? Who cares? They were relevant for less than a decade and have since been overwhelmed by Asian companies. You know....from countries that PISA says have better schools

Angry Birds,

zzzzzz

sauna,

C'mon. Finland wasn't independent until 1917. I'm sure someone before that figured out that sweating feels awesome.

linux

Windows for the win!

and molotov cocktails.

Projectile incendiaries were invented before 1917.

And while we're bragging, guess which country has the all-time most olympic medals per capita?

If they're in winter olympic events, I'm not that impressed. Unless it's hockey. They got silver in 1980 (America got gold!) and they haven't been relevant again since.

Well, I would. If someone is bright and motivated, they're likely to excel in almost any environment. I wouldn't say America has so many more innovations and successful businesses than Finland because of your educational system, but because there's 320 million of you and 5 million of us.

I agree with the bolded. Now what's in Finland to motivate a bright kid? This goes back to Finlands lack of income inequality. That kills meritocracy.

If Finland's goal is to make as many slightly above average kids as possible and have them grow up to lead pedestrian, unimpressive careers, fine, they win.

[CoccoBill]

Define "educate". Are we trying to pass tests, or are we trying to create citizens who can excel in a competitive economy?

I'd define it as learning intellectual, moral and social skills and knowledge. Like I said earlier, learning to pass tests should absolutely not be the goal of education, and the lack of emphasis on testing is perceived to be one of the key reasons why Finland has been doing well. Tests still are a a fairly easy way to gauge performance somewhat objectively.

Finland has the lowest income inequality in Europe. Is that good, or bad? Personally, I wouldn't be thrilled about it. It's income mobility that matters much more in my opinion. And Finland sucks at that.

Some say that income inequality is bad.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...15/sdn1513.pdf
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

Probably. Meritocracy is awesome. I don't think anyone thinks that Chinese schools are easy. Did you notice who actually scores best on those PISA tests?

I'm not sure what your point is. Singapore is on top, top 20 is dominated by asia and northern europe. The US schools have massive amounts of homework and tests are a weekly occurrence, yet you suck on PISA. Maybe even more work is needed there?

GTFO with that man. If a woman says "yes" it's not rape. If She says "no" it is. The PISA test has alot more moving parts. I'm doing a little digging right now myself. Did you know in 2006 the US's results were disqualified because of a misprint in the test? So what are we even comparing here?

The concept of yes/no seems to be quite unclear in some places, when it comes to implied or expressed consent. In some countries marital rape does not exist. What constitutes rape varies greatly. The PISA tests are standardized, even though clearly rigged since US is not on top.

Huh? Who cares? They were relevant for less than a decade and have since been overwhelmed by Asian companies.

Yeah, a tiny country dominating a whole global industry for 10 years is nothing, at least it in no way qualifies as engineering feat worth mentioning. Stop trolling.

If they're in winter olympic events, I'm not that impressed. Unless it's hockey. They got silver in 1980 (America got gold!) and they haven't been relevant again since.

Both, and applies to both gold and total medals.

I agree with the bolded. Now what's in Finland to motivate a bright kid? This goes back to Finlands lack of income inequality. That kills meritocracy.

If you think of the greatest minds in human history, how many of them were motivated by money?

If Finland's goal is to make as many slightly above average kids as possible and have them grow up to lead pedestrian, unimpressive careers, fine, they win.

I think it'd be quite challenging to make over 50% be above average.