**** Elections thread *****

[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.

[BananaStand]

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.

wait, which is it? If Finland doesn't emphasize testing, and testing is how you gauge performance objectively, then how do you know if they're doing well? If you're putting ALL your stock in this PISA test, I think you're being a little glib. It's really not as simple and 'standardized' as you might think.

Some say that income inequality is bad.

And others say it's great. Again, Income "mobility" is the key, in my opinion. Of the poorest 20% in the US, nearly 2/3 of that population advances to a higher quintile within a generation. If that were impossible, then income inequality is bad. If there is robust income mobility, then the people on the bottom are there because they've chosen to be shitty people.

Today, 64 percent of the people born to the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile -- 11 percent rise all the way into the top quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent born to the richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...nequality.html

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?

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that the hardest schools show the best test results. I'm not sure volume of homework and tests translates directly to 'difficulty'.

The PISA tests are standardized, even though clearly rigged since US is not on top.

Sounds kinda snarky. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Finlands schools are bad. And I'm not saying that US's are good. I am saying that they seem to have entirely different goals when it comes to educating kids, hence a standardized test result is not a great basis for comparison. Plus, as I said, the test doesn't seem to be as "standardized" as one may think.

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.

The bolded is quite an exaggeration. McDonalds dominates Burger King. Coke dominates Pepsi. I'm not sure Nokia had that big of an advantage over Motorola, Samsung, LG, and whoever else. Nokia had a nice run....that's it.

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

Millions of them. Literally millions of them.

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

What? Are you kididing me right now? Isn't that the whole point of this argument....that Finland has so many kids acheiving at rates higher than the worldwide average? If Finland had an even distribution of below, average, and above average kids, then they would be in the middle of the pack in the world rankings. But they're not....they're at the top.

[CoccoBill]

wait, which is it? If Finland doesn't emphasize testing, and testing is how you gauge performance objectively, then how do you know if they're doing well? If you're putting ALL your stock in this PISA test, I think you're being a little glib. It's really not as simple and 'standardized' as you might think.

When the first PISA rankings came out in 2000 or so putting Finns at the top, the first reaction by Finns was that wait a minute, there's gotta be an error here. There hadn't been any emphasis on testing in education, and the success came as a complete surprise. It was just an unintentional outcome, and in its way showed that maybe something had been done right.

And others say it's great. Again, Income "mobility" is the key, in my opinion. Of the poorest 20% in the US, nearly 2/3 of that population advances to a higher quintile within a generation. If that were impossible, then income inequality is bad. If there is robust income mobility, then the people on the bottom are there because they've chosen to be shitty people.

Well I guess I'll just have to take your word over the experts'.

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that the hardest schools show the best test results. I'm not sure volume of homework and tests translates directly to 'difficulty'.

Correlation doesth not causation imply.

Sounds kinda snarky. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Finlands schools are bad. And I'm not saying that US's are good. I am saying that they seem to have entirely different goals when it comes to educating kids, hence a standardized test result is not a great basis for comparison. Plus, as I said, the test doesn't seem to be as "standardized" as one may think.

Then it seems like we agree. All I pointed out that there's evidence that not "all public schools systems are bad".

The bolded is quite an exaggeration. McDonalds dominates Burger King. Coke dominates Pepsi. I'm not sure Nokia had that big of an advantage over Motorola, Samsung, LG, and whoever else. Nokia had a nice run....that's it.

Up until 2008 Nokia had an over 40% market share, the next up was Blackberry with under 20%. This was when iPhone was already out and Nokia in decline. I'd call that domination.

Millions of them. Literally millions of them.

That, by definition, makes absolutely no sense. Name one that's even in top 100, and we can laugh at your idea of great.

What? Are you kididing me right now? Isn't that the whole point of this argument....that Finland has so many kids acheiving at rates higher than the worldwide average? If Finland had an even distribution of below, average, and above average kids, then they would be in the middle of the pack in the world rankings. But they're not....they're at the top.

Man I hate explaining jokes.

You're assuming that only money motivates people, and even to the extent that if your monetary advantage for succeeding in your country is smaller than it might be in some other country, no one's gonna bother. That's wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin to dissect it.

[BananaStand]

Well I guess I'll just have to take your word over the experts'.

What "experts"? Are you suggesting that there is a definitive right/wrong determination on whether income inequality is a good thing or a bad things? Because there isn't. There's substantial debate supporting both sides. My personal preference, is to have income inequality along with income mobility. If there is no mobility, then inequality sucks. But if there is mobility, and you're not happy with you're income, you can do something about it. That's awesome.

That, by definition, makes absolutely no sense. Name one that's even in top 100, and we can laugh at your idea of great.

Top 100 what? Are you saying that something as subjective as intelligence has been definitively ranked down to a list of the top 100 out of every human ever? If you're trying to suggest that there is no correlation between academic aptitude and lifetime earnings....you're out of your mind.

You're assuming that only money motivates people, and even to the extent that if your monetary advantage for succeeding in your country is smaller than it might be in some other country, no one's gonna bother. That's wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin to dissect it.

of course people are motivated by more than money. But to say that money isn't firmly planted at or near the top of the list is absurd. If you're born into the bottom income bracket in a given country, you can make 10x more money by moving to the top. In another country with less income inequality, the increase from bottom to top is only 5x. If you're a bright motivated individual....where would you rather live? Does it really make a difference to you if schools in the 5x country have better test scores than the 10x country?

Do you want a better paycheck? or do you wanna be just a little bit better at high school algebra than everyone else?

[wufwugy]

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

This helps show why using the small pieces of data and extrapolating to the whole doesn't work that well. My Chinese studies professor claims that the testing system for Chinese pre-college is doing more harm to them than good. They do score better, but the atypically intense inefficient approach they use is costly to their psychological, social, and even professional health.

[Jack Sawyer]

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?

Hmm, on this particular point, she can “say yes” on the spot, be into it and everything with second and third helpings and all, and then “say no” four months after the fact and it would still be considered rape in Sweden.

[BananaStand]

Hmm, on this particular point, she can “say yes” on the spot, be into it and everything with second and third helpings and all, and then “say no” four months after the fact and it would still be considered rape in Sweden.

No, it would be considered as a reported incident of rape, not definitively a rape.

[Jack Sawyer]

No, it would be considered as a reported incident of rape, not definitively a rape.

Semantics

[BananaStand]

Semantics

lol, really??

Ok then. Reported rape and real rape are the same thing. So then Sweden really is the rape capital of the world, right?

[Jack Sawyer]

lol, really??

Ok then. Reported rape and real rape are the same thing. So then Sweden really is the rape capital of the world, right?

Thanks for that sarcastic point, as that is exactly what has been argued for a long, long time now

[Jack Sawyer]

What "experts"? Are you suggesting that there is a definitive right/wrong determination on whether income inequality is a good thing or a bad things? Because there isn't. There's substantial debate supporting both sides. My personal preference, is to have income inequality along with income mobility. If there is no mobility, then inequality sucks. But if there is mobility, and you're not happy with you're income, you can do something about it. That's awesome.

Do keep in mind that this can lead to an increase in crime as well.

Do you want a better paycheck? or do you wanna be just a little bit better at high school algebra than everyone else?

This is not mutually exclusive. How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

[BananaStand]

Do keep in mind that this can lead to an increase in crime as well.

I guess, but that's a really convoluded connection. Yes crime and poverty are linked, but who says that those at the bottom of the income inequality scale are actually "poor". They could just be "poor-er" than those at the top. I mean, a 'poor' household in America still has three TVs, two Xbox's, and a leased car that's probably nicer than mine.

This is not mutually exclusive. How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.

Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

[Jack Sawyer]

I guess, but that's a really convoluded connection. Yes crime and poverty are linked, but who says that those at the bottom of the income inequality scale are actually "poor". They could just be "poor-er" than those at the top. I mean, a 'poor' household in America still has three TVs, two Xbox's, and a leased car that's probably nicer than mine.

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.


This is one of the main reasons why I’m a firm supporter of leveling the playing field and make it at least as easy as possible to get a proper education for everyone that would like one.


As Mojo correctly pointed out some posts back, it should be cumpolsory up to a certain point. You just have to expect a few things from your populace these days. Also, a well educated populace is much more difficult to fool, wuf.

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.


Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

[wufwugy]

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.


This is one of the main reasons why I’m a firm supporter of leveling the playing field and make it at least as easy as possible to get a proper education for everyone that would like one.


As Mojo correctly pointed out some posts back, it should be cumpolsory up to a certain point. You just have to expect a few things from your populace these days. Also, a well educated populace is much more difficult to fool, wuf.





Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

We want the same things.

[Jack Sawyer]

We want the same things.

I have come to realize this. We are just in some disagreement on what is the better way to get there

[BananaStand]

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.

What do you mean "against all odds"? How hard is it really to earn a living and not steal?

It is a fact that in America, 90% of the people who live above the poverty line share three common traits. Conversely, 90% of the people who live below poverty are missing one or more of these three traits. They are:
1) Finish high school. It doesn't have to be a good school, the stats make no delineation for quality of education. You just have to show up.
2) Don't have a baby until you're at least 21 years old
3) Have that baby after you get married.

Schools are open and it's legal to buy condoms. What's "absurdly hard" about that?

Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

Probably pretty good. Still not seeing your point though.

[Jack Sawyer]

What do you mean "against all odds"? How hard is it really to earn a living and not steal?

It is apparently very hard for a person who has absolutely nothing. Be desperate enough and you are going to get forced to take desperate measures. This compounded with the media always glorifying the lives of the haves, the phenomenon of predatory lending and debtors prisons, etc. You end up with people with immense thirst of upward mobility, but no real way to get there legit.


But I’m going off course there.

It is a fact that in America, 90% of the people who live above the poverty line share three common traits. Conversely, 90% of the people who live below poverty are missing one or more of these three traits. They are:
1) Finish high school. It doesn't have to be a good school, the stats make no delineation for quality of education. You just have to show up.
2) Don't have a baby until you're at least 21 years old
3) Have that baby after you get married.


Schools are open and it's legal to buy condoms. What's "absurdly hard" about that?

Sure. However, two key determinants for premarital condom use is religiosity and education level. Too much religion or too little education both lead towards inadequate condom usage, ergo undesired results. Parents are also key determinants on both these things. Politicians (mostly right wing) are also crucial factors on the lower condom usage rates because of religion.


Massive catch-22.

Probably pretty good. Still not seeing your point though.

Great. Do you believe that if he wasn’t any “probably pretty good” at high school algebra, he’d still be in the position he is now? Do bear in mind that he has a PhD in computer engineering.