"The Real World" vs "School"...what I've learned...



  • @xaade said:

    Comon, where's blakey

    I have a job.



  • @xaade said:

    You want to fix poor schools. Here's the answer. Give incentive pay to teachers with a proven track record to teach in the failing schools, and fire the shit out of the teachers failing at the failing schools. If a full staff replacement doesn't fix the problem, it is a big red flashing sign out of hell that you can't fix that school.

    And that is really easy (technically, not politically) to do in the current school system. Note that this does not require vouchers to implement.



  • A job that doesn't allow you interject fairly. :P



  • I'm looking around at the poverty level and seeing IPads and Cellphones.

    Nope, the poor are worse off today than they were before.

    Not saying they shouldn't have access to that. Just saying that the argument that the poor are poorer today is unsubstantiated.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    And that is really easy (technically, not politically) to do in the current school system. Note that this does not require vouchers to implement.

    But is it really that easy to do technically? It seems like a difficult problem, from everything I've seen. I think vouchers are easier both technically and politically. If they don't have the benefit of reforming the shitty schools, they at least have the benefit of helping some people.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said:

    Nope, the poor are worse off today than they were before.

    Last year I saw this hilarious article somewhere where some 50+-year-old woman who'd been on welfare her entire life was ranting about her slumlord, and I thought, shit, lady, you've got a gigantic TV, hardwood floors, your house is immaculate, what exactly is the problem?



  • @FrostCat said:

    what exactly is the problem?

    Someone wants to hold her accountable for something.

    I just pity those people.

    How can you live your entire life without putting effort into anything more than arguing with government workers over what you are entitled to?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said:

    How can you live your entire life without putting effort into anything more than arguing with government workers over what you are entitled to?

    Well, for some value of "easy", it's easier than actually working.



  • It's been my experience that people can greatly underestimate "easy", and end up doing more work to stay lazy, than they'd do if they just did work at all.


  • :belt_onion:

    @xaade said:

    I think when the sources show a congressman asking why the IRS needs to train with AR-15s, it is sufficient evidence that the IRS is in fact training with AR-15s.

    Why do you need to train with your mother in the bedroom?

    *citation not required, my asking the question is clearly evidence enough that it happened.


  • :belt_onion:

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Why do you need to beat your wife?

    damnit i was :hanzo:d


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said:

    It's been my experience that people can greatly underestimate "easy", and end up doing more work to stay lazy, than they'd do if they just did work at all.

    That's true, but apparently they don't consider it "work".



  • Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) tweeted that he observed IRS agents training with AR-15s when he toured the Department of Homeland Security.

    IRS response:

    As law enforcement officials, IRS Criminal Investigation
    Special Agents are equipped similarly to other federal, state and local
    law enforcement organizations. Special Agents receive training on the
    appropriate and safe use of assigned weapons. IRS Criminal Investigation
    has internal controls and oversight in place to ensure all law
    enforcement tools, including weapons are used appropriately.

    Ok, what more do you want, an sealed affidavit personally delivered to your house.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @darkmatter said:

    Why do you need to train with your mother in the bedroom?

    If any US government body is going to use rifles, they're going, by and large, to use AR-15s. So the question really only is "is the IRS using rifles". They do have a police force, so it's not ridiculous to assume they have them.

    Also, here's a citation for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_Criminal_Investigation_Division, which mentions the AR-15, but http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-002-001.html#d0e1301 specifically mentions M&P15, which, if you google, you'll see is an AR-pattern rifle.



  • @FrostCat said:

    They do have a police force, so it's not ridiculous to assume they have them.

    We're getting to the point where people are questioning whether officers should have pistols, and yet the tax collectors have rifles.

    There is no reason the IRS can't call on another department to arrest a person.

    Having its own rifle-armed officers seems like a good way to hide things. And given its current record of abuse of power, this is concerning.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said:

    There is no reason the IRS can't call on another department to arrest a person.

    I would generally probably prefer that, but if you accept the legitimacy of the IRS in general, they are probably one of the few government agencies that actually do need their own police force.



  • @FrostCat said:

    they are probably one of the few government agencies that actually do need their own police force.

    As a throwback to the fact that we stopped mobsters by getting them in tax violations?


    On a different note of irony.
    ... yet we're having people in politically powerful positions who haven't paid their taxes, telling us we should pay ours.


  • BINNED

    @FrostCat said:

    I would generally probably prefer that, but if you accept the legitimacy of the IRS in general, they are probably one of the few government agencies that actually do need their own police force.

    Because if they need to show up at your house, guns will be involved one way or another?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said:

    As a throwback to the fact that we stopped mobsters by getting them in tax violations?

    This sub-sub-discussion is getting boring. I wasn't planning on getting into a big debate about it.



  • @xaade said:

    yet we're having people in politically powerful positions who haven't paid their taxes, telling us we should pay ours.

    Do you think the fact that they haven't paid their changes your situation? For example, on Tuesday, you think you shouldn't pay your taxes because he didn't pay his. Then, he pays his taxes on Wednesday. Thursday, would that change your stance, or would you just go look for another person that didn't pay their taxes?


  • :belt_onion:

    That wasn't so hard! A lot easier when the person making the claim simply cites something rather than multiple readers having to go hunt down a credible reference themselves if they don't believe every word they read on the internet.



  • @Jaime said:

    Do you think the fact that they haven't paid their changes your situation? For example, on Tuesday, you think you shouldn't pay your taxes because he didn't pay his. Then, he pays his taxes on Wednesday. Thursday, would that change your stance, or would you just go look for another person that didn't pay their taxes?

    EPIC STRAWMAN!!!!!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    That wasn't so hard!

    Yeah, but fuck off, I :hanzo:'d both your asses a long time ago. 😛



  • @darkmatter said:

    credible reference

    Agents actually fired their guns accidently more often than they intentionally fired them in the field, according to an audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

    :rofl:


  • :belt_onion:

    @xaade said:

    Agents actually fired their guns accidently more often than they intentionally fired them in the field

    well no wonder they need training!



  • @xaade said:

    EPIC STRAWMAN!!!!!

    Perhaps, but all "pot calling the kettle black" arguments are ad hominem, so one fallacious argument deserves another.



    1. I've paid my taxes.
    2. If I understand you correctly, you've opened up the possibility that personal issues are irrelevant to someone's accountability in leadership.

    I'm sorry but if someone has power to control and even accost me for various reasons including tax, they should have to pay their taxes too.

    That's not pot/kettle/black, and I didn't even imply that I would choose not to pay my taxes.

    I'm implying that they are being hypocritical.



  • :facepalm:



  • @xaade said:

    The IRS is buying up guns and ammunition.

    Oh belgium. I was just double checking when that happened, and I found this:

    Why the hell are they arming USPS‽ Does no one remember the term "going postal"?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    #citation needed

    Have 4.

    http://www.infowars.com/irs-refuses-to-answer-congressman-on-ar-15s-for-standoff-capability/



  • @Jaime said:

    Yes, as long as they don't make the school worse by doing so. That's the part of the voucher system that's bad.

    So you're saying it's a question between the following:

    1. Start the vouchers and let those who want a different school leave. But then you're screwing the kids who stayed behind because their schools are suddenly worse now that the "good" students are gone.
    2. Don't start the vouchers. But then you're screwing the kids who could do better in a private school but could only get there with the voucher program.

    If I'm understanding correctly, your argument sucks. If a school only survives because it is propped up by good students, then that school will eventually fail anyway. It isn't doing anyone any good keeping that school open. Give the kids the vouchers, let people out if they want, and let the shitty school collapse under its own dead weight. Then the students who can't leave no matter what should end up at a better school anyway!


    @xaade said:

    There is no reason the IRS can't call on another department to arrest a person.

    Having its own rifle-armed officers seems like a good way to hide things. And given its current record of abuse of power, this is concerning.

    QFT



  • @FrostCat said:

    You simply have no idea what you're talking about, and I say that as someone who went both to a private Catholic school and has been in the public school system.

    I've got news for you: Common Core is that crackpot-of-the-month educational experiment.

    +1.

    Ditto here.

    @Jaime said:

    If I don't have a suggestion, then vouchers are a good idea? I don't have to have a better alternative to inform you that someone has tried yours and it didn't work.

    Sometimes the idea isn't the problem. It could be the implementation of the idea is the problem, either in terms of manpower, timing, communication, etc. I do not believe anyone has fully investigated that. So, pointing to a few failures as an invalidation of an idea is something I would call insufficient evidence, pending a full investigation.

    Example (I CBA to search the link in this forum at the moment, so please forgive me if my memory is slightly off on the details):
    Tablets as an idea for a new way of computing:
    • Tablets as an idea for a new way of computing:
    Microsoft originally introduced it in 2002, was laughed at as ridiculous. <--- Oh look, tablets as an idea FAILED!!
    • Apple introduces their tablet (iPad) ca. 2007, everyone called it brilliant. <--- Wait a minute, tablets now successful?
    • Microsoft follows shortly thereafter, called a "copycat." <--- Copy the successful action as best you can.



  • @abarker said:

    Start the vouchers and let those who want a different school leave. But then you're screwing the kids who stayed behind because their schools are suddenly worse now that the "good" students are gone.

    It has nothing to do with the good students being gone. The way voucher programs work is that if a student doesn't use the voucher at their regular school, the money given to the alternate school comes from that regular school's budget. If it didn't, it would be just another education subsidy program. If half of the students leave, only half of the money is left. Some of that is absorbed by the fact that the school now has fewer students, but fixed costs don't scale that way.

    @abarker said:

    If I'm understanding correctly, your argument sucks.

    So, no, you didn't understand my argument.



  • @redwizard said:

    So, pointing to a few failures as an invalidation of an idea is something I would call insufficient evidence, pending a full investigation.

    Yup, but the initial evidence all points in the wrong direction. Many supporters of voucher programs pretend that it's totally common sense that it will work. The truth is that no one has yet fielded a successful program, so this should be treated as speculation and experimentation, not fact.



  • @FrostCat said:

    You simply have no idea what you're talking about, and I say that as someone who went both to a private Catholic school and has been in the public school system.

    The fact that public schools are bad has nothing to do with it. That logic would also suggest that since a Ford Expedition gets poor gas mileage, then putting expensive magnets on the fuel lines would be a good idea. The current state is simply the reason to have an idea, however, it cannot be used to evaluate the idea. See Politician's Fallacy.



  • @Jaime said:

    It has nothing to do with the good students being gone. The way voucher programs work is that if a student doesn't use the voucher at their regular school, the money given to the alternate school comes from that regular school's budget.

    Yes, but that portion of the budget comes from a part of their budget that is based on headcount anyway. Change the headcount, change the budget. If a few public schools end up needing to be consolidated because of reduced head count, then so be it.

    @Jaime said:

    So, no, you didn't understand my argument.

    Then next time, be a bit more explicit instead of expecting everyone to read 3 or 4 levels beyond what you actually say.



  • @xaade said:

    So, basically we'd rather ensure failure for all, than risk failure for some.

    How dare you question the status quo! Our Union demands we all be treated equally! Equal jobs at each school. Equal rights for all public employees! EQUAL FAILURE FOR ALL!

    Wait, what?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    If half of the students leave, only half of the money is left. Some of that is absorbed by the fact that the school now has fewer students, but fixed costs don't scale that way.

    And so a crappy school is less rewarded? What's the problem, again?



  • Yes, punishing the underperforming has proven to be such a useful motivator. You must have a PhD in Psychology. I'm sure making the bad school worse will raise our world education rankings too.



  • @Jaime said:

    Yes, punishing the underperforming has proven to be such a useful motivator. You must have a PhD in Psychology. I'm sure making the bad school worse will raise our world education rankings too.

    There are some (people, organizations) who refuse to perform. You can't help those people. You will go mad if you insist on trying.

    I'm with @boomzilla from the viewpoint that if we can help some of the ones who are otherwise disadvantaged if left as they are, it's better than letting them all rot.

    @Jaime said:

    Yup, but the initial evidence all points in the wrong direction. Many supporters of voucher programs pretend that it's totally common sense that it will work. The truth is that no one has yet fielded a successful program, so this should be treated as speculation and experimentation, not fact.

    Seems to me, if there aren't any other ideas to try, then further experimentation on the voucher idea is warranted. Because doing nothing to a system that is failing is not acceptable.



  • @Jaime said:

    Yup, but the initial evidence all points in the wrong direction. Many supporters of voucher programs pretend that it's totally common sense that it will work. The truth is that no one has yet fielded a successful program, so this should be treated as speculation and experimentation, not fact.

    And before you zone in on "privately funded" and "taking money away", you have to realize that schools get their funding based on how many students they have anyway. So, when some kid left because they got a privately funded voucher, the public school lost that money anyway.

    You're argument against vouchers would be an argument against letting people move.

    I can't tell you how many times I've heard a person lament that zoning put their kid at a school much farther away, and added more time to their commute.

    When the schools had to compete based on quality, the hired better teachers.

    Also, this is PBS. It definitely has a liberal slant.

    @redwizard said:

    There are some (people, organizations) who refuse to perform. You can't help those people. You will go mad if you insist on trying.

    Check the link. Student who refused to perform got better teachers, then started performing.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    Yes, punishing the underperforming has proven to be such a useful motivator.

    What's the punishment? They have fewer students to educate, they need less budget. That seems obvious.

    Why should we reward their failure with more and more money if they're just going to do more of the same? If the private schools can convince parents that they are a better deal, what's stopping the public schools from convincing parents that they aren't?

    @Jaime said:

    You must have a PhD in Psychology.

    It's better than your apparent PhD in Communism. Do you think that if a company provides an inferior product we should prop them up, too?

    @redwizard said:

    Seems to me, if there aren't any other ideas to try, then further experimentation on the voucher idea is warranted.

    Plus, it gives opportunities for people to try some other ideas. I'm starting to think that @Jaime is related to a public school teacher or something (so am I!) and isn't thinking clearly about this.



  • Except that were they've tested vouchers in America, the underperforming benefitted too.

    You're taking the left mentality here that anything you do to benefit the strong, inevitably hurts the weak.

    But you fail to understand that the strong are the engine for the system, and if you improve the engine, the system improves for the whole.

    Reality proves that aspect over and over.

    You also fail to understand that you simply cannot compare America to Europe, they have different goals and aspirations. Americans appreciate independence and self-sufficiency, but Europeans would rather give that up for a more uniform environment and outsource risk management to the government.

    Just like socialized medicine, I guarantee you it won't work here, because people want their independence. So any system we come up with here will inevitably be some hybrid that won't perform the same way as it does in Europe.

    The vast majority of health cases are simple and easy, and thus those cases benefit the most from socialized medicine; whereas the complex cases are hurt the most. Medium response becomes the worse (not high emergency, not something that can wait). These are more rare, and thus you'll have the majority of people praising socialized medicine, while the voices against it are drown out.

    Americans would rather spend their own money despite the high costs to be in control of the level of care they receive, rather than outsourcing those decisions to government.

    And so European policies will fail in America. And they do, time and time again. Socialized medicine started in Massachusetts and dropped their economy like a rock. Social policies destroyed Detroit. Louisiana has the worst economy in the country, because they don't want to take risks.



  • @abarker said:

    Why the hell are they arming USPS‽

    You know how opening someone else's mail is a federal offense?

    Santa Claws is watching.



  • @xaade said:

    Check the link. Student who refused to perform got better teachers, then started performing.

    Just to clarify, wasn't referring to those who refuse because the teacher is a dunce. I'm talking about the ones who refuse because they don't give a Belgium and neither do their parents. No teacher can reach them, except perhaps the very creative and constructive kind, which we can probably afford to allocate once we get the majority rolling along fine and fix the system so it doesn't punish teachers for straying from the program (even when the program is obviously broken).



  • @redwizard said:

    except perhaps the very creative and constructive kind

    That's what I'm talking about.

    Students appear to be the ones that refuse because they don't care, end up caring when they have a teacher that invests more than, "Read section 5, do problems 1-20"



  • I'd support it just to weaken teacher UNIONS, which are 98% of America's education problem.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    YES
    <validity



  • @xaade said:

    You're taking the left mentality here that anything you do to benefit the strong, inevitably hurts the weak.

    No, I'm following the evidence.
    @xaade said:
    Reality proves that aspect over and over.

    Currently, the evidence doesn't favor vouchers. If that changes, I will change my opinion.

    @boomzilla said:

    I'm starting to think that @Jaime is related to a public school teacher or something (so am I!) and isn't thinking clearly about this.

    I abhor teachers unions and I think most of them (in New York) are overpaid. You guys are doing a really bad job of guessing my motives, and in some cases, reading my posts.

    To be clear:

    1. I am of the opinion that US schools (especially inner city ones) could perform far better than they do. And I support trying to fix them.
    2. I believe that primary and secondary school teachers should not have tenure and should have a much stronger merit based component added to their jobs.
    3. I think all public employee unions are a bad idea and that the teacher's union is the worst of them.
    4. I don't subscribe to the Politician's Fallacy that we should try everything because the system is obviously broken.
    5. My opinion of vouchers is purely based on the fact that initial large scale programs haven't turned out very good. There have been some small scale successes.


  • @Jaime said:

    Currently, the evidence doesn't favor Europe's ability to implement conservative economics. If that changes, I will change my opinion.

    FTFY


Log in to reply