Political & Elections

BigG · Guru

RE: Our future economic death.

Abyss · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

Why should anyone expect any help for white collar workers?

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 2nd of January 2011 10:32:54 PM

The difference, of course, is that the only significant wealth generation which has happened in the US over the past 2 decades has been from technology development. If that doesn't continue then there simply won't be any more GDP (per capita) growth.

When that happens (average GDP per capita doesn't rise) then you might as well toss the playbook out the window in attempting to predict what will happen. That hasn't ever happened in the history of the world aside from a military conflict.

-- Edited by Abyss on Monday 3rd of January 2011 12:21:03 AM

BigG · Guru

Our venal and shortsighted leaders, both government and private, did NOTHING to prevent the devastation of the blue collar workforce over the latest 30 years.

Why should anyone expect any help for white collar workers?

Why are CEO and top executive salaries the highest in the world by multiples, not just percents? The stock prices certainly haven't warranted this level of compensation.

Where are the "big profits" from outsourcing?

Where are the dividends from investments in China?

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 2nd of January 2011 10:32:54 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

FFF wrote:

Abyss wrote:

FFF wrote:

Unless something happens that causes domestic job creation in the science/engineering fields, it really doesn't matter how many engineers we produce out of our schools. Companies are outsourcing engineering jobs to developing countries because they can get it done cheaper there. It is not because there is a lack of talent in this country.

What do you mean? Engineers (as a job class) have weathered this recession better than any single group except maybe medical personnel.

Engineering is *the* strongest undergraduate major to get, period. The highest chance of getting a job, and the highest starting wage.
All you are saying is that engineers are faring less badly than others. Perhaps that's true. However, there is still a surplus of them in this country, primarily because of outsourcing. I can show you entire buildings in NJ that used to employ thousands of engineers that are now sitting empty because their jobs are now being performed in other countries. Churning out more of them from our schools will just cause more of them to be un- or under-employed unless, as I said, some way can be found to stop the outsourcing of engineering jobs.

Here's some reading to support this view:
http://www.cspo.org/products/lectures/061803.pdf

http://memagazine.asme.org/articles/2009/March/Shift_Offshoring.cfm

I didn't see nary a statistic involving engineer *unemployment*. That's the only statistic we need to look at.

busdriver11 · Guru

"bus- My point was that my views have changed since then. I no longer feel that way about private schools. I hated them when I was there, but I more realize I was just in a bad school. Hope that clarifies :)"

Sure, I understand. I was just trying to address the diversity in private schools, really. Some are pretty crummy, some are fantastic, some kids have elitist attitudes, some don't. Some may be great for a certain type of kids, others aren't. It is great to live next to a big city that is very pro-education and have more options. It can be hard to figure out whether you're getting your moneys worth before the kid attends, though. Children are all so complicated, with their different personality and physical issues! Back in the good (?) old days, we just went to our local school, got pushed around or ignored, and couldn't wait to get out of high school (though we blew our classes off anyways). Times sure have changed!

"Note rich kids just go private. The students getting the shaft are the smart but less-affluent kids."

Not always. There are a number of scholarships out there that most private schools provide. About 30% of our son's school student body is on scholarship. It's like college, alot of financial aid out there if you look for it.

busdriver11 · Guru

"For the sake of a very few, statistically insignificant "late bloomers", we degrade the public educational experience for everyone else."

"I see the Pareto Principle in effect each day in the school systems. It's the squeaky wheel parents who get the enrichment their kids need. I get it - the teachers are busy trying to deal with kids who aren't quite there yet, intellectually or socially, or have other special learning issues or are discipline issues. I see how many of these teachers bitch about the parents who expect their kids to not be bored out of their skulls."

Of course, it's not always just the public schools with these issues. Private schools who are very select can boot these kids in a minute, but those who are trying to keep the student body to make the rent payments, often put up with bad behavior. When my youngest was in a private school in first grade (and we transferred him the next year), the teacher told us and another parent that she was so busy watching over 3 or 4 trouble makers in the class, she couldn't even follow what ours were doing. And that's with only 12 kids. I can't imagine trying to make that work with 30-40.

BigG · Guru

But there is an easy solution.

Do what the rest of the world does and bust the disruptive, disengaged, and problem kids off the academic track.

Bomb your boards, NO college prep middle school and certainly no college prep high school. You are not even on the same campus.

We as a society are laboring under the delusion that if little Billie is just given a little (or a lot of) TLC, he/she can become a "rocket scientist.

This is an expensive and misguided delusion.

For the sake of a very few, statistically insignificant "late bloomers", we degrade the public educational experience for everyone else.

Resources are not infinite.

Note rich kids just go private. The students getting the shaft are the smart but less-affluent kids.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

bus- My point was that my views have changed since then. I no longer feel that way about private schools. I hated them when I was there, but I more realize I was just in a bad school. Hope that clarifies :).

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I have worked in a public school system for the better part of a decade and my kids were educated in this system.

That said, if I had to do it all over again with kid number one, I would have intervened earlier and trusted the process, less. I probably would have homeschooled or sent them to private schools. We live in a great school district, which I think doesn't always mean anything.

I see the Pareto Principle in effect each day in the school systems. It's the squeaky wheel parents who get the enrichment their kids need. I get it - the teachers are busy trying to deal with kids who aren't quite there yet, intellectually or socially, or have other special learning issues or are discipline issues. I see how many of these teachers bitch about the parents who expect their kids to not be bored out of their skulls.

For some great teachers, those kids aren't a "problem". They figure out quickly how to make sure Johnny or Susie are getting what they need.

For others, it's a pain and inconvenient and "don't the parents already know how much work we are doing"?

God forbid you want to take your kid on a trip to explore part of the country or world for a week or more. Such a hassle to get them a homework packet together. (Hey - tip - why not actually have the kids not do busy work and write about their adventures if they are old enough, or create a multimedia presentation or something cool, instead of just worksheets?)

So much time is spent on worksheets that don't foster real intellectual learning and innovative and unproven methods of instruction (IMO - see, U Chicago Everyday Math). Let's cater to the kid's attention deficit issues and give them a taste of everything that math has to offer before grade 6 without real mastery in any of the subjects. Actual multiplication tables memorization - too boring! Let's show them how to do Lattice multiplication and not carry long division to the final remainder place were highlights when my kids were in elementary school. We had to reteach them how to some of these basics when we realized these bright kiddos were lost. (And yet getting excellent marks.)

But I also see how some of these systems built into a traditional public school classroom environment has pushed some of those kids into burnout mode or just total disinterest in learning for the sake of learning. It's...inevitable. (Sorry, I am in cynical mode, today.)

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Sunday 2nd of January 2011 10:22:41 AM

BigG · Guru

Parochial schools are generally cheaper than "private" schools.

They get about the same good results because troublemakers can by bumped back to public schools.

The Pareto principal in public education; 80% of the effort goes toward 20% of the students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Other observations related to the Pareto Principle;
20% of the fishermen catch 80% of the fish
20% of the businessmen make 80% of the money
20% of the UN provides 80% of its budget
20% of the workers create 80% of the flaws in an industrial process
etc.

These aren't hard numbers, just indications of trends.

busdriver11 · Guru

"I always swore to myself that I would NEVER put my children in private schools because I hated the private school attitude and rules and all that."

Your uncle was very kind to look out for you as he did. But private schools are vastly different, you can't paint them with a broad brush at all. Parochial schools may be comparably reasonably priced (and some are a huge bargain for the education), but there are stricter rules and religious education required. There is an amazing Catholic school where we live, and they accept kids of all faiths and give them a fantastic education. On the other hand, when we lived in the mid-South, I was talking to someone about this amazing school her daughter was attending, and she was so enamoured of it that I thought I should investigate. When I asked why she liked it so much, she said, "They don't waste alot of time with that reading, writing, stuff....they spend their time teachin them the WORD!"

But the school my kids have gone to is non religious, college prep....with very limited rules. They have a great deal of trust in the students, who have quite a bit of control, and you will find they get into far less trouble than the local public school kids. There are not any mindless rules that I can think of, and they are always completely responsive to the parents.
I'm not sure what you mean by the private school attitude, because people's attitudes completely depend upon their personalities, the schools themselves, and localities. And the cost varies greatly, with location and school, of course.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I, too, went into private schooling early on. When I moved to Michigan, they wanted to throw me into special ed because of my dyslexia, despite the fact that my IQ was already tested in the genius range and I scored in the 99th percentile of every test (IOWAs, MEAPs, etc) they threw at me (it was the second or third worst district in the state at the time). My uncle paid for me to go to private school (provided it was Catholic) and I was able to receive a fairly good education (although with very limited opportunities like no honor classes and only one year ahead in math due to the ~20 kids in my graduating class). I was then lucky to go to the largest public high school in the country with very good opportunities.

I always swore to myself that I would NEVER put my children in private schools because I hated the private school attitude and rules and all that. But, I couldn't imagine myself putting them in public schools as they stand now (although hopefully that is ~10 years down the line). I want to home school so that we could all travel, but I really do believe children need some sort of structured environment. Perhaps Montessori if I can afford it? Who knows what it's going to be like in a decade anyway.

Maybe I'll just move and we won't have to deal with this lol. Also, I can't believe the prices some of you are paying. My entire K-8 schooling was less than $30k.

ETA: Have any of you ever heard of the Open School in Ann Arbor? Everyone who graduated went to college but it was forced to be drastically changed because of NCLB. I wish it would have survived because it would have been almost perfect for what I want.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Sunday 2nd of January 2011 08:32:13 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

"Totally agree with this. When my son was in 1st grade at what was suppose to be the 'best' public elementary school in our district, I witnessed this attitude first hand. He was echons ahead of his class and all the school would do was give him extra worksheets to take home so I could work with him. The guidance counselor told us point blank, "Don't worry...by 5th grade all the other students will have caught up with him." My husband and I were incredulous, to say the least.

We pulled him out of the public school system after that and put him the best private school in our city. Despite having shelled out over $100,000 for his 2-12 grade education, we have no regrets. I would have worked three jobs to keep him there if necessary. It was worth every penny."

I can commiserate with your situation, momlive. We never expected to put our kids in private schools, it was never a consideration. We bought a house in the best school district in town, and in 1st grade, our older son was miserable. The school called us every other day saying he was sick with something or another, and he really seemed to be. We thought there was something seriously wrong with him physically, or something at the school was making him sick. When we realized it was the extreme boredom, as a quiet child causing no problems got no attention....we tried to get him into the accelerated program. The only way into the program was to do well on standardized testing. The first day he tested in the 99 percentile, the second day he went home with a 104 degree temperature, the third day he missed. Big public school, no makeup tests, no exceptions allowed. They refused to let him into the accelerated program, against advice of his teacher and our requests. Rules must be followed mindlessly.

He went into private school the next year, and never left. We felt that we had to put the younger one in the same schools, it seemed unfair otherwise. That fever of his, that mindless decision by the school....has cost us about a half a million dollars in private school costs. Not including any college. Had we realized the entire cost, maybe we would have figured something else out and not let them step the first foot into private school. But both kids have been so happy and successful, never bullied, always challenged....I have a hard time regretting it. Though it sure has been alot of money over the years.

FFF · Veteran Member

Abyss wrote:

FFF wrote:

Unless something happens that causes domestic job creation in the science/engineering fields, it really doesn't matter how many engineers we produce out of our schools. Companies are outsourcing engineering jobs to developing countries because they can get it done cheaper there. It is not because there is a lack of talent in this country.

What do you mean? Engineers (as a job class) have weathered this recession better than any single group except maybe medical personnel.

Engineering is *the* strongest undergraduate major to get, period. The highest chance of getting a job, and the highest starting wage.

All you are saying is that engineers are faring less badly than others. Perhaps that's true. However, there is still a surplus of them in this country, primarily because of outsourcing. I can show you entire buildings in NJ that used to employ thousands of engineers that are now sitting empty because their jobs are now being performed in other countries. Churning out more of them from our schools will just cause more of them to be un- or under-employed unless, as I said, some way can be found to stop the outsourcing of engineering jobs.

Here's some reading to support this view:
http://www.cspo.org/products/lectures/061803.pdf

http://memagazine.asme.org/articles/2009/March/Shift_Offshoring.cfm

BigG · Guru

I said "far right". NMF material.

MomLive · In exile

romanigypsyeyes wrote:

My best friend's mom is a public school teacher here in one of the best districts in MI. She says that what "No child left behind" really means is "No child gets ahead." Unless you're lucky enough to live in districts with magnet or TAG programs (which many, MANY gifted students are not) you are being neglected if you're on the right of the bell curve. There aren't many enrichment programs (unless you have the money to pay for them) and the gifted students really just finish their easy work and then have to sit and be bored until the less gifted students are finished with their work. I see a lot of talent going to waste, even in my first grade classroom.

Totally agree with this. When my son was in 1st grade at what was suppose to be the 'best' public elementary school in our district, I witnessed this attitude first hand. He was echons ahead of his class and all the school would do was give him extra worksheets to take home so I could work with him. The guidance counselor told us point blank, "Don't worry...by 5th grade all the other students will have caught up with him." My husband and I were incredulous, to say the least.

We pulled him out of the public school system after that and put him the best private school in our city. Despite having shelled out over $100,000 for his 2-12 grade education, we have no regrets. I would have worked three jobs to keep him there if necessary. It was worth every penny.

A friend whose daughter is ranked #13 in her public high school of 500 has never had to give an oral presentation, scored in the 50th percentile on the PSAT and despite having taken pre-calculus in 10th grade, scored very poorly on the math section.

IMHO, we need national education standards.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

At present, we do not fail to nurture the far right of the bell curve.

I disagree. Yes, at the university level we can cater towards the far right. However, at the K-12 level, we are doing a severe disservice to our gifted students.

My best friend's mom is a public school teacher here in one of the best districts in MI. She says that what "No child left behind" really means is "No child gets ahead." Unless you're lucky enough to live in districts with magnet or TAG programs (which many, MANY gifted students are not) you are being neglected if you're on the right of the bell curve. There aren't many enrichment programs (unless you have the money to pay for them) and the gifted students really just finish their easy work and then have to sit and be bored until the less gifted students are finished with their work. I see a lot of talent going to waste, even in my first grade classroom.

BigG · Guru

At present, we do not fail to nurture the far right of the bell curve. Our top schools at all levels are the best in the world (and are generally private). Generous scholarship availability makes these schools accessible to almost all the top few percent of students, rich or poor. As our economic position deteriorates, this will change for the worse.

We as a society fail at providing the leftmost 60% of the curve with productive work and appropriate education.

What enables a high school graduate of modest intellectual ability to contribute almost as much to the economy as an MD?

CAPITAL INVESTMENT!!

And what has China been looting and plundering from our society for decades?

Why should the capital that took centuries to form and accumulate in the US be allowed to award itself to a foreign, adverse society with an antagonistic socioeconomic structure?

Punish treason, whether political or economic.

Or just roll over and die.

It is not a question of "free markets". The Chinese are manipulating the "markets" both for investment and production and have been doing so for decades.

And to those who say the "free market" is too big to be manipulated, I say FOOLS!!!

-- Edited by BigG on Friday 31st of December 2010 01:37:33 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Friday 31st of December 2010 01:38:01 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Friday 31st of December 2010 01:39:12 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Friday 31st of December 2010 01:41:39 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Friday 31st of December 2010 01:43:28 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Friday 31st of December 2010 01:45:15 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:

"Top end schools limit slots because they want to keep average talent high. Period. If you doubled the class size of Cal Tech/MIT/Harvey Mudd then the average talent level will go down. It's not like there is infinite levels of talent in the world."

Nope, don't buy it. More like trying to keep their programs ultra elite. Cal Tech/Harvey Mudd----freaking teeny, tiny programs, numbers really low. Come on, tell me there's a whole lot of difference between the kid with the 2400 SAT/4.5GPA and the 2380/4.4 GPA. Not exactly. Particularly when those kids are going to different high schools, with different offerings, teachers and grading scales. Those schools turn down so much talent because they have so few slots, it is ridiculous. It sure as heck isn't because they are only taking the top talent. They have so many talented kids throwing themselves at those schools, they can hardly figure out whom to choose.

At these schools the scores are more of a prerequisite. Extra-curriculars would be where the "sacrifices" would be made.

Regardless - it doesn't matter. If you can't get into MIT, you can get into a ton of schools right below that level that are of similar quality. So, you get into UMich or Cal instead...I fail to see the calamity. If you can't get into Cal you can go to GT. There are solutions to these 'problems'. It still doesn't address why the percentage of STEM college graduates is down significantly from 1971 (and in many majors are less than the absolute amount is actually less). It just doesn't bode well all around and a change in class size at every school won't make the difference people either can't graduate or don't want to do it.

-- Edited by Abyss on Wednesday 29th of December 2010 12:07:22 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

"Top end schools limit slots because they want to keep average talent high. Period. If you doubled the class size of Cal Tech/MIT/Harvey Mudd then the average talent level will go down. It's not like there is infinite levels of talent in the world."

Nope, don't buy it. More like trying to keep their programs ultra elite. Cal Tech/Harvey Mudd----freaking teeny, tiny programs, numbers really low. Come on, tell me there's a whole lot of difference between the kid with the 2400 SAT/4.5GPA and the 2380/4.4 GPA. Not exactly. Particularly when those kids are going to different high schools, with different offerings, teachers and grading scales. Those schools turn down so much talent because they have so few slots, it is ridiculous. It sure as heck isn't because they are only taking the top talent. They have so many talented kids throwing themselves at those schools, they can hardly figure out whom to choose.

Abyss · Senior Member

FFF wrote:

Unless something happens that causes domestic job creation in the science/engineering fields, it really doesn't matter how many engineers we produce out of our schools. Companies are outsourcing engineering jobs to developing countries because they can get it done cheaper there. It is not because there is a lack of talent in this country.

Top end schools limit slots because they want to keep average talent high. Period. If you doubled the class size of Cal Tech/MIT/Harvey Mudd then the average talent level will go down. It's not like there is infinite levels of talent in the world.

Abyss · Senior Member

FFF wrote:

Unless something happens that causes domestic job creation in the science/engineering fields, it really doesn't matter how many engineers we produce out of our schools. Companies are outsourcing engineering jobs to developing countries because they can get it done cheaper there. It is not because there is a lack of talent in this country.

What do you mean? Engineers (as a job class) have weathered this recession better than any single group except maybe medical personnel.

Engineering is *the* strongest undergraduate major to get, period. The highest chance of getting a job, and the highest starting wage.

BigG · Guru

I am seeing a lot of drafting and design work go "offshore".

-- Edited by BigG on Tuesday 28th of December 2010 05:53:39 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

"That's completely false. It's easy to get into engineering in a vast number of schools. It's hard to graduate from engineering."

It depends upon which school you're looking at. I should have specified "top rated engineering programs." Many schools allow anyone to declare their major as engineering, without reguard to how many students are doing so. The schools we had looked at closely are considered top schools, and the students must apply to and be accepted by that specific department. Of those schools, engineering and computer science are always the toughest to get into. And yes, the toughest to graduate from.

FFF · Veteran Member

Unless something happens that causes domestic job creation in the science/engineering fields, it really doesn't matter how many engineers we produce out of our schools. Companies are outsourcing engineering jobs to developing countries because they can get it done cheaper there. It is not because there is a lack of talent in this country.

Abyss · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:

What is interesting to me, is that they make it so hard to get into some of these programs that we supposedly need people to major in. Some of the top programs have extremely limited slots...for those schools that don't automatically let people pick a major. Now I realize they are trying to make these majors "elite" and special, and only let people who can handle the work in them, but it doesn't make sense to limit the openings to just a few.

As a matter of course, it is always far harder to get into a STEM major.

That's completely false. It's easy to get into engineering in a vast number of schools. It's hard to graduate from engineering.

Abyss · Senior Member

Tom1944 wrote:

I bet that is due to the number of students now attending college. The bottom students that would not have attended in the early 70's are not going to major in hard science. While the % is lower what do the total number of hard science majors look like in 1971 and 2008?

You have the link. That a look. The absolute number of engineers peaked in 1985.

busdriver11 · Guru

What is interesting to me, is that they make it so hard to get into some of these programs that we supposedly need people to major in. Some of the top programs have extremely limited slots...for those schools that don't automatically let people pick a major. Now I realize they are trying to make these majors "elite" and special, and only let people who can handle the work in them, but it doesn't make sense to limit the openings to just a few.

As a matter of course, it is always far harder to get into a STEM major.

BigG · Guru

In 1971 if you tried to borrow money to study anything other than science, math, or engineering, you would be laughed out of the venue in which you made the request.

The only people who went to college back then were;

1. The rich

2. Hyper-intelligent nerds (Thank-you National Merit)

3.People with the determination to "work their way through" (this was actually possible back then)

4. The artistically gifted

5. The athletically gifted (a tip of the hat to my high school football coaches)
.
How has training a horde of lawyers and "well rounded" liberal arts graduates made society richer?

The conventional wisdom among educators, who don't actually work in the employment of necessity for most Americans, is that flexibility is better than specialization. This is crap. The technologies of the future will require laser like focus and dedication to master.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

I bet that is due to the number of students now attending college. The bottom students that would not have attended in the early 70's are not going to major in hard science. While the % is lower what do the total number of hard science majors look like in 1971 and 2008?

Abyss · Senior Member

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_271.asp

1971 (% of degrees awarded):
Engineering: 5.4%
Math/Stat: 3%
Phys Science: 2.5%

Basically STEM degrees were 11% of our graduates in 1971.

2008 (% of degrees awarded):
Engineering: 4.3%
Math/Stat: 1%
Phys Science: 1.4%

Basically STEM degrees were 6.7% of our graduates in 2008.

I guess that's what we call progress.