$100? That amounts to probably 50 cents per hour of studying necessary to pass the damn thing.

 

Considering how much money the government steals from property owners every year, $20 for a C is the least they could do.

 

Come to think of it, let's pump it up to $1,000 per A. :D

 

I think the most simple way to revamp public schooling would be to make teaching a much more competitive job. The teachers have no incentive to do well. I can tell some of them hate working with kids and they're just there for the pay check.

That's interesting, but not everything is based on money though. Say you're in a class with people who have learning disabilities, and you're a genious so if you're getting $100 everytime, and they're not how would that make them feel. And plus if you were only learning to get payed, you would never really learn for your own good ...:\

 

Well there are a few common assumptions here, so I'll try to explain why I think this is a good idea:

 

1. There will always be stragglers in every class. Just because their smarter peers are making money, doesn't mean they can't make money also. So because Jimmy got $100, doesn't mean Alfie (who fathered a baby girl at 12) was stolen from.

 

Think about the economics that could happen here. Alfie could approach Jimmy and say, "Hey buddy, if you help me study for this test coming up, and I get a B, I'll give you 20 dollars! 30 dollars if I can get an A!" Jimmy would be incentivized to help Alfie get an A, because they're on the same "team" so to speak.

 

2. Everybody has subjects that interest them. They'll research these subjects on their own time, and excel when their favorite subjects happen to come up in a class they're taking. So we shouldn't worry about kids having no interests outside of money. The pursuit of money is what makes kids try to get good grades in the first place, because they're looking to get a good job. Only for some, the reward of having a good job after graduation isn't tangible and immediate enough. The carrot has to appear closer and within reach.

Well there are a few common assumptions here, so I'll try to explain why I think this is a good idea:

 

1. There will always be stragglers in every class. Just because their smarter peers are making money, doesn't mean they can't make money also. So because Jimmy got $100, doesn't mean Alfie (who fathered a baby girl at 12) was stolen from.

 

Think about the economics that could happen here. Alfie could approach Jimmy and say, "Hey buddy, if you help me study for this test coming up, and I get a B, I'll give you 20 dollars! 30 dollars if I can get an A!" Jimmy would be incentivized to help Alfie get an A, because they're on the same "team" so to speak.

 

2. Everybody has subjects that interest them. They'll research these subjects on their own time, and excel when their favorite subjects happen to come up in a class they're taking. So we shouldn't worry about kids having no interests outside of money. The pursuit of money is what makes kids try to get good grades in the first place, because they're looking to get a good job. Only for some, the reward of having a good job after graduation isn't tangible and immediate enough. The carrot has to appear closer and within reach.

 

Why are you so much smarter than everyone else?

Because I drank my Ovaltine.

 

More Ovaltine, please!

Ahh you just reminded me of The Christmas Story. Good movie.

Jay:

I disagree when you say kids only try to get good grades for better jobs later. I (and a couple of other super-nerdy kids I know) decided at some point in elementary school (when I was in a public school still) that I would get nothing but A's in the rest of my classes for the rest of my school career -- basically just to see if I could (and also as a sort of competition with my friends -- yeah, that was how we competed xD). I didn't even (and still don't) care about making much money in my future life. I mean, there are some people out there who are actually interested in knowledge for its' own sake. Not that your point isn't valid or anything, I just felt like randomly saying that out of the blue. :D

 

edit: also your Ovaltine comment is amazing xD

Well there are a few common assumptions here, so I'll try to explain why I think this is a good idea:

 

1. There will always be stragglers in every class. Just because their smarter peers are making money, doesn't mean they can't make money also. So because Jimmy got $100, doesn't mean Alfie (who fathered a baby girl at 12) was stolen from.

 

Think about the economics that could happen here. Alfie could approach Jimmy and say, "Hey buddy, if you help me study for this test coming up, and I get a B, I'll give you 20 dollars! 30 dollars if I can get an A!" Jimmy would be incentivized to help Alfie get an A, because they're on the same "team" so to speak.

 

2. Everybody has subjects that interest them. They'll research these subjects on their own time, and excel when their favorite subjects happen to come up in a class they're taking. So we shouldn't worry about kids having no interests outside of money. The pursuit of money is what makes kids try to get good grades in the first place, because they're looking to get a good job. Only for some, the reward of having a good job after graduation isn't tangible and immediate enough. The carrot has to appear closer and within reach.

 

Oh well,okay I see your points, it makes sence in way and that'd actually be pretty sweet if we got payed if we do good at school, the only problem that would be there still is that the population of US is 303,824,640 and probably more than half of that would be kids.Same probably with Canda which would be where I live, but we've got like what 10 times less people. I know that America is a very rich country and would be even richer if they didn't spend money on stupid things sometimes, but to pay every single one of the kids would be almost impossible and probably a waste, because there's always much more important things you can put the money into...

 

EDIT: Ovaltine LMAOO :P

Right, so noonsun's interest is academics. But let's face it, most people aren't interested in making A's just to make A's.

 

I chose to take a bunch of classes in college that I didn't need to take, just because I was interested in the subjects. Like Italian, Economics, 2D Art, etc. None of these helped with my major or were required for me to graduate.

 

My point is that it's not "dirty" to want money. It's just a useful incentive. And there are only two types of incentives, the whip or the carrot. So I'd go with the carrot.

 

EDIT: And to be honest, I didn't even do very well in some of the classes I took for fun. I got a C in Italian and a C in Philosophy of Art. But I exposed myself to those subjects, and the classes were fun. It wasn't a stressful rigor.

Right, so noonsun's interest is academics. But let's face it, most people aren't interested in making A's just to make A's.

 

True dat. :D

I used to be like that, during elementary school. I wonder what happened...?

I used to be like that, during elementary school. I wonder what happened...?

 

It's called getting "burned out". Some people do it faster than others.

 

There's a girl I know who was the valedictorian of our high school and she went to the same university as me. She graduated summa cum laude from there, and now she's decided to become a librarian and she's marrying a cop. She got burned out a little later than most. But I don't think burnout would happen so often if school weren't so rigid.

Halfway through elementary school I started getting sort of disinterested in learning stuff -- I mean I still was at the top of my class because I paid a lot of attention to things in general, but the "spark' that I had when I was younger sort of sputtered out. Then my dad pulled me out of school and I sat around doing mostly whatever I wanted to do for all of middle school and now that I'm back in high school I seem to be... re-interested in learning most things in general. So I think you're right; I think if people did what I did the world would be... generally better. But without federal schools I honestly have no idea where we would be -- not everybody has time to school their own children and shouldn't be obligated to, in my opinion. So I don't have any beef with the public schools. :shrug:

Well if we didn't have a public education system, we would have billions in extra money sloshing around in the economy every year. But the impetus to get a good education would still exist, so private schools would fill the void. They probably wouldn't be nearly as large or ostentatious as public schools.

 

The whole business of educating children would be very competitive and different schools would brag about their successes in order to attract customers. Some existing companies might go into the school business, especially if they have real estate holdings in an area where there is a demand for another school. So you might see something along the lines of a Darden Restaurants spinoff school. And your kids would be offered a shoe-in job working at a Red Lobster or Olive Garden upon successful graduation, assuming they wanted it.

 

That's just one idea, the free market could come up with many things that we haven't even thought of yet.

You rely on the free market for EVERYTHING. It's getting soo tiresome. Especially because you're actually right basically all of the time. T_T

 

Ovaltine made you a very, very smart person, Jay.

You rely on the free market for EVERYTHING. It's getting soo tiresome. Especially because you're actually right basically all of the time. T_T

 

Ovaltine made you a very, very smart person, Jay.

 

Haha, well any time you try to enforce something via theft or violence, the outcome is inefficient. And the government is basically theft and violence.

 

Human beings were designed to interact voluntarily.

 

It's not rocket science, it's what they taught you in kindergarden: don't take things and don't hit people.

Jay, you amaze me. :stunned:

Why are you so much smarter than everyone else?

 

What an American question to ask.

What an American question to ask.

 

 

What a non-American comment to make...

Well if we didn't have a public education system, we would have billions in extra money sloshing around in the economy every year. But the impetus to get a good education would still exist, so private schools would fill the void. They probably wouldn't be nearly as large or ostentatious as public schools.

 

The whole business of educating children would be very competitive and different schools would brag about their successes in order to attract customers. Some existing companies might go into the school business, especially if they have real estate holdings in an area where there is a demand for another school. So you might see something along the lines of a Darden Restaurants spinoff school. And your kids would be offered a shoe-in job working at a Red Lobster or Olive Garden upon successful graduation, assuming they wanted it.

 

That's just one idea, the free market could come up with many things that we haven't even thought of yet.

 

One of the problems in society is that you can't afford a private school, than government schools become the monopoly. On top of that you have hazards like the no child left behind act and teachers unions making learning conditions worse, and there's often no alternative. So you're stuck.

 

My favorite Neal Boortz quote is where he says: "Teachers Unions are much more dangerous than Al Qaeda...Look, Al Qaeda, they could bring in a nuke into this country and kill 100,000 people with a well-placed nuke somewhere. Ok. We would recover from that. It would be a terrible tragedy, but the teachers unions in this country can destroy a generation."

 

The other nice thing about home-schooling is that you do get a taste of that free market. There are all kinds of textbooks and Curriculum's, much better than the government's, that you can choose from for your child.

Chris, that's a good point, it's nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher in a public school.

 

There is a fear that if education were privatized, there would only be expensive private schools to choose from, and children of poor families would go without education. That's like saying that if the food industry were privatized (it already is!) there would only be filet mignon and rock lobster. There are always tiers of goods/services spanning luxury through basic.

 

PS: I love your avatar! :D

What an American question to ask.

 

If you have such a negative attitude all the time why do you come here? I honestly can't say I've heard a positive thing come from you.

 

PS: I love your avatar! :D

 

 

 

 

Lol, I was only going to have it on for an hour to see people's reactions, but the feedbacks been so good, I might just hold on to dear old Alice.

 

 

If you have such a negative attitude all the time why do you come here? I honestly can't say I've heard a positive thing come from you.

 

What in the world could possibly be negative about something American? Have some pride young man!

If you have such a negative attitude all the time why do you come here? I honestly can't say I've heard a positive thing come from you.

 

If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!

 

Incidentally that's the Washington press corps' position on the Obama administration.

ba-zing!

Lol, I was only going to have it on for an hour to see people's reactions, but the feedbacks been so good, I might just hold on to dear old Alice.

 

 

 

 

What in the world could possibly be negative about something American? Have some pride young man!

 

Haha thanks for pointing that out. Technicolorgreeneyes, I appreciate the compliment. :)