Saffire

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.

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.

Cute jacket, Julie! Did you get that at Delia's? My sister shops there alot.

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.

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.

It's called "sweating", girls. Us guys do that sometimes. :P

Because I drank my Ovaltine. More Ovaltine, please!

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.

$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.

You know how in America, politicians think spending more money will mean better grades? Yet we keep spending money and the grades keep going down. There's a simple solution to this. Just give students $100 for every A they get on a test. $50 for every B. And $20 for every C. Considering we already spend around $400,000 per classroom in America, this would be a paltry sum of money. But students would be so encouraged to study, they'd treat school like it was their job.

Agreed, I don't think sending me to an all-boys school would have helped me much in that regard. :P

Thanks for that interesting post, Chris. Growing up in a public school is tantamount to being in the military - you walk in lines, you change classes when you hear the bell, you're tested relentlessly. It's anti-individual. I'm still looking for the study about separating the sexes in school, but I remember the researchers speculated the reason the boys improved so much was because they are more competitive when there aren't girls around. Boys have a natural desire to be the best. But yeah, Josh is right. The whole "sit down and shut up" theory of learning really does work better for girls in general. Another interesting area I've been studying is Montessori schools. Both the co-founders of Google went to them, so they're obviously capable of generating an innovative class.

Here's another interesting psychology trick they should use in schools: If you separate boys and girls, both groups end up making better grades, with the boys showing even more improvement than the girls.

Well the whole idea of putting kids in groups of 30 in their own age bracket is entirely unnatural. It breeds immaturity. If kids are around older/younger people than themselves (like they were back in the days of one-room schoolhouses) they look up to the older kids and they consider themselves examples of behavior for their younger peers. Group psychology 101. Niggerfaggot.

When I was in middle school I remember everybody making fun of homeschooled kids for being socially inept. Then I went on a homeschool field trip with my brother (who was home schooled) and a bunch of other homeschooled kids. It turned out they were the most mature, approachable people I've ever met. And not only that, they could actually socialize with kids who were older/younger than they were. If I end up having kids I'll definitely consider homeschooling them.

Thanks, I'll make you a sig if you want. Just come up with an idea and PM me. At least I keep making money on my oil holdings to offset some of the cash I'm losing on the short end. If it's one thing I've learned from this market volatility the past few months, it's that traders enjoy seeing trends continue. I'm actually starting to think it pays to avoid contrarian sentiments sometimes.

Clooney just annoys me. He's too much of a smooth operator. I like guys who are slightly geeky/awkward/etc. EDIT: Who said backs can't be hot?

You watch spelling bees? lol I consider myself a pretty good speller, but I'm not as good as those Asian/Indian kids. I need a new cell phone. I think I might pick it up today. The one I've had for 5 years now still works fine but it's so raggedy and basic that I feel not as techy as I could be. Over the summer I was painting my room and I somehow managed to drop it in the bucket of paint, but I managed to fish it out with the dipstick. So it still has little flecks of paint in the hinges and around the buttons.

The easiest way to be funny is to say a totally inappropriate racial slur. My favorite is "niggerfaggot" because it appends an offensive slur against homosexuals and if you say it out loud, it has great alliteration. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug]YouTube - National Spelling Bee[/ame]

*puts hands on ears and la's.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5rF_X-8LiI]YouTube - Jesus Pwn3d U[/ame]

Hey Chris, let's go beat up some Democrats tonight. I'll bring the beer and paintball guns!

Well any dispute that isn't between individuals is in some way a collectivist argument. Like the Hattfield and McCoy family fight that lasted generations, until their descendants forgot what the hell they were fighting about to begin with. Or the Israel v Palestine dispute. None of the individual participants would actually die or give money (voluntarily) to continue these fights. They'd rather have a fatter paycheck and trade with their enemies. But their governments (the parasitic class) continue to tax them and continue to use their money to keep the fights going because it makes them look necessary. ("If it weren't for us, you'd be immediately invaded by the Chinese!" etc.) Another great quote: War is like the stock market for violence. By spreading the risk from one or two investors (fighters) to thousands of investors (soldiers), you make it easier to grow profits (violence) because each individual views the risk to him as being somehow diminished. (diversification)

As an anarchist, I view every little dispute like this as a side effect of statism. For all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the Federal Government, it sure does resemble a slave driver. EDIT: There's a great quote, from an old Boss Tweed cartoon, that went something like this: "You can always hire half the poor people to kill the other half." That's the perfect definition of the Civil War. Lincoln broke from the gold standard (by printing greenbacks) to pay his soldiers' salaries.

Well it's their way of making themselves feel superior. In much the same way Southern racists came up with the myth that black people are an inferior subspecies, Northern elitists view Southerners as the scum of the Earth. Everybody needs somebody to pick on.