No country on earth spends as much (per head) as the US on an presidential election. None. Howzat? Because the smarter countries have put caps on the money that can be spent, and provide free-of-cost sufficient TV air-time for "debate". Not the one-off Idiot Commercials that pollute American TV during a pre-election period, where candidates are "sold" as if they were Soap Powder and the punch-line is "I wash whiter than white!" Boob-tube Commercials are the worst possible way of electing a candidate - and the money spent rarely corresponds to the outcome in terms of performance. If you want "performance", one must look at the "promise". Promises in politics cannot always be kept. Our governance is a triumvirate of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial bodies - that all interact in the nation's politics. So, it is VERY SILLY to think that any particular outcome was the sole consequence of a Presidential Term of Office. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY From PRI (here) How many much needed schools can we build for that money? How many post-secondary degrees? I'll answer this second question: The NCER also tells me that only 45% of all high-schoolers will ever attain a post-secondary degree (that is, vocational or two-year or four-year or beyond).
My take on this has been consistent. Our best minds those young people with high intelligence, who also are committed to their educations should get a ,not a free ride, but a very affordable education say they cover past high school books, fees and a small amount for room& board and essentials but the bulk of the costs covered by the government this might be 15% of students each year (I will assume the ones with lower IQ but work hard to prove themselves should count). This education up to any level they can handle. Then down a tier the government should have Technical High Schools to teach employment based skills and this after two years of general education for students not going to college and Academic High Schools for the top 30% of students with half going on a free ride if they stay on track for a degree and the other half can get a same deal as the above but for a two year degree. The Technical track would prepare students in a broader way in a given area with certifications leading to apprenticeships, employment or one year of added education as they choose. After every five work years they would get one year of free education to keep their skills upgraded. Below that we get the lower performing student the bottom 30% they would get eight years of education and one year of employment training with the same deal above per five years OR if they are on the bottom of that pile the disabled unable to be employed, the losers who don't want to work etc. the system cuts them off until they work five years full time and prove they deserve a year of education. It might be best to put them in some kind of Basic Support a room, board and stipend of store credit for clothes and essentials and a Medicaid like healthcare system and assume they are a lost cause but this should be less than they could expect even working a crappy job and be bare bones. I personally would give the disabled more since they are unfit at this level to work. I think this would be ideal focusing resources wisely and working with industry and various levels of government employment including the armed forces to meet workforce needs. Of course the GI Bill, private education options but paid for without government backed loans and other options would be there as well and parents are free to pay for any option they can out of pocket.
Enough of the "free ride" nonsense please. (Which is thoroughly American. I never hear/read those reads applied to the necessity of Tertiary Education in Europe.) The DoD is a "free ride" for the defense of the nation? Then so is a national education program that, like secondary-schooling, allows free tertiary schooling (vocational, associates and bachelor degrees or higher)! In the very same sense, "Post-secondary Education" is also "defense of the nation" in terms of jobs. The world is going top-speed into the Information Age, leaving the Industrial Age to lower-cost manufacturing countries and highly robotic mechanization of production. About a century ago the US had the very same testy debate about secondary-schooling. You would likely be amazed to learn how many people were against it! (After all, the kids were working in the mines for a pittance as of 10 years of age!)
BS the only people who should go to college are those able to benefit either because they are smart enough and/or work for it not everyone that want to go get some degree over four years, I'm for other options as noted, for other less able or committed students. Wealthy students will always find a way and generally their parents and peers keep them on track to earn a degree even if its passed with a 2.0 average they are rich they will be community leaders so a degree makes sense even if in some liberal arts area. And yes I think ,and I'm disabled, if someone has the mind of a second grader and is in a wheelchair don't waste time educating them past eight grade and I wouldn't go that far its a waste of money put them at eighteen on a welfare program for life they will never hold a decent job. If they are more able train them for a year and get them to some kind of job. European nations don't blanket give everyone a college education they must generally be excellent students but they offer technical educations by other means which I support and yes giving up on some students who are on the bottom of the pile. We need a rigorous other options in the system here. I got that whole go to college gig and went and wasn't good enough so dropped out and being disabled as much as I am they should never have pushed me to go I should have always been on government support and I wouldn't have graduated High School save my parents sent me into private schools where they made waivers to help me graduate High School. So yes I'm supporting not giving me more than nine years of education to unless I could show I could train for a job and go into a technical High School to learn to do some area of work which would have been better than a standard private pre-college or post-secondary school education track. I think the money wasn't well spent.
I agree other nations do elections more sanely than we do. Our GOP supreme court has made 2 undemocratic rulings that pretty well doom our elections to give us empty celebrities such as our current so-called president: 1) Corporations are people 2) Money is free speech Corporations can - and do - pour unlimited money to buy our elections.
No, it's NOT "BS"! You've indicated yourself above what is happening. Educated people will assure that their children are educated. But, how about the 45% of Americans* who will either never finish high-school or, if they do, never finish a post-secondary degree - most often because they cannot afford it. You haven't thought of them, have you? Because you've got blinders on ... ! *This number can be verified by the National Center for Educational Research, funded by the Department of Education.
I did, in fact I noted that, technical education with a High School Diploma focused heavily into employability skills and less on general education. I would still have a year and a half of credits in areas such as civics, art, history and such and the rest courses and hands-on training working with industry to create flexible workers in different skill groups lets say as ideas mechanical/trades as one, medical as another, white collar employment (cover many areas some using modern technology). And again the losers in society due to accident of birth, disability gained after birth or other conditions less education and yes I might put 15% of them on government support. If they clean up their act, get a job and ask after a year sure some more education is fine. Maybe the 45% you noted should be in damned college at least for a four year degree or more, they could go into other options, like being trained to work and with certifications out of High School like I noted and some will not be good enough to do that or don't care is there something wrong with channeling them into seasonal farm labor or working in stores stocking shelves you currently don't need much education for those and for those unfit for any work or who refuse government support bare bones for the non-disabled is good enough make it not an attractive option. And some will be criminals and apprentice in that the good ones will make a living and bad ones in prisons where they get more education from older criminals and connections crime is a job to, but my guess many would work if they had job training and getting a diploma meant something.
THE PERPETUATION OF POVERTY Well, that second-bit about the 45Percenters is less than encouraging. It's the "clean up their act" that is insulting. If you were born in poverty, the chances that you remain in poverty are overwhelming in America. And it has little to do with "personal incentive". It has everything to do with "opportunity". We always like to highlight the bright 'n young "regardless of colour" who boot-strapped themselves out of poverty - but they are just incidental in the numbers. In America, we perpetrate poverty due to a lack of national incentive to correct the problem. (We think erroneously that the "problem belongs to local communities".) And it is going to get worse before it gets better with Donald Dork. He and his millionaire-friends could not give a damn about the problem. Their game is Sociological Darwinism and its "survival of the fittest"*. The fittest meaning those with a Net Income anywhere north of the average $53K per person. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF Schooling does not happen by accident. We learned that with secondary schooling that took about two decades in the early part of the 20th century to spread throughout the land. Many were dead-set against it. And only now - two/three generations later - we are realizing that 45% of the kids are still not getting the academic credentials that will allow them a decent job at a decent wage. It's as if the US has learned NOTHING* about the inherent necessity to educate further its population. Especially in the manner it has allowed the cost of a tertiary-degree to skyrocket ... *Bernie was right about education. It has to be free, gratis and for nothing from kindergarten up to postsecondary level. *See here about Betsy DeVos: What Makes Betsy DeVos Such an Unusual Nominee for Education Secretary -excerpt:
That doesn't change the numbers if 15% are too disabled to ever hold a job or are to undisciplined with a crappy home life to ever be productive then why not give them Government Support and if later on one earns a GED or gets a decent job then they can earn job training credits say 0.2 per year of working needing 1 credit for a certain number of hours of formal schooling or training. Why waste though years of education on them I would have 8 years be the first benchmark then tracking into options based on many factors. However the poor but very bright and motivated person would get in my system a far better chance than now since the debt for school might end up being a fifth what it is now if they attend a Public University.
Pure fabrication of a mentality that simply does not exist. What exists is in the measurable statistics. Which say that about 14.5% of the American population are living below the Poverty Threshold (of $24K/year for a family of four.) That's about 10% too many. And who are these people below the Poverty Threshold. Nary one with a university degree. Moreover, education - you seem to not have understood - has its benefits in far larger areas than just "job/pay-performance". Open your eyes ...
Sorry but why waste money either its to prepare for the adult role as a worker in some area OR to give a solid classic general education which is fine for university levels. However I can name several majors one could move to dedicated specialized apprenticeships and/or schools just for them which could be finished in shorter time and they can enter a career. These are art, business, music, theater, theater support stand out the most. And computer science and engineering could move to dedicated programs removing the fluff and unrelated courses and they could do well. Now is University and College bad not at all but its not a trade school if one wants to be an actor one is usually better off taking acting school classes and working at it learning under of actors the same for film production and being an artist learning to paint should go to an artist colony and work at their art. Now if one is interested in theoretical science, preparing to be a doctor or becoming a teacher or if your wealthy and your going to be a community leader sue to family position it can be good to mature one to higher ways of thinking but why waste time teaching students business they could get the same classes and skills in three years in a dedicated business college apart from a University.
People, especially young people, need to "find their way". If that takes an additional 4-years of their life (from 18-years of age then so be it). It is an "investment" in the formation of the individual - one of the most important that any country can make. Were we only to take a part of the massive 54% of the Discretionary Budget (click on the linked meaning of that phrase) presently spent on the DoD (Only God and the Defense Industry lobby knows why), and spend it on educating our young, then the US would be a better place. We are in the midst of a monumental change in ages. Just as was the US in the middle of the 19th century with the advent of mechanization in the Industrial Age - when Primary and Secondary Education became subsidized by taxation. We are now entering into the Information Age. Barely 12.5% of GDP is attributed to Manufacturing nowadays and about 8.5% of the workforce is there. (Because of robotized mechanization of the production line.) We live in a much more complex world than in the latter half of the 19th century. But it is clear that a Tertiary Education is necessary for us to build-the-future of our nation. And, like Primary and Secondary Schooling, it must be free, gratis and for nothing. WHYZZAT? Most us GDP is generated by Services Industries (nearly 80%) that require a Tertiary Education (Vocational, 2- or 4- or 6-years) in order to be employed. It is indispensable. Thank God for the wisdom we had in the 19th century to make Primary and Secondary Education subsidized by taxation. Here's why in infographics: *Yes, the US economy has been creating jobs since 2014, long before Donald Dork arrived in the Oval Office. See here (left-hand axis is percent unemployment) in the Unemployment number now around 4.5%: *But, the Employment-to-population Ratio depends upon the number of Americans declaring themselves (employable): That E-to-p Ratio is only beginning to recover to the rate it was before all-hell-broke-loose in the Great Recession (as of 2008/10). The challenge is to employ those "employable" back in 2008? But do they have the job-skills that are necessary? Frankly, no! The construct of our employment in the US is now very different from a decade ago. We need badly to instruct our children into people with both skills and aptitude for the Information Age. (We need also to take all those who lost their jobs in the Great Recession and offer them the Post-Secondary Training that they require to find a job.) Which is why Hillary's idea (borrowed from Bernie) to subsidize PostSecondary Educational costs at state-institutions of learning for all families earning less than $100K a year (in a nation where the average income is $54K a year) was EXACTLY WHAT THE NATION NEEDED. (Wow! Did we ever screw that one up!) Now, you tell me how I've got that all-wrong, all-wrong, all-wrong ...
Well then incorporate the information age demands into vocationally dedicated schools and leave the higher education for those that need it either for a career needing that level of education such as researching scientists. Or are brilliant and should get that kind of education if they choose as in those with actually high intelligence and wish to do things in such an academic setting. Or are from privileged families so can afford to go and due to their family so need to get the education of a leader class in our society. Information age new things to know are just new to the older generation how many smart phone loving tweens now will really have issues they will tend to keep up as our society continues transitioning. Its too late for my generation to play catch up in the workplace its the young who will take the role of leaders someday. Amazon grew because the old model failed to adapt, its the same thing in technology for everything else, but I'm sure a college is not the best place to teach business and tech know how everyone should have by then. Look at things now on a resume no one puts typing, using a computer at a basic way, using e-mail and social media they just assume if your applying you know these things and if you don't your out of luck anyway they will expect it. I think the big failure of Higher Education is trying to do it all be for career preparation and try to give a broad education and exposure to big ideas of society and they do none well with exceptions MIT for engineering and science and Juilliard for performing arts comes to mind but the best students go to these and you all know it, Average Jack or Jill with a C average in a decent High School and modest ability don't make the cut. Then what you send the wannabe dancer to a four year school and she will take a fallback option like being a personal trainer or dance teacher just in case at a UNIVERSITY. Where its time consuming and costly to someone ,her or the government aka taxpayers, when if she can't get into the American Ballet Company School or Julliard or a similar competitive option she likely doesn't have what it takes to be a dancer professionally. Its kind of a small pool with many wanting to do it after all over being a fitness trainer which has many more jobs and one can enter in the US with a two year degree or less.
I gather this is a defence of the status-quo in America's post-secondary education? The fact of the matter is that about 45% of American high-school students will never obtain a tertiary-education degree. Never. So, they will wallow about in low-income jobs. Yes, employment will be low, but because of Job Incomes that are also correspondingly low. That's no life-style worth pursuing. With the Chinese coming up the National Income Ladder meeting the Americans on their way down. But that is what is happening for a long as we do not implement the Hillary's idea of subsidizing post-secondary education (vocational, 2- & 4-year), which she got from Bernie who got it from the European Union. I live in France and put my two kids through university for barely a kilobuck a year plus room 'n board. Yes, I paid higher income taxes to do so. But it was worth it! (That and the French National Health Service that costs half per person that of the US.)
No I'm all for education but separate preparing for a career from broad base of knowledge with the ability to do high order thinking. I see education simply will this student be better off preparing for a career when its almost free K-12 with apprenticeships and specialty schools over that if needed OR careers needing college and by that I mean four years or more. And could we do things differently to move those who need college now get comparable education some other way. Lets look at an older model the Technical High School and make this a modern version now a student would get their education through 8th grade then people would look at their grades, vocational testing done and they would be sent to an appropriate education. If 25% of jobs demand a four year degree or going to a dedicated school say a three year business college for a terminal B.S. in a business area then they need an academically more focused education and so should go to one. If on the other hand a student shows good aptitude for lets say mechanical work why not give them 1 year of credits of general education, 1 year of credits of general courses in that area call it Skilled Trades and then 2 years of credits of dedicated automotive technology classes if that is what they want to take or basic robotics or electronics with the needed certifications for this and get them ready to work but be retrain ready with the necessary skills. Then if more education is needed the states could have adult technical schools to add to this or help adults add or retrain. This would cover in some way maybe 50% of the students and an option for general work could be done for lower performers and higher skill training for very high performers and many falling in the middle. General work preparation would have general education, more broad technical prep training and perhaps focus on skills that they could use to do well in the world of work this might have to cover things such as farm laboring, janitorial and other similar types of work but could cover cooking and salesmanship. Some though might not benefit or not be worth wasting the money on the more profoundly disabled and those who are just dropping out due to cultural economic issues so why waste money give them if they want a two years of workforce training and muster them out. I would however add government funded additional education in credits per year, with an employer match to an employee tax to get more education perhaps 1 credit per year would count as one semester of classwork on one 3 Credit class, this would be assured if the worker wants to add more they could chip in to add one more credit, saving these up could help people change careers or add certifications. In my area a certification at a college is 28 credits in one area so they could earn this much if they committed to it using five years of work credits with them adding in more money. I would include the costs of books and labs using government pressure to keep costs down. But we need more models Germany was using apprenticeships and technical secondary education for over a century and it seems to work out well so my idea would model that in an American way.
I agree. In Germany, the apprenticeship program guarantees a job factually for about 95% of the students who undertake and pursue their apprenticeship with a company whilst in apprenticeship schools established by state governments. And still Germany does not have enough workers, which is why most consider the influx of Syrian refugees as a boon. They are being taught to assume the jobs that Germans do not want - most of which are fairly basic and low-paying. (Of course, for them, any job is better than no job.) So, if Donald Dork doesn't want the refugees from Syria maybe at least he can get out and sweep the street in front of the White House ...
