College-educated professionals could doom progressive politics 28

[drawoh]

Here is an interesting article on Salon.com...

College-educated professionals could doom progressive politics

--
JHG

 

[PEDARRIN2]

State governments are not the end all. They can be just as corrupt/greedy as the federal government.

Sometimes (maybe too ofen) the federal government has to step into the state's business when the state is not doing what it should, i.e. the desegregation issue. But I agree, the federal government has poked its nose into too much and needs to back off.

I just do not want the pendulum to swing too far the other way.

Balance is good.

Finding the balance is difficult because of the inherent human capacity for only wanting to do what I want to do and nobody else can tell me what to do, an inherent resistance to submitting to authority. It expands on up the ladder of government.

 

[moltenmetal]

Public education being accountable to "the people" at the local level is something you need to be VERY suspicious about. Accountable is one thing: determining curriculum is quite another!

It is VERY easy for a small group of people to affect the curriculum of public education to render it a means for indoctrination into a private ideology. It is far harder for such a local bias to slip into a Federally or state/province-wide curriculum. You may not like the bias you see in the curriculum, but what you're really saying is that you don't like what your society has become. That's a fair point, but it's not a criticism of education per se.

Want to indoctrinate your own kids in your own private ideology? No problem- home-school them- it's your right. But public education has to be on the basis of a broader public consensus.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> State governments are not the end all. They can be just as corrupt/greedy as the federal government.
Agreed. However, the scope and influence of that corruption is restricted to the domain of just that government. Also, it's far easier to replace state officials than it is to replace federal officials, i.e., there is more accountability at the state level.

==> It is VERY easy for a small group of people to affect the curriculum of public education to render it a means for indoctrination into a private ideology. It is far harder for such a local bias to slip into a Federally or state/province-wide curriculum.
I'm not sure it's VERY easy as you suggest. And on the flip side, doing so at a federal level makes it easier to institutionalize such a bias, as is suggested by many in the current federal plan of Common Core (discussing the Common Core itself is probably better left to it's own thread). I'm not sure many people will jump and claim that No Child Left Behind was a roaring success either. Further, it's a lot harder to replace officials at the federal level than it is to replace those at state levels.

I'd also like to point out that the US Dept of Education (DOE) wasn't created until in 1979. Yes, 1979 - just 34 years ago. The SAT national standard had been in use for over 75 years prior to the existence of the US DOE. The ACT standard also predates the US DOE by over a decade. As far as I can tell, those who went through public education in the USA prior to 1980, without the help or interference of the federal government, did just fine, nor were unduly influenced by local indoctrination. I think this group is a fairly well educated group and of those in the USA, many of us through public education without any involvement of the federal government. Does anyone want to claim that public education in the USA has gotten substantially, or even incrementally, better since the creation of the DOE? Or has it gotten worse?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[PEDARRIN2]

Ever been to a board of education meeting. You will see how a small group can influence a school system.

As for federal involvement in education,

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

seems to tell a different, albeit maybe biased story.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Ever been to a board of education meeting. You will see how a small group can influence a school system.
Yes I have, and there are always fringe elements trying to push their way and exert influence. That influence is almost always very short-term and ends up being nothing but a blip. They're very easy for the mainstream to marginalize at the local level.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[PEDARRIN2]

Cajun,

In the past, the evolutionary view point was the "fringe" group and look how far that has gotten since Scopes. This not meant to start an evolution/creation topic, merely a historic occurence where a fringe group was not marginalized by mainstream.

Desegregation was a fringe group.

Sometimes the fringe group has the correct viewpoint. That is often how good change occurs.

Often the majority is wrong.

If there is not a group (state or federal) to enforce change, it will not happen due to inertia of ideas.

Also, as a designer of school PMET systems, I am typically surpised at the resistance to such things as air conditioning/audio-visual equipment/etc. among some mainstream groups in school districts. A common statement, "we didn't have AC (or computers, etc.) in our schools when we were kids, so why should our kids?"

 

[IRstuff]

"In the past, the evolutionary view point was the "fringe" group and look how far that has gotten since Scopes. "

Polling indicates that evolution is still close to being the fringe concept, with only 37% of those polled believing that only evolution should be taught in schools.



TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[PEDARRIN2]

Only 37% of those being polled may state it should be taught in school, but i doubt there is a public school in the US where it is not taught in some fashion and just see what would happen to a teacher that tried to teach (or present) the alternative.

 

[bridgebuster]

TomDOT - I stand corrected in my ranting. I meant to say we have more people in poverty now. However, the 4% drop in the poverty rate over the past 50 years hasn't been a very good return on investment.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/poverty-line-grows-under/2014/01/08/id/545892/

 

[JohnRBaker]

Except of course for the 4%. But then I hope that there's a consensus that the 'investment' we made in fighting two questionable wars also had a poor return.

Why is it that money spent trying to help the less fortunate in our society is always questioned and debated to the finest level of granularity with constant micromanaging by people who have no subject-matter expertise at all, read Congressmen and media whores, yet we're willing to literally write blank-checks when it comes to the latest military weapon system or when we're asked to invade a country that had not attacked us nor who presented a clear and present danger to our national well being?

As they say, it's all a matter of priorities.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[swall]

JohnRBaker--The Citizens United ruling basically put things back to the way they were before John McCain's campaign finance reform law.

 

[bridgebuster]

This is one of the most interesting threads in a while. Let me throw some fuel into the fire:

Here’s the problem with evolution, intelligent design, creationism, or whatever you call it: Science, philosophy, and theology are all thrown into the same mix. In actuality they shouldn’t be in conflict. For example a question such as “how was the universe created” is not a question for theology, it is a question for science. The question “why was the universe created, or was the universe created to begin with” is a question for philosophy, not for science, possibly for theology. The question “who am I in relation to God, who is God in relation to me, what does God offer if anything, is God personal, etc.” is a question for theology, not science, not philosophy. None of this is to say that we can’t utilize the information gained from each of the three disciplines in order to understand our reality better. Society needs to get a handle on what each of the three disciplines are specifically equipped to handle.

Does evolution disprove God’s existence? Does it threaten belief in God, or somehow undermine Christianity? No and no. Theology is not equipped to answer the questions of science, and science is not equipped to answer questions of theology.

 

[CajunCenturion]

with only 37% of those polled believing that only evolution should be taught in schools.

Wow. What a load of crap. Even the claim that only 37% of those polled believe that only evolution should be taught in science class is misleading because it doesn't take into account the additional 29% that want evolution in science class, but will allow for the discussion of creationism as a belief.

Let's look at the referenced article. The Wikipedia article states:

In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:
29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism there as a belief;
20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and religious theories elsewhere;
16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class;
4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.

That shows that 84% want evolution to be taught, with considerable variance about where and how creationism should be in play.

==> Sometimes the fringe group has the correct viewpoint. That is often how good change occurs.
I agree, that is how the normal process. And it's true that resistance to change is natural and normal, but it can be overcome. And when that's needed, the fringe group grows and works it's way into the mainstream, at the same time, moving the older used to be mainstream position to the fringe. It can, and usually does, take time for the momentum to build, but if it the position is right, then it will build. That process, too, happens more quickly at the local and state levels than it does at the federal levels.

Evolution/Creation (not wanting to open that debate) is a good example. The process is working and on-going as creationism continues to be pushed aside as a science in favor of evolution as the mainstream science.

==> Also, as a designer of school PMET systems,
PMET being?
I applaud you for being part of the education process. Do you work at the local, state, or federal level?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

Limiting scope of influence limits the magnitude of graft, not the frequency. If you have $5 trillion budget then no one will much care if you divert a million here or there satisfy campaign promises. If you spread the $5 trillion (assuming there is no inherent value in eliminating administrative costs of a Department of Energy or Department of Education or Department of Health and Human Services) to 50 states, hundreds of counties, and thousands of municipalities then the biggest budgets are in the 10's of billions of dollars, average budgets are in the millions and people have to limit their thefts to thousands of dollars instead of millions. The state and local functionaries are already stealing at the retail level, but it more like shoplifting in Wall-Mart than armed robbery at Chase.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[IRstuff]

"That shows that 84% want evolution to be taught, with considerable variance about where and how creationism should be in play."

There should be no variance. That's like saying having 84% of some mythical poll population wanting astrology to be taught as part of an astrophysics curriculum is OK. Creationism is not science. The fact that 84% of people think "belief" should be taught in a science curriculum definitely puts pure science in a fringe position.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529