UKIP Idiocy

[Todd]

I'm all for vouchers and for the most complete freedom of education. Pray tell, just what state-approved curriculum, and what state-certified university, did Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac, Galileo, Newton and Pasteur studied and graduated from?

Sorry, but that's a straw man. 

[Florestan]

Private organizations of course never do propaganda...

You kidding, right? 

They certainly do --- and they do it big time. But it is the very competition between state propaganda and private propaganda that ensures the balance. 

Look, I am a diehard liberal of the really old school, that is I am opposed to any monopoly, of any kind. Had I lived in the eras and places when the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the various Protestant denominations,  had the monopoly on politics and education, I would have been their enemy and therefore labeled as an heretic and an atheist (and I would have strongly objected to both labels).

It is my lot, though, that I live in an era when the monopoly (or quasi-monopoly) of education and politics belongs to the state --- and therefore I am the enemy of the state; namely, of that state which pretends and demands to be our tutor, guardian and provider von der Wiege bis zum Grabe (and I trust all GMG-ers know what I mean, if only by way of Wikipedia...  ).

And I hasten to add that this my uncompromising liberalism stems from, and (according to my conscience) is in no way contradictory to, my being a Christian. 

Read this:

The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments. --- Herbert Spencer

then replace "parliaments" with "democratic states" (which is pretty much the same thing) and that's my liberalism in a nutshell. 

[Florestan]

Sorry, but that's a straw man.

Why?

[Todd]

Why?

Really? 

You list geniuses, and state that they did not rely on state education systems, which is true.  So what?  The point of public education is not to produce Shakespeares, et al, but rather to achieve mass literacy and perhaps even mass higher learning.  You would need to show a couple things to make your argument meaningful.  First, you would need to show that public education precludes the possibility of people like those listed from attaining something similar when public education is available and mandated.  (Of course, children of the rich need not succumb to the evils of public education, so there's an out for at least some lucky kids.)  Second, you would then need to show that, in the event that the emergence of such brilliant talent is indeed hampered or destroyed by public education, the loss of future geniuses is more detrimental to society than the benefits of public education, which increases the overall educational level and attainment of society.

Using extreme examples in this way is usually a bad idea.  I would contend that geniuses, or at least really smart people, will emerge in any circumstances, as they have throughout history, and at least some of them will benefit society in a (possibly) disproportional way. 

[snyprrr]

So, if you found one of either, you'd destroy it instead of showing it to others?

kill it with fire

[North Star]

Oh, I agree completely. Education should be publicly funded but not publicly (ie stately) owned. I'm all for vouchers and for the most complete freedom of education. Pray tell, just what state-approved curriculum, and what state-certified university, did Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac, Galileo, Newton and Pasteur studied and graduated from? 

Linus Torvalds, Jean Sibelius, Martti Ahtisaari, Väinö Linna, Tove Jansson, Kalevi Aho, Paavo Berglund, Mikko Franck, Olli Mustonen, Sakari Oramo, Jorma Panula, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Kaija Saariaho, Esa-Pekka Salonen, Jukka-Pekka Saraste, John Storgårds, Artturi Virtanen (Nobel in chem.) , F. E. Sillanpää (Nobel in lit.), Ragnar Granit (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine together with other two)

You kidding, right? 

Perhaps. 

Look, I am a diehard liberal of the really old school, that is I am opposed to any monopoly, of any kind.

Then you want government to stop cartels and monopolies.

Had I lived in the eras and places when the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the various Protestant denominations,  had the monopoly on politics and education, I would have been their enemy and therefore labeled as an heretic and an atheist (and I would have strongly objected to both labels).

Perhaps our education systems differ in other ways, too - there are no Superintendents checking how schools and teachers do in their jobs, we just educate the teachers better instead. So there really isn't a monopoly of education as every city, school & teacher can emphasize the content and use their own methods.

It is my lot, though, that I live in an era when the monopoly (or quasi-monopoly) of education and politics belongs to the state --- and therefore I am the enemy of the state; namely, of that state which pretends and demands to be our tutor, guardian and provider von der Wiege bis zum Grabe (and I trust all GMG-ers know what I mean, if only by way of Wikipedia...  ).

You mean elected democracy, not state. And therefore you are an enemy of the democracy, and of the demos. 
At least everyone who speaks some iotas of German should, or have heard some orchestral Liszt   

And I hasten to add that this my uncompromising liberalism stems from, and (according to my conscience) is in no way contradictory to, my being a Christian. 

Read this:

The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments. --- Herbert Spencer

then replace "parliaments" with "democratic states" (which is pretty much the same thing) and that's my liberalism in a nutshell. 

It's just a matter of statistics and probability - do most voters vote for politicians that will be better than the average monarch? It depends.

[North Star]

Really? 

You list geniuses, and state that they did not rely on state education systems, which is true.  So what?  The point of public education is not to produce Shakespeares, et al, but rather to achieve mass literacy and perhaps even mass higher learning.  You would need to show a couple things to make your argument meaningful.  First, you would need to show that public education precludes the possibility of people like those listed from attaining something similar when public education is available and mandated.  (Of course, children of the rich need not succumb to the evils of public education, so there's an out for at least some lucky kids.)  Second, you would then need to show that, in the event that the emergence of such brilliant talent is indeed hampered or destroyed by public education, the loss of future geniuses is more detrimental to society than the benefits of public education, which increases the overall educational level and attainment of society.

Using extreme examples in this way is usually a bad idea.  I would contend that geniuses, or at least really smart people, will emerge in any circumstances, as they have throughout history, and at least some of them will benefit society in a (possibly) disproportional way.

+1
And there are plenty of genii who received their education in publicly governed schools.

[Florestan]

The point of public education is not to produce Shakespeares, et al, but rather to achieve mass literacy

Of course; I agree. But if mass literacy means that a critical mass of public-education-graduates are just enough literate to read glossy magazines or mainstream newspapers' sport and leisure pages, and never ever have a thought of their own cross their minds concerning politics, economics and the world they're living in , then excuse me for saying loud and proud "AFAIC, mass literacy can go to blazes without much of a loss to the world at large!".

and perhaps even mass higher learning. 

Paraphrasing Churchill, the best argument against mass higher learning is a five-minute conversation with an mass-higher-learning graduate. 

You would need to show a couple things to make your argument meaningful. 

I need do nothing. I wasn't arguing at all. I was just asking a question. 

First, you would need to show that public education precludes the possibility of people like those listed from attaining something similar when public education is available and mandated.

I claimed nothing of the sort.

(Of course, children of the rich need not succumb to the evils of public education, so there's an out for at least some lucky kids.)

Most rich kids never make much out of their formal education (OTOMH, Felix Mendelssohn is an exceptional exception)--- so this is a real strawman. 

you would then need to show that, in the event that the emergence of such brilliant talent is indeed hampered or destroyed by public education,

Once again, I claimed no such thing.

the loss of future geniuses is more detrimental to society than the benefits of public education, which increases the overall educational level and attainment of society.

Increasing the overall educational level of people is a very wortthwile goal --- I only contend that the state is not exactly the best mean for that. 

Using extreme examples in this way is usually a bad idea.

Why, of course, but --- have you not come to know me by now?  I am a contrarian by nature, and you of all people should know that. 

I would contend that geniuses, or at least really smart people, will emerge in any circumstances,

Yes, of course! I agree! But since it is geniuses, or at least really smart people, who did, do and will shape the world, we should strive for an educational system (and I am talking specifically about higher education)  in which a graduate of whatever specialization should be able to have at least an informed opinion about the topics at hand --- and I trust you won't deny that a lot (I would say most) of today's graduates have no idea whatsoever about the history and the alleged solutions of the economical, political and social problems which torments the free world. 

as they have throughout history, and at least some of them will benefit society in a (possibly) disproportional way.

Call me an elitist --- I am! 

[Todd]

Of course; I agree. But if mass literacy means that a critical mass of public-education-graduates are just enough literate to read glossy magazines or mainstream newspapers' sport and leisure pages, and never ever have a thought of their own cross their minds concerning politics, economics and the world they're living in , then excuse me for saying loud and proud "AFAIC, mass literacy can go to blazes without much of a loss to the world at large!"

But is a critical mass of public education graduates really only as literate (or functionally illiterate) as you say?  My experience, and objective evidence, indicates otherwise.  Sure, there are tons of dullards who emerge from public schools, but there are a good number of dullards who emerge from fancier private schools.  It's not really possible to attribute an individual's relative dullness to public education.  Loads of people disliking high culture, and not following abstract sciences, and otherwise not paying much attention to what certain people consider to be intellectually and socially superior or important, or what not, hardly means that those people don't think for themselves or aren't intelligent, etc.  Such an attitude can certainly be called elitist, but to me it's just lazy. 

As to the notion that mass literacy can go without much of an impact to the world at large, well, that is rooted in something other than reality.  Many technically and intellectually sophisticated jobs of all sorts require a high degree of literacy and numeracy which could not be achieved on a sufficient scale without public education.  Contrary to the pining caused by false nostalgia, we live in the best of times, and like it or not, widespread public education has contributed to this.

I need do nothing. I wasn't arguing at all. I was just asking a question.

Of course you don't need to do anything, but to claim that you were merely asking a question strikes me as disingenuous, given the implication of what you wrote, and the extent of your reply.

[Florestan]

Linus Torvalds, Jean Sibelius, Martti Ahtisaari, Väinö Linna, Tove Jansson, Kalevi Aho, Paavo Berglund, Mikko Franck, Olli Mustonen, Sakari Oramo, Jorma Panula, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Kaija Saariaho, Esa-Pekka Salonen, Jukka-Pekka Saraste, John Storgårds, Artturi Virtanen (Nobel in chem.) , F. E. Sillanpää (Nobel in lit.), Ragnar Granit (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine together with other two)

I assume that all of them studied at publicly (ie, government) funded universities. Is this so?

Then you want government to stop cartels and monopolies.

Yes, yes and yes! Absolutely! I would certainly and gladly want and support that, were it not for the government being the most active and interested promoter and beneficiary of cartels and monopolies! 

Perhaps our education systems differ in other ways, too - there are no Superintendents checking how schools and teachers do in their jobs, we just educate the teachers better instead. So there really isn't a monopoly of education as every city, school & teacher can emphasize the content and use their own methods.

If you mean to say that in Finland there is no state-mandated curriculum in schools, high-schools and universities, there is no state-certified-and-approved diploma of high-school-graduation and no state-certified-and approved diploma of university-graduation, then I send my sincerest kudos to you, Finns; in this case I contemplate sending my son to Finland and I do trust at least North Star of the GMG will not shout out loud: "Keep Romanians out of Finland!" 

You mean elected democracy, not state. And therefore you are an enemy of the democracy, and of the demos. 

The state today relies on elected democracy, so this is really a linguistic quibble. 

At least everyone who speaks some iotas of German should, or have heard some orchestral Liszt   

Well, do you see the truth at last? The GMG is the exact opposite of the world at large --- cosmopolitan, tolerant, humorous and liberal!

It's just a matter of statistics and probability - do most voters vote for politicians that will be better than the average monarch? It depends.

Todd knows me very well in this respect --- theoretically and philosophically I'm a monarchist. 

What he does not know, though, and what I publicly let him know right now, is that realistically and pragmatically I am aware that monarchy is gone and lost --- forever! 

[Florestan]

But is a critical mass of public education graduates really only as literate (or functionally illiterate) as you say? 

I don't know the situation in US, or Finland for that matter, but I do know the situation in Romania --- and please trust me, it's exactly like I said!

My experience, and objective evidence, indicates otherwise.

Then kudos to you, and to all other free countries which do not have to cope with the communist heritage!

I mean it, gentlemen! You must pray day and night, even if you were atheists, for not having to be subjected to 50 years of communist rule!

  Sure, there are tons of dullards who emerge from public schools, but there are a good number of dullards who emerge from fancier private schools.

Well, exactly! Yes, absolutely!

Look, I do not advocate for the complete elimination of public education. What I advocate is the most complete freedom for parents to choose the school they want their children to attend; if they wanted public schools, okay and if they wanted private schools okay and if they wanted homeschooling then okay too! The only thing I deny to the state, is to certify which type of schooling is best. 

  It's not really possible to attribute an individual's relative dullness to public education.

Of course! I am myself a product of (communist) public education --- and I do pretend, in all modesty, that I am not a dullard at all. Once again, I am not opposed to public education --- I am opposed to public education being the only approved and certified way of acquiring education at all.

  Loads of people disliking high culture, and not following abstract sciences, and otherwise not paying much attention to what certain people consider to be intellectually and socially superior or important, or what not, hardly means that those people don't think for themselves or aren't intelligent, etc.  Such an attitude can certainly be called elitist, but to me it's just lazy.

I know! I'm an elitist when I'm alone typing GMG posts; usually I'm a demophile who c\doesn't care much about one's education, but about one's personality! And in this respect I can testify to having met many illiterates whom I value so much above academics! 

we live in the best of times

What other times have you lived, in order to be able to state that?   

Of course you don't need to do anything, but to claim that you were merely asking a question strikes me as disingenuous, given the implication of what you wrote, and the extent of your reply.

I repeat: I am a contrarian by nature...   

But now that I think of it, so too are you --- or at least, you are very fond of replying to contrarians...  0:)

[North Star]

What the fuck is with all the smileys?

0:)

I assume that all of them studied at publicly (ie, government) funded universities. Is this so?

Yes. Finland has very few private schools, and even they are mostly government funded. There are no private universities, even though a couple of years ago they were made 'sort of privately funded' - government doubles or triples or whatever the private donations (with some extra to the Aalto Univ in Helsinki, since the politicians are doing everything they can to make it look like the university there is better than outside of the 'big city'. Moving on...  )

Yes, yes and yes! Absolutely! I would certainly and gladly want and support that, were it not for the government being the most active and interested promoter and beneficiary of cartels and monopolies! 

Many politicians of course have connections with cartels and monopolies of the private sector, too.

If you mean to say that in Finland there is no state-mandated curriculum in schools, high-schools and universities, there is no state-certified-and-approved diploma of high-school-graduation and no state-certified-and approved diploma of university-graduation, then I send my sincerest kudos to you, Finns; in this case I contemplate sending my son to Finland

The first one there is here, but not the latter one, although the ECTS credits required for each university degree are probably decided on a governmental level.

and I do trust at least North Star of the GMG will not shout out loud: "Keep Romanians out of Finland!" 

Well, I could make an exception with your son, if he would be engaged in criminal activity. 

The state today relies on elected democracy, so this is really a linguistic quibble. 

My favourite kind of quibble! 

Well, do you see the truth at last? The GMG is the exact opposite of the world at large --- cosmopolitan, tolerant, humorous and liberal!

Well, it would certainly be much easier to live in a world where everyone had the same language, religion (or not), culture & nationality. But that is never going to happen, of course.

Todd knows me very well in this respect --- theoretically and philosophically I'm a monarchist. 

What he does not know, though, and what I publicly let him know right now, is that realistically and pragmatically I am aware that monarchy is gone and lost --- forever! 

I'm not a big fan of autocracies of any kind. As a ceremonial leader with no power, a monarch is a decent option.

[Ken B]

+1
And there are plenty of genii who received their education in publicly governed schools.

Which is a straw man.

[Ken B]

Florestan:

"Once again, I am not opposed to public education --- I am opposed to public education being the only approved and certified way of acquiring education at all. "

Right. The state should pay for the garden, but let a thousand flowers bloom within it. ( )
Finland from what I read has a good school system but not everyone is so lucky.

[North Star]

Which is a straw man.

As a reply to 'only private schools produce genii' ? 

[Florestan]

0:)
Yes. Finland has very few private schools, and even they are mostly government funded.

But is it "government funded" the same as "government controlled"?

There are no private universities, even though a couple of years ago they were made 'sort of privately funded' - government doubles or triples or whatever the private donations (with some extra to the Aalto Univ in Helsinki, since the politicians are doing everything they can to make it look like the university there is better than outside of the 'big city'.

I see.  As far as I know, the Finnish educational system is the best in the world. But you see, Finns are Finns, and Romanians are Romanians; let Finns rule for just one year the Romanian educational system, and Romanians do viceversa --- and then let's see the statistics... 

Moving on...  )

Exactly... let's move on. 

Many politicians of course have connections with cartels and monopolies of the private sector, too.

Tell me about it... Here in Romania it is exactly, and mainly,  the Socialists who fall in this category! 

Well, it would certainly be much easier to live in a world where everyone had the same language, religion (or not), culture & nationality. But that is never going to happen, of course

Of course! But I make a strict difference between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot revels in the huge diversity of nations and languages and customs and it is exactly this diversity that makes his patria (ie, fatherland) different. A nationalist would like to see the whole world submit to his own peculiar kind of nationship, language and customs --- and therefore he is the exact opposite of a patriot.

[quoter
I'm not a big fan of autocracies of any kind. [/quote]

That's exactly why I am not a big fan of modern republics. 

As a ceremonial leader with no power, a monarch is a decent option.

Ain't it?

[Florestan]

As a reply to 'only private schools produce genii' ? 

Please provide proof that I said that. 

[jochanaan]

Private organizations of course never do propaganda...

LOL!!!

[Florestan]

LOL!!!

It seems to me that there are lots of false dichotomies floating around: left/right, public/private etc.

For me, and I really mean it, the one, single, true dichotomy is twofold:

(1) liberty vs equality --- and  I am all for liberty!

and

(2) individual vs state --- and I am all for the individual!

[Todd]

Look, I do not advocate for the complete elimination of public education. What I advocate is the most complete freedom for parents to choose the school they want their children to attend; if they wanted public schools, okay and if they wanted private schools okay and if they wanted homeschooling then okay too! The only thing I deny to the state, is to certify which type of schooling is best.

I suppose it depends on the country where one resides, but I am not familiar with arguments supporting the notion that the state should determine which schooling is best, or that it should enforce a standard curriculum on all schools.  Public schools should be managed by the state.  Private schools should be not.  Home schooling should not.  Private schools and home schooling parents ought not to receive any direct public funding, though.  By direct funding, I mean grants or vouchers.  If a school is prepared to accept public funds, then such a school must be prepared to accept interference by the state.

What other times have you lived, in order to be able to state that?

A not so impressive quip.  A cursory glance at measurable aspects of life show that it is better to live now than, say, 500 years ago.  One could argue, I suppose, that mere measurements are not enough, that they do not constitute living, and so on, but I would argue it is better to live to an average age of 75, or thereabouts, free of most communicable diseases and having access to the fruits of millennia of labor and culture than to die poor, hungry, and sick at 33 during the Renaissance, just to be buried next to my three dead children and two dead wives, one of whom died giving birth to one of the three dead children.