[les3547]

On this side of the pond, education is not really considered either liberal or conservative... the right is associated with a more authoritarian traditional approach to education, the left with a more nurturing 'child centred' approach.... but they're unanimous in declaring its importance as far as I can tell!

I tend to agree with you, that it isn't inherently a conservative thing here either, but rather part of something else many conservatives embrace with more enthusiasm than it's proven to deserve: capitalism. Let's call such believers radical capitalists.

Radical capitalists believe that just about every funding issue should be solved by market forces. The rationale is that by building wealth, it allows people to pay for what they need. Market participation requires investment, and since those best equipped to invest are those who already have wealth, the emphasis by radical capitalists is to further the interests of the rich. Whether or not all the breaks given to the rich add up to more wealth for everybody is another (likely contentious) discussion.

However, since a key component of a market economy is competition, a value amongst radical capitalists is to let competition decide what survives and what doesn't. While that might be the way to go for business, it doesn't seem to work for social, health and education services, yet radical capitalists seem to want it there too. Thus, if some neighborhoods can't afford good schools, while others have plenty of money . . .well, they've just not competed effectively and they deserve their fate. Tax enough to cover health and education? No, keep your money and let the market provide (dear radical capitalists . . . how's that working so far?)

IMHO, the American obsessive belief in market dynamics blinds devotees to the obvious fact of what much of the rest of the modern world understands: if you don't make sure your citizens' basic needs are met, they are going to drag on the whole society. The sick and poorly educated are hardly in a position to contribute socially when they can barely, if at all, survive themselves. When people's basic needs are not met, when they aren't equipped to compete for jobs, then they start to take instead of give.

Does that contribute to the fact that America has more people in prison than any other nation? The cost of dealing with crime in the US could probably fund the finest education and health care programs on the planet when you take into account not just the cost of prisons, law enforcement, higher insurance, etc., but also cost of opportunities lost for contributions from all those languishing in prisons.

From an article "U.S. Prison Population Is Out Of Control":

"The citizens of the United States like to think of this country as a free country, but recent statistics regarding incarceration of its citizens in prison paint a very different picture. The United States has more people in prison (both men and women) than any other nation on earth, including nations we regard as police states or nations that generally have little regard for human rights.

The United States currently incarcerates more than 2.2 million people -- a prison population that has exploded since 1980 (see above chart). Some might think that is because we are a very populous country, but that would be wrong. Compared to other high-population countries, the United States prison population is 153% higher than Russia, 505% higher than Brazil, 550% higher than India, and more than 2,000% higher than Nigeria, Indonesia or Bangladesh.

And when the rate of incarceration per 100,000 people is considered, the United States doesn't look any better. Here are the top twenty countries with the highest incarceration rates:

1. United States...............738
2. Russian Federation...............607
3. Cuba...............487
4. Ukraine...............360
5. Singapore...............350
6. Botswana...............339
7. South Africa...............335
8. Taiwan...............259
9. Thailand...............257
10. United Arab Emirates...............250
11. Poland...............228
12. Israel...............209
13. Libya...............207
14. Iran...............206
15. Mexico...............196
16. Brazil...............191
17. Uzbekistan...............184
18. Lebanon...............168
19. Columbia...............152
20. Argentina...............148

Compare the 738 per 100,000 people of the United States to many other developed democratic nations:

United Kingdom...............145
Spain...............145
Australia...............126
Canada...............107
Italy...............102
Germany...............95
France...............88
Ireland...............78
Sweden...............78
Japan...............62

Even such countries as China (118), Iraq (60) and Pakistan (57) have much lower rates of incarceration than the United States."

[jolepp]

While around the Bay area in the 1990s I went to check out the Alcatraz island. At the time there was a former inmate around selling his book about his experience in the very place. In the book and in person he stressed that one thing that should be compulsory in prison would be education at least to some basic level: if someone cannot quite read or write properly - which per his information was more of rule than an exception among prison inmates in the 1990s - the changes of staying out of prison are slim in reality. The guy himself had decided to turn his life around, gotten on a program in the 1970s (I think), gotten a vocational training, pardoned and stayed out of trouble since.

I think I couldn't agree more with his conclusion. Also, providing better education should help keep people out of prison to start with. In general it is an investment in the future (youth) of a nation, unfortunately one which is not likely to be made on a business basis.

[les3547]

n general it is an investment in the future (youth) of a nation, unfortunately one which is not likely to be made on a business basis.

That's ironic since it is a very smart business investment to train citizens to positively contribute to the market. Our failure in this regard reveals another sorry American trait: shortsightedness due to lust for fast, individual wealth.

Instead of thinking to strengthen the system so it responds more lucratively for all, greed takes over, reinforced by selfish competition, so that participants become too concerned about extracting personal wealth even it if is done at the expense of market system health.

It happens both on an individual scale and on the corporate level. Here in California, one of a couple recent disgusting attempts to "win" at the expense of market health (and loss to citizens) was PG&E's power grab in their Proposition 16 calling it "the taxpayers right to vote," but which was really an insidious monopoly attempt that would require 2/3 vote from citizens for a power company to be allowed to compete against them (PG&E). An oil company with a lot of gas stations here tried something similar.

With that you can see how greed and immediate profit-chasing blinded them to just how destructive their idea was, even, eventually, to themselves. Once the system is unhealthy, it yield's less for everyone, which sends the whole thing into a downward spiral and eventual collapse of some kind, as we've recently seen.

To my mind, that is the sort of shortsightedness and greed which is also ruining our education system.

[Ratmagiclady]

IMHO, the American obsessive belief in market dynamics blinds devotees to the obvious fact of what much of the rest of the modern world understands: if you don't make sure your citizens' basic needs are met, they are going to drag on the whole society. The sick and poorly educated are hardly in a position to contribute socially when they can barely, if at all, survive themselves. When people's basic needs are not met, when they aren't equipped to compete for jobs, then they start to take instead of give.

Bingo.

Does that contribute to the fact that America has more people in prison than any other nation?

Yes. Also a generally-punitive/moralist attitude toward social policy, particularly when de-linking economics from crime rates while building profitable privatized prisons, and filling them with the perennial 'Tough on crime' mandatory minimum sentences and all.


As for education itself, it's become more and more about if you can afford to get through school in the first place, or go into enough *debt* to.

It's about buying a degree more than actually educating the populace, too often.

They *claim* it's about 'Personal responsibility,' but just try taking some, in school ages. A lot of the *policies* are about enforcing dependence on someone with more money.

[Sparkle]

Seems like we all agree.

[raz-0]

The “unless” is a first-rate education, which can save us from illusory superiority IF it is a top priority of government.

Uhh.. no. It is mitigated by education about a given topic you THOUGHT you were competent in, but were not actually competent in. As you gain knowledge about that topic, you have a better idea of what you know, and how much there is to know. Education does not assist in a a general manner. I have a bunch of PhDs I have to deal with regularly I could show as an example. They know a LOT about what they know. They know little about other things very often very little due to having such a concentrated focus of education.

[les3547]

Uhh.. no. It is mitigated by education about a given topic you THOUGHT you were competent in, but were not actually competent in. As you gain knowledge about that topic, you have a better idea of what you know, and how much there is to know. Education does not assist in a a general manner. I have a bunch of PhDs I have to deal with regularly I could show as an example. They know a LOT about what they know. They know little about other things very often very little due to having such a concentrated focus of education.

I agree, but it doesn't speak against my assertion. The thing about Ph.Ds, or anyone who educates themselves almost exclusively in one area, is that they may study little else. To me, that is not a "first-rate" education. The multi-faceted nature of existence requires broad study; so even if one is a genius in one field, he/she can still be an ignoramus overall.

Therefore, a first-rate education, if defined as one that covers the main aspects of reality which affect most human beings, (e.g., physics, psychology, world history, biology, relationships, politics, health, language, inwardness, business, logic and reason . . . I mean, a truly comprehensive and relevant program of study), then a person is more likely to know what he/she doesn't know, as well as just how much others have understood in the field, than someone who is poorly or narrowly educated.

At least, I know for me that has been the case; the unmitigated hubris of my youth has been replaced with the kind of caution you find in someone who feels fortunate to still be alive after misjudging (due to ignorance) so many situations.