I recognize that we have different viewpoints on this, but in case it was a question asking about what our reasoning is, this is mine:

Primary education is an infrastructure issue. The more well educated our populace is, the better our society will be. As someone who believes that the role of government is to provide for society-wide infrastructure, educating children falls in the same vein as building roads. While there are certainly benefits to individuals provided by both of those programs, it is the betterment of the whole that is the purpose.

Oregon does this, with the charter and magnet school program. It's popular enough that entrance to the school is based off a lottery.

So I'm doing woefully at keeping up with this thread. Living so remotely, much more of my time is spent just keeping everything running and working just so that we can live. Doesn't leave much time for internet.

To add to that, someone stole one of our backup generators last night. Pushed it about half a mile down a sandy dirt road in a wheelbarrow at around 2am to a waiting truck. Spent the morning dealing with the police, who I had to pick up since they don't have a vehicle. I had to write my own statement because he was too lazy. Pretty much an exercise in futility since they won't do anything. I know exactly who did it because I recognize the vehicle tracks. He has three different tires with very distinctive and different tread patterns and one wobbly wheel. Unmistakeable. I know he's going to get off scott free. I also know he'll smile and greet me next time I see him as if nothing happened. The temptation to take out some vigilante justice is quite strong right now.

Anyhow, all that aside, Jeff's doing a good job expressing views that align with mine exactly, and with much more eloquence and substance. I'll get back to add in more as I have time.

We do, and that's ok. I enjoy our conversations. I hope you feel the same.



I don't think the role of government is to provide a continual "betterment" of the whole. I think the role of government is to protect individual sovereignty and liberty to the maximum possible extent. I assert that the authors of our constitution agreed with this, and intended to create a very strictly limited government for the United States.

One reason I believe this is that the notion of "betterment" is inherently subjective and changing, and thus best left to the individual to pursue according to their own values, with tolerance for others and never using coercion against their fellows.

Also, while I acknowledge there are roles for central authority to achieve this end (such as national defense, enforcing contract and property rights, etc.), I do not accept the notion that all infrastructure must be provided for by government. In fact, most of our best infrastructure has not been. The electrical grid, telephone infrastructure, cell phone infrastructure, New York subway system -- all were developed by private businesses. So while I agree that an educated population is a good thing, I reject the notion that it is SO good that coercion should be employed to see that it exists. If the people want education (which they do), then they will provide for it privately or at the local government level, as they did for decades in America before the federal government got involved.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have schools. I'm saying this is not an appropriate function of a central government and it doesn't justify coercion.

Federal government (Rural Electrification Administration) was part of the rollout of a true national electric grid, and later the agency changed into the Rural Utilities Service to assist with full deployments of telephone and other utility services.

My personal opinion is that there needs to be a good balance of both federal government and business driving key infrastructure. Businesses left on their own to create critical pieces of modern infrastructure tend to stop when the profits dip below a certain level, leaving rural America without power. A good balance prevents the corporations from running wild (creating Enron energy crisis situations), and also avoids the federal government from growing too large.

I think had the FCC stepped up a bit back in the late 90s and guided the private cellular companies towards a unified standard, we'd have a much more competitive mobile phone market today. Instead we are faced with a situation of having only 4 national providers, possibly down to 3 in the next year.

They have to have a lottery because the government limits the amount of charters it authorizes, and essentially maintains a monopoly on school operation. Why is a government-sanctioned charter necessary? Why can't I open a good school and let parents send their kids? The "Waiting for Superman" movie is about charter schools in New York and is excellent.

Notice how it's mostly private colleges where people are clamoring to gain admission? Could it be because those schools are better?

So I directly questioned the home schooled graduating senior about some of the stuff in this thread. First off, she is very happy having been home schooled and feels it was a great experience. It turns out her mother taught for years before home schooling her, so that was something I did not know. It was definitely a Conservative/Christian influenced education, including not only criticisms of evolution, but also global warming (which is a conservative issue, not a religious one). We talked some about micro versus macro evolution, but she admitted that the teacher who taught on this subject (I don't know what that means, but apparently at least some subjects were taught outside the home) was not very strong in her presentation (likely the teacher was actually an evolutionist teaching material she didn't quite agree with). She also said that Biblical creation was taught, but she did not remember if this was part of a science class or religious teaching. I also asked what the Christian objection to theistic evoltion was and got a deer in the headlights response, and then proceeded to get much the same response from the rest of our worship team (I was asking questions while rehearsing). This of course I found discouraging, but it seems to be a larger problem of the church, not just home school education.

Now, if this sounds like she didn't have a good education, let me assure you that is definitely not the case. Her standardized testing scores are very high, she is an excellent communicator, and she is placing out of college courses. However, it does sound as if some of the criticism of religious based teaching are somewhat valid, which would undoubtably be true in a private Christian school as well. It is not surprising (nor does it bother me) that she would be taught about evolution from an assumed standpoint that man was not evolved, but it does bother me that if the objection to evolution is based on faith, those reasons should be clearly taught. At least at that point you have a clear line of thinking that can be examined and questioned or strengthened. The global warming stuff was surprising to me, but that kind of underscores that this isn't purly religious influence.

What was encouraging, however, is that when I began to dive a little deeper and ask questions about this stuff she was not afraid to engage and even question the material. At the end of the day, I am still very impressed with the quality of her education and believe she is set up well to enter into the college world. She has strong convictions, but also is thoughtful and open to new and challenging ideas. I can honestly say that I wish I'd had been as prepared for college when I was her age.

Just one person's story, but I thought it might be interesting to thos ewho don't get much of a chance to see the effects of a Christian based home schooling experience. It doesn't sound perfect, but it does sound like her experience was overall very positive and educational.

For one thing, prestige begets prestige. Plenty of people apply to Harvard and MIT because they're big names that they've heard of, and, hey, maybe they win the lottery and get accepted. Most of them don't, a feature that pushes up the rejection rate, which makes them more selective, which makes them more prestigious, and the circle of life continues.

Furthermore, private colleges and universities are generally smaller in enrollment than public colleges and universities -- part of that is that the small private schools take a cue from their public sector counterparts in other industries and constrain the supply, so that they can be more selective, and therefore be more prestigious and... (see above)

Well said, Tony, and I'd like to add that there are plenty of people clamoring to get into public colleges/universities too! I would be shocked if the private vs public issue even entered the minds of 90% of graduating high school seniors. All they're looking at are the names, the reputations, the courses offered, how far from home, etc.

All the best schools reject thousands of students.

Jeff, I have a question about home schooling that you or someone else might answer, and I don't think it's come up yet: is there any accountability?

Who does the home school teacher report to, if anybody? How do they report? Does the state have any requirements of a home school education?

Are you suggesting that the major difference is exclusiveness and there isn't a material difference in education quality, or just that the exclusiveness becomes valued in itself? I agree (somewhat) with the latter, but it's kind of like any time you hear the "you're paying for the name" argument, there's usually a *reason* that brand is regarded more highly. I mean, a Toyota Corolla and a BMW M3 are both "cars", but to say that the BMW only costs more because of the BMW logo (which I have heard said) is preposterous.

I don't know, but I can certainly ask. My information is very limited- I actually haven't been a big fan of home schooling and it was only meeting a few very impressive home schoolers at our current church that has started to open up my mind about the benefits.

Even public school bureaucrats will tell you that parental involvement is critical in how a kid does in school. I think with home-schooled kids you are seeing some selection bias. Parents who home school are, by definition, *extremely* involved in their kids' education. With that kind of parental involvement, they'd probably be honor students in public school, also.

All of the homeschoolers I know made the decision with ideological reasons as the major factor. They reject the ideological orthodoxy that is in control of setting school curriculum and school policy. Again, when the federal government determines the rules for everyone, then special interests will vie for control. Though I personally disagree with my homeschooler friends in many ways (I am a non-theist), I think they tend to be pretty bright, serious, earnest people. Just misguided and with a very limited view of their own theology. :-)

But as much as I personally disagree, I think it's their business what they want to teach their kids and in the name of tolerance and non-coercion I support their right to do as they please. I also think it's wrong to force people to pay for an educational system they disagree with, as is required with a one-size-fits-all, centralized, federally mandated approach.

I think this raises another point. Whose responsibility is it to educate children? I contend it's the parent's responsibility. Even if the public school system is out there, it's still the parent's responsibility to make sure their kid is learning what they need to be successful in life.

If we're going to get anywhere with this tangent, I think we need to be very precise about the metrics we use to measure "education quality." Your suggestion was that there's a direct relation between students "clamoring to get in" to private schools, and those private schools being "better." Now, with the Toyota/BMW example, you seem to be shifting your argument to saying that anything people are willing to pay more for must be better. Those are very different arguments.

You're right that, at the higher end, private schools are probably turning away more applicants. But I don't think that demonstrates a relationship between that and quality of the education, especially if you factor in the cost of tuition (as most people would in any five or six figure spending decision.)

Of course it's the case that many private schools provide the best education that money can by, but it costs more money to buy that great education. I think being better in absolute terms (however you measure better) doesn't mean a lot without factoring in how much it costs to go there (obviously if your kid qualifies for scholarships or grants, that's a different story.)

I'll pick two schools I'm familiar with to use as examples. I work for a school in the "highly prestigious, private" category (Carnegie Mellon) and earned my own degrees from a school in the "somewhat prestigious, public" category (Penn State.) CMU tuition is $43k a year, while Penn State tuition is $15k for PA residents (3/4 of the stuent body) and $26k for non-PA residents -- we'll say, on average, $18k a year.*

So, some day, I'll have to decide where to send my kid(s) to college. Should I send them to the school I work at, or the one I graduated from?** Is CMU's extra prestige worth paying 150% more in tuition over Penn State? If you go for computer science, it might be -- CMU's comp. sci. program is superior to my alma mater's, so maybe a CMU CS degree puts you on the path to greatness in my field -- it certainly doesn't hurt.

On the other hand, say you enter as a CS grad and decide to switch to mechanical engineering. CMU's got a great ME program -- 11th in the country -- so you're still good. But Penn State's ME program is 16th. Are those five spots in the rankings (basically a rounding error) really worth $120,000 a year in additional tuition? Doesn't seem like it. If you just look at a generic CMU degree vs. a generic PSU degree, is there that much difference to an employer? I'm not sure -- I got a job here without a CMU degree, and many of my coworkers got jobs here with degrees from schools far down the prestige scale from CMU.

So, we can talk about whether there's something innately better about private vs. public universities, and we can talk about whether higher education is truly a "you get what you pay for" endeavor where the more expensive and more exclusive schools get you a better result (either in absolute terms or relative to the dollar spent on tuition) but I don't think we can debate all of those issues simultaneously -- there are too many variables in the equation to have a productive conversation.


* Tuition at a state school is partially offset by state funding, of course, but tuition at private schools is usually similarly offset by a much larger pool of scholarship money made available to applicants. I don't know that it's a complete wash, but I doubt it changes the equation that much.

** Actually, as an employee, I'd be able to send my kids to CMU for free, but unless they're way smarter than I am, they won't get in -- that damn private school selectivity!

100% agree. I specifically chose a non-religious school for my kids, so they have learned about Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity etc on an equal footing as part of the school's cultural awareness program.

At some point if they decide to become religious, fair enough, but it won't be through indoctrination before they know any better.

I think this is a large part of the reason why Jeff sees so many people in the middle, who go to church once a week, wear the cross around their neck, and dedicate their Oscar to God, but otherwise display no other Christian morals or ethics in their lives.

These people never had the opportunity to find their own truth, as it's immensely more difficult to do if you have to first strip away the indoctrination. Consequently, the religion is essentially meaningless to them.

Is it really? Which car is "better" depends to a great extent on what parameters you choose to establish value.

If you compare on the basis of fundamental purpose, i.e., the moving of people from one place to another, the Toyota is superior to the BMW in fuel economy, comfort (you pay a price for that BMW's superb handling and cornering ability!), reliability, and most especially total cost of ownership (overall cost per mile considering fuel, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, etc.) that is maybe 1/4 the cost of the BMW.

Only when you consider less tangible aspects of ownership does the BMW show superiority, things like pride and exclusivity of ownership, the knowledge (that only a tiny few owners will ever actually utilize)* that their BMW will corner at .9G whereas the best the lowly Toyota will manage is maybe .8, the satisfaction of amenities like leather seats and electric mirrors... all these things are nice to have but contribute little or nothing to the fundamental purpose of the car.

Of course nearly all of the supposed advantages of the Toyota disappear if you take cost out of the picture. In that case I guess I would concede the BMW is a "better" car.

tanstaafl.

*A Michelin tire engineer was quoted in Car & Driver magazine saying something to the effect of "Given the choice of cornering at more than .4G or hitting a tree, the majority of people will hit the tree." Most drivers obtain no benefit whatsoever from BMW-like handling prowess. Naturally everybody on this BBS is excluded from that generalization, the only reason we're not racing in Formula 1 is because we're just too busy to take on another hobby.

I've driven both a few Corollas and a few BMWs, including the 1997 328is I'm now selling.

The BMW is comparatively a pig on gas. It's got a 2.8L engine. That big engine also brings other benefits. It's very responsive and fast with a great deal of torque, compared to the little Corolla.

The leather seats are infinitely more comfortable than any seats in any Corolla, even with the car's stiffer suspension.

Every part of the BMW is made with better materials than the Corolla. Better plastics, better fabrics, much better steel. Given the same routine, the BMW will last longer.

It's a prestige marque because it's a higher end product made out of higher end materials and to tighter tolerances. I suppose the word "better," like "worth" is personal and subjective. There's most definitely more markup dollars on a BMW, but there's also a much higher bill of materials. They're just not in the same class whatsoever.

Using the Corolla as an example really stretched the Toyota example needlessly however, since even BMW's lowest end car is a higher end product than Toyota's highest.

And no, no one "needs" the handling of a BMW or any other great handling car for that matter. But driving one, compared to driving a Corolla, is like making a trip in a luxurious dreamliner compared to riding a donkey. I thought I'd go extreme too. They feel great and good handling = fun to drive.

This is similar to the Apple notebook compared to <randomname> netbook analogy.

I have to say, I'm a performance car nut, and I wouldn't ever class BMW among good performance cars (with the exception of the M3 and M5 which I have raced a few times and are quite good fun)

I would class them as executive or luxury cars - they are comfy and look and feel nice, but they don't handle, corner or accelerate well compared to a performance car.

It's really a case of paying vast sums of money for some nice wood and leather, a shiny badge and some soundproofing.

For me, the BMW fulfils a part of the market I don't understand. The Toyota, whilst not classy, will get you where you want to go very efficiently and cost-effectively, a proper performance car will get you there fast and quite cost-effectively, but the BMW is at neither end - it will get you there comfortably, but nothing about it is cost-effective.

As a devout petrolhead I can't understand why you would pay that much for a car which pretty much removes the driving experience.

- nah, it's all about timing. We're on here because our racing genius wasn't spotted at age 4... :-)

Heh.. if you saw the "normal" cars that are sold over here (Canada/USA), you might think differently.

Even the nicer Japanese cars are not quite the same here as what you folks in GB and EU get -- different engines, different trannys, and I suspect they skimp on some of the other stuff too.

Which makes the experience of a nice EU car so much much better in comparison.

Cheers

You can get every BMW in a plush version, but you can also get many in a more performance-oriented trim without going to the full M spec. I wouldn't dare say that they're created strictly as performance vehicles nor that they'd compare to a decent Porsche (as an example) in that respect until you got a full M spec ride. But they have performance and handling characteristics you won't find in other vehicles one might more quickly associate or compare them with.

For Toyota you have to move up to the Lexus badge before you start seeing any of this refinement. And even still, the fit and finish is not at the same level.

It's a bit odd, they seem to exist (here in the UK) only to feed a used car market to those who see them as some sort of "faux status symbol". It appears (to me) that the sector of the market that were traditionally buying them (in the 80's?) have long since moved on to Audi's. I did used to like surprising beamers in the clio.

I agree wholeheartedly. And in my experience, it makes a massive difference in achievement levels. I think that's the primary reason why many private schools can produce students that average far higher test scores across the board at a fraction of the budget. The parents are far more vested since they're shelling out big bucks for that education. That's also why I don't believe in the whole "throw more money at the problem" fallacy as a way to fix our public education system. In then end, it's up to the parents to make sure their children are learning.

A couple of the private schools I worked with required a certain number of volunteer hours for every parent/guardian per semester. I wonder how that would work in the public sector. Obviously the biggest problem would be enforcing it.

Hi,

Actually, not all of the BMWs have to be gas hogs. My son has a BMW 750iL that I drive during the summer sometimes. Even though it has a 12 cylinder engine - two computer controlled in-line 6s, has the "protection package" and weighs a ton, it consistently gets around 20 MPG around town and more on the freeway. It is fun to drive and is very responsive. The problem with this car is that everything is so smooth and controlled, it gets away from you and you don't notice how fast you are going. At real high speeds it gets scary how smooth and controlled the ride is.

He also has a Mercedes S55 AMG. It is a 500 HP, 500 ft/lb, 8 cylinder car.

The 2 cars think and respond differently. The BMW will go fast, but not off of the block. The S55 is like driving a big hammer. You want power, just ask - it's there waiting, and you better hold on. Both cars will go real fast, just have a different profile.

I personally like to drive the BMW better. It just understands the way I drive better. Obviously, neither car is a Formula, but they are fun to drive. He loves to drive both for different reasons. He has a couple of GN (Buick T-Type) that he is working on too. Whole different story on those of course - they are made for off-the-blocks speed for 1/4 mile track. Anyone out there play with GNs too?

The real cost of ownership with the BMW and Mercedes type of cars is repair. Very Expensive for even minor repairs. Even a brake job is expensive (>$1000.00 per axle), because of the special design, and materials used.

Ross

It's possible that the causation runs the other way: the parents are far more interested in a good education, so they're prepared to shell out the big bucks. And, because they're more interested, they're more likely to encourage, cajole, bribe, etc., their kids into learning more. Also, there might be a genetic factor: parents who are interested in their kids being educated (i.e. think that education is a good thing) are more likely to have children who think that education is a good thing.

Another important thing to remember is that kids with parents who have enough money to even be considering private tuition probably have an easier time being involved -- they can pay a nanny, scale back work hours to be available for school meetings, be around to help with homework, etc.

Getting back to the higher education tangent for a minute, I think those who are worried about kids being indoctrinated with socialist views at private universities might want to take a look at what's going on at Florida State.

RE: Conflict between evolution and Christianity
Interesting viewpoint from The BioLogos Foundation:

http://biologos.org/blog/the-crutch/

The main thrust of this article is exactly where I'm at. That is, while I do not believe that evolution is responsible for the origin of man, I DO believe that Christians have put this issue too far forward and often it garners more attention than the Gospel itself, which I think is the main, if not only, issue we should truly be concerned about.

That is, if I am talking with someone who is not a believer and I spend more time talking about evolution/creation than the redemptive work of Christ, then I am doing my beliefs a disservice. A person can certainly accept evolution and Jesus as Savior at the same time. Believing that man was created through evolution is not a barrier of entry into fellowship with God through Christ, yet from the importance Christians put on it you would think that it is- and that itself becomes a barrier to faith.

I will talk with people about evolution who are curious about my beliefs, if there's a general discussion surrounding it, or to try and alleviate it as a potential hang up for faith, but it is not, and has never been, the major thrust of what I believe. Ultimately, the only question that matters (from my viewpoint) is what kind of faith someone has in Jesus. Accept or reject that, and we can have a healthy discussion about evolution someday- I definitely have my view and opinions and I think it is certainly an important topic, but not so important that I erect it as a hurdle that must be overcome in order to find faith in Christ. After all, I am only human and my understanding can certainly be flawed- many still well regarded Christian leaders found fault with Galileo because they erred in understanding the Word of God. That doesn't mean I think I'm wrong, but I'm open to the possibility, and the Gospel is of such prime importance in my belief system that I would not want to cloud it with even the potential of erecting a false stumbling block between people and faith.

While I agree with much of what he's saying in the article, I find it hysterical that he seems to think that apostates are desperately searching for reasons to continue their apostasy. Maybe we just think that it's ridiculous.

Agreed. He got nailed on that in the comments, too.