Why the Commerce Department?

[Maj]

The department of education began operating on May 16, 1980.

This is so dishonest. You've quoted it before, so I thought you actually knew, but apparently, you're continuing to ignore the fact that before the Department of Education, there was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It did oversee your education.

And before that was established in 1953, the US government was still involved with education through the Office of Education, which - before that - was the Department of Education (established in 1867).

So as much as you want to claim that because the modern day "Department of Education" didn't exist when you were a kid, the federal government wasn't involved in your education, you'd be wrong.

If his goal was to improve education, then no. Not generally successful.

I didn't realize that the Gates' foundation was throwing so much money at various education experiments. Giovanni's school district is one of those projects, and we're seeing a direct benefit for him. But Gates is doing all sorts of random experiments in education - at all age groups. It's kinda cool, really.

[Neeeek]

The department of education began operating on May 16, 1980.

This is so dishonest. You've quoted it before, so I thought you actually knew, but apparently, you're continuing to ignore the fact that before the Department of Education, there was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It did oversee your education.

And before that was established in 1953, the US government was still involved with education through the Office of Education, which - before that - was the Department of Education (established in 1867).

So as much as you want to claim that because the modern day "Department of Education" didn't exist when you were a kid, the federal government wasn't involved in your education, you'd be wrong.

Well, he's also wrong about education being funded primarily at the local level, especially before 1980.

[tzor]

If there was no public education, I wouldn't have had one at all. Therefore, I will respond very strongly to any attempt for old rich men like Tzor to take it away because they want a couple pennies taken off their taxes.

Let's go through this one point at a time.

I'm not old I'm middle aged.
I'm not rich I'm well off.
I do not want to take away public education in the least.

Now if a national cirriculum was good for elementary schools and for high schools wouldn't it be good for colleges as well. Shouldn't places like RPI, MIT, Harvard, Yale, and Cal tech all be forced to have the same standard nationalized cirriculum, desiged by a political breucrat? Yea, I didn't think so either.

The Stone Tablet approach to education just doesn't work and just because you think your mountain is more holy doesn't mean what's written in stone on those tablets is the best for the students.

Maj, I'm not trying to be "dishonest." The question is whether or not education should be a cabinet level deprtment within the White House.

It is not about the elimination of all funding.
It is not about the elimination of all involvement at all levels of federal government.
It is about the proper role and side of education coordination at the federal level and the proper people who should be responsible for setting standards. (I would suggest professional educators, but I'm into letting the real experts in a field make policy for that field.)

Prior to NCLB it was not the federal government that set cirriculum. The elevation of education to its own department was only an attempt to make it look important. It was that false attempt at importantce that lead to the idea that the federal government could be the "solution" to the education problem and that caused the POS that was NCLB.

[Koumei]

They should rename it Department of Nuclear Power. Because that sounds awesome and everyone would want one of those! Require that people always bold it - even when speaking.

[Username17]

Not everyone needs to go to college

That is increasingly untrue. As productivity goes up the amount of labor there actually is to do goes down. There are limits to how many people we can employ in bullshit service jobs, and even for those demonstrating that you can stay on task and navigate bureaucracy for four years puts you ahead of teenagers.

The harsh reality is that we need to ration work. We can ration it on a daily basis: the 8 hour workday needs to come down to 6, eventually it will need to fall to 4. But we also need to ration it on a yearly basis: there simply aren't enough jobs to employ everyone from 15 to 64. To get jobs well spread out we need people entering the workforce later and getting out of it earlier. And if there aren't enough jobs to go around, how the fuck do you think private enterprise is going to ration them? I'll tell you how: by telling people who don't meet increasingly ridiculous qualification requirements to go fuck themselves.

The harsh reality is that even in a ridiculous socialist paradise like Norway, only 75% of the population age 15 to 64 is employed, and in every other country that is not Switzerland the employment ratio is less than that. And get this: Norway pays you to go to school. If we want to get to a full employment model, or even something vaguely resembling one, we're going to have to narrow the focus of the employment window. And you know what? Early retirement alone isn't going to cut it, because we also have the following problem. Simply put: the way Western Society is structured, people need to spend their child bearing years "getting ahead" and the result is that not enough people have children. We need to kick people 18-26 out of the workforce so that our populations won't go into freefall.

From a simple social engineering standpoint: everyone needs to go to college. Our civilization literally cannot support any other alternative.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

I approve of any and all attempts to make a Department of Nuclear Power.

We need nukes. Otherwise, we are gonna stay on this rock and die on this rock .

[CatharzGodfoot]

I approve of any and all attempts to make a Department of Nuclear Power.

We need nukes. Otherwise, we are gonna stay on this rock and die on this rock .

As pointed out by Frank [much] earlier, developing nuclear powerplants is antithetical to developing nuclear spacecraft. There simply isn't enough fuel to sustain large-scale long-term nuclear power plant use, and any fuel that you use to light up a city is fuel that you won't be able to use to get to Saturn.

[Chamomile]

For the first time in pretty much all of history, we have more workers than we need to sustain a fully functioning economy at maximum capacity.

Now watch us blow ourselves to the dark ages trying to figure out who gets the privilege of working 9-5 every day until a hair's breadth from death.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I approve of any and all attempts to make a Department of Nuclear Power.

We need nukes. Otherwise, we are gonna stay on this rock and die on this rock .

I support(ed) civilian nuclear power plants even at the cost of hurting the long-term space program just as recently as a couple of years ago because:

A.) People are a lot more sensitive to the dangers and safety issues of nuclear power than of fossil fuels. Coal production kills thousands a year, pollution from coal production and coal power generation kills tens of thousands, no one bats an eye. Do you think that nuclear power could get away with that? No.

Personally, I see this as a good thing. You might not, depending on how much you think the governments' white-knuckled fear of nuclear disaster is not worth the additional cost.

B.) Helps fight global warming. It's a rough choice, but I'd rather near-permanently condemn an area the size of Colorado to be an irradiated wasteland for well over 20 million years than allow the temperatures of the ocean to rise 5' Celsius.


Of course solar power production (and to a lesser extent geothermal) has been making incredible leaps in progress over the past few years, Solyndra scandal or no. The whole 'would you rather chop your legs or a hand off' argument could become a 'would you rather chop your legs off, a hand off, or clip your fingernails' one. So it's a moot point, really, leaving the fissionable material available for undersea and space exploration.

[fbmf]

The department of education began operating on May 16, 1980.

This is so dishonest. You've quoted it before, so I thought you actually knew, but apparently, you're continuing to ignore the fact that before the Department of Education, there was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It did oversee your education.

And before that was established in 1953, the US government was still involved with education through the Office of Education, which - before that - was the Department of Education (established in 1867).

So as much as you want to claim that because the modern day "Department of Education" didn't exist when you were a kid, the federal government wasn't involved in your education, you'd be wrong.

Well, he's also wrong about education being funded primarily at the local level, especially before 1980.

For Texas (k-12)public schools, less than 10% of the funding is federal. The rest is a (roughly) split between local and state.

Game On,
fbmf

[RobbyPants]

Now if a national cirriculum was good for elementary schools and for high schools wouldn't it be good for colleges as well. Shouldn't places like RPI, MIT, Harvard, Yale, and Cal tech all be forced to have the same standard nationalized cirriculum, desiged by a political breucrat? Yea, I didn't think so either.

You pay money to go to any of those colleges. Some cost more, some cost less.

When we're talking about a public education which is effectively free to the students, it's important to make sure that the ones in poor communities aren't getting crapped on.

[sabs]

Tzor, a National Education Curiculum is a baseline minimum. Local/State/Private schools are more than welcome to go above and beyond.
Private Schools need to be held to minimum standards.

Course why you put RPI in the same breath as MIT, HArvard, Yale and Cal Tech I'll never know. RPI is not nearly as good. Even if it is a solid tier 2 engineering school. You didn't put Cornell or CMU on that list, and they're at LEAST as good as RPI.

Are you trying to imply that MIT's education standards aren't good enough?

[tzor]

Not everyone needs to go to college

That is increasingly untrue.

No it is not, although it all dpends on how you define "college." A lot of people should take advantage of a "technical" school. These schools can become almost as complex as a college these days; heck your typical army mechanic these days probably has more technical skill than your average engineering graduate from WWII.

The question isn't a matter of "service jobs." Someone has to operate various manufacturing plants. Someone has to man the offshore oil well, operate the various systems of energy / product procution, and even operate the transporation devices that take us and good from point A to point B.. Someone has to build and maintain infrastructure.

[tzor]

Course why you put RPI in the same breath as MIT, HArvard, Yale and Cal Tech I'll never know. RPI is not nearly as good. Even if it is a solid tier 2 engineering school. You didn't put Cornell or CMU on that list, and they're at LEAST as good as RPI.

Please note, you can insult my religion, you can insult my politics, but for the love of the sacred 'Tute (that glorius screw that no matter which way you turn always diggs in deeper) do not disparage the great institute of Stephen Van Rensselaer.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, or RPI, is a private research university located in Troy, New York. It was founded in 1824 by Stephen Van Rensselaer for the "application of science to the common purposes of life", and is the oldest technological university in the English-speaking world.[6] Built on a hillside, RPI's 275-acre (111 ha) campus overlooks the historic city of Troy and the Hudson River and is a blend of traditional and modern architecture. The institute operates an on-campus business incubator and the 1,250-acre (510 ha) Rensselaer Technology Park, and is known for its success in the transfer of technology from the laboratory to the marketplace.[7]

RPI's mission has slowly evolved over the years while retaining a focus on the scientific and technological roots upon which it was founded. Over the past century, RPI has grown into a university with 5 schools: The School of Architecture, The School of Engineering, The School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, The School of Science, and the Lally School of Management & Technology. All together, the university offers around 140 degree programs in 60 fields leading to bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees. RPI consistently ranks in the top 50 among U.S. universities for overall academics and among the top 50 worldwide for technology.[8][9] Adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1995, RPI's current mission is to "educate the leaders of tomorrow for technologically based careers. We celebrate discovery, and the responsible application of technology, to create knowledge and global prosperity."[10]

The institute attracts students from every state and 92 foreign countries. Among class of 2014, 83% were in the top 10% of their high school class.[11] The average high school GPA of the class of 2013 was a 3.9 and the average SAT score was 1440 out of 1600. The acceptance rate dropped between 2005–11 and in 2011 was 36.1%.[12] Rensselaer has been proclaimed to be 'the next' Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and was named as a 'New Ivy' by Newsweek and Kaplan. It remains in the 'Top 50 Universities' by U.S. News & World Report.

So why did I mention RPI/MIT and Harvard/Yale ... not because they are the only four, but because there are general rivalries between the two (like Rice and Texas).

Cal tech was mentioned simply because some would accuse me of east coast boas.

Cornell (I have to be carefull here, I might loose access to the club where I have membership because of my association with RPI) is a damn fine college and is excellent in every way. CMU (I could have easily gone there had it not been just a tad too far from Long Island) is also a damn fine university and is excellent in every way.

But to the point, please do not disparrage my dear old RPI. Othwerside I might ask a certain very large hockey puck to visit your residence.



Don't mess with the Puckman.

[Neeeek]

Well, he's also wrong about education being funded primarily at the local level, especially before 1980.

For Texas (k-12)public schools, less than 10% of the funding is federal. The rest is a (roughly) split between local and state.

Game On,
fbmf

Not really. See, Texas's state government receives about 30-35% of it's funding from the federal government. Well, it used to, it's closer to 40% as of last year.

[sabs]

I went to CMU
I can insult RPI to my heart's content.

[Dr_Noface]

If you could figure out how to get more people interested in science, and then pump a bunch of tax money into scientific research, perhaps unemployment could be solved. There should be unlimited jobs in the eternal quest for knowledge. Probably won't be practical for a couple generations though.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I went to CMU
I can insult RPI to my heart's content.

[Username17]

Texas Public Schooling spends about 58 Billion dollars. Now, Texas chooses to define their budget as having 7.8% of that coming from Federal Funds. But that's kind of a shell game. Texas' total state and local spending accounts for 335 Billion Dollars, of which 121 billion dollars go into Education. Now in 2009, Texas received 224 Billion Dollars from the Federal Government.

the budget shell game is pretty complicated, and the state government of Texas launders quite a bit of money through itself in order to make the federal government's contribution look smaller. But the fact is that more than half of everything done by the state government of Texas at any level is paid for with federal dollars.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

Texas Public Schooling spends about 58 Billion dollars. Now, Texas chooses to define their budget as having 7.8% of that coming from Federal Funds. But that's kind of a shell game. Texas' total state and local spending accounts for 335 Billion Dollars, of which 121 billion dollars go into Education. Now in 2009, Texas received 224 Billion Dollars from the Federal Government.

the budget shell game is pretty complicated, and the state government of Texas launders quite a bit of money through itself in order to make the federal government's contribution look smaller. But the fact is that more than half of everything done by the state government of Texas at any level is paid for with federal dollars.

-Username17

Well, we wouldn't want to ruin their narrative of a being a bunch of rugged individualist cowboys that could just go it alone if they deemed it necessary.

[tzor]

I went to CMU
I can insult RPI to my heart's content.

Bah, our division I hockey team can beat your ... wait you don't have one!

Sucks to be you. I'm putting you on my ignore list on general principle.

[sabs]

You're not canadian and you're talking about Hockey

You've already lost.

[Zinegata]

Of course solar power production (and to a lesser extent geothermal) has been making incredible leaps in progress over the past few years, Solyndra scandal or no. The whole 'would you rather chop your legs or a hand off' argument could become a 'would you rather chop your legs off, a hand off, or clip your fingernails' one. So it's a moot point, really, leaving the fissionable material available for undersea and space exploration.

Solar power is never going to generate power as efficiently as nuclear, especially a terrestrial-based solar power system. Even in ideal conditions, a solar plant works for only about half a day every day .

Moreover...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... ropulsion)

Nukes are great for space propulsion. Hell, farting a nuke out of the spacecraft's ass, detonating it, and riding the shockwave is theoretically one of the most efficient ways of space travel.

And that's before you go into even crazier theoretical rockets like the Salt Water Zubrin, which involves detonating a nuke inside the spacecraft and farting the super-heated fuel out its ass .

[fbmf]

Well, he's also wrong about education being funded primarily at the local level, especially before 1980.

For Texas (k-12)public schools, less than 10% of the funding is federal. The rest is a (roughly) split between local and state.

Game On,
fbmf

Not really. See, Texas's state government receives about 30-35% of it's funding from the federal government. Well, it used to, it's closer to 40% as of last year.

Yes, really.

Or are you going to tell me this a government funded message board since I pay for it and I'm a government employee?

Game On,
fbmf

[Fuchs]

If Texas is receiving most of its money from the feds, then that means most of the things the state of texas pays for is paid by the feds.

If you give your niece 50 dollar so she has enough money to buy a game that costs 80 dollars, do you think she's correct and honest when she claims that you did not pay partially for the game?