Is no public education good for a countries success?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #1

Post by DanieltheDragon »

Can a country with no public education compete with those that do have public education?

Are there any examples of countries without public education in the modern era that have succeeded economically and/or are thriving?


What would be the Pros of eliminating public education?

What are the cons of eliminating public education?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #2

Post by JP Cusick »

DanieltheDragon wrote: Can a country with no public education compete with those that do have public education?

Are there any examples of countries without public education in the modern era that have succeeded economically and/or are thriving?

What would be the Pros of eliminating public education?

What are the cons of eliminating public education?
My view of public education is that it promotes immorality and uncivil ideals so that the benefits are far outweighed by the negatives.

If a person (any age) uses the public library in a serious and determined way then they can get a far better self education then any public education.

In the modern era we can see people like Bill Gates who first built his computer software in his garage and dropped out of college, so did Mark Zuckerberg create Facebook and dropped out of college, and other people can make millions just by selling stuff on eBay or Amazon, so the public education is not the key factor.

In the OP it says in the modern era but I see that restriction as unfitting, because the founding fathers of the USA before 1776 did not have any public education, and even if some had a formal education it was not on the standard of today, and yet many of them were brilliant and very educated by their self.

Abe Lincoln was dirt poor with no public library and yet he educated his self and if Lincoln could do that in his circumstance then so could people today.

What I find is that many people today see the education as like a sporting event where each one just needs to pass (to win) and being smarter is not the criteria.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #3

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 2 by JP Cusick]

Opinion noted but you didn't actually answer any of the questions. It is limited to the modern era because public education and global economic competition didn't really start until the industrial revolution.

Are you posing an Amish type culture and economy?

Specifically what immoral and uncivil ideas does public education promote?

Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are geniuses yet they still graduated high school. I don't think it is an apt comparison to think that everyone or an entire country can do what these people did.

Certainly people could educate themselves like Abe the question is could a country still compete economically if everyone did so?

Can you name any countries today that compete successfully without public education?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #4

Post by JP Cusick »

DanieltheDragon wrote: Opinion noted but you didn't actually answer any of the questions.
I apologize for that.

In my repentance I give direct answers to the OP at bottom:
DanieltheDragon wrote: Specifically what immoral and uncivil ideas does public education promote?
The worse is the promotion of sexual activity and sexual deviance.

Near to that is the promotion of competition as the governing mentality.

The schools teach anti God and anti religion, and promote secular humanism.

The failure to teach the civil laws or about the Courts is a big problem too.
DanieltheDragon wrote: Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are geniuses yet they still graduated high school. I don't think it is an apt comparison to think that everyone or an entire country can do what these people did.

Certainly people could educate themselves like Abe the question is could a country still compete economically if everyone did so?
A person could do one tenth or one hundredth (1/100) of what those three did and still be a gigantic success.

A poor person can make just one million (1M$) and that can take them out of poverty and into prosperity - they do not need to make billions or become President, and so worldly success is available to anyone willing to put forth the effort - and that can be done with or without a public education.
DanieltheDragon wrote: Can you name any countries today that compete successfully without public education?
No, I can not.

But I object to that concept of competition, as if the Countries of the world must compete with the USA in order to be successful.

I know of many people in the USA who do not want to compete in our own American society as they just want to live simple and peaceful lives.


THE OP BELOW:
DanieltheDragon wrote: Can a country with no public education compete with those that do have public education?
No, they can not.

The problem is that public education is not teaching the subjects that challenge the students or that empower them with the tools that they really need. As like accurate and true and relevant history is not taught any where in the entire world. Also they are not being taught any realistic approach to God or to religion.
DanieltheDragon wrote: Are there any examples of countries without public education in the modern era that have succeeded economically and/or are thriving?
China is the best example we have - IMO.

China has embraced the best ideas of both Communism and of Capitalism and it appears (from afar) to be working quite well.

Of course I know nothing about the public education in China.
DanieltheDragon wrote: What would be the Pros of eliminating public education?

What are the cons of eliminating public education?
I can not give any pros or cons for eliminating public ed.

The real solution is in changing the public education into a realistic instrument for educating the students for real life, and that could not be done except by warfare and revolution.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #5

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 4 by JP Cusick]
The worse is the promotion of sexual activity and sexual deviance
Sexual education is woefully inadequate in the Us with most states opting out all together. I am unaware of any sex ed program that promotes any sexual activity or deviance. That being said deviance is subjective opinion. It would be best for schools to avoid that all together and limit said moral discussions to rape,abuse,assault,harassment. Parents can further teach whatever morals in addition to that on their own time.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #6

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 4 by JP Cusick]
The schools teach anti God and anti religion, and promote secular humanism.
What course material and subject promotes this? Aside from that being violation of the first amendment, why is the vast majority of Americans identified as Christian?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #7

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 4 by JP Cusick]
The failure to teach the civil laws or about the Courts is a big problem too.
I agree 100%. Civics is also an important subject often gutted due to budget cuts.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is no public education good for a countries success?

Post #8

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 4 by JP Cusick]
The real solution is in changing the public education into a realistic instrument for educating the students for real life, and that could not be done except by warfare and revolution
Or you know you could vote instead of killing people.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #9

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From the OP:
Can a country with no public education compete with those that do have public education?
This question seems a bit vague, or poorly worded. Sure they could compete, and sure they could even win. They could win by not electing Donald Trump to be their president.
Are there any examples of countries without public education in the modern era that have succeeded economically and/or are thriving?
'Pends on what it takes to "thrive". A country that there it sits being it all one, well that's "thriving" right there.
What would be the Pros of eliminating public education?
We wouldn't have to pay to educate the poors, or folks who don't match our skin tone or religious or political ideals.
What are the cons of eliminating public education?
That it ain't about conservatives being upset at what they perceive to be a "liberal institution".

There's also the issue of educating folks to believe unsupportable religious claims, or to teach that the environment / global warming ain't important 'cause, ya know, "Bring on the End Times, Bring on the Rapture!"

And don't get me started with the flat earthers.

(edit 'cause the and they are two different words)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #10

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 2:
JP Cusick wrote: My view of public education is that it promotes immorality and uncivil ideals so that the benefits are far outweighed by the negatives.
[strike]Lacking specifics, it's hard to agree or disagree here. Could you provide a few examples of such?[/strike]

Did you attend public schools?

If not, I propose you lack sufficient perspective.

If so, your "immoral" education indicates you're not to be trusted to tell us the truth.
JP Cusick wrote: If a person (any age) uses the public library in a serious and determined way then they can get a far better self education then any public education.
I wish I knew that when I was a one year old baby, and couldn't read. I coulda just crawled me on down to the library, and taught myself how to read! Think how much I'da known by the age of two!

Some folks are great at educating themselves, others need 'em some help.

What if they find themselves in a library that only houses public school material?

What if it's a public library? A public library with public school material?
JP Cusick wrote: In the modern era we can see people like Bill Gates who first built his computer software in his garage and dropped out of college...
Gates was the son of well-to-do parents, who could afford to send him to private school.
JP Cusick wrote: so did Mark Zuckerberg create Facebook and dropped out of college
Attended Ardsley High School. A publicly funded school.

Immoral, uncivil scum!
JP Cusick wrote: and other people can make millions just by selling stuff on eBay or Amazon, so the public education is not the key factor.
And other people can lose millions just by trying to sell stuff.
JP Cusick wrote: In the OP it says in the modern era but I see that restriction as unfitting, because the founding fathers of the USA before 1776 did not have any public education
This says nothing about the masses who vote.
JP Cusick wrote: and even if some had a formal education it was not on the standard of today, and yet many of them were brilliant and very educated by their self.
This says nothing about their less well off contemporaries. Who knows, maybe if some 1776 young'n had 'em a public education, they coulda built 'em an operating system and put 'em the facebook on it.

This is the problem with your arguments - you're considering exceptional folks, where there's more folks than just the exceptional'ns.
JP Cusick wrote: Abe Lincoln was dirt poor with no public library and yet he educated his self and if Lincoln could do that in his circumstance then so could people today.
Lincoln didn't protect his flanks and ended up with him a fatal noggin' shootin'.

That ain't smart.

So much for considerin' only the exceptionals.
JP Cusick wrote: What I find is that many people today see the education as like a sporting event where each one just needs to pass (to win) and being smarter is not the criteria.
While I agree too many students just show up to get by, there are many young folks who are proud to attend their publicly funded schools, and who go on to do great things.

Just 'cause they don't get mentioned, or become billionaires, don't mean they ain't doing 'em good for society.

(Edit for the striking. I felt erasing it might be perceived as just "hiding" something I might find detrimental to my own argument/s.)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply