Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#73 - luiselvergas (05/09/2013) [-]
> implying public schools are any good......
> implying public schools are any good......
User avatar #79 to #73 - luiselvergas (05/09/2013) [-]
i think i should rephrase to
> implying the Government uses that money efficently
User avatar #75 to #73 - HarvietheDinkle (05/09/2013) [-]
can you think of a better system?
User avatar #77 to #75 - kijajouteh (05/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #80 to #77 - HarvietheDinkle (05/09/2013) [-]
1) indoctrination by parents
2) Very hard to standardize
3) How can college determine level of difficulty?
4) Much less (if no) interaction with peers of the same age - vital to social development and creation of social skills

I thought of these within 5 seconds. Homeschooling is not the way to go, for the majority of people.
#117 to #80 - xxpredatorxx (05/09/2013) [-]
1) I would be more worried about indoctrination by the schools than by the parents.
2) Why would you want it standardized?
3) Interview? test? there are plenty of ways other than the systems we have now.
4) Homeschoolers where I'm from are much more socially active than the average public school student.
User avatar #245 to #117 - HarvietheDinkle (05/10/2013) [-]
1) school teachings are public and more easy to regulate than the teachings of millions of parents
2) standardization is important to make sure that skills are up to par, to make sure there are no unfair advantages, and to make sure that colleges can actually have a standard by which they can do.
3) School grades over a 4-year course are much more important and well-rounded than the one-time solutions you mentioned.
4) That might be true, from where you are.

Also, how will we convince millions of parents to homeschool their kids? What about parents who don't have the time or income?

We need a standardized school system. But homeschooling is certainly not the solution for the vast majority.
User avatar #84 to #80 - kijajouteh (05/09/2013) [-]
1. Indoctrination is not required, you are free at 18.
2. Tons of courses that go with public schools.
3. Normally, you get more work done in Homeschool, most people graduate 1-2 years earlier.
4. We socialize dogs, not children
User avatar #92 to #84 - HarvietheDinkle (05/09/2013) [-]
1) I assume that's humor. Parents often indoctrinate their children (example: religion) and by the time the kids are 18 it's too late.
2) Ok. But how can we standardize the teaching and make sure the parents are up to par?
3) Depends on the parent (as with #2). Standardization issues
4) Kids need to socialize

One more thing: What if certain parents don't want to take up the task of teaching? That's actually the vast majority of parents, so we need a large public school option.
User avatar #78 to #75 - gammajk ONLINE (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah, like what Norway and Finland have.
User avatar #81 to #78 - HarvietheDinkle (05/09/2013) [-]
Norway and Finland have highly differentdemographics than the US.

Also, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to switch over.

luiselvergas makes sense now with his/her new comment.

User avatar #82 to #75 - helenwheels (05/09/2013) [-]
Golly gee willikers! What could be better than shoving 30 kids into a confined space with one adult, whose expected to teach them a set of certain things regardless of a child's interests or talents and can only progress as quickly as the slowest student!

Holy hell! What a great system!
User avatar #89 to #82 - HarvietheDinkle (05/09/2013) [-]
"think of a viable solution, then" is basically what I said.

Never said the current system is good; just that alternate solutions may be worse. And hard to implement.
User avatar #94 to #89 - helenwheels (05/09/2013) [-]
Smaller classes and more teachers is a good way to start, but I know that's easier said than done because we need more people who are willing to teach.
User avatar #96 to #94 - HarvietheDinkle (05/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #98 to #96 - helenwheels (05/09/2013) [-]
Still, we need to work on it, simply excepting something because coming up with a solution is hard is the opposite of what people should do.

I can say, I learned positively nothing from my public school education, everything I know was learned from family or the internet and people I know who don't have many educated family members are as dumb as rocks.
User avatar #246 to #98 - HarvietheDinkle (05/10/2013) [-]
Thing is, that's simply what people are doing - complaining but not offering any solutions, let alone viable ones.

It's the same thing with any political issue.
User avatar #249 to #246 - helenwheels (05/10/2013) [-]
The internet is a board for complaining, complaining about others complaining doesn't do much either.
User avatar #250 to #249 - HarvietheDinkle (05/10/2013) [-]
it gets them to realize (or at least admit) they're doing nothing. A minor accomplishment.
#93 to #82 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
it's easy to complain about something.

But you're just that - a whiny nobody - until you actually get off your ass and do something about it.
#14 - Visual (05/08/2013) [-]
The problem is, m8, that the government spends money on stupid ******* kids who don't want to learn.

There is one little **** in my class who turns in everything the minute he gets it and when the teacher asks why he does literally none of the assignments, his excuse is "I'm not in a good spot at home" but he comes to school every day and just sits on his ass in the back, drawing or being a cunt, wasting our precious air in the classroom.
#38 to #14 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
How is that the government's problem? I do believe it's the parents' problem.
User avatar #64 to #38 - Visual (05/09/2013) [-]
And what are we going to do about the parent's, huh? We going to force them to teach their ****** little kid responsibility? It doesn't work that way, pal. You can't make people choose how to raise their kid, any idea what kind of ********* that would create if enforced like that?
User avatar #61 to #38 - Visual (05/09/2013) [-]
The government is still forcing themselves to pay for that kid's education when he doesn't want it and won't accept it. We could be directing that money elsewhere where it is needed. The No-Child-Left-Behind plan is a waste of ******* money because of kids like these.
#43 to #38 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
exactly, it isnt the governments problem and yet we still blame them that there's not enough money, that those precious souls arent getting the education they need when in fact, they dont want that education in the first place.
User avatar #65 to #38 - Visual (05/09/2013) [-]
My school even has $1800 laptop-tablets for every kid. Do you think that kid is putting it to good use? All he does is look at stupid pictures all the time to draw or play games. That's good if he wants something to do with art, but the school district didn't need to waste $1800 for him to **** around on the internet.
User avatar #83 to #65 - stallwallwriter (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't see how that invalidates spending money on all the kids who *aren't* being little ***** , the kids who I assume are the majority since you mention this one guy and not a bunch of them.
If he pisses away his education, that's his own lookout, but a handful of asshats doesn't mean it should be ruined for the others.
User avatar #97 to #83 - Visual (05/09/2013) [-]
Basically what I'm trying to get at is that we should spend more money on students who want to actually learn and stop spending money on the little ***** who don't do put any effort into school. It's just that the U.S. needs to get off it's high horse and realize that they can't force people to learn.

#88 to #83 - Visual (05/09/2013) [-]
There's actually a lot of them actually, the numbers are staggering. It just doesn't seem that way because public schools are designed to have all their students pass with minimal effort.   
The students who flunk or drop out are the kind of people I just described.    
There are test retakes, grade repair, too many extra credit assignments, late turn-ins, and sometimes even extra, easy tests that replace the grade of a really bad one. Anyone who fails High School is both lazy and stupid because there are so many fail-safes that schools try to provide so they can get their government funding.   
Something is definitely wrong here.
There's actually a lot of them actually, the numbers are staggering. It just doesn't seem that way because public schools are designed to have all their students pass with minimal effort.

The students who flunk or drop out are the kind of people I just described.

There are test retakes, grade repair, too many extra credit assignments, late turn-ins, and sometimes even extra, easy tests that replace the grade of a really bad one. Anyone who fails High School is both lazy and stupid because there are so many fail-safes that schools try to provide so they can get their government funding.

Something is definitely wrong here.
User avatar #118 to #88 - zorororonoa (05/09/2013) [-]
I know what you mean when you say that there are too many extra credit and retake **** . When I was in Jr. High, specifically 7th grade I believe, in my history class, before every test the teacher would go over each question and answer in the exact same order as on the test. And I'm not talking about a review the day before. This was on the same day as the test. He would do a review with all the questions, showing us the answers in the same order, then we would take the test. You could sleep in every single class, then pay attention to that review and get an A. I loved it back then, but looking back I realize that that was ******* stupid. No one learned anything. That's the problem with public school system. It is all about scores than actually retaining information. Oh, it doesn't matter if you dont remember any of this **** , as long as you get an A on the test, you are smart. It is ******* ******** . And people wonder why a lot of freshmen struggle in college.
TL;DR public schools need to stop focusing on everyone being able to succeed, and need to start focusing on the ones that deserve to succeed get to succeed.
#111 to #14 - mtndewisgreat (05/09/2013) [-]
That's cool and all, but if you're going to complain about taxes you should look at see the pie chart of things your money is being spent on. Like %98 of your taxes go straight to the millitary dude, talking about government programs and public education, it is literally less that %1 of what you pay for taxes that actually is used for education
#149 to #111 - vytros (05/09/2013) [-]
I think you meant this.
#150 to #149 - vytros (05/09/2013) [-]
**** , didn't remember the size of the pic, so basically, the big yellow is Defense, while the red is Education.
#126 to #111 - xxpredatorxx (05/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #211 to #14 - gorilladin (05/09/2013) [-]
its phanacts fault
User avatar #20 to #14 - awesomenessdefined (05/08/2013) [-]
So he finishes all his work and yet hasn't done any assignments? What?
#58 to #20 - Visual (05/09/2013) [-]
Sorry, didn't phrase it correctly. He turns it in the minute he gets it without doing any work. Like he gets a blank worksheet from the teacher, he turns in a blank worksheet.
User avatar #85 - buttholee (05/09/2013) [-]
>Implying school makes you smart
User avatar #86 to #85 - aldheim (05/09/2013) [-]
Makes you smarter than no school.
User avatar #87 to #86 - buttholee (05/09/2013) [-]
Not necessarily
User avatar #90 to #87 - aldheim (05/09/2013) [-]
Well I don't know what the **** you did in school, then.
User avatar #91 to #90 - buttholee (05/09/2013) [-]
Elementary school contradicts everything they teach every year... so I was that kind of kid who just learned on my own, and got in trouble for telling teachers off
User avatar #103 to #91 - pimpslapyoass (05/09/2013) [-]
It's not just elementary school is also middle school and high school since I remeber in any of my classes during nine weeks exams or even exams period. We would study things that had nothing to do with the test we were studying even with keep switching lessons because it'll help us move faster on what were suppost to be at of the end of the nine weeks or the year on the chapter. Like really?! **** that **** that only makes us students have to do more extra work that we shouldn't be doing ******* Education system in the US fails so hard.
User avatar #110 - I Am Monkey (05/09/2013) [-]
New York spends more money on education than any other city in the country (probably the world) and our schools are absolute **** . Inner city schools are essentially million-dollar day care centers to keep the "students" off the streets. You can throw all the money you want at the problem, but when the culture you're trying to educate is vehemently opposed to learning there comes a point where you're just wasting tax payer money.
User avatar #123 to #110 - rainking (05/09/2013) [-]
It also has more schools than any other city in the country. So that makes sense. And there are bad schools everywhere, and good schools too. And, I wouldn't say our culture isn't opposed to learning. In fact, I'd say that in the past few years the opposite has become true. Being smart is valued more and more. It's just that the structure of school is so tedious and repetitive, and the average attention span of kids and teens is dropping like a brick, so they just lose interest. We don't need more money in schools. We just need to update them to accomodate modern kids.
#131 to #110 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
i can't imagine a normal public teacher in the USA getting paid enough.
User avatar #248 to #131 - I Am Monkey (05/10/2013) [-]
My parents are both public school teachers, they are paid very well.
User avatar #124 to #110 - profanity (05/09/2013) [-]

You mean ******* , right?
User avatar #151 to #124 - muchasmarcos (05/09/2013) [-]
90% of the poulation. And the black people that i met during my life were all coledge educated. Then again i don't live in the US.
#209 - thechosentroll (05/09/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Taxes and education were mentioned and not a single major ********* was had. Funnyjunk, I'm proud of you. Especially considering how any sentence starting with "As a taxpayer" guarantees butthurt.
User avatar #160 - cristianpopescu (05/09/2013) [-]
This guy has a whole series of educational videos on youtube, they're called Crash Course and he explains History, Science, Chemistry, and a lot of other stuff in a fun way . Check him out if you're interested, he's really cool
#48 - JnCproductions (05/09/2013) [-]
Dude, I love his history videos. Crash Course History. Quite funny to.
#10 - alderus has deleted their comment [-]
#3 - anonymous (05/08/2013) [-]
kids who go to school =/= smart kids
#11 to #3 - captnpl ONLINE (05/08/2013) [-]
Kids who go to school = less dumb than they would have been
#25 to #3 - anonymous (05/08/2013) [-]
Kids who don't have ANY education = idiots
#231 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
public school is a joke, i blame it for stupid people
#228 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
The United States public education system is an absolute joke. I've literally missed 200 DAYS of my first 3 years of high school and I'm in the top 5% of class. Am I somewhat smart, yes. Should I be top 5% of my class after missing that many days, hell no. They need to start teaching people through better means and actually motivate people to want to learn by not having people be graded through standardized testing and redundant packets.
#181 - loszombis (05/09/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #161 - jimbobji (05/09/2013) [-]
But... He already lives in America?
User avatar #106 - halotalim (05/09/2013) [-]
The local pubic school will pass anyone, even if they need a year or 2 of being held back.
User avatar #6 - douthit (05/08/2013) [-]
For most people it's so they don't get their home broken into, their car stolen, get kidnapped, and thrown in a cage. Taxation is simply legalized theft.
User avatar #31 to #6 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
Taxes are payment for a product, that is, unless you don't like roads, hospitals, schools, police officers, fire departments, laws, and not speaking german.
User avatar #32 to #31 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
It's no different than if I forced you to buy something, which you might not agree to. And that thing you're buying is way overpriced and low quality.
User avatar #33 to #32 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
>low quality
couldn't be farther from the truth, my friend
and actually, it is incredibly different. You've basically agreed to the terms and conditions by living in the united states. If you don't like it, you are free to leave, (something that differs us from North Korea).

As for overpriced and low quality, have you seen the roads in goddamn russia? Friggen death trap. Our highways are paved with gold compared to theirs.
User avatar #34 to #33 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
The old social contract response. No, I didn't sign anything, and neither did anyone I've ever met. I can't justly enter you into debt against your will because you live in the house you do, or the neighborhood.
User avatar #37 to #34 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
So you are familiar with the social contract.

If so, why are we having this argument?
The natural state sucks. That's why governments evolved.
And you've agreed to the contract as long as you use the services government provides.
If you don't want to live by the social contract, then you should stop reaping its benefits, unless you have an alternative.

Side note: You are currently using the internet while complaining about Government.
The internet came into being because of the government.
appreciate the irony.
User avatar #54 to #37 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
I know about the so-called social contract, but don't agree with it. People using government-provided services are more or less obligated to use them, because they have reduced income to purchase or use private means because of income taken through taxation, because of the artificially-high prices of private goods because of government subsidization, or because government is the only game in town in a given field.
User avatar #55 to #54 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
You use a government provided service every time you drive to work.
You could try to off road it if you'd like.
User avatar #57 to #55 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
See my three reasons given above.
User avatar #62 to #57 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]

You aren't obligated to use the roads, they are just useful. Thats why we made them, for the common good.
Your reduced income ain't got **** to do with the roads
There is no such thing as a private road, because they wouldn't be feasible without the government. Same thing with railroads, check your history on that one
The government is the only game in town because its the only one who can play. Nothing else matches up, and I honestly trust the government more than companies. I don't need EA giving me **** about how some roads are DLC only.
User avatar #66 to #62 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
We are obligated to use government roads, for the most part. Government generally disallows the building of private roads, and there are few "private" ones in the US. People are prevented from using private roads. However, private roads are certainly possible, although not in our current situation.

But all this is moot when you consider that roads, as well as everything else government does, is funded through the initiation of force, carried out through taxation and enforced through the police. There are more moral options to build roads.
User avatar #70 to #66 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
> funded through the initiation of force

when it comes down to it, everything is.
User avatar #71 to #70 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
Not at all. We should seek voluntary means of doing things, and not resort to beginning the use of violence against others. We each do it all the time, but then turn right around and endow a monolithic government with the right to a monopoly on the use of force. For example, when was the last time you initiated violence against someone to get a date? Or a job? Voluntary cooperation is much better and more moral.
User avatar #76 to #71 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
Voluntary cooperation works great, until you run into assholes.

You always run into assholes. It's genetically favorable to be an asshole. It's why we don't have anarchy. Government can somewhat be simplified to asshole control.

A point I should concede, government is not without its corruption. I would say a better use of time, as compared to privatizing everything, would be to remove government corruption.
User avatar #95 to #76 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
There are sociological ways to deal with assholes. We do it all the time and without even thinking about it. We generally ostracize jerks and those who don't adhere to social norms. It's the reason when you're sitting on a bus with a bunch of strangers, everyone sits in silently agreed-upon silence, and why nobody starts barking or licking the seats. Everyone would provide positive punishment (to use a psychological term) in the form of frowns, ignoring them, and not wanting to associate with them. No government needed, and we don't have to start an episode of violence against them to do it.
User avatar #100 to #95 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
Well in conclusion: Have a good night, sir. It's been a fun debate.
User avatar #63 to #62 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
You still haven't provided an alternative to the system we use, by the way.
User avatar #67 to #63 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
A system of roads funded and built privately.
User avatar #69 to #67 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
Not feasible, either you'd need to get a bunch of companies to work together while ensuring they do not form a monopoly (impossible), or you have one company running it and then negative things ensue.

This is ignoring the high costs of such a thing.

As for additionaly reasons why it isn't as good as a standard government run one, check here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport#Early_railroads_in_the_US
As to why government aid is needed:
User avatar #72 to #69 - douthit (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't understand why we should fear a possible future monopoly by companies, when we already have a nationwide monopoly in the form of government.

And again, at the moment private roads would only be expensive because government subsidizes 99% of all roads, much like public education. If roads and schools were all privatized, costs would plummet, quality would skyrocket, and it would be much more moral because they wouldn't be funded through initiating violence in the form of taxation.
User avatar #74 to #72 - srskate (05/09/2013) [-]
I'm growing weary, so I figure we'll close it up with a few last points
Govenment is by the people for the people etc. It gets its power from us, thats why its allowed a monopoly. Its a sort of Unitarian thing, where it benefits the majority. Thats why the majority enjoys it.

Without subsidies etc etc, roads are still ******* expensive. They require a lot of work, a lot of maintainence after the initial work, and a lot of materials. Therefore the companies would have to charge a lot. (or, in the case of a monopoly, whatever they want)

As for privatizing everything, that barely even works in theory. Private schools mean individuals must pay for everything, and not everyone can, nor would everyone be willing to. Then we end up with a situation as described in the content. It ends up as a vicious cycle.

You still maintain the illusion that taxation is violent. My counter-argument to that is, no it isn't. No one has ever been shot in the knee because they didn't pay taxes. They have been arrested for technically committing theft.

Prices don't just magically go down after being privatized, either. Materials are expensive, moving them is expensive, and now there are a lot more middle men.

Last point, if everything is private, who regulates the companies?

User avatar #22 to #6 - awesomenessdefined (05/08/2013) [-]
How does that relate to education?
User avatar #23 to #22 - douthit (05/08/2013) [-]
That's why most people actually pay taxes, be it for education or whatever else.
User avatar #24 to #23 - awesomenessdefined (05/08/2013) [-]
So how does that relate to Taxation being legalized theft?
User avatar #7 to #6 - douthit (05/08/2013) [-]
User taxation: Don't give me **** .
#101 to #7 - taxation (05/09/2013) [-]
Ooh, touchy.
User avatar #147 - PubLandlord (05/09/2013) [-]
America spends more on it's education system than it does on its military which is a good thing.
Because I am pretty sure that you have more benefit from schools than you do bombing a backwards country thousands of miles away
#16 - ssurtrebor **User deleted account** (05/08/2013) [-]
Ah, John Green. Taking the easiest opinion to defend at every turn to make himself look like a smart, open-minded, well-adjusted individual.
User avatar #146 - LocoJoe (05/09/2013) [-]
You can toss all the money you have into edumacashion but when your students follow this culture there is not point.
User avatar #196 to #146 - thumbingthumbing (05/09/2013) [-]
Good God. I'm ashamed of the human race.
#9 - captainreposty (05/08/2013) [-]
The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.
The IRS collects money from the people in the form of tax. This tax money has to be then given straight to the Federal Reserve, because the government had to buy the printed notes from them.
American tax goes straight to 4/5 families who own the Federal Reserve.
I couldn't believe it when I was first told, but look into it, it's the most disgusting thing going on in America.
#5 - winglit (05/08/2013) [-]
Yeah but can we spend more of the school money on actually teaching kids instead of the best football field?
 Friends (0)