How important is
a. the quality of the school in learning versus
b. how hard the student works and
c. the student's non-school environment
in what the student actually achieves?
I suspect if students don't achieve, part of the problem is that they are not working hard enough. No pain no gain.
If I could kick you square in the bottom for this statement I would.
My daughter works so hard she cries when she tries to read. She has been hearing how stupid she is and has been fully aware of how behind the other kids she is since mid-kindergarten.
She has an awful lot of pain, but I am not seeing the gain.
This signifies difference. I should imagine that your daughter is intelligent. I should imagine that she is not receiving the help that she needs. I have wondered as to whether there should be different classes for different children, and that these classes should correspond to their 'learning styles'. Thoughts?
On point 6:
Criticial thinking first, individual ideologies, philosophies and religions second. It is important though to discuss ideologies such as racism and look at why they are flawed. "it's not nice" doesn't provide a solid reason and lays the foundations for the first racist with a slightly more detailed argument to come along and convince people. Sadly, "list morality" as I call it is taught almost universally rather than actual ethics. Ethics looks at WHY a certain action is good or bad, morality simply condemns certain things as evil while labelling other things as virtues without much backing.
Try this experiment if you know anyone below their teens: ask "why is racism bad?". If their response is "we're all the same inside" or "because it's cruel" etc then that child has not been taught how to think in terms of ethics but in terms of strict morality. If they answer "because a person's skin colour has nothing to do with how good they are" or similar then shake hands with their parents/teachers. The same goes for other simpler questions such as "Why should you not steal?". The answer is more complex then it would seem - i'll leave that one as an exercise for the reader
I agree. I simply outlined vague preliminaries to get people going.
Ethics and critical thinking? Yes.
I believe unwise to teach young children about far-right politics outside of the primary school classroom. There might be children that do not understand. That do not feel comfortable discussing, say, the Holocaust. Best to leave that until later.
On a parenthesis...why should children be taught that “stealing is bad”? Theft is not intrinsically bad. Would be better to teach them that material possessions are relatively unimportant. Less likely to steal and less likely to be extremely selfish or greedy. Two birds. 
If property wasn't important theft wouldn't matter
My point exactly. Property isn't important. To own things is not an inviolable human right. Lovely bourgeois ethics...so unsubstantive and arbitrarily defined. 
However theft does matter
Ok, the answer: if you steal from others and have no objections or guilt you become a mere parasite dependent upon others and at the same time put yourself in a position of supporting theft, thus increasing your own chances of becoming a victim of theft.
That is subjective. It matters only because a capitalist society dictates that it matters.
That's -one- possible answer.
I should say that in many cases theft is justified, such as the appropriation of the means of production. Is not the factory owner, to choose a classic case, the parasite? Just remember what happened in Argentina recently. Lo and behold, the factories that are collectively owned are of course more productive and profitable. No prizes for guessing why.
"appropriation of the means of production" where the means of production are privately owned property is just as bad as any other form of theft. A factory owner who puts in the investment to build the factory or is gifted it as an heir is well within their rights to retain it as they see fit.
Read up on Rand's trader principle.
Oh god...Ayn? Are you serious? Even Hayek thought her a little odd. Yes, yes I am familiar with Rand. Awful woman. I'm a political theorist by trade, in case you were wondering.
What interests me is that much of Rand's ideas have since been discredited by almost everyone. Economists, historians, political theorists, anthropologists etc. etc.
The means of production should not be privately owned. All workers, whether office or floor, should have a roughly equal share in the profits. That is fair. You suppose, and wrongly, that one form of labour is necessarily more important than the other.
"A factory owner who puts in the investment to build the factory or is gifted it as an heir is well within their rights to retain it as they see fit."
This is the problem. Perhaps capitalism was relatively meritocratic once. That the wealth becomes entrenched immediately undoes any claim that capitalism has to meritocracy. That is why, in the words of Lukacs, "capitalism turns in on itself". It is as unsustainable and idealistic as orthodox Marxism.
What I find so interesting about Rand is that much of her work is based upon the presupposition that property is 'natural'...it's not. Communal and cooperative living? Now that is natural.
"I actually own a company and can say quite easily that capitalism is still a meritocracy. Companies house didn't check up on my social class before registering the incorporation, and my customers don't really seem interested in anything other than whether or not I can deliver."
How did you get the money in the first place?
"I agree, a saving grace for society, with its' ills etc., is that at least (here in the US) there is still, where there is a will there is a way and As Gareth says, meritocracy in capitalism."
I would advise you to speak to the vast majority of able and talented people. They are excluded from the system because they cannot acquire the capital to create a business or industry. I know several people that are highly qualified (MBAs), have good ideas and still can't succeed. Why? They're not a part of the middle class. They don't know the right people.
To say that capitalism=meritocracy is as delusional as saying that Stalinism=equality.
I know far too many people that have willed for far too long and still failed to make a way. They are extremely intelligent and talented.
The problem with personal savings...how do you accrue that money in the first place? University is extremely expensive in the UK. You finish...with your MA or whatever...and you are penniless. Then you have to find employment...so then what? You spend a decade in debt (student loan) and scraping by. It's ridiculous to call that meritocratic. Why do you think so many Tory MPs, as well as others, are worried that British intellectual capital is inaccessible? Frugality is not enough.
"Depending on the type of business being an MBA means absolutely nothing in itself. Even if you can not get hold of venture capital (which you should be able to if you have an idea that is really so good) it should be possible to self-fund or use loans etc. Ultimately if you go bust from this then it's because the market didn't like your ideas."
They refuse to borrow at the moment. They are aware that the economy is about to crash. They know how the market works. They know what the consequences of risk are...they're not willing to take those risks. Considering many of them are from extremely poor backgrounds they can't afford to.
"All forms of communism are about enforced equality, that is where they go wrong and they often turn to violence in practice when the system fails."
Hang on, hang on...that's not strictly true. Not all forms. There are some that are not. When did communism come into this? The market needs to be restrained. Just look at the current crisis. You cannot allow it to be entirely free. Even your David Cameron has conceded that. No serious economist would argue otherwise. Ceding your sovereignty to an irrational market (it is irrational - do not pretend that it's an accurate reflection of people's wants and needs - that's like me saying that the Kulaks were genuinely evil or that collectivised farms were a good idea- delusional- consider advertising, the culture industry, mass indoctrination etc.) is no better than ceding it to an authoritarian government.
"Where do their talents lie and how do they apply them in practice?"
One has a 1:1 in Economics from the University of Bristol & an MSc from the LSE. Guess what. He can't get a job. I have a horrible feeling it may have to do with the colour of his skin (he arrived as a refugee from Rwanda). If Boris Johnson is any emblem to go by. How is that meritocratic?
Another is trying work as a journalist, went to Oxford (that's where I met him). Another has an MBA, trying to create his own business. Can't get hold of the capital. It's a 'good idea' but he just hasn't been able to find enough takers...economy again, one would imagine. Range of things. They're hardly actors and intellectuals. Indeed I'm the least employable of the lot of them and I've managed to find a job. All seems rather dysfunctional.
"Wondering, I think maybe you just want to argue because I called you on those unsupported statements regarding homeschooling (different thread, and I'll get there soon enough). Yes, individualism is necessary for Social Darwinism, but it is not sufficient. Furthermore, an individualist philosophy does not preclude a cooperative society. After all, self-interest leads to cooperation more often than not. If this were not true, then toddlers, the most self-interested of all humans, would never learn to share."
No, I do not bear grudges. It is my academic opinion that individualism cannot coexist alongside collectivism. Here a distinction has to be made between enlightened self-interest (cooperative politics) and primal self-interest (individualist politics). I would say, then, that the cooperative behaviours you describe are not individualist in the purest sense. There is a difference between respecting the individual as an existential unit and allowing him to act amorally/stupidly. As I try to explain to people in the UK (my current country of residence) many of the social problems that proliferate the anglophonic world are a direct consequence of the ***-minded idealism of the 1980s. At that time the individual was apotheosized, but with an emphasis on his detachment and right to abuse rather than his integration into a community. That, to my mind, is individualism. Socialism is as self-interested as individualism, simply different ways of directing those interests. Individualism is extremely unnatural. No pre-modern society survived as an individualist one. It is only in capitalism that one can afford to live at the complete expense of others.
If anything that toddlers learn to share indicates that individualism, in the sense I described, is unnatural.
It is only in capitalism that one can afford to live at the complete expense of others.
As with 'individualism,' there are many types of 'capitalism.' The type of capitalism you address here collapses upon itself. Resources cannot be exploited indefinitely.
If anything that toddlers learn to share indicates that individualism, in the sense I described, is unnatural.
In the 'primal' way you define individualism, what you say makes sense. Most people do not define the word in this way, it is not common usage. The word more frequently associated with that type of 'primal' self-interest is 'sociopath.'
Perhaps we academics split hairs in the world of political theory. That's typically the way the two are understood in the academic context...but oh well
"As with 'individualism,' there are many types of 'capitalism.' The type of capitalism you address here collapses upon itself. Resources cannot be exploited indefinitely."
Hmmm...the US has yet to collapse. They've simply been exploiting resources. Capitalism...hmmm...there's a few types. The capitalism I refer to is Reaganite/Thatcherite. Still survives sadly.
I concede, however, that the prefixes 'primal' and 'enlightened' are my own. The distinction still exists though.
Wondering1 Wrote:
"zero tolerance for unkind words or actions."
**********************************************
Agreed. Don't they have that in the US?
*******************************************
In theory. In practice, no teacher can keep up with 25 or more students.
And so. It seems that our ideas about what a 'good' public school would look like are fairly similar.
***************************************************
Had to point out "no teacher can" is just not true. While in one school my son had 10 kids in his class, another (catholic) school has 34. A properly trained/managed teacher i n a properly managed school is all it takes. It is just an excuse the teachers are falling back on, that parents just give in to, the "Oh, 25 kids, who could supervise them all?" Bogus, in my opinion, and in my reality... :O)
I agree. It requires the right environment and adequate training.
It is only in capitalism that one can afford to live at the complete expense of others.
As with 'individualism,' there are many types of 'capitalism.' The type of capitalism you address here collapses upon itself. Resources cannot be exploited indefinitely.
If anything that toddlers learn to share indicates that individualism, in the sense I described, is unnatural.
In the 'primal' way you define individualism, what you say makes sense. Most people do not define the word in this way, it is not common usage. The word more frequently associated with that type of 'primal' self-interest is 'sociopath.'
Perhaps we academics split hairs in the world of political theory. That's typically the way the two are understood in the academic context...but oh well
"As with 'individualism,' there are many types of 'capitalism.' The type of capitalism you address here collapses upon itself. Resources cannot be exploited indefinitely."
Hmmm...the US has yet to collapse. They've simply been exploiting resources. Capitalism...hmmm...there's a few types. The capitalism I refer to is Reaganite/Thatcherite. Still survives sadly.
The US hasn't had capitalism in the classical sense for, well, my entire life. What we have now could be called, perhaps, corporatism. There is a decided marriage of the state and the corporation such that true competition doesn't exist except at the small, local level. Oligopoly, that's the word I'm looking for. I think a political economist would politely describe us as a "mixed economy." There is a shift in economic thought here such that decision making processes take into account long-term realities rather than just quarterly profit margins, though many industries have hardly taken note. We are barely surviving our second bad case of "voodoo economics" under Bush II. Pretty much anything is going to be an improvement.
I would seriously dispute that. Yes, the corporations are powerful. Oligopoly is a fitting term. Corporatism...not so much. Corporatism, fascism, there's no time to explain that now. What I shall say is that the method of exchange, the way in which people act, consume etc. is still largely capitalist. That is what defines social relations. That is where anomie comes from.
An Indirect democracy is what (we) the US are supposed to be. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are corporate owned, lock, stock and barrell (as a country). Which is not to say that our citizenry have given up yet. I think if we are not careful, our genetic make-up as revolters/revolutionaries will get washed away in the next couple of generations.
Heh. Do you mean those that emigrated following 1848 and settled in the US? Or the American colonists that wanted to dodge tax? Kidding
The US hasn't had capitalism in the classical sense for, well, my entire life. What we have now could be called, perhaps, corporatism. There is a decided marriage of the state and the corporation such that true competition doesn't exist except at the small, local level. Oligopoly, that's the word I'm looking for. I think a political economist would politely describe us as a "mixed economy." There is a shift in economic thought here such that decision making processes take into account long-term realities rather than just quarterly profit margins, though many industries have hardly taken note. We are barely surviving our second bad case of "voodoo economics" under Bush II. Pretty much anything is going to be an improvement.
I would seriously dispute that. Yes, the corporations are powerful. Oligopoly is a fitting term. Corporatism...not so much. Corporatism, fascism, there's no time to explain that now. What I shall say is that the method of exchange, the way in which people act, consume etc. is still largely capitalist. That is what defines social relations. That is where anomie comes from.
Let's just say that the same people who sit on corporate boards also serve on government panels related to those industries. It is common rather than unusual for the same person to serve on several boards of directors within an industry. or across related industries. I designed the database for coding research on exactly this topic in the 90s. (Aside: when looking for funding, one response asserted that Elite Theory was "passe." 
) As for the generalizations about how people in the U.S. behave, it might be instructive for you to conduct some post-graduate work over here and see for yourself. Anomie is a whole other tangent that I'll not pursue, though maybe on the chavs thread....
Heidegger, De Sade and Nietzsche are available here. I've no imperative need to go to the US
I didn't say that all people behaved in such a way. I simply said 'that is where anomie comes from'. It was not a generalisation.
Hmmm...I see your point about elitism. What I shall say, however, is two things:
1. That is the inevitable consequence of capitalism. That is why 'classical capitalism' is, as I have said, as utopian as anarchism or orthodox Marxism.
2. I do not think that corporatism is the appropriate term. Corporatism, in the theoretical sense, generally refers to Italian fascism and Francoism. Take a moment to research it. In corporatism the government generally controls the industries and companies...the arrangement you describe is more accurately a corporatocratic oligarchy.
Hadn't come across anomie myself before, but take it to mean "lawlessness" - nomos is Greek for law. I'm assuming Wondering1 is commenting on the disillusion, disenfranchisement and social disintegration which may be linked to capitalist practice, whatever you care to call it.
Of course. I never said that it applied to everyone either.