The debate "Government schools are better than private schools" was started by
October 11, 2018, 9:47 am.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 60 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Stuart posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
TalkativePeaches, Sammy, sayesha, x1nyan and 29 visitors agree.
crazybirdlady, Stuart, prerna, Jakellutis, Coriander, Kanwal, jrardin12, wilsoergel76, WiseWords and 51 visitors disagree.
The quality, pedigree or funding of a school is irrelevant to the level of education given. Formal education is a commodity and therefore there is a business for it, let's take the hospitality industry as an example, say you have a 5 star hotel but no one there particularly cares about their job because they have all signed contracts forcing their employer to give them a certain wage regardless of quality of service, on the other hand, we have a family owned bnb whose dedicated their life to saving up and running a business, which do you think will provide a superior quality of service in relation to cost?
I think the idea of a private airport would be easy to envision in any world, just like private schools. the question wasnt whether or how they would work, but whether it would be accessible to the people who most need it.
now obviously airports are not necessity, but education is a must if you want the american dream to actually be realizable. otherwise the peasantry will forever remain the peasantry.
I dont think the government prohibits private schools at all, so long as they meet minimum standards. however I wasnt limiting it to modern day US, any international historic example would be nice.
I believe comparing education to wicker baskets is a false comparison. education is absolutely necessary if people are to have any hope of social mobility, and is completely beyond the reach of the poor.
and although I am well aware of the danger of edited history books, and safeguard are a must, but mathematics? really? what sense of control does teaching people math provide you. if anything, such knowledge empowers people rather then control.
regarding TU, heres an entertaining left wing description of it (john oliver)
and a right wing article (national review)
that essentially say the same thing.
I'm not familiar with TU. If students payed and signed a contract and the contract was breached then yes that is a scam. I just assumed you were calling it a scam because you didnt like the program, but I dont know the case.
No, I can't show an example of something that governments prohibit from existance. Plus nobody's labor can be guaranteed to everybody in a free society, so I'd never expect education to be a guarantee. (A free market cannot guara tee wicker baskets to every citizen either, so are they a public good?)
A free market is not an arbitrary thing so it would be ridiculous to ask be exactly how a future free market for education would work. Given that it is decided by the billions interactions between diverse people nobody can predict how it would look. If you grew up in a parallel universe where goverments controlled airports and I asked you to explain exactly hoa privatized airports would work, you would not be able to describe them the way they exist in reality.
I think the term "2nd grade" education is a good example of commands by govermment. It is kind of a bizarre idea to have every individual in the country learn the exact same thing. If most parents in a community are willing to pay for education that teaches farming and ends after 8th grade in might be most productive for certain communities over others.
I think the idea of school centralization is a regressive desire for control over other families to which you couldn't possible understand their subjective values.
the "central planning" in the us sets minimum standards, it doesnt dictate hard curriculum. a 5th grader in 1 state should not be doing 2nd grade math elsewhere. any school is free to exceed the standards depending on its resources, public or private.
can you show me an example of a pure free market education system that covers all citizens including the poor with any competency?
TU was a scam from top to bottom, are you familiar with this specific case or are you just defending the free market in general assuming TU was done in good faith?
There is not an objective value scale for schools. The people that paid for TrumpU thought it was more valuable to them than alternatives (otherwise they wouldnt have paid for it). Arbitrary value judgments on other people are vain and meaningless.
Which would lead to the conclusion that a private school could be anything to satisfy consumers as best as possible. One person cpuld percieve some schools as worse and some as better. So a market for education can lead to different things for different people, which is better than a central planner. Therefore a system of private education is better than centralized government education.
Also the state cannot calculate what recources to produce or in what volume, or at what price. So any economic decision by a central planner is necessarily incorrect, and the govermment cannot correctly make decisions about schools.
private schools are both worse and better than public.
Harvard is private (better)
so was trump U (omg scam)