Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[bruto]

No. I'm saying that factory workers arranged informal instruction on their own.

And the quality of your argument matches the similarity of a reader helping factory workers get on with their dead end jobs and the organized instruction that led rich young men to become admirals.

 

[Belz...]

Einstein addressed the effects of compulsion on motivation. He was right about that.

No seriously who cares what Einstein said ?

 

[elbe]

By virtue of their exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy.

So your problem isn't really with the schools but with taxes? There are a lot of things my taxes go to that I don't get direct benefits from or that I wouldn't support, but that's part of the price of living in a country.

 

[Border Reiver]

NOT(attendance at school = education). NOT(compulsory attendance at schools operated by government employees = public education). The State cannot operate schools without an operational definition of "school" (i.e., employee job description). The State cannot subsidize education without an operational definition of "education". There is something to this, but not so much as to be decisive. First, something like language fluency applies to most skills. Time spent in a classroom is time not spent learning to operate or repair machinery. Second, one did, in fact, find "teachers" of a sort in some factories, where workers would pay one of their number to read while the rest worked (the ancient equivalent of Muzak, I guess).

I find it somewhat amusing that you site bothFarragut and Fitzroy as being examples of child directed education. In both cases both children were placed into their respective careers with no consultation by their parents (sounds like compulsion), and their course of study was highly structured, and indeed set by the State and was carried out in an educational environment where strict punative measures were imposed for non-compliance.

In general, education beyond the strict requirement of their job was discouraged in pre-mid 19th century militaries for the privates and sailors to prevent them from getting ideas above their station.

 

[RandFan]

Einstein addressed the effects of compulsion on motivation. He was right about that.

A.) Argument by assertion (a fallacy) B.) Doesn't address the fact that Einstein went out of his way to exclude American schools from his argument. It's not as if you can ignore the facts and by doing so everyone else will also. The posters you are responding to are not as stupid as you suppose.

 

[RandFan]

Einstein addressed the effects of compulsion on motivation. He was right about that.

No seriously who cares what Einstein said ?

Not me, it's an invalid appeal to authority.

 

[RandFan]

Go "silly" yourself,

I responded to

You still have not explained how poor children would be educated. Taking whatever you can get seriously reduces the options of poor children. It's not until and unless a child avails himself of eduction that private industry gives a damn about that child (unless of course it is menial labor).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It is worth adding that this was part of a state-run organization, with a strong element of coercion.

Fitzroy's training was largely on the job. He was not poor. Contrary to Randfan's assertion that on the job training is for "the poor".
David Farragut (who was poor) joined the US Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15.
Horatio Nelson (b. Sept. 1758) "attended Paston Grammar School, North Walsham, until he was 12 years old, and also attended King Edward VI’s Grammar School in Norwich. His naval career began on 1 January 1771". He would have been 13.
Please read this.

 

[A'isha]

Why are all of your examples from the time before ships had metal hulls and steam engines?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You still have not explained how poor children would be educated. Taking whatever you can get seriously reduces the options of poor children. It's not until and unless a child avails himself of eduction that private industry gives a damn about that child (unless of course it is menial labor).

Please drop the "you" stuff. How 'bout "How would poor children be educated?"

Either form indicates a socialist mindset. No one can say what someone else will have for breakfast next week, what style of shoes they will wear, or what arrangements they will make for their own children's education. Free markets leave people free to make their own arrangements. As with health care, a State role in the education industry will degrade overall system performance because (a) neither industry exhibits significant economies of scale and (b) performance in these industries depends critically on local knowledge.

Current policy (assignment by district, compulsory attendance statutes, minimum wage laws, and child labor laws, State-mandated curricula) "seriously reduces the options of poor children".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Why are all of your examples from the time before ships had metal hulls and steam engines?

Because by 1870 upper-class busybodies took from poor parents the power to determine for their own children how their children would be educated.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Because by 1870 upper-class busybodies took from poor parents the power to determine for their own children how their children would be educated.

But none of your examples show that poor parents were able to provide ANY form of education. They all just show that only the rich got any substantial education. It's only once the 'busybodies' took the measures you so despise that you start seeing people who are NOT from rich parents excelling and breaking the poverty cycle.
To the point that nowadays people are far more able to get on in life based on their actual abilities, rather than on who their parents are.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I find it somewhat amusing that you site bothFarragut and Fitzroy as being examples of child directed education. In both cases both children were placed into their respective careers with no consultation by their parents (sounds like compulsion)...

Neither Fitzroy nor Farragut was kidnapped. Fitzroy's parents assented. Farragut's mother assented.

In general, education beyond the strict requirement of their job was discouraged in pre-mid 19th century militaries for the privates and sailors to prevent them from getting ideas above their station.

This sounds like a complete fabrication, considering that Fitzroy invited Darwin on the survey voyage. Cite = ___?

 

[jimbob]

it is worth pointing out that in the age of sail, grammar schools, whilst not for the elite, were still for the prosperous "yeoman" class and similar. The grammar school I went to owed its origins to this, as the local "public" i.e. "private" school had become for the elite, as opposed to the initial charitable aims for educating the sons of traders.

 

[jimbob]

This sounds like a complete fabrication,
considering that Fitzroy invited Darwin on the
survey voyage. Cite = ___?

Midshipmen were officer class.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

But none of your examples show that poor parents were able to provide ANY form of education. They all just show that only the rich got any substantial education.

The examples of Fitzroy and Nelson address Randfan's contention that on-the-job training is for "the poor".

It's only once the 'busybodies' took the measures you so despise that you start seeing people who are NOT from rich parents excelling and breaking the poverty cycle.
To the point that nowadays people are far more able to get on in life based on their actual abilities, rather than on who their parents are.

This is false. Please read this.
Thomas Edison, Richard Arkwright, and Cyrus McCormick were homeschooled. The State (government, generally) adds to the education industry violence and threats of violence. This contribution degrades overall education system performance.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

it is worth pointing out that in the age of sail, grammar schools, whilst not for the elite, were still for the prosperous "yeoman" class and similar. The grammar school I went to owed its origins to this, as the local "public" i.e. "private" school had become for the elite, as opposed to the initial charitable aims for educating the sons of traders.

Here: ...

The evidence also shows that working parents were purchasing increasing amounts of education for their children as their incomes were rising from 1818 onwards, and this, to repeat, at a time before education was “free” and compulsory by statute. Compulsion came in 1880, and state schooling did not become free until 1891.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In general, education beyond the strict requirement of their job was discouraged in pre-mid 19th century militaries for the privates and sailors to prevent them from getting ideas above their station.

This sounds like a complete fabrication ... Cite = ___?

Cite=___?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Midshipmen were officer class.

Wikipedia:...

In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities.

 

[jimbob]

Beginning in the
18th century, a commissioned officer candidate
was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman
rating began to slowly die out. By the
Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was
an apprentice officer who had previously served
at least three years as a volunteer, officer's
servant or able seaman, and was roughly
equivalent to a present day petty officer in
rank and responsibilities.

In other words, officer class by the early nineteenth century.