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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(ANTPogo): "... racist ..."
(Myron Proudfoot): " ...racist ..."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "As used in American English today, 'racist' means 'a caucasian who disagrees with a socialist'."
(ANT): "No, it means 'racist'."
" 'A' means 'A' " expresses an uninformative tautology.

What expressed policy preferences or assertions as to fact about systematic differences between regional varieties of human qualify the author of the expression for the description "racist"?

I observe that an expressed preference for
1. A return to the legal regime that protects a right to freedom of association
2. A return to a legal regime that protects contract at will
3. Blind, merit-based admission policies at State (i.e., government, generally)-operated post-secondary institutions
will get a caucasian labeled "racist" (while that label does not apply to non-caucasians such as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams).

In American English today, "racist" means is "a caucasian who disagrees with a socialist".

 

[jimbob]

I definitely don't want to homeschool - I'd probably be pretty good at teaching any kids I might have history and English and the non-math parts of science, I'd be far, far inferior to a real math or science teacher on those particular subjects. They'd probably do best going to an actual school where they're taught all subjects by accredited professional teachers, and outside of school I can help them build on the basics they learn there in the particular subjects I excel at.

Indeed. Being more more knowledgeable on their own subject than every degree-level educated subject teacher in a secondary school is one thing. Being better at imparting the knowledge is another.

Then there is the practicality: I certainly couldn't homeschool my children whilst holding down a job. However arrogant I am, I'm not quite arrogant enough to think that I could replace the week's teaching time in the time I have away from work. I'd rather do something more interesting.

Then there is the socialisation aspect. For some reason I doubt that I'd be able to supply my kids with sufficient acquaintances to make up for their classmates. As long as bullying is kept under control then even personality clashes are useful lessons. And a lot of the school-based extra-curricular activities are also good for leadership or teamworking experience.

Then you get into the question about how to validate someone's aptitude and achievements - if there are centrally recognised qualifications it is easier for potential employers/universities to winnow down any applicants.

 

[A'isha]

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "As used in American English today, 'racist' means 'a caucasian who disagrees with a socialist'."
(ANT): "No, it means 'racist'."
" 'A' means 'A' " expresses an uninformative tautology.

I presume even you know how to use a dictionary.

I had to delete the rest of your post in my reply because all the dogs in my neighborhood were howling and barking for some reason.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I don't know where Malcolm's getting this idea that prescreening prospective employees is "legally risky." I work in IT - virtually every interview I've ever attended included being tested on my technical skills. The EEOC has this page explaining that testing people on their cognitive abilities, skills, or knowledge is 100% kosher, as long as it's related to the work they'll be doing.

"Work related" is something that employers have to establish in a government-sanctioned venue under legal jeopardy. That's like asking the authorities "Is this legal? Will I get sued or imprisoned if I do this?" and receiving the answer "Try it and find out".

 

[A'isha]

"Work related" is something that employers have to establish in a government-sanctioned venue under legal jeopardy. That's like asking the authorities "Is this legal? Will I get sued or imprisoned if I do this?" and receiving the answer "Try it and find out".

No, it's not anything at all like that, actually.

 

[Cleon]

"Work related" is something that employers have to establish in a government-sanctioned venue under legal jeopardy. That's like asking the authorities "Is this legal? Will I get sued or imprisoned if I do this?" and receiving the answer "Try it and find out".

Yeah...No.

 

[RandFan]

Try civility,

Says the guy who constantly attacks me personaly (remember the bit about reading comprehension)?

How 'bout..."What metric do I use to determine if public school is slavery? Tell me what makes public school more like slavery than private school."
Same question, right? Just without the attitude.

Whether a consequence of a worker's performance qualifies as "adequate compensation" depends on the appetite of that worker for that consequence. Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Pay (from the "unpaid" part) is clearly a matter of degree. Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction give control to people who know those individual children best and who are more reliably concerned for their welfare than are remote bureaucrats. The result of parent control is a closer match between the individual child's interests and aptitudes and the curriculum and instructional methods. Motivation is critical to individual student performance and overall system performance is a weighted sum of individual performances.

Doesn't begin to answer the question. Children who go to private schools often don't want to go. Their parents make them. But they get something out of it. Children who don't go to public school and who are not home taught are required to go to school. We do this because it works. You have no example of the opposition for one very simple reason, this is what works best.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How 'bout..."What metric do I use to determine if public school is slavery? Tell me what makes public school more like slavery than private school."
....
Whether a consequence of a worker's performance qualifies as "adequate compensation" depends on the appetite of that worker for that consequence. Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Pay (from the "unpaid" part) is clearly a matter of degree. Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction give control to people who know those individual children best and who are more reliably concerned for their welfare than are remote bureaucrats. The result of parent control is a closer match between the individual child's interests and aptitudes and the curriculum and instructional methods. Motivation is critical to individual student performance and overall system performance is a weighted sum of individual performances.

Children who go to private schools often don't want to go. Their parents make them. But they get something out of it. Children who don't go to public school and who are not home taught are required to go to school.¹ We do this because it works. You have no example of the opposition² for one very simple reason, this is what works best.

1. Are the dots still too far apart? This is like trying to define "the" or to prove that 2+2-4. The fundamental point here is the impact of institutional structure on student motivation. At this point, anything more that I post on this subject will just rephrase "The result of parent control is a closer match between the individual child's interests and aptitudes and the curriculum and instructional methods", I expect.
2. I might respond if Randfan rephrases this. What is "it" in "they get something out of it" and "it works"? What "opposition"?

 

[RandFan]

1. Are the dots still too far apart? This is like trying to define "the" or to prove that 2+2-4. The fundamental point here is the impact of institutional structure on student motivation. At this point, anything more that I post on this subject will just rephrase "The result of parent control is a closer match between the individual child's interests and aptitudes and the curriculum and instructional methods", I expect.
2. I might respond if Randfan rephrases this. What is "it" in "they get something out of it" and "it works"? What "opposition"?

Children who to go school (private and public) receive instructions necessary for them to have a productive life. Whether a parent chooses to keep his or her child home for schooling or send their children to public school or private school the results are the same. At the end of the day a parent has a choice to home school. It's up to the parents. Children will be forced to get educated against their wishes regardless.

So, you are left with special pleading. Keep repeating your special pleading. It's fallacy. It's dishonest but hey, if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[A'isha]

1. Are the dots still too far apart? This is like trying to define "the" or to prove that 2+2-4.

No, it's nothing like that at all. Your assertion is not self-evident and obvious, it's fringe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

At this point, anything more that I post on this subject will just rephrase "The result of parent control is a closer match between the individual child's interests and aptitudes and the curriculum and instructional methods", I expect.

Which represents a rather fundamental flaw in your arguments.

2. I might respond if Randfan rephrases this. What is "it" in "they get something out of it" and "it works"?

Compulsory schooling. Which is why even Singapore has instituted it.

What "opposition"?

Opposition to the idea that children ought to receive a proper education so that they are "equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to be productive citizens in a knowledge-based economy".

 

[RandFan]

What form of slavery allows the slaves to opt out with permission from their parents? (see private school and homeschooling)?

ETA: You still haven't dealt with Loki's paradox Malcolm. At what point does doing what your parents decides is best for you become slavery? Nor have you conceded that the free market values a high school education regardless of whether it's private or public.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Children who to go school (private and public) receive instructions necessary for them to have a productive life.

That's true for some. For many, school and education are mutually exclusive.

Only 12 percent of fourth* grade black male students nationally and 11 percent of those living in large central cities performed at or above proficient levels in reading on the 2009 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), compared with 38 percent of white males nationwide. In eighth grade, only 12 percent of black males across the country and 10 percent living in large cities performed at or above proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white males nationwide. And the US definition of "proficient" is pathetically low.

 

[bruto]

Right. So you're taking someone's word for it.

Unless you wrote the book yourself, so are you.

 

[A'isha]

That's true for some. For many, school and education are mutually exclusive.

Only 12 percent of fourth* grade black male students nationally and 11 percent of those living in large central cities performed at or above proficient levels in reading on the 2009 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), compared with 38 percent of white males nationwide. In eighth grade, only 12 percent of black males across the country and 10 percent living in large cities performed at or above proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white males nationwide. And the US definition of "proficient" is pathetically low.

And that has almost everything to do with socioeconomic factors, and nothing whatsoever to do with the nonsensical notion that compulsory schooling is slavery.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Unless you wrote the book yourself, so are you.

True enough. I've never seen Antarctica. I have to take someone's word for it that Antarctica exists. Someone asked for a cite and I supplied a cite. Ant judges Murray on Gould's or Kamin's say-so when Murray's works are far more available to her than Antarctica is to me. And I didn't ask Ant for a reference to someone with whom s/he agrees. I asked Ant for a quote from Murray on which to base the appellation "racist".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And that has almost everything to do with socioeconomic factors, and nothing whatsoever to do with the nonsensical notion that compulsory schooling is slavery.

Do you intend to suggest that State compulsion isn't a "socioeconomic factor"?

 

[A'isha]

I asked Ant for a quote from Murray on which to base the appellation "racist".

And I gave you numerous works that explain exactly why Murray and his book have rightly earned that appellation, complete with quotes. I have no interest in playing semantic games with you about "a single sentence", especially when you yourself just waved your hand at Murray's book and said "read all of chapters 19 and 20!" when using it as your non-cite in reply to elbe's request.

You want to know why Murray's book is considered racist claptrap, you can do a little reading of your own.

Do you intend to suggest that State compulsion isn't a "socioeconomic factor"?

Yes. Doubly so for the statistics you listed.

 

[elbe]

Yes. See the chapter on the evolution of affirmative action in employment in Murray and Hernstein, The Bell Curve.

Why use an intermediary? I'm sure you have one or more actual court cases I could look at, right? Or is this just another of your 'it's true if I redefine the words' thing?

 

[RandFan]

That's true for some. For many, school and education are mutually exclusive.

Argument by assertion in the face of contradictory evidence. It's very hard to get a good job without a diploma.

Only 12 percent of fourth* grade black male students nationally and 11 percent of those living in large central cities performed at or above proficient levels in reading on the 2009 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), compared with 38 percent of white males nationwide. In eighth grade, only 12 percent of black males across the country and 10 percent living in large cities performed at or above proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white males nationwide. And the US definition of "proficient" is pathetically low.

You still are very unlikely to get a good job without a GED or diploma. You are still ignoring lots of points to make a silly one. School doesn't guarantee success. Not going to school very much guarantees failure. And you've still failed utterly to tell us at what point education becomes slavery.

 

[RandFan]

Do you intend to suggest that State compulsion isn't a "socioeconomic factor"?

Do you intent to suggest that lack of a diploma or GED isn't a "socioeconomic factor"?