Comments on: Economics of Education

By: Outside Observer

Outside Observer — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 13:09:22 +0000

Based on articles that I’ve read, the home-schooled kids who are the most successful are those who have been home-schooled in small groups. Parents form groups so that each parent teaches the subject which is his or her specialty. The children thereby receive both personal, individually designed classes and expert teachers.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:27:34 +0000

When I think back on all the crap I’ve learned in high school
It’s a wonder I can think at all
And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall
…Paul Simon

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:10:36 +0000

Since its purpose IS conformity, compliance and complacency, I’d say it’s a rousing success

By: geoih

geoih — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:45:37 +0000

I think you’re confusing education with politics. Public education has always been about politics. It has never been about education. Public education is one of the most effective political machines ever invented. Do you really think the political elites are going to abandon it simply because it doesn’t provide effective education?

The author has given a nice and entertaining description of the history and present system, but his solutions are just more of the same (i.e., politics).

By: Franklin

Franklin — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:28:12 +0000

Indeed. I’m surprised at the number of objections. Then again I am not familiar with Robinson’s own political paradigm.
We certainly can agree that a cookie cutter approach to education has not been successful.

By: Matthew Swaringen

Matthew Swaringen — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:15:31 +0000

He didn’t exactly come out and give his plan for what the system should be so much as give reasons for why the current one doesn’t work and I think most of those reasons are things we can agree with.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:50:45 +0000

Apples and oranges, Walt. The scope of the “education system’s” mission has changed dramatically.
The delivery mechanism has evolved in a variety of ways, and the technology, while not at the level of a competitive firm, is still extraordinarily different.
But the purpose now? Babysitting, surrogate parenting, psychological paralysis by analysis, and politics.
And that’s the way the so-called “public” wants it.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:04:51 +0000

I recently saw an episode of “Little House on the Prairie”. Contrast the changes in farm technology verses changes in the teaching methodology. On the farm there have been huge increases in productivity. Modern teaching methods have changed very little from the old schoolhouse. The modern education system is about the only institution that has not improved dramatically with improvements in technology.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:57:34 +0000

Hmm: …if collective education is so great why do home-schooled kids do so much better?

By: John P.

John P. — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:34:00 +0000

The ultimate question now needs to be, can the government implement these changes on such a grand scale. If they cannot, why should they be given control of our school system?

By: V

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:59:17 +0000

I don’t understand his final point. So if we made all of these changes, then what? What’s the benefit to society? He rails against the needs of industrialization. Well, what’s this supposed to do? Create students that aren’t useful to industry???

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:07:24 +0000

“Robinson attempts to make our eduction problems into problems of the influence of big business”

I think he mistakes the direction of causation. It runs both ways, but what do you think an institution that can produce nothing needs most? A host to parasitise upon. Over time the relationship’s become a lot more symbiotic, granted, but it’s funny how leftists can only envision running the other way round.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:04:31 +0000

Except nothing he said seems particularly wrong. :p

By: Dick Fox

Dick Fox — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:59:42 +0000

Interesting! The moral offered at the end of the presentation is that the way education and creativity is done at the corporate level is the right way, while the government schools turn geniuses into morons.

Robinson attempts to make our eduction problems into problems of the influence of big business, but he totally misses the truth. Education problems are based on government solutions: one size fits all, the lowest common denominator, reduced diversity based on the most efficient line, the student is a cost not a resource and so he or she is strictly controlled and directed to minimize cost, arbitrary classification by seniority.

Anyone who has been in a corporate training class knows that students are chosen because of their diverse areas of interest.

By: M. Spotter

M. Spotter — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:52:52 +0000

Gee, thanks. Just what I wanted. Another Oxbridge-coated pile of merde from my favorite collectivist maniac.