Topic: John Stossell "Stupid in America"

[Michael Elliot]

I mentioned John Stossell in another string which reminded me: Did any of you see his 20/20 special about american public schools this past Friday called "Stupid in America". It was a fantastic look at why american schools are so bad. Hint: they are rigid unionized government monopolies without competition to force progress.

I'd love to know what you guys thought.

[Timothy Clemans]

There is not one scientific theory for all schools that percisely and acuratly(sp) predicts quality of any one school. School are complex. Social sciene is complex.

[Joe Shmoe]

It's amazing how his investigations have shown that the problem with public schools conforms exactly to right wing talking points.  It's almost as if he's specifically sought examples that support his ideological beliefs, but no.  He's a 'journalist' that can't be!

Timothy is 100% correct, the school system is complex and cannot be 'fixed' with simple solutions nor described in whole in a news short.

[Timothy Clemans]

Some people make excuses as to why their idea for improving a school are not working hince they are interested in science.

[Michael Elliot]

It's amazing how his investigations have shown that the problem with public schools conforms exactly to right wing talking points.  It's almost as if he's specifically sought examples that support his ideological beliefs, but no.  He's a 'journalist' that can't be!

Timothy is 100% correct, the school system is complex and cannot be 'fixed' with simple solutions nor described in whole in a news short.

But isn't that the idea? No simple solution like the "No Child Left Behind Act" can ever be effective to something as complex as educating a population of diverse kids with diverse needs. That top-down solutions made by politicians and beurocrats in D.C have little to do with educating our kids and everything to do with expanding their power.?

[Timothy Clemans]

It's amazing how his investigations have shown that the problem with public schools conforms exactly to right wing talking points.  It's almost as if he's specifically sought examples that support his ideological beliefs, but no.  He's a 'journalist' that can't be!

Timothy is 100% correct, the school system is complex and cannot be 'fixed' with simple solutions nor described in whole in a news short.

But isn't that the idea? No simple solution like the "No Child Left Behind Act" can ever be effective to something as complex as educating a population of diverse kids with diverse needs. That top-down solutions made by politicians and beurocrats in D.C have little to do with educating our kids and everything to do with expanding their power.?

It has certainly helped but there are a lot of problems with NCLBA. It needs to be improved. There are a lot of other issues like textbooks.

[Durnett]

The restaurant industry is a free market enterprise. The result has not been that the most popular restaurants are those that offer healthy food in moderate portion sizes.

There are two underlying arguments behind Stossell’s comment. The first is that people will always choose what is best for them, for their children, and for society as a whole. The second is that the free market always offers an option that is in the best interest of their customers.

I like to think that I would always make decisions based on long term consequences, but the fact that I grabbed a “value meal” from the local burger joint makes me think that I am sometimes a little short-sighted. We see the same thing with child rearing. There are a lot of people who chose to send their children to a private school based on social status, ideology, or bigotry. I know an woman whom I admire in many ways who decided to send her daughter to a private, catholic, all-girl school because the daughter’s best friend was planning to go there. The mother is a big supporter of public education, not a catholic, and admitted that the public high school has a better academic record. None of those factors changed her decision.

In addressing the second point, we have to remember that the purpose of a business is to preserve the business. If they can do this by offering a premium product to the public, then they will. If they can survive by offering an inferior product to the public with a lot of advertising, then they will do that instead. If the tobacco companies had our best interests in mind, they would have stopped selling tobacco several decades ago. If the oil companies had our best interests in mind, they would be plunging their money into developing alternative energy sources instead of paying CEO’s huge bonuses. If our school system was turned over to private firms, they would look for a way to provide the minimum necessary education for the greatest price with the smallest cost. The companies who will not do that will be put out of business by the ones who will.

[Joe Shmoe]

Durnett is absolutely correct, any businessman will tell you that their competition sells an inferior product, even if their competition has far greater market share.

[Steven Novella]

Free market systsems or evolutionary - they rely upon selective forces in the market to result in survival of the fittest. This has both strengths and weaknesses. I think hard libertarians like Stossel sometimes overemphasize the strengths and downplay or ignore the weaknesses.

Strengths;
- can automatically and rapidly adjust for a complex interaction of multiple variables.
- highly efficient
- socially just to the extent that it is a meritocracy

Weaknesses
- like evolution, it is short-sighted, responding to short term market forces but not necessarily looking ahead to long term strategies. In nature, for examples, species often evolve themselves into a corner and doom themselves to long term failure
- cannot account for non-market forces (such as health and environmental concerns).
- creates motivation for cheating market forces (i.e. by creating a monopoly, hiding inconvenient evidence, phony accounting, etc.)
- like evolution, can be brutal. It might be socially unacceptable to allow for the death of the unfit.

In light of this I think the most rational system is one that takes advantage of the efficiency and self-regulation of free market forces, but also makes very careful and thoughtful regulations to fix the weaknesses of the free-market system. Ideally, such regulations would be evidence-based, subject to outcome measures and revision or cancellation as necessary. Unfortunatly, we tend to get regulations that are more ideological than practical, and then get locked in forever without a built in outcome measure/revision system.

[slammermx]

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
  - Terry Pratchett

Not all of it right of course

[xenu]

Free market systsems or evolutionary - they rely upon selective forces in the market to result in survival of the fittest. This has both strengths and weaknesses. I think hard libertarians like Stossel sometimes overemphasize the strengths and downplay or ignore the weaknesses.

Strengths;
- can automatically and rapidly adjust for a complex interaction of multiple variables.
- highly efficient
- socially just to the extent that it is a meritocracy

Weaknesses
- like evolution, it is short-sighted, responding to short term market forces but not necessarily looking ahead to long term strategies. In nature, for examples, species often evolve themselves into a corner and doom themselves to long term failure
- cannot account for non-market forces (such as health and environmental concerns).
- creates motivation for cheating market forces (i.e. by creating a monopoly, hiding inconvenient evidence, phony accounting, etc.)
- like evolution, can be brutal. It might be socially unacceptable to allow for the death of the unfit.

In light of this I think the most rational system is one that takes advantage of the efficiency and self-regulation of free market forces, but also makes very careful and thoughtful regulations to fix the weaknesses of the free-market system. Ideally, such regulations would be evidence-based, subject to outcome measures and revision or cancellation as necessary. Unfortunatly, we tend to get regulations that are more ideological than practical, and then get locked in forever without a built in outcome measure/revision system.

well said  I think that all philosphy have some redeeming qualities, but if left on there own with no checks and balances they will run amuck.

[Michael Elliot]

Free market systsems or evolutionary - they rely upon selective forces in the market to result in survival of the fittest. This has both strengths and weaknesses. I think hard libertarians like Stossel sometimes overemphasize the strengths and downplay or ignore the weaknesses.

Strengths;
- can automatically and rapidly adjust for a complex interaction of multiple variables.
- highly efficient
- socially just to the extent that it is a meritocracy

Weaknesses
- like evolution, it is short-sighted, responding to short term market forces but not necessarily looking ahead to long term strategies. In nature, for examples, species often evolve themselves into a corner and doom themselves to long term failure
- cannot account for non-market forces (such as health and environmental concerns).
- creates motivation for cheating market forces (i.e. by creating a monopoly, hiding inconvenient evidence, phony accounting, etc.)
- like evolution, can be brutal. It might be socially unacceptable to allow for the death of the unfit.

In light of this I think the most rational system is one that takes advantage of the efficiency and self-regulation of free market forces, but also makes very careful and thoughtful regulations to fix the weaknesses of the free-market system. Ideally, such regulations would be evidence-based, subject to outcome measures and revision or cancellation as necessary. Unfortunatly, we tend to get regulations that are more ideological than practical, and then get locked in forever without a built in outcome measure/revision system.

Hi Steve,

Monopolies and corruption incentives are hallmarks of regulated markets. It is virtually impossible for a monopoly to exist in a free market. Let me say that again; It is virtually impossible for a monopoly to exist in a  free market. A careful look at America's true history (not the history taught in the textbooks) overwhelmingly demonstraits this despite the conventional wisdom. What we currently have in education is in fact a monopoly.
One of the few bright spots in education today is the work that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is doing to prepare the next generation for our brave new world because he saw the failings of the public schools. I certainly trust Bill Gates over clueless beurocrats to guide education for the long-term. In a free market school system not only would for-profit schools out perform our current system but private charity would also increase it's contribution toward education. Even if we had a compromised free-market system that never gave money directly to the schools but gave vouchers to all (not just a select %) kids to take to any public or private school they choose we would be far better off. This is what New Zealand did some years ago and they saw improvements in both thier public and private schools.

 You got it exactly right; Of course in theory it would be nice if regulations were made by smart people and were evidance based and subject to revisions and cacellations as necessary. But this is not how it works in the real world. Regulations inevitably are made for political and ideological reasons. And when a school, district, department, regulation, etc. fails they are then given more money and/or power  to try to fix the problem. But when you reward a behavior with more money or powere you get more of it. So why would we want to reward failure.

It's also imortant to note that education was thriving in America before the public school system which was founded on political lies.

[xenu]

It's also imortant to note that education was thriving in America before the public school system which was founded on political lies.

I understand that the church or home schooling originally did all the education in this country and that later the government took it over,but the "public school system which was founded on political lies" explain? :?

[Joe Shmoe]

It is virtually impossible for a monopoly to exist in a free market.

This is an absolutely assinine statement, can you support this with real and unbiased economic theory?

The fundamental problem with 'free market' anything is that consumers will not always make the best choice.  The buying decision is made based on price and marketing, if consumers will almost always choose the cheapest alternative what benefit does that give society?

The education of our children is the foundation of our future society, it's the responsibility of all of society to provide for future.  Businesses do not care about society as a whole and will not take the long view when the here-and-now profits must take precedence.  There is no indication that businesses that take the long view approach are more successful than those that deal in immediate concerns.  In fact, quite the contrary.

[Timothy Clemans]

It is virtually impossible for a monopoly to exist in a free market.

This is an absolutely assinine statement, can you support this with real and unbiased economic theory?

The fundamental problem with 'free market' anything is that consumers will not always make the best choice.  The buying decision is made based on price and marketing, if consumers will almost always choose the cheapest alternative what benefit does that give society?

The education of our children is the foundation of our future society, it's the responsibility of all of society to provide for future.  Businesses do not care about society as a whole and will not take the long view when the here-and-now profits must take precedence.  There is no indication that businesses that take the long view approach are more successful than those that deal in immediate concerns.  In fact, quite the contrary.

Many people buy Macs over PCs. Golf equipment, telescopes, ...