FM Radio and Codecs: Yeah, ok, FM radio might be nice, or maybe not. It's just more stuff to cram inside a phone, stuff that most people won't use most of the time.
I would never use the radio on my iPhone (I don't even listen to music on it) but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, as you initially did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
And, seriously, dude, I hate to tell you this, but no one cares about audio codecs, they just want to listen to their music.
Any other phone on the market will take the audio files that the iPhone plays out of the box and play them too. Other phones will play even more, if you're that way inclined. Personally, I care little about this aspect because as I said, I don't listen to music on my phone, but the point again is that it's better to play many music formats than not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
And, the reason it's the best phone on the market is not because it has the best software library, although it does, it's because it's the best designed and built hardware and OS available.
Those reasons I can agree with, but it's mainly because of the apps in my opinion. Software is what makes the difference and will be the decider in the future.
first, I ignored your daughter's school because it is not a valid comparison, as anonymouse pointed out. Having attended private school and having taught in private and public schools, I could easily cut he cost per student if I excluded the majority of "difficult" students from the school as is generally the case at most private schools.
The other problems you outline are definitely valid but, in my experience do not represent the majority of he problem.
As to other countries doing better. Part of that is he result of early education programs and part of that is the result a consistent national cirriiculum or at least consistent national standards.
Part of the reason I asked if you were a teacher is that education is one of a few areas where most people consider themselves an expert and no how to fix the system even though they have never set foot in a classroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I didn't say that I'm a teacher. I said that I've taught before.
It doesn't matter. I know enough teachers well (and have family members who are teachers) and they confirm my belief.
Note that I never said that more money wouldn't help. Teachers shouldn't have to buy supplies out of their own pockets. And they could probably do more if there was more money. But that's not the PRIMARY problem.
The biggest problem with education is simply that most kids just don't care. They come from homes where education is not valued, they place no priority on education, and the students have no reason to work hard. Why do you think that there's such a huge disparity between, say, black students and white students' scores in the same district? (or, on the other extreme, why do second generation Asian students typically do better than either group - in spite of language difficulties?) They all get the same amount of money (actually, under some formulas, the minority students get MORE money), yet black students typically (not always, but usually) score far lower than whites and Asians typically score higher. It's because of things that are beyond the school's control.
Or ignore the racial differences. There's an enormous difference in scores between family income groups. Those who have higher family incomes always score far higher (on average) than those with lower family incomes. Studies consistently show that it's largely a matter of parental involvement in education and a commitment to education that accounts for the difference.
On top of that are the government mandates which contribute nothing to education, but detract from the real purpose. Every teacher I know grumbles about all the things they have to do so satisfy the government but which take time from real education.
Or, look at the comparison I made earlier - which you conveniently ignored. My daughter's private school has a >95% passing rate on standardized "No school left behind" tests. Our local public schools run around 60% (some as low as 40%, a few as high as 80%). Yet the private school has less money per student than the public school.
Or, look at it on a macro scale. Countries which spend only a fraction of what we spend on education do better than we do in some cases.
Clearly, money isn't everything. It's just the easiest one for legislators to pretend to do something about. Until the underlying problems are addressed, more money doesn't solve anything. At best, it might help to slow the rotting.
first, I ignored your daughter's school because it is not a valid comparison, as anonymouse pointed out. Having attended private school and having taught in private and public schools, I could easily cut he cost per student if I excluded the majority of "difficult" students from the school as is generally the case at most private schools.
The other problems you outline are definitely valid but, in my experience do not represent the majority of he problem.
In your experience. Sorry, but your experience is obviously limited. The examples I cited are true throughout the country. Private schools do better than public schools. Home schooled students (where the parents are clearly involved) do better than expected based on demographics. Upper income family students do better in the same schools than lower income groups. Asians do better than white who do better than blacks in the same schools.
MONEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. In all those cases, the money is the same, but the students who care do far, far better (sometimes 3 or 4 grade levels better).
Unless your experience exceeds the experience of the entire U.S. (and global) educational system, your experience is meaningless (not to mention, of course, that it can't be checked AND there's no way for anyone to know if you actually taught at all - or if you were competent even if you did).
Home life and a desire for education is probably the most important factor in determining educational expense - NOT money. Now, huge amounts of money can bandage the system by making school fun enough that even students who don't want to learn can learn something, but that's only a bandaid. Experience shows that getting the students and parents actively involved in WANTING an education is worth far more than almost any amount of money you can throw at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
As to other countries doing better. Part of that is he result of early education programs and part of that is the result a consistent national cirriiculum or at least consistent national standards..
Most American students are in early education programs, particularly lower income students (the ones who need it the most). Yet it hasn't made a difference.
Consistent national curriculum and consistent national standards? Thanks for supporting my point. It costs virtually nothing to have a consistent national curriculum and consistent standards, yet you're citing that as an important reason why foreign students do better.
In your experience. Sorry, but your experience is obviously limited.
You have no idea who I am, or what my teaching experience is or where I have lived (MI, NY, NJ, NC, TX, and currently in Hawaii).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Private schools do better than public schools.
Of course they do, for the reasons I outlined above, and money IS a major determinant. Private schools for the most part do not have the costs (both educational and monetary) of teaching what would be considered "difficult" students - for example those with learning disabilities or emotional issues. As a general statement, private schools tend to be socioeconomically, ethnically, and culturally homogenous. They tend not to admit students with physical, emotional, or learning disabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Home schooled students (where the parents are clearly involved) do better than expected based on demographics.
Demographics is only part of the issue here. As one confound in your assertion, all studies show that class size is a critical component of academic success, with smaller classes producing better performance. Home schooled children are, by and large, and N of 1 or 2. If you gave every child a private tutor (e.g., home schooling) then performance would also be expected to go up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Upper income family students do better in the same schools than lower income groups.
You do of course realize that upper income families have more MONEY than lower income students. As such, upper income students have access to a variety of resources that lower income students do not, most of which affect academic performance. One rather simple example would be better diets. Again, studies clearly indicate that children with better diets, or even more critically, children that eat breakfast, do better in school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Asians do better than white who do better than blacks in the same schools.
This may be the only point that supports your contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
MONEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. In all those cases, the money is the same, but the students who care do far, far better (sometimes 3 or 4 grade levels better).
Actually, in all but one of your points, money is probably the primary determinant, and the money is not the same - as you yourself stated in the example with socioeconomic status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Unless your experience exceeds the experience of the entire U.S. (and global) educational system, your experience is meaningless (not to mention, of course, that it can't be checked AND there's no way for anyone to know if you actually taught at all - or if you were competent even if you did).
True enough. On the other hand, it is interesting that someone who is not a teacher seems to know more than teachers. This again, is not to say that teachers or the teaching establishment are always correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Home life and a desire for education is probably the most important factor in determining educational expense - NOT money. Now, huge amounts of money can bandage the system by making school fun enough that even students who don't want to learn can learn something, but that's only a bandaid. Experience shows that getting the students and parents actively involved in WANTING an education is worth far more than almost any amount of money you can throw at it.
I have never denied that parent involvement is a critical determinant, it clearly is. OTOH, I am not the one who asserted that money is largely irrelevant. Think of it this way - why would parents spend $20 to $30K a year on kindergarden through 12th grade education if money were not important to quality education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Most American students are in early education programs, particularly lower income students (the ones who need it the most). Yet it hasn't made a difference.
With all due respect, one of the FEW things that has consistently been shown to improve educational success and remaining in school is early education, which is why cuts to Head Start programs are always tragic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Consistent national curriculum and consistent national standards? Thanks for supporting my point. It costs virtually nothing to have a consistent national curriculum and consistent standards, yet you're citing that as an important reason why foreign students do better.
Except that you were arguing that a problem with public schools is government interference in the educational process, with teachers having to do so many extra things to keep the government happy. You cannot have it both ways.
I would never use the radio on my iPhone (I don't even listen to music on it) but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, as you initially did.
Depends on how you look at it. An FM radio adds another chip to the phone, another antenna, more space is taken up, another way to drain the battery.
Quote:
Any other phone on the market will take the audio files that the iPhone plays out of the box and play them too. Other phones will play even more, if you're that way inclined. Personally, I care little about this aspect because as I said, I don't listen to music on my phone, but the point again is that it's better to play many music formats than not.
Not necessarily true. Codecs are not all equal, some of them are of very poor quality or not as efficient in storage space. AAC is the best for its balance of sound quality and the amount of storage it requires. MP3 is actually a mediocre codec but its far too popular to not be included.
With few codecs for Apple to support allows them to optimize the hardware/software which improves quality and battery life.
Quote:
Those reasons I can agree with, but it's mainly because of the apps in my opinion. Software is what makes the difference and will be the decider in the future.
The reason the apps are of the quality that they are is because Apple set the benchmark with respect to design of its software.
You have no idea who I am, or what my teaching experience is or where I have lived (MI, NY, NJ, NC, TX, and currently in Hawaii).
OTOH, I am not the one who asserted that money is largely irrelevant.
Sorry, I'm through here. You're lying through your teeth about what I'm saying.
For example, the two quote above are completely unrelated to my position.
I never said you have NO experience. I said that your experience is limited compared to the tens of millions of students in the US and the experience which covers all 50 states - as measured by national surveys.
I also never said that money is largely irrelevant. I said that there were other, more important factors - and backed it up.
Your 'rebuttal' is disingenous - at best. For example, we're talking about funding in public schools. I pointed out that parental socioeconomic status was a major factor - and you somehow tried to use that to argue that school funding is the critical factor. If I'm an upper middle class parent and have more money to spend on books and activities, how does throwing more money at the school fix that problem? The evidence is that factors OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL FUNDING are critical.
Then you throw out all the examples claiming they're irrelevant - because private schools don't have to do all the useless crap that public schools do or that foreign schools are better managed because they have uniform testing standards. THAT SIMPLY PROVES MY POINT. Money is not the major issue. The money that's there is sufficient (as shown by the fact that private schools can do a better job with less and that foreign schools can do a better job with less and the fact that Asian and upper middle class white kids do just fine in schools with current levels of funding). All of the EXCUSES you keep bringing up merely support my argument. The money being spent is not being used wisely and is being wasted on stupid things. If you spend the money wisely and get the parents involved, the current funding levels are sufficient.
because private schools don't have to do all the useless crap that public schools do
You argued that your daughter's private school spent less money per student than public schools and gave her a better education. You further used that point to support your assertion that money was not a major issue in modern public education.
I then stated that the reason public schools spent more money was because of the population they are mandated to serve. Public schools are required to teach kids with learning disabilities, visual and hearing disabilities, emotional problems, etc. Private schools do not.
You then finally rebutted that this population represented "useless crap."
So, I am left to assume that either you:
1. Do not believe in educating everyone (the useless crap as you put it of educating kids with learning disabilities, etc).
2. Believe in "separate" schools for the "normal" and "disable" kids. We all know how that worked out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
or that foreign schools are better managed because they have uniform testing standards. THAT SIMPLY PROVES MY POINT. Money is not the major issue. The money that's there is sufficient (as shown by the fact that private schools can do a better job with less and that foreign schools can do a better job with less and the fact that Asian and upper middle class white kids do just fine in schools with current levels of funding). All of the EXCUSES you keep bringing up merely support my argument. The money being spent is not being used wisely and is being wasted on stupid things. If you spend the money wisely and get the parents involved, the current funding levels are sufficient.
Secondly, you argued that education suffered because teachers are required to fulfill government mandates that take away from the important task of educating students. This is the standard government interference argument.
I then said that national standards aided schools.
You then argued that all of a sudden, government mandates are a good thing because they do not cost any money. You seemed to change your view on government's role on education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The money being spent is not being used wisely and is being wasted on stupid things. If you spend the money wisely and get the parents involved, the current funding levels are sufficient.
Again, public schools could spend less money on education, like private schools do, if they got rid of all the "problem" students. Or as one example, do you consider kids with learning disabilities, one of those things where the money is not being used wisely, and being wasted on stupid things. Teaching these kids take more time and money and resources.
Demographics is only part of the issue here. As one confound in your assertion, all studies show that class size is a critical component of academic success, with smaller classes producing better performance. Home schooled children are, by and large, and N of 1 or 2. If you gave every child a private tutor (e.g., home schooling) then performance would also be expected to go up.
As an example, my public school has class sizes of 24 for 1st grade and one teacher's helper for every 4 teachers. My kids' current school has class sizes of 24 for 1st grade but 1 teachers helper for EACH class and a supplemental reading teacher 3 days a week. Each child gets 15 minutes of individual attention from the primary teacher and additional individual time with the reading teacher.
Yeah, no kidding the kids do better there. On the other hand it costs $$$. And yes, they have to meet the same standards as the public schools. I dunno what "useless crap" he refers to.
Quote:
This may be the only point that supports your contention.
Maybe. You have to see whether income makes a difference within a demographic to support his assertion. I'm going to guess that rich asians do better than poor asians. Yes, subcultural assignment of the relative importance of education is paramount in (overall group) performance but the ability to enable that is dependent on money.
Even in the (hotly contested) Ogbu's Shaker Heights study those african american students outperformed their lower-income compatriots in other districts.
I would never use the radio on my iPhone (I don't even listen to music on it) but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, as you initially did.
Eh, it's a never ending cycle of, "it ought to have x." If FM radio, why not AM? Why not an OTA TV tuner? Why not a satellite radio receiver? Why not a waffle iron, a small one, of course, but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, everybody loves waffles.
If Microsoft really wants to have a presence in the smartphone market, give out 500million worth of WP7 phones for free!!! They'll never recoup their money by selling them.
This has been a fiasco for 20 years. They planned, at first, to get the money back by having a mall share the building. It went over budget, and then the developers begged off. Then they found methane underneath it, which, since it's lethal, they had to mitigate. At every point, the budget went over and you're left with the choice of abandoning it and $200 million already spent or continuing on. It becomes a "controversy", so the politics gets vicious.
There's one thing that the earnest discussion of private v public education that the pro-privates forget: private education, if left on it's own, only cares about educating it's own rich little pukes. Public schools take in everyone, because we have to. It wouldn't be moral if we didn't try to level the field somewhat.
It frankly doesn't surprise me much that the children of the poor, speaking a second language, don't do as well as kids raised in suburban bliss. We should just work to give them better teachers.
If you look at inner-city schools as an investment, that's fine. But they make lousy businesses. The only way to profits on it is to run them like health insurance companies: use every excuse to kick kids out.
... Why not a waffle iron, a small one, of course, but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, everybody loves waffles.
So if you take $500mil...and divide it equally....EVERY Microsoft employee would see before tax a $3703 bonus.
Instead, what they will see is another failed attempt by Microsoft to out Apple Apple....
Rather than MAKE money by creating Apps for Android and iPhone, they'd rather piss it away on substandard hardware running substandard software and sell to the MS fanboys.
And the stockholders can do nothing but sell MS stock BEFORE they decide it was lunacy.
As an iPhone owner, I'm looking forward to WP7 because it's the first real competition to Apple's dominance. It's interesting how pro-Apple mags like Engadget and Gizmodo are stoked about what M$ is bringing to the table. After running the demo, I have to admit that Apple's GUI seemed kind of dated.
You know, I am also looking forward to try something... different. Having 3Gs, I played a bit with 4G and... wasn't really blown away. It is, like, 3Gs optimized... but still same old thing. Android is also copying same GUI philosophy, more or less.
I might end up not liking WP7 at all, but at present I am excited to see a bit different approach to GUI. Our company is planning to implement them as soon as possible for promised CRM and Exchange integrations, so hopefully I will have enough time to use it before my personal phone upgrade is due
That's what MS has been doing for the past twenty-five years or so and look where it got them. I wouldn't underestimate their advertizing power so much. I bet Windows mobile 7 has a very smooth integration with Exchange servers, which is a reason for buying for many, many companies out there. Plus the fact that Windows phones can be in a service contract together with all the other windows software many companies have.
I can see 3 strong points for corporate users:
Robust Exchange integration (without paying for something like Blackberry server)
Native mobile MS Office (we will see how good it is, though)
CRM integration (huge benefit, if done correctly)
Plus, fresh GUI, decent media playback and LIVE integration/games that will attract number of home users.
I think they will do well. They are not going to take over the market over night, but I think they will be growing in market share constantly until they reach iPhone/Android shares.
Quote:
Apple has strong competition already. Android phones are sold more than iPhones world-wide. Here in Europe the iPhone crazyness is over already, and many people dump the iPhone for better phones.
Even here in NZ, after the euphoria previous iPhones created, iPhone 4 launch was much quieter, and there is not much buzz among people I know. Lots of people are not even aware there is new iPhone out there. Strange.
Depends on your definition of doing well. Sure the Xbox is a popular gaming system, but they've never made any money off it. Not a penny. If they could leverage the Xbox to make money in other ways that might okay, but they haven't done that yet either.
Maybe this will change with WM7 though since Xbox will have some integration with WM7. Maybe finally things will start to come together... maybe.
Do you have any reliable link to confirm on that? Not making money on console hardware in hardly MS invention - Sony was doing that for ages. And with positive results at the end.
And beside making money on games, MS is making some on XBOX Live subscriptions, movie (and other media) rentals, games add-ons, additional hardware (spare controllers, HDDs, headsets, wheels...)...
Comments
FM Radio and Codecs: Yeah, ok, FM radio might be nice, or maybe not. It's just more stuff to cram inside a phone, stuff that most people won't use most of the time.
I would never use the radio on my iPhone (I don't even listen to music on it) but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, as you initially did.
And, seriously, dude, I hate to tell you this, but no one cares about audio codecs, they just want to listen to their music.
Any other phone on the market will take the audio files that the iPhone plays out of the box and play them too. Other phones will play even more, if you're that way inclined. Personally, I care little about this aspect because as I said, I don't listen to music on my phone, but the point again is that it's better to play many music formats than not.
And, the reason it's the best phone on the market is not because it has the best software library, although it does, it's because it's the best designed and built hardware and OS available.
Those reasons I can agree with, but it's mainly because of the apps in my opinion. Software is what makes the difference and will be the decider in the future.
The other problems you outline are definitely valid but, in my experience do not represent the majority of he problem.
As to other countries doing better. Part of that is he result of early education programs and part of that is the result a consistent national cirriiculum or at least consistent national standards.
Part of the reason I asked if you were a teacher is that education is one of a few areas where most people consider themselves an expert and no how to fix the system even though they have never set foot in a classroom.
I didn't say that I'm a teacher. I said that I've taught before.
It doesn't matter. I know enough teachers well (and have family members who are teachers) and they confirm my belief.
Note that I never said that more money wouldn't help. Teachers shouldn't have to buy supplies out of their own pockets. And they could probably do more if there was more money. But that's not the PRIMARY problem.
The biggest problem with education is simply that most kids just don't care. They come from homes where education is not valued, they place no priority on education, and the students have no reason to work hard. Why do you think that there's such a huge disparity between, say, black students and white students' scores in the same district? (or, on the other extreme, why do second generation Asian students typically do better than either group - in spite of language difficulties?) They all get the same amount of money (actually, under some formulas, the minority students get MORE money), yet black students typically (not always, but usually) score far lower than whites and Asians typically score higher. It's because of things that are beyond the school's control.
Or ignore the racial differences. There's an enormous difference in scores between family income groups. Those who have higher family incomes always score far higher (on average) than those with lower family incomes. Studies consistently show that it's largely a matter of parental involvement in education and a commitment to education that accounts for the difference.
On top of that are the government mandates which contribute nothing to education, but detract from the real purpose. Every teacher I know grumbles about all the things they have to do so satisfy the government but which take time from real education.
Or, look at the comparison I made earlier - which you conveniently ignored. My daughter's private school has a >95% passing rate on standardized "No school left behind" tests. Our local public schools run around 60% (some as low as 40%, a few as high as 80%). Yet the private school has less money per student than the public school.
Or, look at it on a macro scale. Countries which spend only a fraction of what we spend on education do better than we do in some cases.
Clearly, money isn't everything. It's just the easiest one for legislators to pretend to do something about. Until the underlying problems are addressed, more money doesn't solve anything. At best, it might help to slow the rotting.
... Part of that is he result of early education programs and part of that is the result a consistent national cirriiculum
"Having attended private school and having taught in private and public schools"?
I hope it wasn't in the US
first, I ignored your daughter's school because it is not a valid comparison, as anonymouse pointed out. Having attended private school and having taught in private and public schools, I could easily cut he cost per student if I excluded the majority of "difficult" students from the school as is generally the case at most private schools.
The other problems you outline are definitely valid but, in my experience do not represent the majority of he problem.
In your experience. Sorry, but your experience is obviously limited. The examples I cited are true throughout the country. Private schools do better than public schools. Home schooled students (where the parents are clearly involved) do better than expected based on demographics. Upper income family students do better in the same schools than lower income groups. Asians do better than white who do better than blacks in the same schools.
MONEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. In all those cases, the money is the same, but the students who care do far, far better (sometimes 3 or 4 grade levels better).
Unless your experience exceeds the experience of the entire U.S. (and global) educational system, your experience is meaningless (not to mention, of course, that it can't be checked AND there's no way for anyone to know if you actually taught at all - or if you were competent even if you did).
Home life and a desire for education is probably the most important factor in determining educational expense - NOT money. Now, huge amounts of money can bandage the system by making school fun enough that even students who don't want to learn can learn something, but that's only a bandaid. Experience shows that getting the students and parents actively involved in WANTING an education is worth far more than almost any amount of money you can throw at it.
As to other countries doing better. Part of that is he result of early education programs and part of that is the result a consistent national cirriiculum or at least consistent national standards..
Most American students are in early education programs, particularly lower income students (the ones who need it the most). Yet it hasn't made a difference.
Consistent national curriculum and consistent national standards? Thanks for supporting my point. It costs virtually nothing to have a consistent national curriculum and consistent standards, yet you're citing that as an important reason why foreign students do better.
"Having attended private school and having taught in private and public schools"?
I hope it wasn't in the US
Unfortunately, I have never quite gotten the hang of typing quickly in my iPhone. Old, fat fingers I guess.
In your experience. Sorry, but your experience is obviously limited.
You have no idea who I am, or what my teaching experience is or where I have lived (MI, NY, NJ, NC, TX, and currently in Hawaii).
Private schools do better than public schools.
Of course they do, for the reasons I outlined above, and money IS a major determinant. Private schools for the most part do not have the costs (both educational and monetary) of teaching what would be considered "difficult" students - for example those with learning disabilities or emotional issues. As a general statement, private schools tend to be socioeconomically, ethnically, and culturally homogenous. They tend not to admit students with physical, emotional, or learning disabilities.
Home schooled students (where the parents are clearly involved) do better than expected based on demographics.
Demographics is only part of the issue here. As one confound in your assertion, all studies show that class size is a critical component of academic success, with smaller classes producing better performance. Home schooled children are, by and large, and N of 1 or 2. If you gave every child a private tutor (e.g., home schooling) then performance would also be expected to go up.
Upper income family students do better in the same schools than lower income groups.
You do of course realize that upper income families have more MONEY than lower income students. As such, upper income students have access to a variety of resources that lower income students do not, most of which affect academic performance. One rather simple example would be better diets. Again, studies clearly indicate that children with better diets, or even more critically, children that eat breakfast, do better in school.
Asians do better than white who do better than blacks in the same schools.
This may be the only point that supports your contention.
MONEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. In all those cases, the money is the same, but the students who care do far, far better (sometimes 3 or 4 grade levels better).
Actually, in all but one of your points, money is probably the primary determinant, and the money is not the same - as you yourself stated in the example with socioeconomic status.
Unless your experience exceeds the experience of the entire U.S. (and global) educational system, your experience is meaningless (not to mention, of course, that it can't be checked AND there's no way for anyone to know if you actually taught at all - or if you were competent even if you did).
True enough. On the other hand, it is interesting that someone who is not a teacher seems to know more than teachers. This again, is not to say that teachers or the teaching establishment are always correct.
Home life and a desire for education is probably the most important factor in determining educational expense - NOT money. Now, huge amounts of money can bandage the system by making school fun enough that even students who don't want to learn can learn something, but that's only a bandaid. Experience shows that getting the students and parents actively involved in WANTING an education is worth far more than almost any amount of money you can throw at it.
I have never denied that parent involvement is a critical determinant, it clearly is. OTOH, I am not the one who asserted that money is largely irrelevant. Think of it this way - why would parents spend $20 to $30K a year on kindergarden through 12th grade education if money were not important to quality education.
Most American students are in early education programs, particularly lower income students (the ones who need it the most). Yet it hasn't made a difference.
With all due respect, one of the FEW things that has consistently been shown to improve educational success and remaining in school is early education, which is why cuts to Head Start programs are always tragic.
Consistent national curriculum and consistent national standards? Thanks for supporting my point. It costs virtually nothing to have a consistent national curriculum and consistent standards, yet you're citing that as an important reason why foreign students do better.
Except that you were arguing that a problem with public schools is government interference in the educational process, with teachers having to do so many extra things to keep the government happy. You cannot have it both ways.
I would never use the radio on my iPhone (I don't even listen to music on it) but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, as you initially did.
Depends on how you look at it. An FM radio adds another chip to the phone, another antenna, more space is taken up, another way to drain the battery.
Any other phone on the market will take the audio files that the iPhone plays out of the box and play them too. Other phones will play even more, if you're that way inclined. Personally, I care little about this aspect because as I said, I don't listen to music on my phone, but the point again is that it's better to play many music formats than not.
Not necessarily true. Codecs are not all equal, some of them are of very poor quality or not as efficient in storage space. AAC is the best for its balance of sound quality and the amount of storage it requires. MP3 is actually a mediocre codec but its far too popular to not be included.
With few codecs for Apple to support allows them to optimize the hardware/software which improves quality and battery life.
Those reasons I can agree with, but it's mainly because of the apps in my opinion. Software is what makes the difference and will be the decider in the future.
The reason the apps are of the quality that they are is because Apple set the benchmark with respect to design of its software.
You have no idea who I am, or what my teaching experience is or where I have lived (MI, NY, NJ, NC, TX, and currently in Hawaii).
OTOH, I am not the one who asserted that money is largely irrelevant.
Sorry, I'm through here. You're lying through your teeth about what I'm saying.
For example, the two quote above are completely unrelated to my position.
I never said you have NO experience. I said that your experience is limited compared to the tens of millions of students in the US and the experience which covers all 50 states - as measured by national surveys.
I also never said that money is largely irrelevant. I said that there were other, more important factors - and backed it up.
Your 'rebuttal' is disingenous - at best. For example, we're talking about funding in public schools. I pointed out that parental socioeconomic status was a major factor - and you somehow tried to use that to argue that school funding is the critical factor. If I'm an upper middle class parent and have more money to spend on books and activities, how does throwing more money at the school fix that problem? The evidence is that factors OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL FUNDING are critical.
Then you throw out all the examples claiming they're irrelevant - because private schools don't have to do all the useless crap that public schools do or that foreign schools are better managed because they have uniform testing standards. THAT SIMPLY PROVES MY POINT. Money is not the major issue. The money that's there is sufficient (as shown by the fact that private schools can do a better job with less and that foreign schools can do a better job with less and the fact that Asian and upper middle class white kids do just fine in schools with current levels of funding). All of the EXCUSES you keep bringing up merely support my argument. The money being spent is not being used wisely and is being wasted on stupid things. If you spend the money wisely and get the parents involved, the current funding levels are sufficient.
because private schools don't have to do all the useless crap that public schools do
You argued that your daughter's private school spent less money per student than public schools and gave her a better education. You further used that point to support your assertion that money was not a major issue in modern public education.
I then stated that the reason public schools spent more money was because of the population they are mandated to serve. Public schools are required to teach kids with learning disabilities, visual and hearing disabilities, emotional problems, etc. Private schools do not.
You then finally rebutted that this population represented "useless crap."
So, I am left to assume that either you:
1. Do not believe in educating everyone (the useless crap as you put it of educating kids with learning disabilities, etc).
2. Believe in "separate" schools for the "normal" and "disable" kids. We all know how that worked out.
or that foreign schools are better managed because they have uniform testing standards. THAT SIMPLY PROVES MY POINT. Money is not the major issue. The money that's there is sufficient (as shown by the fact that private schools can do a better job with less and that foreign schools can do a better job with less and the fact that Asian and upper middle class white kids do just fine in schools with current levels of funding). All of the EXCUSES you keep bringing up merely support my argument. The money being spent is not being used wisely and is being wasted on stupid things. If you spend the money wisely and get the parents involved, the current funding levels are sufficient.
Secondly, you argued that education suffered because teachers are required to fulfill government mandates that take away from the important task of educating students. This is the standard government interference argument.
I then said that national standards aided schools.
You then argued that all of a sudden, government mandates are a good thing because they do not cost any money. You seemed to change your view on government's role on education.
The money being spent is not being used wisely and is being wasted on stupid things. If you spend the money wisely and get the parents involved, the current funding levels are sufficient.
Again, public schools could spend less money on education, like private schools do, if they got rid of all the "problem" students. Or as one example, do you consider kids with learning disabilities, one of those things where the money is not being used wisely, and being wasted on stupid things. Teaching these kids take more time and money and resources.
Demographics is only part of the issue here. As one confound in your assertion, all studies show that class size is a critical component of academic success, with smaller classes producing better performance. Home schooled children are, by and large, and N of 1 or 2. If you gave every child a private tutor (e.g., home schooling) then performance would also be expected to go up.
As an example, my public school has class sizes of 24 for 1st grade and one teacher's helper for every 4 teachers. My kids' current school has class sizes of 24 for 1st grade but 1 teachers helper for EACH class and a supplemental reading teacher 3 days a week. Each child gets 15 minutes of individual attention from the primary teacher and additional individual time with the reading teacher.
Yeah, no kidding the kids do better there. On the other hand it costs $$$. And yes, they have to meet the same standards as the public schools. I dunno what "useless crap" he refers to.
This may be the only point that supports your contention.
Maybe. You have to see whether income makes a difference within a demographic to support his assertion. I'm going to guess that rich asians do better than poor asians. Yes, subcultural assignment of the relative importance of education is paramount in (overall group) performance but the ability to enable that is dependent on money.
Even in the (hotly contested) Ogbu's Shaker Heights study those african american students outperformed their lower-income compatriots in other districts.
I would never use the radio on my iPhone (I don't even listen to music on it) but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, as you initially did.
Eh, it's a never ending cycle of, "it ought to have x." If FM radio, why not AM? Why not an OTA TV tuner? Why not a satellite radio receiver? Why not a waffle iron, a small one, of course, but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, everybody loves waffles.
Maybe the money would be better spent building a school in Los Angeles:
http://theweek.com/article/index/206...by-the-numbers
This has been a fiasco for 20 years. They planned, at first, to get the money back by having a mall share the building. It went over budget, and then the developers begged off. Then they found methane underneath it, which, since it's lethal, they had to mitigate. At every point, the budget went over and you're left with the choice of abandoning it and $200 million already spent or continuing on. It becomes a "controversy", so the politics gets vicious.
There's one thing that the earnest discussion of private v public education that the pro-privates forget: private education, if left on it's own, only cares about educating it's own rich little pukes. Public schools take in everyone, because we have to. It wouldn't be moral if we didn't try to level the field somewhat.
It frankly doesn't surprise me much that the children of the poor, speaking a second language, don't do as well as kids raised in suburban bliss. We should just work to give them better teachers.
If you look at inner-city schools as an investment, that's fine. But they make lousy businesses. The only way to profits on it is to run them like health insurance companies: use every excuse to kick kids out.
... Why not a waffle iron, a small one, of course, but you can't claim that it makes a worse product if it had this functionality, everybody loves waffles.
Instead, what they will see is another failed attempt by Microsoft to out Apple Apple....
Rather than MAKE money by creating Apps for Android and iPhone, they'd rather piss it away on substandard hardware running substandard software and sell to the MS fanboys.
And the stockholders can do nothing but sell MS stock BEFORE they decide it was lunacy.
Woops. That was $0.8 B in the toilet.
Good news - this is only $0.5 B
Good money after bad.
Might be better if management had changed. Unfortunately (for MS), Steve B is still there.
Enjoy the cash flow while it flows
As an iPhone owner, I'm looking forward to WP7 because it's the first real competition to Apple's dominance. It's interesting how pro-Apple mags like Engadget and Gizmodo are stoked about what M$ is bringing to the table. After running the demo, I have to admit that Apple's GUI seemed kind of dated.
You know, I am also looking forward to try something... different. Having 3Gs, I played a bit with 4G and... wasn't really blown away. It is, like, 3Gs optimized... but still same old thing. Android is also copying same GUI philosophy, more or less.
I might end up not liking WP7 at all, but at present I am excited to see a bit different approach to GUI. Our company is planning to implement them as soon as possible for promised CRM and Exchange integrations, so hopefully I will have enough time to use it before my personal phone upgrade is due
That's what MS has been doing for the past twenty-five years or so and look where it got them. I wouldn't underestimate their advertizing power so much. I bet Windows mobile 7 has a very smooth integration with Exchange servers, which is a reason for buying for many, many companies out there. Plus the fact that Windows phones can be in a service contract together with all the other windows software many companies have.
I can see 3 strong points for corporate users:
Robust Exchange integration (without paying for something like Blackberry server)
Native mobile MS Office (we will see how good it is, though)
CRM integration (huge benefit, if done correctly)
Plus, fresh GUI, decent media playback and LIVE integration/games that will attract number of home users.
I think they will do well. They are not going to take over the market over night, but I think they will be growing in market share constantly until they reach iPhone/Android shares.
Apple has strong competition already. Android phones are sold more than iPhones world-wide. Here in Europe the iPhone crazyness is over already, and many people dump the iPhone for better phones.
Even here in NZ, after the euphoria previous iPhones created, iPhone 4 launch was much quieter, and there is not much buzz among people I know. Lots of people are not even aware there is new iPhone out there. Strange.
Depends on your definition of doing well. Sure the Xbox is a popular gaming system, but they've never made any money off it. Not a penny. If they could leverage the Xbox to make money in other ways that might okay, but they haven't done that yet either.
Maybe this will change with WM7 though since Xbox will have some integration with WM7. Maybe finally things will start to come together... maybe.
Do you have any reliable link to confirm on that? Not making money on console hardware in hardly MS invention - Sony was doing that for ages. And with positive results at the end.
And beside making money on games, MS is making some on XBOX Live subscriptions, movie (and other media) rentals, games add-ons, additional hardware (spare controllers, HDDs, headsets, wheels...)...