CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Step 1: Raise taxes, increase funding and have the federal government take over the school system. If this doesn't work, please repeat this step over again.
Step 2: Get government out of education and let the market fix it.
I agree with neither of these options. Step 1 would not work because there is enough money in the education system, the problem is where it is spent. Take a look at the best education system in the world, Finland. They have a state-sponsored system, but it is run differently than anywhere else in the world.
As for the second option, I would rather home-school my children then have them go to school and be indoctrinated by corporations.
As for the second option, I would rather home-school my children then have them go to school and be indoctrinated by corporations
1. You have the option to home school to your child
2. Not all business and corporations are evil. You consider private education to be indoctrination but giving the state the authority to decide what your children should be taught isn't? The governments version of history is an indoctrination.
How does the market produce good education in poor neighborhoods? Shouldn't all children, regardless of their parents means or "laziness", get a good education so they can better themselves and not end up like their parent?
No, it separates the people who memorized a bunch of nit picky facts from the people who didn't. Many smart people tend to concentrate their time on their hobbies, interests and private studies, so it is not all that unlikely for a smart person to do bad on a long, dry, 100 question test.
The trade mark of intelligence is not high grades, for the most part, it is creativity.
You would love to live in medieval, nobody would force you into evil state school and wanted to reach to some level in gathering knowledge. No cameras or wire tapping... ideal place for you.
"practice my talents on my own" I assume you are talking about liberal arts or something? :D I wonder how would you self taught Supersymetry or Relativistic mechanics, fluid dynamics or Graph theory :D
Most talents are applicable to jobs, regardless of if it is a mechanical, art, scientific or trivial. Not everything can and must be taught in a state run school and it doesn't have to be mandatory. Lets say for instance I would like to become a commercial diver, again, most of the subjects that are taught would be useless.
A one size fits all education system does not work well, everyone learns differently, will have different jobs, will need different skills and will pursue different goals.
While I agree that a "one size fits all" approach isn't best, letting a large percentage of your population remain uneducated is a sure-fire way to doom your economy. Under-education may have played a large role in the economic down-turn of 2008; people didn't understand the mortgages they were buying, what a mortgage was, or how to balance their check-books!
There should be special exception and ways to opt-out, but a good education is sure to benefit anyone who receives it.
To think that a large percentage of kids would be un-educated in America if it wasn't for "Free" education is false. When schools would have to compete the prices would go down, education would be affordable for most families and I'm sure most parents would make their kids go to school.
A large reason people didn't understand the mortgages is because they didn't understand the prices. The government got involved and ended up creating an artificially high price for houses. Then after the bubble popped people had $300,000 loans for a house that was now only worth $150,000, as you can probably predict, a ton of defaults, bankruptcy's and fore closers happened.
First of all, no one’s claiming public education is free, except those who are horribly uneducated. Neither is anyone suggesting banning private schools or making enrollment in a PUBLIC school compulsory; only that a child receives an adequate education.
If people weren't able to UNDERSTAND the prices, that would indicate a lack of education.
If people weren't able to UNDERSTAND the prices, that would indicate a lack of education.
Most college graduates don't understand how economic pricing works and what effects it. Seriously most voters who claim to vote on "how important the economy is" don't even understand how supply and demand works, they just kind of toss the phrase around.
"Most college graduates don't understand how economic pricing works and what effects it." And those are presumably graduate of PRIVATE institutions. Again, this points to a serious failing in education.
So, basic personal finance shouldn't be taught in public schools? Every single one of your ideas could be from the mouth of a upstart despot. Humans have survived this long due to our adaptability; we're good at a bunch of stuff. It naturally follows, then, we should LEARN a bunch of stuff. Naturally, everyone will have their passion and it is right that they should follow it. It is beneficial to have knowledge outside of your specialty, however; especially in matters of money and law.
So, basic personal finance shouldn't be taught in public schools?
Whoa, hold up there. There is a HUGE difference between personal finance and economics. These people knew how to balance their check books, but when the market crashes and they took out a $300,000 loan with an annual interest of 5% above inflation and now their house is only worth $100,000, obviously, there is a lot that can go wrong here.
Its not because they said "duuuuh whats this $ symbol mean?" its because they didn't see the crash coming and didn't understand that the prices were artificially high.
It naturally follows, then, we should LEARN a bunch of stuff.
I would agree with you on that, however, we both have two different meanings. I say go after what you are interested in, intend to use in the work place and whatever you think may help. It appears from your opinion that we should just cram a bunch of trivial stuff into the already bloated curriculum.
Personal finance as tied to personal mortgages dashes your concept of the disassociation of each; they are intrinsically related. The fact they thought it would be acceptable to take out such a loan in the first place speaks volumes to that fact.
I, too, say go with what you're interested in. But, what you need in the work-place and what you need in the world can't be constrained to your specialized outlook on education. Over-specialization has led to the extinction of some species by limiting the conditions in which it could survive. There are some unnecessary core-classes, and I would like to see an over-haul of the basic curriculum of modern high-school students. We need to teach our children how to function and thrive in today's world, but we're still using the teaching methods and much of the same material as the last century (and before).
In conclusion, I believe we need to teach to thrive instead of survive.
Personal finance as tied to personal mortgages dashes your concept of the disassociation of each; they are intrinsically related. The fact they thought it would be acceptable to take out such a loan in the first place speaks volumes to that fact.
You're not getting it. This was not an issue with them not understand Personal Finance or Personal Mortgages, it is them not understanding how the MARKET works. It wasn't caused because people didn't know what they were getting into, its because no one understood how the market worked and didn't see the coming crash.
No personal finance or mortgage class can teach you about the market, that is a totally different subject.
And the opening line from the next article: I've been more than a bit irritated by Vice President Cheney's recent comment that no one saw the financial crisis coming.
No personal finance or mortgage class can teach you about the market, that is a totally different subject.
You speak of the market like it's some sort of deity; unable to be understood. In fact, a few causes of economic bubbles turned out to be at fault again; a messy tax code encouraging risky investments using home equity, a "mania" instilled by American culture, Government, and media for home-ownership without a thorough education in any form of economics or finance, and all of this on top of banks offering predatory loans ( subprime mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and stated income loans [liar loans]).
Perhaps you don't understand "the market," but plenty of people do, and the cause of the housing bubble is well understood at this point; it's not being disputed.
And the opening line from the next article: I've been more than a bit irritated by Vice President Cheney's recent comment that no one saw the financial crisis coming.
When I say no one I am referring to MOST people.
You speak of the market like it's some sort of deity; unable to be understood.
No, I do not. However, letting you know that personal finance and economics are to different things.
In fact, a few causes of economic bubbles turned out to be at fault again; a messy tax code encouraging risky investments using home equity, a "mania" instilled by American culture, Government, and media for home-ownership without a thorough education in any form of economics or finance, and all of this on top of banks offering predatory loans ( subprime mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and stated income loans [liar loans]).
You seem to leave out the part where George H Bush tried to increase the number of home owning Americans and created artificially high market prices, and when those crashed then the 2008 crisis started.
Perhaps you don't understand "the market," but plenty of people do, and the cause of the housing bubble is well understood at this point; it's not being disputed.
It is not understood by most people. Some are dumb enough to blame Clinton or George W Bush for the crisis.
Its not lack of education, its terms. When I say "everyone wears clothes" obviously not EVERYONE wears some form form of clothing, I am stating the almost every wears clothing.
I seem to have a better grasp of this than you.
Not really.
A "mania" instilled by "American... Government" somehow excludes G. Bush?
He didn't instill "mania" he made it easier for people to get loans for houses. Mania is a sate of elevated mood, George H Bush elevated prices and the amount of loans.
Like you just did?
I said George H Bush, not Clinton, not George W Bush.
I disagree; the importance placed on home-ownership helped to create artificially high prices.
Yes, but just the importance alone would not have caused the crisis. If it was just importance alone it would have motivated people to save and earn more. What really caused the crisis was the government making banks give out loans and keeping interest rates artificially low.
I disagree; due to less-than-optimal weather arising from time to time, everyone has probably worn some sort of clothing at some point in their lives.
Again there are billions of people, the odds are that at least one of them has not.
Yes, but just the importance alone would not have caused the crisis.
The importance placed on home-ownership helped to create artificially high prices. Helped does not imply "was responsible for."
If it was just importance alone it would have motivated people to save and earn more. That's an incorrect assumption. The importance placed on home-ownership, which was/is re-enforced through nearly every level of American culture, motivated people to make risky and often disastrous financial decisions by taking out loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The Government &* The Banks are both partially to blame for allowing those loans to be approved in the first place, but impulsive & irrational consumers also had a part to play in creating this crisis.
Again there are billions of people, the odds are that at least one of them has not.
You know what; you're probably right. I concede that point.
10 years old decides that he spends 50 years by driving truck because someone in Rambo 9 did so.. really are you serious?
Where did I say that? I said that not every trivial skills is applicable to most jobs. A graphic designer would have no use for Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion.
You would really love it medieval, your father let's say carpenter will teach you what he knows and then you will live happily until your 40 :D
You assume a lot. I say don't force people to do this and most of those kills aren't applicable to jobs and just waste time and you interpret it as bring back the caste system.
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion ... it's part of core knowledge same as Evolution, electromagnetism, basics of chemistry, sociology, IT, geography, history...
I know that in US is primary and secondary education in horrible condition but by removing grading and letting children chose whatever they like you will end up with single purpose super-religious cranks without any future. This is why Kenya has no space program...
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion ... it's part of core knowledge same as Evolution, electromagnetism, basics of chemistry, sociology, IT, geography, history...
Actually, no, its not. IF you wish to pursue a scientific career, yes, it is of use to you, but in most jobs Hubble's Law and Chemistry would be useless.
I know that in US is primary and secondary education in horrible condition but by removing grading and letting children chose whatever they like you will end up with single purpose super-religious cranks without any future.
Yes, because obviously letting kids pursue what they want to do in the work place will mean everyone will become a religious fanatic, but by teaching them about electromagnetism they will all be set straight.
It's important that they know how stuff works, that there is not only Earth, that we are not here because of some magic, that earth is round, what are diseases, how societies works, history, how, computers works, be able to calculate his own budged...
religions lives from illiteracy.
for example the Hubble's law ...can be explained in few seconds and the child will know how we know that Universe is expanding.
It's important that they know how stuff works, that there is not only Earth, that we are not here because of some magic, that earth is round, what are diseases, how societies works, history, how, computers works, be able to calculate his own budged...
To some degree, however, having skills and talents come first. Then afterwords they may learn about other things. Of course they should have some basic math and science, but you shouldn't but Hubble's law and chemistry above learning how to be able to, you know, do something. People don't look at a computer and yell "its magic! hail Satan!"
religions lives from illiteracy.
Most religions survived because of religious texts...
for example the Hubble's law ...can be explained in few seconds and the child will know how we know that Universe is expanding.
And this helps kids how? Putting little trivial knowledge above actually skills is a bad idea. If the child wants to become a scientist, then by all means, he /she should pursue information like this, but if they have another goal, then there is not much of a point.
Yes, obviously sharing a different view must mean that I am closed minded and ignorant. Your like a UK version of Nummi, disagree with me? CLOSED MINDED!!!
He is also very very very biased. Downright delusional... at least in some areas (and that some areas is quite a lot actually...). Also, many other things... A dumb fuck for short.
"Most religions survived because of religious texts..." ...and only from them ...everything else was banned and punished by death, heretical ideas as round Earth how many people died for that blasphemy??? :D
...and only from them ...everything else was banned and punished by death, heretical ideas as round Earth how many people died for that blasphemy??
False. The church knew the Earth was round, they just wanted slowly incorporate the idea. When you just come out and yell "everything we know is wrong" it generally creates some unrest. Galileo was not immediately killed, he actually spoke to high members of the church about the idea and was surprised that they were all aware. However, they told him to try and keep it down because they didn't think it was the best time to break the news to most people, but he went and did it anyway, this cycle repeated a couple times until the church got fed up with it.
You have to remember, the powerful church at this time was originally just that, a church, it really did nothing besides send missionaries and help people. But then when the idea of cannon law came into place (the churches attempt to establish common law through out Europe) many people saw how this could be used to their advantage, so in the end, the church ended up being corrupted by people who wished to turn it into a government. Then after that we had Christians break away from the corrupted church.
Don't confuse every religion with the dark times of the corrupted Catholic Church.
Galileo was not burned for admitting that he was wrong and that Earth is flat. He was placed under house arrest until he died. The thing that they were aware of it and just want go slowly (1000 years or more) is just BS.
Cecco d'Ascoli was burnt alive by the church in 1327 for daring to suggest that men may live on the other side of the world.
The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake by Rome in 1600 for daring to suggest that the earth goes round the sun.
Lucilio Vanini was burnt alive in 1619 for daring to suggest that man has risen instead of fallen
Isaac La Peyrere was imprisoned, and his book burned, for claiming in 1655 that humanity must be older than Genesis implies.
The pioneer naturalist Buffon was humiliated by the Church in the 18th century, and forced to declare "that I had no intention to contradict the text of Scripture".
The medical pioneer Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake by John Calvin in 1553.
Christianity was like plague, more than 1500 years of banned science and death sentence for anything that just a little different from scriptures, banned education for public, available only for priests and super rich . Christianity began as a violent cult and continued that way for about 1700 years. Nothing worst ever happens to humanity that Christianity, no disease, war, warlord or ideology ever did so much harm.
Galileo was not burned for admitting that he was wrong and that Earth is flat. He was placed under house arrest until he died. The thing that they were aware of it and just want go slowly (1000 years or more) is just BS.
They weren't going to wait 1000 years.
Christianity was like plague, more than 1500 years of banned science and death sentence for anything that just a little different from scriptures, banned education for public, available only for priests and super rich .
Congrats, with this statement, you have just done what most un-informed people do: Label ALL Christianity as what the Catholic Church was like.
Christianity began as a violent cult and continued that way for about 1700 years.
Actually no, for the first few centuries of Christianity being in existence they were slaughtered. Then when the Roman Empire became the Byzantium Empire, they... well, stopped killing them.
The Catholic Church never did anything that bad until it was corrupted and it was no longer in control of true deacons and cardinals, but power hungry men who wished to reunite Europe under their control. Your missing the whole part where the Catholic Church went from being a church to it being corrupted and turned into a government. Most of the beliefs they killed people over had nothing to do with the bible or scripture.
As for Protestants and the Orthodox church, they really just minded their own business and didn't kill anyone, they actually denounced the Catholic Church as being a corrupt government that just rode under the banner of the cross.
Nothing worst ever happens to humanity that Christianity, no disease, war, warlord or ideology ever did so much harm.
If you are so ignorant as to blame Christianity, not all religions but just one, then I think you need to re-review how history played out.
Congrats, with this statement, you have just done what most un-informed people do: Label ALL Christianity as what the Catholic Church was like.
Catholic Church was and still is them major Christian denomination, do you think that the other one (Orthodox) was somehow better? Their "little cleansings...".
No, Christians begun as a bunch of violent cults based on Judaism using Jews rituals and ritual around fire, They did not agree with each other... How many Kids Jesus had?.. did he married just that whore or some other women? How he died and when? Until year 400 there were 12 main cults with very different view on Christianity, they commonly raided libraries and massacred non Christians. They were very similar to present Al-Quada and for same reason they were killed for acts that are in present society described as terrorism.
Catholics and cults based on them like Baptists, Protestants and other cults did incredible damage. No other religion get even close. The did and do represents vast majority of Christians.
1. Actually, Catholics were not the majority after the protestants rebelled, when all was said and done, half of the Catholic church left. Today Catholicism isn't the majority in most Christan countries.
2. Protestants and Orthodox rebelled against the Catholics because they thought that almost everything they were doing was wrong and immoral. Not because they thought they weren't radical enough but because they thought the church had become overwhelmed with Greed and Violence.
3. Actually, no. Christianity and Islam have basically tied. In most school history classes I know they only touch on the Catholic Church, but really don't talk about the Ottomans or any other Islamic power, but in an overview of all history Islam and Christianity are tied.
1. 1.2 Billion Catholics from overall 2 Billion of Christians.
2. Fighting for power.
3. Islam begun as a warlord's tool made up from local religions and one of them was Christianity that's why it's may look like somehow "tied". Christians are no really long living in areas with high number of Muslims.
Ottoman empire existed for about 300 years and after that it was just Turkey, couldn't compare with European dark age provided by Christianity.
Well all the world should change the educational system , from my perspective it sucks and grades measure your effort by memorizing facts and formulas not your intelligence , that's the ability to use knowledge and learn it on your own understanding .
This past week, two of my teachers joked around with me about grade grubbing, and coined the term 'grade prostitution'. After getting over the initial shock of a teacher saying the word prostate I started thinking about it. I, a high school senior, am a grade prostitute. I constantly check the online system, which displays current grades, haggle for extra points and jump on any extra credit opportunity, all to get the A. When a teacher announces a test, I immediately ask how many points it is worth and calculate the minimum grade I need to get in order to maintain an A.
Yes, I am a grade prostitute, but it is not my fault. I am merely a product of the current education factory that manufactures multiple-choice assessments and labels students with a letter and a grade point average. We are placed in tracks and everyone knows who is in Track Three and who is in AP. We make judgments and see peers as their grades. Teacher’s say we should learn for the sake of learning, but why then do we get judges every quarter on a report card. Why, on Naviance, the online program for college searches, when we look at the college scattergrams, are the only two factors of acceptance SAT scores and G.P.A.? There is no standardized child, yet America has standardized learning. What message does this send to students? I am a grade prostitute, but what is the alternative in this competitive, test oriented, scholastic straitjacket? Am I supposed to disregard tradition learning and pursue other interests to purely learn more? Or, as I already do, push my other intellectual ambitions aside to achieve the A.
The belief that we should accept report cards for what they are is offensive. America cannot just accept a failing system for what it is. We are a nation of innovators, trailblazers and pioneers. A solution can and must be found. We should eliminate "traditional report card grades and replace them with evaluations written by teacher's. The B next to Math, or A next to History does not reflect a student's learning capability. It is a transparent front put on by education institutions to achieve a higher rating and more funding. The current grading system needs some serious renovations before our future children are cheated out of the education they deserve.
Yes they should. I work hard and somehow got a d in english. If you ask me, I can explain everything I know since I understand it. School isn't about learning or understanding- its about memorization and having no life. You need to stay up all night to do stupid projects that don't help or benefit you. You need to spend $80 for a stupid grade that is based entirely on opinion- not on your effort. I worked hard, streesed out, spent a lot of money and the goddamned school bitches gave me low grades. Ask mme anything on 7th grade english/science/history and I know it. Those bastards grades caused me stress, acne breakouts, antisocial behavior, my familys respect, my future careers for nothing.
Sorry if this isn't too good, I'm pissed off because of how they fucked up my life. I already know that stuff.
I don't think so. I am also a high school senior, but I don't think it should to away. Standardized testing allows companies, colleges, and other institutions to be able to judge potential employees and students. They don't have time to go through every transcript of paper about a person. Grading allows teachers to asses students work ethic and the ability to maintain a healthy competition with yourself saying, "I know I can do better than this". It is better to show data than opinion on a person, at least, for a company. I think it is essential for the modern day, even though a good look through our education system is in due order and won't hurt.
But how can standardized tests be used as a tool is they do not accurately evaluate learning? Kids like copycat042's son does not tests well, but that does not mean he isn't bright. Yet college acceptance is based off of the SAT, ACT and a student's GPA. If these tests were eliminated then student's that might have slipped through the cracks before, can excel. For these reasons, I do not think standardized tests can be even a minor tool in education.
Now, I understand where your coming from, but I don't see standardized testing going away. Now I agree it shouldn't be the only tool and can be a little biased, but it is needed in the modern day. Colleges have to process so many applications that they don't have the time to look at long individual reports. It is easier for them to look at grades and data. Same thing for companies when college students graduate.
No, he has test anxiety. In real world situations, which require intelligence and reason, he does well. One size does not fit all in most things, including education.
We do need some way to determine the effectiveness of the education that taxpayers pay for. I suggest having several methods, including standardized testing, and throwing out the lowest performance of the student, averaging the rest. This would give a better score, and reduce the effects of anxiety associated with certain types of testing.
"test anxiety" :D ...everybody has it, I have exams whole January, we all feel it, it's part of the procedure, it's about your ability to work under pressure, which is an important skill.
How do you expect him to even learn how to cope if you ship him off to an idealized land where he has NO pressure? It makes much more sense for students with mental or emotional issues to test in the same physical space as everyone else (especially for their socialization), even if the test or conditions are slightly altered to accommodate their handicap.
I actually don't have test anxiety for exams. My anxiety is in real life testing (stressful) situations. I start spring session in a couple of weeks. No tests, but anxiety, nonetheless. :D Good luck on yours.
No. First off grades tell you how well you are doing in the class and are nessessary, if we dont have grades what will we use ? We also need standardized testing to see how proficient we are.
Well I agree we need sats to determine how we are doing, but grades are bullshit.
Let's say, you don't do homework because you have soccer practise and have band. But you aslo get a+'s on tests, classwork, and behave, so you get a c, are you stupid?
Let's say you have dyslexia or something, but are a good listener. You comprehend what your teacher is saying, but don't do well on tests. So you get a d. Are you stupid?
You. Are smart, responsible, and well behaved, but not creative and don't do well on projects. You work extremely hard. Like on love hina (an anime) the 2 protagonists study daily, working hard- one even messes up their eyesight and becomes antisocial- just to enter the best college. They cracked under pressure once and failed. Are they stupid? They got a D so are they?
A guy doesn't pay attention, only studies before a test, and pays others to do homework and stuff, he gets an -a. Is he smart? Grades don't show knowladge, understanding, or effort- they show memorization, luck, and scores on tests.
Grades and standardized tests are not the problem. The problem is that too many individuals and organizations use them in the wrong way. They can be moderately useful for teachers in the classroom, however any application beyond that is a misapplication. For instance, research has demonstrated that test scores and grades are not accurate predictors of success in later education or careers.
