Linus on Oregon HB 2748 and US education in general

  You typically need to have attended a good university to get a good job and 
  to get into a good university you need to have graduated from a good 
  secondary school - which you need to have paid for 
  either through tuition or taxes.

I myself attended from Central Arkansas, and have had no issue getting a good job. My wife's experience in her field has been much the same.

Now that doesn't mean the playing field is completely fair. As an entrepreneur I've been frustrated by the advantages kids coming out of the top-tier schools have. This is especially true in anything related to finance. Those schools are a ticket into that world, and it's a really amazing advantage. Both in terms of landing extremely high paying jobs (fund managers and the like) and in terms of raising money. It's much easier to fund raise when you come with that sort of credibility and direct connection to those who have a lot of money.

Still, lets not confuse matters here. People from lower tier schools make it, and make it big, all the time. The system isn't rigged, it's remarkably fair. I worked hard to become very good at what I do. I put myself in a position to learn and experience a big win. That's given me the credibility I need to start to enjoy some of those advantages as well.

Lots of others have done the same thing.

So I reject the premise of your statement. Although I largely disagree with the notion that education is in crisis. There are certainly areas of crisis, but those cultures seem cultural and not institutional. Studies have shown that the vast majority of our kids are competitive on the world level. It's that our lowest performing areas REALLY underperform.

I also reject the idea that further divorcing school from the community it serves is a good idea.

The US has some world-class universities, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the tertiary education system is great overall: for that I guess you would have to average all the universities.

> Is it possible that our K-12 system is broken is the reason that our kids are capable of pursuing their own interests instead of the rigor of rote learning? As a kid, I remember the easiness of school homework allowed me to spend many afternoons in IRC and learning programming on my own.

E.g, with too much free time on your hands, are you capable of thinking different instead of answering challenging homework? Not defending our K-12, just wondering how bringing in a Confucian system like Asia and Europe would affect the outside-the-box thinking.

I can appreciate the possibility of having less time to do rote memorization busywork could actually be a boon, but... to something like the idea of K-12 being bad, and spin into something that actually makes people better off as a whole nation... that sounds like rationalization on a whole new level. I guess anything to keep the America uber alles idea alive.

I don't understand this kind of thinking. Perhaps it isn't what you meant. My apologies if that isn't the case. I have heard and read this kind of sentiment before.

Is the idea that the rich somehow conspire to do as you suggest?

If so, how does that work? Did Steve Jobs receive a letter once his net worth passed a certain threshold inviting him to join the various "protect the rich" conspiracies? How about Bill Gates or the many other rich folk? What's the threshold? Do people like past and current presidents of the US and prominent politicians get in on that too? D they have regular monthly or annual meetings or is it all done over encrypted email these days?

Just wondering, because that kind of thing would require planning and organization. Perhaps you have access to information not available in the open?

Would it be far more likely that there is no such conspiracy and what is happening in education is the result of other forces at play? What would happen if teachers were not unionized and had to compete for their jobs? What would happen if teachers lived in a true meritocracy without a sure protections? What would happen if teachers had to have advanced degrees and even some real world experience before being able to teach? I'm sure this would not all the problems, but, what would happen? Why do we have a system that disallows rapid goals-oriented experiments with realistic measurable metrics and a goal to weed out those who are not serving our children?

Lots of questions. Few answers. My gut feeling is that the rich have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem. Every US President, Senator and Representative since I can remember becoming aware of politics has been talking about fixing the education system. I am sure that was the case way before I was born as well. Still, let's say that this has been part of the national conversation for, say, 50 years. Speeches, promises and more speeches. No actions. Nothing fixed.

Is it possible that they are simply incompetent or that they tell us what we want to hear in order to get elected and then the go off and answer to their own interests?

Who knows?

Some homeschooling parents might say that (1) the numbers play in their favor (no teacher would argue that it's far easier to teach 2 kids than 20), (2) that teaching a kid how to teach himself is far more important than having a teacher with a vast array of knowledge, and (3) what with online classes and homeschool co-ops, it's entirely possible to "share the wealth" and get your kid tutoring where you're not especially knowledgeable