Live data from Hacker News

A letter to my students

blogs.berkeley.edu

41–50 of 186 posts

Re: A letter to my students

#41
post #33

Edit: You know what? This post sucked. Here's a good link I used while babbling thoughtlessly (unless it wasn't good per _delirium): http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/docu... See my reply to reynolds, which was the only valuable part. The second paragraph is my real point, and I mean that "if" clause.

It should be noted that government is expected to get relatively more and more expensive because it's most of it's duties are of the service type. Services like schools, public transport, health care generally defy automation but costs still rise to stay on par with other industries. As the costs of other products become lower, expect to pay more for services.

Re: A letter to my students

#42
post #33

Edit: You know what? This post sucked. Here's a good link I used while babbling thoughtlessly (unless it wasn't good per _delirium): http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/docu... See my reply to reynolds, which was the only valuable part. The second paragraph is my real point, and I mean that "if" clause.

He mentions in the article that California has plenty of money but aren't spending it on education.

I will admit I'm reading into things a bit by assuming that he's not advocating cutting government back when he says things like "your parents and their parents lashed out at government (as though there were something else that could replace it) with tax limits, term limits, safe districts, throw-away-the-key imprisonment no matter the cost, smoke-and-mirrors budgeting, and a rule never to use the words taxes and services in the same paragraph." That doesn't sound like a fiscally-conservative libertarian to me.

If he believes in refocusing the priorities and perhaps even seeing a net spending drop while ending up with more education spending, I would consider that defensible and the numbers I produced can certainly support the position that there is some room for rethinking here. If he believes this should manifest as yet more money given to this government, no, I don't think piling more money on is the solution. That's why I'm looking at the total income for the state rather than exactly focusing on the exact amount dedicated to the worthy tasks. It is only one part of the story.

Re: A letter to my students

#43
I think that this is somewhat disingenuous for the reasons noted by others, but also the failure of the writer to acknowledge that colleges and universities have embraced business models and focused on revenue generation in ways that distract from the core mission.

I hate to say this but while most of the guilt should be borne by fat-cat administrators, faculty are greedy whores who are easily divided and conquered.

Re: A letter to my students

#44
post #33

Edit: You know what? This post sucked. Here's a good link I used while babbling thoughtlessly (unless it wasn't good per _delirium): http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/docu... See my reply to reynolds, which was the only valuable part. The second paragraph is my real point, and I mean that "if" clause.

> on expenditures growing faster than inflation and faster than the growth of the economy I can buy that they've grown faster than inflation, but have they indeed grown faster than the growth of the economy? I haven't been able to dig up good data on what CA state expenditures were as a percentage of state GDP in, say, the 1960s. (They're currently around 24% of state GDP, if you can find something to compare that to…

See bokonist's post(s), caveats and all.

Re: A letter to my students

#45
post #33

Edit: You know what? This post sucked. Here's a good link I used while babbling thoughtlessly (unless it wasn't good per _delirium): http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/docu... See my reply to reynolds, which was the only valuable part. The second paragraph is my real point, and I mean that "if" clause.

The numbers on total state nominal income are here: http://www.bea.gov/regional/remdmap/REMDMap.aspx

So it looks like state spending rose from 11% of total income in 1977 to 14% today. And total income usually grows slightly faster than the economy (economic growth = change total income - change in the price level). Thus state spending has been growing faster than incomes rise, faster than inflation and faster than the economy has been growing.

Re: A letter to my students

#46
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As technology improves we should expect costs to decline. Only if you assume labour isn't the prime mover. Assuming that technology improvements help education at all (I'm skeptical -- I learned more about logarithms in math by using an abacus than I did using a calculator), we would ideally want education quality to increase, not decrease. Therefore, we should probably assume costs will stay approximately the same p…

It seems like it would be testable, at least: where do today's teachers stand vis-a-vis their non-teacher classmates? Where did they stand 50 years ago?

A very good idea. I'm not sure those statistics exist at the moment.

Re: A letter to my students

#47
post #23
post #4

There are two ways CA could be doing less for its citizens. They could be raising less money, or spending it more wastefully. The writer seems to assume all the problems he observes are due to the former and none to the latter. The first step in verifying his claims would be to check whether the state's revenues are in fact lower. Are current state revenues lower than revenues in, say, 1960, when adjusted for inflati…

Using state figures and the CPI calculator: 1965-1966: $4B nominal ($28B, constant 2010 dollars) 1982-1983: $25.3B nominal ($57.2B) 2008-2009: $144B ($145) 2009-2010: $119.2B ($119.2B) Even if you adjust for California's prodigious immigration-fueled population growth, spending per person in constant dollars has more than doubled. You spent your school years with teachers paid less and less. I feel the urge to get ou…

Actually, I think you have to go back further. My grandfather, a poor kid from west LA, went to UCLA and then UC Berkeley as an engineering student back in the late 1930s / early 1940s.

He learned Latin in high school (think inner city kid learning Latin). Grew up with all the airfields in LA and mechanical engineering seemed like the thing, I guess. So despite being interned (he was a Japanese American) he went on to be a very successful engineer and eventually businessman (owned his own hydraulics company, etc.).

It's arguable that a lot of this happened because of a golden age in California's educational system. Same thing with my parents. I've met them and they're idiots -- but at least my father benefited greatly from UC Berkeley (he's a philosophy professor).

I think PG is right to question what exactly is going on. But there really was an extraordinary investment in higher education (for whatever reason) in the early- to mid- 20th century. And arguably, that affected a lot of things which we Californians take for granted.

I think what the OP is trying to say is that our attitude about public education has changed. It was irrational, the level of investment that was made into higher education pre-1980s (both raising and allocating funds). And today's set of challenges may require a different emphasis (e.g., charter schools, leaner campuses, more online learning, etc.) -- but that generous spirit that, afaik, built California into a great state -- that's not worth overlooking.

Re: A letter to my students

#48
post #4

There are two ways CA could be doing less for its citizens. They could be raising less money, or spending it more wastefully. The writer seems to assume all the problems he observes are due to the former and none to the latter. The first step in verifying his claims would be to check whether the state's revenues are in fact lower. Are current state revenues lower than revenues in, say, 1960, when adjusted for inflati…

According to this source of unknown reliability ( http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin... ) state & local spending as a percentage of state nominal GDP went from 20% to 24% from 1992 to 2009. Don't know the numbers going back to 1960, but I'd be shocked if spending was lower then. For the change in average levels of education and knowledge, the cause seems pretty obvious to me. If you extended…

To rephrase what you just said: Mexicans, because of their ethnicity, are less able to understand (for instance) mathematics, even when given the same amount of instruction, than people of the ethnicities that characterize the population of California circa the 1960s (i.e. predominantly white). Did I get that right?

Re: A letter to my students

#49
post #4

There are two ways CA could be doing less for its citizens. They could be raising less money, or spending it more wastefully. The writer seems to assume all the problems he observes are due to the former and none to the latter. The first step in verifying his claims would be to check whether the state's revenues are in fact lower. Are current state revenues lower than revenues in, say, 1960, when adjusted for inflati…

According to this source of unknown reliability ( http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin... ) state & local spending as a percentage of state nominal GDP went from 20% to 24% from 1992 to 2009. Don't know the numbers going back to 1960, but I'd be shocked if spending was lower then. For the change in average levels of education and knowledge, the cause seems pretty obvious to me. If you extended…

In general if you look into correlations between education spending and test scores, there is very little correlation. If you look into the correlation of ethnicity and test scores, its very significant.

Good job, you just discovered that our standardized tests scores are biased in favor of white kids.

Re: A letter to my students

#50
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this source of unknown reliability ( http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin... ) state & local spending as a percentage of state nominal GDP went from 20% to 24% from 1992 to 2009. Don't know the numbers going back to 1960, but I'd be shocked if spending was lower then. For the change in average levels of education and knowledge, the cause seems pretty obvious to me. If you extended…

Here's an excerpt from the bio of the guy who runs the site: "Despite 35 years living in Seattle, I instinctively revolted against the suffocating left-coast culture of the Soviet of Washington, and came to revere the four great Germans who helped inspire the Reagan revolution: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin." However, he does link to real government sources (near the botton), so you can…

I applaud you for making an observation which could easily fuel an ad-hominem attack on an obvious partisan, and then holding back after observing that regardless of his biases, he is just tabulating official numbers.
Post reply on HN