#Education

Imagine a bookstore that only accepted 5% of customers. If you want to buy a book, you need to fill out an application showing how well-read you are and how likely you are to use the knowledge from the book to advance your career. Every bookstore implements this system, and they become more popular the more people they turn away. Furthermore, bookstores have no reason to build additional locations even when they are filled to capacity, because they only want the most intelligent, well-read people to buy from them. No top-tier bookstore can deviate from this system, because it would cause their rankings (which are inverse to acceptance rates) to plummet. Many bookstores reinvent the wheel, investing in effectively equivalent resources and then limiting access so that no one but a small few can pay to access it.

This is bad for the bookstore, because they don't make a lot of money and have to charge more to each customer. This is bad for customers, because most of them don't get the chance to read, and when they do, the price is extremely high. In this case, much of the curriculum is an artificially scarce resource, because it could hypothetically be offered to everyone online without raising expenses significantly. Yet all the best authors and best publishers work for bookstores with the lowest acceptance rates, since those have the most money. Only the bookstores with low acceptance rates have money, because they have the best authors and publishers.

This is how college works in the United States. While not everyone can have the prestige that currently comes with attending a top-tier university, it's hypothetically possible for everyone to receive a Harvard-quality education via the internet. So what if every university were forced, by law, to offer certifications (online or in-person) to everyone who applied? (Not for free, of course.) Not everyone must attend in-person classes, but all lectures must be recorded, and everyone must be allowed to get some form of degree. And if a government decree is too much, then universities that don't comply receive a harsh tax penalty.

If universities are given some time to comply, with increasing tax incentives by year, what would happen? With many times more customers and relatively stable expenses, I expect prices would become very low at top universities. Colleges would need to be ranked somehow, but with acceptance rates out the window, this would have to be based on how much students improve over the course of their studies at the university. Students would need to be ranked too, but with everyone allowed to attend any university they want, this would need to be based on performance, or some third-party offering standardized exams.

The point is this: everyone can have access to the top professors and best lectures in the country for much cheaper. The best colleges can collect money from more people and invest in more resources. Instead of 1,000 different colleges giving the same lecture, we'd have about a dozen giving different lectures at a much lower price for each student. And as for ranking colleges and students? The market will find a way as it usually does.

If this is the most efficient way, why hasn't the market forced the top colleges to do this? Prestige, ill-executed non-profit ventures, and so-far ineffective government intervention. Get rid of the obsession with status, and we'll have a more educated populace.

Paul Lockhart said it better than I ever could: https://worrydream.com/refs/Lockhart_2002_-_A_Mathematician's_Lament.pdf

Ladies?? and gentlemen, we are gathered here today.........

Moving on.

-List or state what you believe is a biblical contradiction.

Please offer the book, chapter and verse and briefly state in your own words what the conflict is .

After you receive your explanation, you can question it or accept the reconciliation offered to you.

At what age or circumstance is sexual education to be given to children?

Should sexual education only pertain to sexual reproductive sex?

Should books concerning deviations from that be non existent?

Would this be a domino effect into lacking the use of contraception ?

At what age do non consenting minors allow themselves to sexually engage from a general standpoint?

A person that is willing to engage in a physical relationship agrees to by physical. A person that is willing to be in a physical relationship at first but no longer wishes to be can still be willing. Anytime a woman forces herself on a man, it is least likely that man is less than unwilling.

He has agreed to be hers through submission. The reason why education is so important today is because of this bias in society. So we start with the proper sex use and end with the proper protection of a man that has a lot more against him. That is practicing safe legal free of accusation protection most likely.

I trust many concur already.

1. Intrapersonal skills - emotional intellegience 

2. Interpersonal skills - self advocacy and communication

3. Social environment - this takes 1&2 and then uses it

4. Critical thinking skills 

5. Age approprate understanding of the body (human biology and medical sciences)

Subjects would include 

1. Arts (self expression)

2. Reading

3. Math

4. P.e. (to include self defense)

5. Age appropriate approach to philosophy, emotional intellegence, critical thinking and more. 

 

Subjects may increase with grade/age to include electives like

6. Computer skills

7. Labor skills 

8. Languages

9. Accounting & business basics 

Personally I think the younger ages are supposed to run and play and explore more than just sit and watch. Many home schooling has days where class content is covered for only half a day and then the remainder is open. Mirroring this practice could be benefitial. Schools may provide more on site and off site hands on learning environments allowing students to persue interests and make decisions as to what thst may look like. 

This "math overhaul" is ridiculous. Sure, if students are struggling, we should make math more intuitive for them, but that doesn't me that we should dumb it down or even eliminate it. Firstly, the concept that gifted students can just be shoved in with struggling students and then learn the same "big ideas" at different levels will never work, and advanced students will only be held back. Speaking from personal experience, schools already love to find excuses to keep students who are gifted at math in the same classes as everyone else, and this would only make that issue worse. A student at calculus level and a student at algebra level will never be learning the same "big ideas," and trying to force this on them will only drag students down. If parents ask for their child to be place in a higher class, even if they have real evidence to back up the fact that their child is significantly advanced, they may simply be told that their child was already being taught at their level, even when they are being lumped in with average and even struggling students.  Secondly, this new curriculum will barely even teach math. The idea of keeping math in touch with reality has been taken too far. Students who end up actually pursuing a career in math will not be prepared for the abstract and theoretical. Moreover, this idea that there are "multiple roads" to calculus is ridiculous. If you want to learn calculus, you will need to understand algebra and trigonometry, not data science, computer science, or financial algebra. The topics of data science, computer science, and financial algebra aren't even topics in math! Data science and financial algebra are applications of math to business and economics, but they are by no means themselves areas of math, and working with computers will at best build some intuition for mathematical thinking in the form of coding, but computer science is not in and of itself math. (To be absolutely clear, theoretical computer science, which is the math behind the mechanisms of computation, is certainly an area of math, but this is at the very least college level, and between this and their focus on the real world, it is certainly not what is being referred to here.) Lastly, the example of a class activity given is especially concerning. Going on about how "everyone has their own strengths" and we are part of a "mathematical community" could possibly be somewhat inspiring, but is better suited for a team-building exercise, and not math class. This activity is a waste of time that will not do anything to improve mathematical intuition. That "mathematical community" won't help you if they're too busy drawing colorful lines to do actual math.

Not all blacks, obviously. 

I know you’ve all heard of  the book though; and never actually read it. 

I own it, and the book of collected essays in its aftermath. 

But the science remains consistent before AND after it. Blacks such at education. Hispanics second. Asians dominate. Whites above minorities. 

Even t black commentator Jesse Lee Peterson knows and acknowledges the importance of white folks. 

I really love the idea of YouTube, but the content on there is mostly bullshit clickbait lists, pop culture drama, liberal news, and stupid marketing pitches for movies and products.

I was wondering if there was a website that is just like YouTube that only has intellectually enriching content. 

I know about JoVE and Osmosis, which are cool, bur I'm looking for a catch-all. Not just visuals of science experiments on fringe topics or just stuff related to the human body. I am looking for a YouTube that is only educational, informative, and intellectually stimulating content for adults.

I also know there's documentary websites, but I am looking for more than documentaries. I literally am looking for a YouTube for educational and thought-provoking content.

I don't even care if it is just a special feed of YouTube videos or content in general, I just want something where educational, informative, and intellectually stimulating content is recommended for me.

Any ideas? I've scoured the internet and all I could find was stuff for children and preschoolers. So any help would be appreciated 👍.

Thanks in advance!

I do not support a privatized system, but more privatization is popular amongst academics, so I would probably support that.

Is it time, yet, for us to wrestle control of education from the Democrats? If the above is the best that NYT & MessNBC can muster, I think it's time to admit that education truly is what you pay for it. Free is obviously a low-ball figure.