« Death panels | Main | Stargate Universe »

July 15, 2011

Comments

My charter school spent less per capita then my local school district, and had vastly superior education. Public schools spend a lot per pupil, more then enough to provide a better product. Most of the money in those super expensive elite private schools is just about status signaling.

Also, religious schools are not some big caricature you make them out to be. Had I not gotten into my charter my parents would have sent me to the local catholic high school. It spends the same amount per pupil as my local school district but was a lot better. And while I believe there was a religion class its not like it was some backwater indoctrination center, people come out of there with basically the same knowledge and beliefs as public school, if anything a little less PC indoctrinated. Its basically just like a public school but with much more discipline and there wasn't a widespread drug problem.

"most non-religious private schools provide better education for the students"

They separate the students from the NAMs and the white proles, which is good, but the quality of the education itself is often inferior. Small private schools often cannot provide advanced math / science and AP courses, which public schools can.

"If vouchers allowed parents to take their kids out of public schools, the parents who would care most about this are fundamentalist Christian parents who would send their children to a school where they teach that God created man and other such nonsense."

I would care about this from an HBD perspective - I want to send my kids to the most NAM-free school that I can, but I don't want that school to be an absurd fundamentalist madrassa.

Get rid of Section 8 housing and "affordable housing" and all that crap, and I probably won't need vouchers at all because the "diversity" will have been driven from the school district. Unfortunately Republicans won't oppose this stuff either because it would make them look "racist".

"At all decent private schools, tuition tends to be three times the per-pupil cost of public education in the same geographic area."

Around here (northern VA) I think the private schools charge a lot *because they can* not because they need to. There are enough high-paid lawyers and lobbyists that private schools can milk the parents and they will simply shrug and pay. Far as I know, the teachers at private schools are paid LESS than at public schools, which indicates that cost of instruction is not what's driving the tuition numbers.

[HS: Teachers at Catholic schools make less than public school teachers, but it's not clear to me what the true story is for quality non-religious private schools. Does anyone know?]

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009324/tables/sass0708_2009324_t12n_07.asp

Average annual base teaching salary of regular full-time teachers:

Public $49.6K
Non-sectarian Private $41.7K
Catholic $37K
"Other religious" $31.9K

[HS: Thanks! So why do they make less money?

Because they are willing to accept a lower salary in exchange for teaching better quality students? Because they have rich parents or spouses so they don't need to make as much money? Because they don't have a degree in education so they have to settle for teaching at private school which accepts teachers without degrees in education?]

My public high school in Texas had tracking out the wazoo. I think there were 5 levels of senior english. Also, a large amount of vocational training and a large number of AP courses. It was named a national exemplary school when I was there.

It didn't socialize kids like the upper tier private schools, but kids from there went Yale, Harvard and Stanford. Not too shabby.

Of course, it went from 70% white when I was there to 80% hispanic, so who knows what its like now.

"Around here (northern VA) I think the private schools charge a lot *because they can* not because they need to."

Northern VA has by all accounts an excellent public school system.

Well, diss religion all you want, but it will be a sect of crazy dedicated religionists who manage to survive the onslaught of NAMs and Muslims.

The mainline religions and the secular will fold like a house of cards..already have.

Where I live, Catholic schools spend about 60% per student of what the public ones do.

"The mainline religions and the secular will fold like a house of cards..already have. "

Certainly not the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians will almost certainly not fall. While these churches are noted for their relative liberalism (except for, of course Southern Presbyterians and maybe low-church evangelical "Episcopalians") they do have their share of conservative members. They are also churches that strongly encourage critical thinking, logic, and reason.

"Other religious" $31.9K

This category is far too broad because it includes fundamentalist religious "schools" with Quaker (AKA Friends), Presbyterian, and Episcopalian schools. There is an unfathomable gulf between schools like St.Mark's/St.Paul's/Episcopal Academy and Evolution is a Hoax "Academy".

Where do you get that private tuition is three times public school spending thing? Given how much public schools spend, that sounds excessive.

Pretty sure private schools tend to do better and spend less just due to avoiding administrative bloat and wasteful union contracts.

Quickly looking at my (very wealthy) area, spending per student is $9500 in my state and the nearby excellent private Catholic school is $9000 per year. The absolute best private in my area (Bill Gates went there) is $25000 per year -- that's still less than three times.

[HS: Your anecdote proves my point. The tuition at the school Bill Gates went to is close to three times the per/student spending in your state. I was excluding religious schools (which are in part funded by religious donors who seek to convert the children).]

A REAL voucher system, not the "give a few poor kids a chance to go to good schools" system we have now, would track kids by stealth. Under a real voucher system, all parents, rich and poor, would get a set amount of money to send each kid to whatever school they (a) want and (b) could get in. The other necessary reform is that schools would no longer be public: they could set their own policies of who they wanted to admit. Under such a system, it isn't hard at all to imagine the emergence of selective schools aimed at high IQ middle class kids. This is exactly what scares the left.

Elites on the right aren't willing to fight for this system, because their kids would be worse off. The current system separates kids by parental income. A real voucher system would separate kids by IQ and behavior.

"The simplest thing we could do to vastly improve the quality of public education is to separate the intelligent children from the less intelligent children." - Half Sigma

Isn't that what Honors and AP courses are for?

I do believe a more concerted effort should be made to separate students though. I fell through the cracks and I'm not sure how the AP system works even today. I always wanted to enter those classes but never knew how. I scored highly in certain subjects and I even asked my instructors about recommending me for them. They were indifferent and didn't help me much (maybe because I didn't know the status game since I was asking for help in the first place and they didn't want my "kind" with the AP kids) and since I had immigrant parents (much like proles) I had no help from them either. Do people get into AP courses through the pressure put on teachers by extremely status conscious parents?

[HS: As far as I know, elementary schools today just mix all the kids together without any regards to whether the kids are intelligent, average, or below average.

AP classes are only relevant in high school, and by the time kids get to high school they may already have been ruined by 8 years of crappy education.

As far as getting into an AP class, I presume that at most high schools the student just has to ask. I guess merely knowing that the class has more work will keep the dumb kids out.]

Private schools only seem more expensive because they don't get the same subsidization from the government.

"Small private schools often cannot provide advanced math / science and AP courses, which public schools can."

You can learn AP from a study manual. Environment is more important then courses offered. Public school = gangs and drugs. Private religious = discipline and learning environment.

@Shepard School also matters too. I mean I was thrown into AP/Honors classes with an immigrant background. Of course the school was a mix of prole/immigrant kids. The teachers recommended on grades and were willing to recommend if one push it enough.

"As far as I know, elementary schools today just mix all the kids together without any regards to whether the kids are intelligent, average, or below average." - Half Sigma

In California a program exists called Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) that partially separates students based on what you're describing (for a few a hours a day) at the elementary school level. Again I was never offered a spot in this program nor was getting into it ever discussed. The kids who were in it were the children of doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. Kids who's parents were in a much higher socio-economic class than my own and who understood the status game.

"the parents who would care most about this are fundamentalist Christian parents who would send their children to a school where they teach that God created man and other such nonsense. The liberals have a valid point here."

I'm not sure that you're aware of this, but there are some of us who believe that "God created man" and also believe in evolution.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/187287/does-accepting-darwin-require-atheism/jim-manzi


[HS: Evolution disproves the first part of the book of Genesis, and some people, both Christians and atheists alike, think that this disproves Christianity. For if evolution doesn't disprove Christianity, why are some Christians so adamant about supressing its teaching?

If the book of Genesis is false, this demonstrates one of two things: (1) God didn't relay the events of Genesis to Moses; or (2) God is a liar.

If the stuff that's written in the Old Testament can't be trusted to be true, then what's the point of believing in the religion?

Theoretically, one can choose to believe that God exists and had some influence in the evolution of man despite the stuff in the Old Testament being a bunch of myths and legends. But most Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians prefer to believe that their holy writings are 100% true.]

"So why do they make less money? Because they are willing to accept a lower salary in exchange for teaching better quality students?"

Exactly. My teachers (I went to a small private high school) said they were willing to take less money in order to teach smarter, better-behaved and better-motivated kids.

"Northern VA has by all accounts an excellent public school system."

It does but it is very neighborhood dependent. Should be no surprise that the richer 'hoods generally have better schools, but you may find it surprising that some richer areas have bad schools (usually because there are some apartments or Section 8 housing polluting the area). Another problem is that you might have an excellent grade school that feeds into a crappy high school because of other crappy (high-NAM) grade schools in nearby school districts.

"Private schools only seem more expensive because they don't get the same subsidization from the government."

Their alumni donations more than make up for it. Exeter's $1 billion+ endowment isn't mostly from tuition.

"If anything, the public schools, with their emphasis on endless drilling for the tests, have maxed out any possible score increases for these kids, and higher quality instruction would probably result in lower scores."

Endless drilling for tests (or in general) isn't a sound educational model, and if anything will retard and even regress America's intellectual growth rather than contribute to it. Additionally, people spend thousands of dollars for just SSAT preparation, to say nothing of interviews, essays, SATs, and SAT IIs. An important contribution to America's standing in the world has historically been its relatively high socioeconomic mobility, and tracking undermines this system.

"The absolute best private in my area (Bill Gates went there) is $25,000 per year..."

"Without Lakeside there would be no Microsoft."-Bill Gates

"Endless drilling for tests (or in general) isn't a sound educational model"

Um, unless you're teaching math, science, English or foreign language grammar and vocabulary, history, geography, music, or pretty much any sport...

There simply is no substitute for repetitive drill and practice, especially at the basic level, sorry.

"As far as I know, elementary schools today just mix all the kids together without any regards to whether the kids are intelligent, average, or below average."

In Texas, they would start separating out kids around 3rd - 4th grade. Not sure they still do that.

I think you're wrong that vouchers would mostly be used by religious parents who want their kids at a school "where they teach that God created man ..." Some would of course fit this description, but the most enthusiastic would be black parents (and now latino parents) of less physical kids, who know better than anyone what life is like around big dumb black adolescents. To quote a black guy I know who went to a rival S.F. high school in the '70's, "you wudna lasted a week at Lincoln, man."

"If the book of Genesis is false, this demonstrates one of two things: (1) God didn't relay the events of Genesis to Moses; or (2) God is a liar."

Or (3) the events in the Book of Genesis really did occur, but some of them are metaphorically phrased (Moses wasn't trying to be carolus linnaeus when he called Satan a "serpent"), others were simplified by subsequent translators and transcribers, or intentionally altered by people with an agenda, etc. You're talking about a document thousands of years old. The point being that there is a non-trivial number of high-intelligence people who believe in God enough to dedicate their life to Him but do not accept the "Young Earth" theory.

"Or (3) the events in the Book of Genesis really did occur, but some of them are metaphorically phrased (Moses wasn't trying to be carolus linnaeus when he called Satan a "serpent"),"

Or (4) the events in the Book of Genesis were mostly based on a bunch of other extant Near Eastern stories that were so culturally pervasive that they were regarded as fact. (like the myths of Deucalion or Gilgamesh). The ancient Hebrews put their "stamp" on all of those extant stories by showing how everything should begin and end with reverence for Yahweh.

[HS: 4 is a subset of 1, which is that God didn't relay the book of Genesis to Moses. Your answer is correct, early Judaism evolved from a milieu polytheistic religions, and various priests wrote the books of the Old Testament, influenced by Sumerian myths. There's no reason to think that Yahweh is a more real God than Mithra.]

Half Sigma,

See the comments I left you at "Republican HBD-denialism."

I imagine if the Bible were being written today, it would set forth that the Alighty One set the Big Bang in motion.

The point is that the Ancient Israelites were primitive people trying to understand the universe and God as best they could. Fundamentally, their insight was that there exist moral laws and there is inherent value for Man to try to follow those laws. This is hardly an outrageous hypothesis.

Of course, it's easy enough to seize upon flaws in Jewish thinking and use that as an excuse to reject all of it. For example, it seems unlikely that there really was a flood which killed everyone except for Noah and his family.

But no belief system is perfect. And the people who do believe in the story of Noah are actually reproducing which is more than can be said for a lot of Westerners.

Houston ISD tests preK students for its Vanguard (gifted) program. They test all kids each year and place them in the gifted program if they score at or above the 85%ile. HISD is fanatically compliant with the federal guidelines that require special education services for all identified students. Schools are required to test and identify students and serve them according to their needs. It is the same requirement for both tails of the distribution.

http://es.houstonisd.org/condites/GiftedandTalented.htm

"There's no reason to think that Yahweh is a more real God than Mithra."


Well, he did choose the Jews. Does that count as a reason?

Does per pupil funding in public schools include capital costs or are they given money separately for buildings etc.?

"if the Bible were being written today, it would set forth that the Alighty One set the Big Bang in motion."

Err, I thought the bible sort of did.

Catholic schools are more common than fundamentalist ones. Providing schools requires some degree of organizational talent, and Catholics have more of that than fundamentalists.

[HS: For if evolution doesn't disprove Christianity, why are some Christians so adamant about suppressing its teaching?

If the book of Genesis is false, this demonstrates one of two things: (1) God didn't relay the events of Genesis to Moses; or (2) God is a liar.

If the stuff that's written in the Old Testament can't be trusted to be true, then what's the point of believing in the religion?]

Some insight from a Christian (Catholic, but in process of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy):

I have heard from such Christians and also atheists as you say, that if the Bible is wrong in a single jot or tittle, it is all rubbish. That is a fallacious argument, of course.

Those Christians want to suppress evolution not because evolution disproves Christianity, but because it conflicts with biblical literalism. Biblical literalism is a new and heretical doctrine in Christianity. St. Augustine wrote against a literal interpretation of Genesis in "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (De Genesi ad litteram). Why is it that a 5th-century theologian can understand this but 21st-century Christians and bloggers cannot?

Yes, the Genesis account gets the order wrong, such as the earth being formed before the sun. That is not the point of the story. Contrary to the beliefs of many Christians, the Bible is not so that we might have a perfect science text or history book. It is so certain spiritual truths can be communicated. The spiritual truth of Genesis is to relay the fact of creation and man's place in it to a tribal people who had no science. The rest is incidental.

Another one of these spiritual truths is, when these Christians die, they will not be judged by how old they believed the earth is. Rather, they will be judged by if they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the sick. Matthew 25:31-46 gives the most detailed account in the entire Bible of the final judgment, and it has nothing to do with denying evolution or saying the sinner's prayer. It is about how we treat other people, and the evolution deniers, all other Christians, and I would do well to remember this. (This passage is also why I believe that just as not all Christians may not receive salvation, non-Christians may receive it) In other word, I think for many, screaming about evolution is a way for these Christians to pretend they care about their religion without actually practicing its directives.

Christians who try to suppress evolution are liars. Those who homeschool their kids toe avoid evolution or otherwise lie to their kids about evolution are leading their children astray, and Jesus taught that it is better to have a millstone tied to one's neck and then be cast into the sea than to lead a child astray.

To answer your question of why believe, even if it is all false, which I admit is a possibility, I think that my life is better when I make my best efforts to conform with the precepts of my religion. Note that I say "best efforts". I think that being a Christian is hard, as is truly following the precepts of other religions. Some parts are easy, like not killing a person. But not murdering them in one's heart in anger? Very hard. I fail every day.

I grew up in a mid-sized city where there were roughly 3 types of high schools: public, large single-sex catholic costing roughly 10k, and small coed secular private costing 20k. I attended a Catholic one and although I am not religious I would send my kids there without hesitation.

The catholic schools have religion classes but they are taught more like literary analysis or philosophy/ethics classes. Noncatholics often attend with high respect and no pressure to convert. The teachers seem to really enjoy their jobs and many of them are alumni. Tracking begins right off the bat in math and then other courses in the second year. Greater school pride and sense of community greatly help kids who are nerdy/ugly/awkward to develop.

It occurred to me recently that white liberals, like white conservatives, really do not care about the educational plight of the Negro. The evidence is obvious: if white liberals cared about blacks they'd want to live around them to offer a hand, so to speak. So why are white liberals so vocal about defending the concept of black equality? They are afraid of offending blacks, knowing how vicious and violent they can become. It's as simple as that.

And that's why we're living in black-run America.

"So why are white liberals so vocal about defending the concept of black equality?"

I think it's to demonstrate their moral superiority. It's a bit like pornography:

Watching porn allows you to get sexual satisfaction without going through all the trouble of picking up girls.

Being vocal about black equality allows you to get the satisfaction of feeling that you are a moral person without going through the inconvenience of helping people; paying your taxes; etc.

Carbon offsets are another good example of morality porn.

Haha. Anyone see this?

http://oneradical.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/whites-only-parking/

"“It’s the worst thing anybody can do to anybody,” said the mayor when a "parking for Whites only" sign was posted. So, this mayor would rather be a raping, murderous child molester, than a racist.

Sabril, that's pretty funny, and I agree that there's some truth to the superiority angle; however, deep down white liberals are afraid to defend logical positions on racial differences, like the end of affirmative action and preferential hiring.

OT:

I encourage everyone to read this whole thread at Auster's. Brian Hass wrote an article called "Black homicides reach 'crisis' in Nashville" at the Tennessean (it has been taken down). He doesn't mention a thing about the suspects. Auster thought that the suspects were black or mostly black themselves and he calls Haas out on it. Haas gets unbelievably defensive and a truly bizarre email exchange occurs. Even when blacks are the victims, HBD-denial remains unshakable in liberals.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019916.html

Tazinaki has an excellent post.

HS may be overestimating the sincerity of the people making these arguments in these "controversies". The religious arguments are more about culture than about religion, and in any event the real target of Protestant fundamentalists, and to some extent their Catholic allies, is Protestant non-fundamentalists, certainly not Jews and not athiests who are still fairly small in number, disorganzied, and fairly harmless.

Likewise, where Republicans control local governments and the schools they don't institute voucher programs since they already control the schools. Vouchers are a tool to end or reduce Democratic control of the schools, nothing more, nothing less.

School vouchers may sound like a good idea to Republicans, but after Saudi Arabia funds a series of voucher schools in poor, intercity neighborhoods that offer quality Islamic education, talking heads will start exploding on TV.

HS: "The simplest thing we could do to vastly improve the quality of public education is to separate the intelligent children from the less intelligent children."

Public schools have done that to some degree for years. They have advanced math, English and Science classes. The bad side effect of no child left behind is that schools have cut funding for these advanced classes to concentrate on the worst performing students. I think that is totally wrong headed.

HS: "If vouchers allowed parents to take their kids out of public schools, the parents who would care most about this are fundamentalist Christian parents who would send their children to a school where they teach that God created man and other such nonsense. The liberals have a valid point here."

Other than your obvious point about Christian schools teaching that God created man (duh, what'd you expect?), what "other such nonsense" are they being taught? The answer is there isn't any. You stuck that indefinite and vacant phrase in there to make your argument seem stronger than it actually is.

And if your point is they won't be taught about evolution, don't worry: they won't be able to avoid exposure to that philosophy, assuming they ever read a newspaper or magazine, watch TV, or listen to the radio; since, sadly for True Believers like yourself, evolution has never been observed, and thus a neverending marketing campaign must be waged to spread Chuck D's atheist creation myth.

Anyone know where oriental right has moved?

A practical approach to improving public education based on the realities of scientifically-validated human phenotypic differences:

Establish a "Performance Potential" index which is calculated by factoring in the racial make up of a school's district, the area's economic status, and other pertinent factors such as area crime statistics, single-parent households, etc. This is by no means a complete list of criteria appropriate to this calculation, and many other novel factors should be considered. The selective weighting of each factor is of course important to this index as well, and possibly the trickiest part of establishing it.

Schools with obviously difficult demographic and socio-economic metrics will receive a fair and statistically-based expectation of performance, rather than the current model that treats all areas and all schools as if they have the same aggregate student body potential when it is clear that they do not. That assumption has lead to teachers in bad areas to be unfairly burdened with unrealistic demands to do the impossible and unjustly blamed when they fail, as well as highly incentivizing systemic cheating as preferable to being financially and professionally penalized for failure to do what cannot be done.

Teachers in districts which are highly white and highly affluent shouldn't be congratulated and rewarded for their obvious structural advantage compared to schools which are the opposite, and this will be evident in the high PPI score for such areas.

This handicapping regime would pinpoint areas of overperformance to be studied and emulated and areas of underperformance to be retooled and overhauled.

A district could calculate base or/and bonus compensation for teachers and administrators based on an independently derived PPI score and their relative performance. This in turn would give really excellent teachers an incentive to teach at schools with a low PPI score because even marginal improvements at the low end would yield rewards compared to marginal improvement at the high-IQ, high wealth end.

Different disciplinary and educational regimes could be applied via objectively-derived standards as administrators would be judged against a scientific rather than arbitrary performance level leading to better outcomes at every level.

This is useful because some institutions at the high end are probably far to rigorously disciplined, to the point of having adverse impacts on the learning of their high-potential students, whatever their background.

A more refined predictive expectation matrix could be granulated down to individual students, which would then factor into the PPI as well, since there exist non-insignificat outliers in all the demographic sets.

The politics of implementing such an approach are no doubt fraught with all the foreseeable problems, but the difference is that the scientific acknowledgement of racial and socio-economic diversity as it is (rather than how we wish it to be) would be tempered with fair and objective expectations of teachers burdened with the task of educating and socializing students on the low end.

This aspect is critical to getting the teachers on board, because it recognizes the factual reality of their differently difficult jobs, rather than applying some plenary standards upon the entire education system.

"since, sadly for True Believers like yourself, evolution has never been observed"

You were doing so well until you posted this.

The best current example of the observation of evolution is Richard Lenski's ongoing e. Coli experiment. Googling those terms should help get you started. Then, check out the very through page on non only observed evolution, but observed speciation, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

Beyond that, creationists put this big emphasis on direct observation, but I do not know why. If you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you not call the police because you did not observe what caused the disarray?

Stop making Christians look bad and leading children astray with lies about evolution.

"It occurred to me recently that white liberals, like white conservatives, really do not care about the educational plight of the Negro. The evidence is obvious: if white liberals cared about blacks they'd want to live around them to offer a hand, so to speak."

White liberals around here *actually do* want to live around blacks, as far as I can tell. The whites are ardent fans of Section 8 and "affordable housing", and note the exciting advantages of "diversity" in the local schools. The white liberals seem to regard this as a benefit for themselves and their children as well as for the blacks!

I have yet to meet a liberal who is trying to avoid "diversity" on the local level. The only guy I know who hates the "diversity" of our local school is politically conservative.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/15/america-science-job-conundrum/

Bullshit article about a shortage of science jobs on CNN.

"The simplest thing we could do to vastly improve the quality of public education is to separate the intelligent children from the less intelligent children."

YES!

Glen Beck is a good example of HBD. His IQ diverges below the mean by several standard deviations. Yet this un-educated clown can still con people into listening to him and believing him. He still gets people to buy the books that his ghost writer puts out.

Here ya go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/business/law-school-economics-job-market-weakens-tuition-rises.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

WITH apologies to show business, there’s no business like the business of law school.

The basic rules of a market economy — even golden oldies, like a link between supply and demand — just don’t apply.

Legal diplomas have such allure that law schools have been able to jack up tuition four times faster than the soaring cost of college. And many law schools have added students to their incoming classes — a step that, for them, means almost pure profits — even during the worst recession in the legal profession’s history.

It is one of the academy’s open secrets: law schools toss off so much cash they are sometimes required to hand over as much as 30 percent of their revenue to universities, to subsidize less profitable fields.

In short, law schools have the power to raise prices and expand in ways that would make any company drool. And when a business has that power, it is apparently difficult to resist.

"The simplest thing we could do to vastly improve the quality of public education is to separate the intelligent children from the less intelligent children."

Don't throw unintelligent white kids under the bus. In terms of temperament and psychological makeup, they have more in common with smart white kids than dumb black ones. Their life among similarly low iq black students would be hell, given that they'd be outnumbered there too.

"Legal diplomas have such allure that law schools have been able to jack up tuition four times faster than the soaring cost of college."

Too true. When I entered my state law school, in-state tuition was about $5,000 per year. Ten years later, tuition is $19,000 per year. I was gobsmacked when I learned this information.

> At all decent private schools, tuition tends to be three times the per-pupil cost of public education in the same geographic area.

You're confusing "decent" and "prestigious". I'm surprises you would confuse them.

When HS says separate smart and dumb kids he means physically separate them. What makes school unbearable for smart kids is being around thug proles. You know what happens to smart kids in between honors classes and gifted programs, they get the shit beat out of them by dumb proles. That's what makes public school shitty.

"Sadly for True Believers like yourself, evolution has never been observed, and thus a neverending marketing campaign must be waged to spread Chuck D's atheist creation myth." - prawnster


This is untrue. Evolution has been observed in microorganisms like bacteria. Anti-biotics are becoming less effective overtime as bacteria is adapting to them. Bacterias are developing enzymes that deactivate the killing mechanisms of current treatments. Penicillin has been largely replaced by Amoxicillin as a response. Even so stronger treatments will be needed to keep up in the evolutionary arms race.

The small difference in Pay between Public School Teachers and the Religious or Catholic School teachers is not a fair comparison, since The Public School System must provide medical & retirement benefits to teachers. Here in California Nuns who have put in 40 years working for Private Catholic schools
Go on Welfare when they get to old to work. The Church actually shows them how to apply for government assistance Medicare & Welfare. If Private schools had to actually foot the bill for medical and retirement they could not pay their owners half million dollar salaries. Why should Taxpayers pay for the former Nun's who worked for private Catholic Schools put in their time teaching to go on government assistance. Lets have an even playing field it you want to compare cost or education between public and Private schools.

The comments to this entry are closed.