More like lobbyist interference codified into law.
You got corporate lobbyists, you got religious lobbyists, you got idealistic lobbyists. You got lots of laws.
Could you start a text book company today? Grab the smartest grads from your local University to build a start up. Sell to the local district and grow from there?
No you can't. Too may barriers to entry. Same problem in many other industries. Intellectual property laws and copyright are mainly benefiting the existing players.
Why does everyone want to do internet startups? Because the barriers to entry are not fully locked down yet.
Did our elected representatives just wake up one day and say, "Let us make laws so byzantine, that the people will weep and wail and rend their hair in frustration!"
Well maybe, but I think it's really the lobbyists using carrots (money) and sticks (fear o' God) on the government that got us into this boat.
From the government. What's wrong with government (including your carrots and sticks), it what's inherently wrong with democracy. There will always be benefits available to lawmakers who panders to those with money, and there will always be interest groups (religious, unions etc.) to punish those who don't pander to them.
Yes, I'm a small government conservative, and I can almost infer that you're not, so let's just end the discussion here.
Note that this isn't _necessarily_ a bad thing. Lowest common denominator textbooks are bad if you would have got a better text book, but good if you would have got a worse one. For example, this process does protect against creation science making it into widely distributed textbooks.
I understand that supporting a system like this means students are unlikely to get the best possible text books, but I think there is a fair argument that a risk-avoidance strategy may be better in this area than to aim for the optimum (and end up with a much broader range of results).
Good point. I agree with your take on the trade offs, but it then becomes a matter of deciding how good or bad things really are. Since this applies beyond textbooks to the wider issue of school choice, I'll say 'school' below but 'textbook' holds similarly.
I think in the current system the vast majority of students get a raw deal in the form of mediocrity. Most large public schools I've seen are the educational equivalent to a Dilbertesque corporation. We adults have many ways to dodge cubicle land, but the kids don't. That's a tragedy.
Independent schools would be better to a sizable portion of the kids and about the same for the rest. It's true that we would find faults in each other's schools (school X is godless, school Y teaches creationism), but I think that: 1) it's a fair choice for parents to make, and 2) the current schools have a limited role in that type of outcome anyway.
I understand there are drawbacks and that this is a minority view which voters find unpalatable. But after visiting several public schools in the US and in Brazil and thinking endlessly about the topic, it's the conclusion I've reached.
(I apologize if this sort of political discussion is discouraged here on HN, I started posting recently and am learning the ropes.)
Comments
It's not. It's grossly distorted by government interference, as explained in detail by the article.
More like lobbyist interference codified into law.
You got corporate lobbyists, you got religious lobbyists, you got idealistic lobbyists. You got lots of laws.
Could you start a text book company today? Grab the smartest grads from your local University to build a start up. Sell to the local district and grow from there?
No you can't. Too may barriers to entry. Same problem in many other industries. Intellectual property laws and copyright are mainly benefiting the existing players.
Why does everyone want to do internet startups? Because the barriers to entry are not fully locked down yet.
The law is government interference.
Yes it is, but where did the laws come from?
Did our elected representatives just wake up one day and say, "Let us make laws so byzantine, that the people will weep and wail and rend their hair in frustration!"
Well maybe, but I think it's really the lobbyists using carrots (money) and sticks (fear o' God) on the government that got us into this boat.
> Yes it is, but where did the laws come from?
From the government. What's wrong with government (including your carrots and sticks), it what's inherently wrong with democracy. There will always be benefits available to lawmakers who panders to those with money, and there will always be interest groups (religious, unions etc.) to punish those who don't pander to them.
Yes, I'm a small government conservative, and I can almost infer that you're not, so let's just end the discussion here.
Do you just throw your hands in the air and say "Stupid PC!!!!" when your program won't compile?
No, you debug.
This is about debugging a broken program.
Government is a broken program.
It has bad inputs and malformed syntax.
Immediately running for your existing label and attempting to label me achieves nothing.
Note that this isn't _necessarily_ a bad thing. Lowest common denominator textbooks are bad if you would have got a better text book, but good if you would have got a worse one. For example, this process does protect against creation science making it into widely distributed textbooks.
I understand that supporting a system like this means students are unlikely to get the best possible text books, but I think there is a fair argument that a risk-avoidance strategy may be better in this area than to aim for the optimum (and end up with a much broader range of results).
Good point. I agree with your take on the trade offs, but it then becomes a matter of deciding how good or bad things really are. Since this applies beyond textbooks to the wider issue of school choice, I'll say 'school' below but 'textbook' holds similarly.
I think in the current system the vast majority of students get a raw deal in the form of mediocrity. Most large public schools I've seen are the educational equivalent to a Dilbertesque corporation. We adults have many ways to dodge cubicle land, but the kids don't. That's a tragedy.
Independent schools would be better to a sizable portion of the kids and about the same for the rest. It's true that we would find faults in each other's schools (school X is godless, school Y teaches creationism), but I think that: 1) it's a fair choice for parents to make, and 2) the current schools have a limited role in that type of outcome anyway.
I understand there are drawbacks and that this is a minority view which voters find unpalatable. But after visiting several public schools in the US and in Brazil and thinking endlessly about the topic, it's the conclusion I've reached.
(I apologize if this sort of political discussion is discouraged here on HN, I started posting recently and am learning the ropes.)