Public Schools? Sure, just not for Obama's kids.

[HashiriyaS14]

Hash is right about the college acceptance as well. The acceptance board is going to bust your balls if you come from a rich private school. However if you pull a 4.0 in public and your SATs are good, your pretty much guaranteed admittance to just about anywhere. 4.0 in a private school isnt nearly as meaningful.

Obviously, this only applies at a VERY GOOD (i.e. "Top 100") public school. Outside of that, it can be very different indeed.

It is easier to get into Princeton from Thomas Jefferson HS in NoVA or Bethesda Chevy-Chase than it is from, say, Exeter, Groton, or Andover.

[ishkabibble]

Bud, would you send your kids to a D.C. public school?

[480sx]

Obviously, this only applies at a VERY GOOD (i.e. "Top 100") public school. Outside of that, it can be very different indeed.

It is easier to get into Princeton from Thomas Jefferson HS in NoVA or Bethesda Chevy-Chase than it is from, say, Exeter, Groton, or Andover.

I think it would extend past top 100 schools quite a bit. I know you only used it only as an example however.

Well TJ is a magnet school so thats kinda comparing apples to oranges but your point is still taken.

[Cold_Zero]

Bud, would you send your kids to a D.C. public school?

I would rather send my kid to Prison than to DC Public Schools.

Do you guys (not just you ISH) actually read what people right? Or just react to what is posted, thinking "There goes another conservative bent about the election results, nit picking about something Obama did." Seriously, guys if you re-read the previous points you will find out the hypocrisy that I am pointing out.

[480sx]

There really is no hypocrisy here at all, and IMO this is a non issue. People are free to do whatever they want to with their kids, money, whatever. Obama isnt out there saying 'Send your kids to public schools they are the best!'. That would make this hypocritical. He is saying that there are massive problems with public schools and he thinks he can fix them.

Am i going to think less of Obama because he rips on Mccain being rich(hypocritically) because it can give him a strategical advantage in a presidential race? Is this some new problem? Its a freaken presidential race, hypocrisy and BS abounds. American politics.

Why should Obama not have the right to send his kids to whatever damn school he wants to while at the same time saying that hes good for public schools and wants whats best for them? Wheres the hypocrisy?

[dusred]

Sorry Guys, you can see how much love I have for public schools.

[Cold_Zero]

There really is no hypocrisy here at all, and IMO this is a non issue. People are free to do whatever they want to with their kids, money, whatever. Obama isnt out there saying 'Send your kids to public schools they are the best!'. That would make this hypocritical. He is saying that there are massive problems with public schools and he thinks he can fix them.

Yet which party (Democrats) wish to squash the people's ability to send their kids to private schools, by attacking vouchers? Vouchers allow lower income and middle class people to consider private schools, charter schools or alternatives schools for their children. Yet it is the Democrat party that is totally opposed to the concept.

Quote »Am i going to think less of Obama because he rips on Mccain being rich(hypocritically) because it can give him a strategical advantage in a presidential race? Is this some new problem? Its a freaken presidential race, hypocrisy and BS abounds. American politics. [/quote]Yes, yes please ask no integrity of politicians. THAT is the way to fix the problem.

Quote »Why should Obama not have the right to send his kids to whatever damn school he wants to while at the same time saying that hes good for public schools and wants whats best for them? Wheres the hypocrisy?[/quote]That is not my point, but since it is sooooo hard to read and understand the point let me spell it out to you loud and clear.The Democrats, specifically Obama took the union dues of NEA members, kissing the union leaders' asses and represent themselves as the defenders of public education. Yet they don't use their patron's product. Obama, when he was a State Senator in Illinois could have sent his kids to public schools. But instead they sent the girls to elite private schools. What message does that send? Not a very good one. And NEA members don't like that hypocrisy. My wife, father, sister, brother in law, mother in law, sister in law and brother in law are all members. Not to mention other friends and extended family.

But please, please keep giving Dear Leader MaObama a free pass.

[smockers83]

Yet which party (Democrats) wish to squash the people's ability to send their kids to private schools, by attacking vouchers? Vouchers allow lower income and middle class people to consider private schools, charter schools or alternatives schools for their children. Yet it is the Democrat party that is totally opposed to the concept.

There isn't a hypocrisy here and you are nitpicking and I'll show you how in a little bit, and I even read the whole thing.

I would be against the voucher system as well as for a number of reasons and I'm not a Democrat. Just because they say they're for the lower and middle classes doesn't mean they have to emulate them. Democrats are against the voucher system because the funds for it compete with funds for public schools (from the NEA website). That doesn't mean don't send kids to private schools if you want to and can actually afford to. Plus, vouchers are only used in three jurisdictions, only one of those being a state (FL).

That is not my point, but since it is sooooo hard to read and understand the point let me spell it out to you loud and clear.The Democrats, specifically Obama took the union dues of NEA members, kissing the union leaders' asses and represent themselves as the defenders of public education. Yet they don't use their patron's product.

If you buy stock in a company, does that mean you should buy their product? I have a sizable investment in IBM and I go out and buy a MacBook Pro, am I being a hypocrite? I own part of the company, I get part of the profits and I care about how the company performs. I say nay. If Obama received money for his campaign from a solar panel company and he doesn't use solar panels at his house, is he being hypocritical still? I say nay. Just because he received money from the NEA doesn't mean he's obliged to send his kids to public schools whether its in DC or when he was in Chicago. He can receive money from a group and still work to support it. So yes, you are nitpicking.

In writing this, I'm getting confused myself about what I'm supposed to be arguing against exactly, whether that's because I'm tired or because the argument doesn't make any sense, maybe a combination of both. So if you find this edited later on, don't be surprised. All that I know is that its a stupid argument to be making against Obama.

[Cold_Zero]

There isn't a hypocrisy here and you are nitpicking and I'll show you how in a little bit, and I even read the whole thing.

I would be against the voucher system as well as for a number of reasons and I'm not a Democrat. Just because they say they're for the lower and middle classes doesn't mean they have to emulate them. Democrats are against the voucher system because the funds for it compete with funds for public schools (from the NEA website). That doesn't mean don't send kids to private schools if you want to and can actually afford to. Plus, vouchers are only used in three jurisdictions, only one of those being a state (FL).

NO, they (Democrats) are against voucher not because they de-fund public schools, but only because it competes with jobs, jobs that are currently unionized. They fear that if people take their kids out of public schools and switch the private schools, the balance of power will shift away from their favor. It is kind of like the Big 3 Auto Bailout. One the one hand, they (Democrats) can't stand Corporations and a Corporation that turns a profit. Yet, if they let the Big 3 Auto Makers fail, that will mean tons of unionized UAW jobs that are lost. Which will mean less union dues coming to them in the form of campaign donations and potentially votes. They don't give a **** about the companies and the tax revenue that the Government collects them from them, nor the products that they produce. If they did, they would have a different (and not necessarily a Republican) stance toward these companies. No, they can just go and tax the **** out of some other corporation or the American People to make up the revenue loss.The only thing I can see that the Democrats get out of the Public Schools are union dues in the form of campaign donations from the NEA and local teachers unions, votes from the union members and potentially the chance (through the NEA) to guide education to fit their social agendas. Other than that, they couldn't really care about the Public Schools.

Quote »If you buy stock in a company, does that mean you should buy their product? I have a sizable investment in IBM and I go out and buy a MacBook Pro, am I being a hypocrite? I own part of the company, I get part of the profits and I care about how the company performs. I say nay. If Obama received money for his campaign from a solar panel company and he doesn't use solar panels at his house, is he being hypocritical still? I say nay. Just because he received money from the NEA doesn't mean he's obliged to send his kids to public schools whether its in DC or when he was in Chicago. He can receive money from a group and still work to support it. So yes, you are nitpicking.

In writing this, I'm getting confused myself about what I'm supposed to be arguing against exactly, whether that's because I'm tired or because the argument doesn't make any sense, maybe a combination of both. So if you find this edited later on, don't be surprised. All that I know is that its a stupid argument to be making against Obama.[/quote]That is a bad example. Since IBM does not make Personal Computers anymore. They sold their line and manufacturing facilities to Luenovo (sp?) Here is a better example.If I were a Lobbyist for the Big 3 and I roll up to Pontiac Michigan in a Toyota Prius to have a meeting with the executives of GM, do you think they would question my loyalty and commitment to represent them? You bet you. They may even consider switching firms.

[Combat Squirrel]

Many of you seem to want to mane this a political matter when in fact President Elect Obama's main concern was the safety and security of his daughters. I seriously doubt a public school could provide the degree of security that a private school does. Too many parents complaining about their rights of their children being infringed upon.

It seems that this place is a political whore house. I might like it here.

[Cold_Zero]

As I have stated before, I don't fault the Obamas now that he is the President Elect for picking the school that he did. But while a State Senator in Chicago.. he sent his kids to Univ of Chicago Lab schools...That is what the debate here is centered around.

But yes, the two oldest professions, Politics and Prostitution. Two professions that have a lot in common.

And yes I am nit picking. Because had this been Bush with an apparent hypocrisy he would have been crucified not only be the news media, the American Public, but all of you guys. Further more, when it comes right down to it, everyone nit picks on Bush over the stupidest ****. They even go as far to blame hurricanes (that hit New Orleans), global warming, 9-11, and conspiracy theories that he will not transfer power to the next POTUS by declaring martial law under FEMA and blah blah blah.

[Combat Squirrel]

It's perfectly reasonable for any parent to choose the better option when it comes to educating their child(ren).

It sounds like you feel persecuted here for what others have done with respect to blaming the current administration. I'd suggest buttoning up and ignoring opinions that lack facts to support them. I had not heard that President Bush was responsible for Katrina, interesting opinion, but nothing more in my opinion.

[480sx]

Yet which party (Democrats) wish to squash the people's ability to send their kids to private schools, by attacking vouchers?

WOAH. Hold up a sec here. These vouchers were mostly being used to send kids to CHRISTIAN private schools. That was ONE problem with Bush's Pork Project, thats what the dems attacked this on. Separation of church and state. I dont give a fvk if you think your kid should be entitled to learn about ID in schools, i REFUSE to pay for teaching a child some theory pulled out of the air with my tax dollars.

Yes, yes please ask no integrity of politicians. THAT is the way to fix the problem.

This is a discussion. Were not doing a damn thing besides talking. Reality is a B, this is American politics. Until someone does something to change it, this is what were left with, this is what we deal with, if you dont like it? Start a revolution.

The Democrats, specifically Obama took the union dues of NEA members, kissing the union leaders' asses and represent themselves as the defenders of public education. Yet they don't use their patron's product. Obama, when he was a State Senator in Illinois could have sent his kids to public schools. But instead they sent the girls to elite private schools. What message does that send? Not a very good one.

Your point was crystal. Your calling this situation hypocritical was inaccurate, i thought i made myself clear .

Again, i go back to my statement. Why the hell cant obama do whatever he wants to with his kids and money while saying hes good for education? So he took NEA's handouts and promised to do well for public schools. SO WHAT? That has nothing to do with his choice for his children.

[Cold_Zero]

WOAH. Hold up a sec here. These vouchers were mostly being used to send kids to CHRISTIAN private schools. That was ONE problem with Bush's Pork Project, thats what the dems attacked this on. Separation of church and state. I dont give a fvk if you think your kid should be entitled to learn about ID in schools, i REFUSE to pay for teaching a child some theory pulled out of the air with my tax dollars.

You just can't drop the term "Separation of Church of State" like fairy dust when you don't agree with something. It has a specific application to the Establishment and Free Exercise of religion found in the First Amendment.

And yet your tax dollars go to Christian and other religious non-for-profit faith based charities and there is no problem. But just don't give your tax money out to people to chose a school that is private and religious. Question, who pays to send the Obama kids to Sidewell a Quaker (denomination of Christianity) School? The American Public???? I hope not because I am diametrically opposed to supporting Quaker Schools, since they are Pacifists.

Now if my tax dollars go to such things as encouraging social policies (that I do not support) inside all sorts of PUBLIC institutions, I have to live with it and STFU. And just because one doesn't name a policy, school or program a name from a Major World Religion doesn't mean that it isn't (Like Secular Humanism or some other non traditional religion/world view) religious. So it's ok that MY tax dollars go to Public Schools that teach morals, world views and religious concept that I oppose, but it's not ok for YOUR tax dollars to go to a voucher to send some kid to Roman Catholic (or something) schools. But this is where your ignorance really comes into play. Most voucher systems (as they are proposed) would take the money you normally pay to the public schools and return it back to you (in the form of a voucher). So my tax dollars would not go to some Hindu couple's kid to send them to a Hindu religious school and not that I would have a problem with that, since a kid growing up to be a good Hindu, a good citizen and education member of our society is a good thing. No their tax dollars (for public education) would come back to them to send their kids to the school of their choice and mine would come to send my child to the school of my choice. But I do find it funny that my right to choose is infringed and a woman's right to abort (aka choose) is not in this country because... Well, it wouldn't be right. Bahahahaaaaa! Also, the NCLB Act current allows vouchers to be given to parents when their Public School is labeled as 'Failing.'

On the topic of your non-righteous (pun) indignation, I find it ironic that the Hindu, Roman Catholic and other religious parents have no problem sending their kids to our Private Christian Pre-School. They have no problem with paying money to a preschool that is a "Ministry of XXX Church." Oh well. I guess not everyone shares your view.

Also, Separation of Church and State goes both ways. When the State gets it talons out of the Church's business and STFU, then we can talk about the proper application of the Separation of Church and State. Until then, there will never be the Separation of State from Church.

Quote »This is a discussion. Were not doing a damn thing besides talking. Reality is a B, this is American politics. Until someone does something to change it, this is what were left with, this is what we deal with, if you dont like it? Start a revolution. [/quote]I have a feeling that you are the type to wait around for someone else to 'start a revolution' before you can be invested in anything politically. To be honest, we the American people let our politicians get away with murder. There is no accountability anymore and the Social Security Trust is a perfect example. The people that spent the Trust are no longer in power, not around to be held accountable for it. We just as a collective just throw up our arms and live in a perpetual mediocrity. Quote »Your point was crystal. Your calling this situation hypocritical was inaccurate, i thought i made myself clear .

Again, i go back to my statement. Why the hell cant obama do whatever he wants to with his kids and money while saying hes good for education? So he took NEA's handouts and promised to do well for public schools. SO WHAT? That has nothing to do with his choice for his children.[/quote]He can do what ever he wants. Heck, apparently we can all live in an apparent hypocrisy in this country and we are just given a free pass. Unless you are a Republican.

Pointing out hypocrisy of a Democrat = nit pickingPointing out hypocrisy of a Republican = stating a fact.

I love it.

[480sx]

As for your first point, sorry, no magic fairy dust here only the facts. Do the research yourself if you dont believe me. That majority of the program about vouchers for private schools was specifically designed by the Bush admin for parents who wanted their kids to go to a private school that honored ID. Nothing more to say here.

I have a feeling that you are the type to wait around for someone else to 'start a revolution' before you can be invested in anything politically.

No. You obviously have no idea how 'crazy' i am. Ask WD if you would like. Your spider sense is wrong, the force is not strong within you. This title? Is 99 percent anger and 1 percent hippy. I hate hippies(lol). Dont let the title fool you. I just dont go advertising my beliefs and what i want to do because frankly, most people dismiss me instantly, or label me so i dont waste my time. A perfect example of this in action is this title WD gave me(dont take that the wrong way brian).

Your last statements are under the guise that there is some hypocrisy here. There is not. Your the only one in this thread supporting the idea that there is hypocrisy in BO's act of sending his kids to private school while taking money from NEA.

It seems that this place is a political whore house. I might like it here.

MORE than welcome to stay and give it a shot man. Lots of right wingers here, but its a good group. A scout sniper that defends his house primarily with a bat should fit right in here.
Modified by 480sx at 6:47 PM 11/27/2008

[Cold_Zero]

As for your first point, sorry, no magic fairy dust here only the facts. Do the research yourself if you dont believe me. That majority of the program about vouchers for private schools was specifically designed by the Bush admin for parents who wanted their kids to go to a private school that honored ID. Nothing more to say here.

Wow, voucher systems in Indiana (and other states) were developed by the Bush Administration and killed by the Democrats? I must add that one to the list of things Bush has done. You do realize that Public Schools are funded by local taxes and in the case of Indiana the money is sent to the State and then trickled back down to the local municipal school systems. While some funding may come from the federal government (grants), the bulk of the funds come from the State and local governments.

Quote »No. You obviously have no idea how 'crazy' i am. Ask WD if you would like. Your spider sense is wrong, the force is not strong within you. This title? Is 99 percent anger and 1 percent hippy. I hate hippies(lol). Dont let the title fool you. I just dont go advertising my beliefs and what i want to do because frankly, most people dismiss me instantly, or label me so i dont waste my time. A perfect example of this in action is this title WD gave me(dont take that the wrong way brian).[/quote]While, since I have not seen you do the 'Crazy Repoman Knife Dance,' I will have to take your word on how 'crazy' you are. It was not my intent to 'label' you.

[smockers83]

Democrats are against the voucher system because the funds for it compete with funds for public schools (from the NEA website).

They fear that if people take their kids out of public schools and switch the private schools

Chalk one up for me. Less students in public schools = less funds for public schools = competing funds.

Since IBM does not make Personal Computers anymore. They sold their line and manufacturing facilities to Luenovo (sp?)

True, but not exactly true. They sold the manufacturing part yes, but IBM still markets and supports the ThinkPad and ThinkCentre line, plus IBM has a stake in Lenovo. How about if I owned H-P?

Here is a better example.If I were a Lobbyist for the Big 3 and I roll up to Pontiac Michigan in a Toyota Prius to have a meeting with the executives of GM, do you think they would question my loyalty and commitment to represent them? You bet you. They may even consider switching firms.

Not a good example either. There are employees at the Big 3 that drive foreign cars, do they question the workers? Plus, if that guy drives up to Pontiac, he won't be meeting with Wagoner. And Wagoner is well aware that there are other products out there and that people have different needs and currently GM doesn't have a car like the Prius. This is how they know they aren't competitive and why they're in the situation they are in now.

Or just react to what is posted, thinking "There goes another conservative bent about the election results, nit picking about something Obama did."

And yes I am nit picking. Because had this been Bush with an apparent hypocrisy he would have been crucified not only be the news media, the American Public, but all of you guys. Further more, when it comes right down to it, everyone nit picks on Bush over the stupidest ****. They even go as far to blame hurricanes (that hit New Orleans), global warming, 9-11, and conspiracy theories that he will not transfer power to the next POTUS by declaring martial law under FEMA and blah blah blah.

Pointing out hypocrisy of a Democrat = nit pickingPointing out hypocrisy of a Republican = stating a fact.

I love it.

I'm not sure what to think here. You're all over, there's something fueling this that seems to have emotional backing. Don't stoop to their levels just because they did it to Bush. The left accusing Bush of many things were baseless and showed a lot of idiocy, lets not flip the game here. You know that I'm pretty conservative.

[hannibal]

Going back to vouchers...My problem is in who gets them. If my neighbor is allowed to send his kid to a nicer private school and my kid cant go to taht same school, thats not cool.

First, it does take funds from my kid's public school and that wont help his education. Second, if you allow one kid to attend private school on taxpayer money, then you gotta let everyone was wants to go do so at the govt's expense. That would essentially made the private schools public.

Instead of avoiding the issue, focus on finding solutions for public schools. Vouchers are a band-aid.

Damn CZ, you really do live in a educator's world. I see some brilliant children in your future. And I do understand your gripe now. But I dont think his decision for his children influences his 'pledges' to the NEA...

[480sx]

Your jumping the gun bud. Give BO some time, he'll give you something tangible to sink your teeth into. Its way to early to be lashing out at BO IMO. We have yet to see him DO really anything. Talk is cheap, and as far as im concerned with politicians across the board, completely meaningless.

While, since I have not seen you do the 'Crazy Repoman Knife Dance,' I will have to take your word on how 'crazy' you are. It was not my intent to 'label' you.

LOL that puts some hilarious mental images into my head. 'Crazy' is subjective . Anyway its fine man, no harm done.

[HashiriyaS14]

I will reiterate that I think this is a silly issue, but as usual, Bud is making his point very competently.

The attitude of the left towards a number of issues is unduly colored by their union ties, and this certainly applies to public schools as well as anything.

Again, I don't think Obama's decision has much to do with this, but in general, it's something I wish the Democratic party wouldn't do.

The Moral Majority is to the right as the unions are to the left. Both hinder the logical soundness of the parties with which they have allied themselves.

Down with the UAW.

[Armelius]

It says something about the best and the brightest being incapable of homeschooling their children in basic education yet can pull big salaries by teaching a few classes on constitutional law.

[HashiriyaS14]

It says something about the best and the brightest being incapable of homeschooling their children in basic education yet can pull big salaries by teaching a few classes on constitutional law.

This is because the best and brightest realize that homeschooling is a bad idea.

Kids need socialization to be normal, homeschooling produces weird kids.

I'd sooner send my kids (when I have them) to boarding school a thousand miles away than homeschool them. Luckily I live near 8-10 of the top 100 public school districts in the country.

[Armelius]

This is because the best and brightest realize that homeschooling is a bad idea.

Kids need socialization to be normal, homeschooling produces weird kids.

I'd sooner send my kids (when I have them) to boarding school a thousand miles away than homeschool them. Luckily I live near 8-10 of the top 100 public school districts in the country.

Why would anyone want to be normal? If you want to play ball you join a league. If you want to learn you can go to a library. There isn't anything abnormal about homeschooling.

Go to any public school in the US and you will find normal drug problems even counselors recommending ridalin. You will find teen age pregnancies and teachers who really aren't teaching but pushing federal doctrine with books that only skim touchy issues.

[HashiriyaS14]

Why would anyone want to be normal? If you want to play ball you join a league. If you want to learn you can go to a library. There isn't anything abnormal about homeschooling.

Go to any public school in the US and you will find normal drug problems even counselors recommending ridalin. You will find teen age pregnancies and teachers who really aren't teaching but pushing federal doctrine with books that only skim touchy issues.

A.) Socialization is important for children. You can disagree, it is just my opinion, but I think that homeschooling kids robs them of part of growing up. They need to have extensive contact with people outside of their own family. People should raise their kids with the judgment to stay out of trouble on their own instead of insulating them from society.

B.) I'd wager that home-schooled kids are neither uniquely drug-free nor somehow totally exempt from teenage pregnancies.

C.) It's "Ritalin", and, having been prescribed it myself, I can say that in certain circumstances it definitely helps. I DO think it's over-prescribed, but seeing as how a counselor can't actually prescribe it, I don't see that as being their fault. It's up to the doctor to convey to the parent whether or not a child truly needs the medication (any medication) or not.

D.) Kids need influences other than their parents, they need to be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Home schooling would, IMO, produce kids who are unnaturally aligned with their parents, beliefs-wise, due to a lack of any outside influence. Some might think this is a good thing, I would disagree. Again, it's a completely subjective issue.

[Armelius]

A.) Socialization is important for children. You can disagree, it is just my opinion, but I think that homeschooling kids robs them of part of growing up. They need to have extensive contact with people outside of their own family. People should raise their kids with the judgment to stay out of trouble on their own instead of insulating them from society.

B.) I'd wager that home-schooled kids are neither uniquely drug-free nor somehow totally exempt from teenage pregnancies.

C.) It's "Ritalin", and, having been prescribed it myself, I can say that in certain circumstances it definitely helps. I DO think it's over-prescribed, but seeing as how a counselor can't actually prescribe it, I don't see that as being their fault. It's up to the doctor to convey to the parent whether or not a child truly needs the medication (any medication) or not.

D.) Kids need influences other than their parents, they need to be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Home schooling would, IMO, produce kids who are unnaturally aligned with their parents, beliefs-wise, due to a lack of any outside influence. Some might think this is a good thing, I would disagree. Again, it's a completely subjective issue.

Well sorry to hear about the ritalin thing. Sounds like you did your best with it. But typically school is about learning. Main purpose isn't socializing and finding a date to the prom or who is going to be cheerleader or quarterback.

Exactly how many friends does one need in school? And how many enemies for everyone isn't likable?

If you start with 1st grade you will see that children are taught to sit and be silent. Now that is a tremendous feat for an age that is very aggressive and full of energy.

By 6th grade children are stepping out of their chairs and become more vocal so their work gets harder and activities are encouraged such as football or cheer leadership.

By 9th grade the student is no longer top dog of the middle school but a new flap to be tormented or laughed at by those ready to graduate.

12th grade is the no it all phase or anything that shocks their previous concepts of learning is either wrong or goes completely against their strong held beliefs.

Government is thick in the school system wanting to produce upstanding citizens that (by 12th grade) can play the stock markets and do their taxes.

Boys and girls will do their thing with or without school as you just said.

[hannibal]

It says something about the best and the brightest being incapable of homeschooling their children in basic education yet can pull big salaries by teaching a few classes on constitutional law.

Youre missing the concept of opportunity costs. A big time con law professor would have to give up their position to homeschool their children. No more 'big salary' or being part of the job force. Most people with the means provide the best education they can afford for their children. I have no facts to back this up, but I assume most parents that stay home to educated their kids were earning WELL under $500k a year. With that high of a salary, they can find educators more qualified than themselves to teach their children. I dont think its because a law professor is 'incapable' of teaching a middle school cirriculum to their children.

[480sx]

Why would anyone want to be normal?

I think hash meant 'socially capable' over normal. Most home schooled kids fail hard when it comes to being social. Some learn to overcome this with age, some never do. The easiest way to learn this is in a public school, or something setup like it. Public school exposes a child to the largest cross section of the population, more relative to what an adult is exposed to in a day to day life. This helps said person adapt and develop skills to deal with nearly anyone.

Exactly how many friends does one need in school? And how many enemies for everyone isn't likable?

Just because someone doesnt like you doesnt mean they are your enemy. You need SOME friends, social acquaintances, someone that you connect with on a basic level.

Government is thick in the school system wanting to produce upstanding citizens that (by 12th grade) can play the stock markets and do their taxes.

I dont know how you were educated, but thats just..

Boys and girls will do their thing with or without school as you just said.

Of course they will. However, if you dont grow up around people and live in this sheltered little home school bubble, the real world is going to be quite the unnerving shock to you. You will have to learn basic social coping skills that you should have learned by being around your peers growing up in school. Trial by fire, not the way i want to learn how to socialize. It will also not be the way my children learn.

[Armelius]

First off, public schools are nothing more than corporations. These corporations tap into public funds and in turn have to do things that the government requires of them. Beyond that then they are not much different that private schools except the later tends to keep those who can't afford it out.

That said, someone with an Ivy League education should be able to teach their (proper grammar) children things that they would do for a living. Sort of like a mechanic teaching a sibling how to work on cars.

But that isn't what happens because we have a society that tends to look down on those who do not have credentials. That says something more important than any socialization of having friends, enemies, lovers and later spouses that someone would encounter going through the school system.

Check out the guy that shot up all those people at Virginia Tech. He went to public school and then went to a college yet people shunned him or treated him like some sort of odd person out. Yet those people he shot sure got a lesson in socialism they will never forget.

Now you have schools looking very closely at people who might commit crimes or do something on the level of Virginia Tech.

Whatever non-bullying legislation or zero tolerance policies they pass to implement in public schools it only shows that not only are you groomed to be a solid citizen but also pushed on a path of complacency.

Just look at the people who quit school to found Google or Wal-Mart. You don't need a socialized education you need a society that will let you be who you are...namely a free thinker.

[BMAR240SX]

I don't know i wouldn't send my kids there cause i do not want anyone kid napping them, i mean i would be the worlds First Black President and the KKK still exist

[480sx]

First off, public schools are nothing more than corporations. These corporations tap into public funds and in turn have to do things that the government requires of them. Beyond that then they are not much different that private schools except the later tends to keep those who can't afford it out.

Odd simplification of public schools but ill bite, i guess. But.. So what?

That said, someone with an Ivy League education should be able to teach their (proper grammar) children things that they would do for a living. Sort of like a mechanic teaching a sibling how to work on cars.

But that isn't what happens because we have a society that tends to look down on those who do not have credentials. That says something more important than any socialization of having friends, enemies, lovers and later spouses that someone would encounter going through the school system.

What are you talking about? Most every parent passes down every usable skill to their children they know, regardless of credentials. This applies to home schoolers too. Ultimately, a homeschooler still can easily get into any college by blasting out a high score on a SAT and complying with local/federal testing of students.

Everyone looks slightly down on someone who doesnt have credentials in certain situations. However you dont just walk around on the earth with your credentials tattood to your face being judged by everyone you meet. Your people skills are the first way that you are judged in most every situation. So when you say 'That(credentials) says something more important than any socialization of having friends,..'ect, your taking a very narrow minded approach on life.

Credentials can come to anyone if they are home schooled, private schooled, or public schooled. Its not a limited thing here, the opportunities are wide open for anyone to get them.

The flip side of that coin is this. If you have people skills, you can go VERY far in life without credentials. You can get the 'credentials' you need just with those basic people skills.

Your grouping two things that have very little to do with each other, social skills and credentials. Your all over the board i dont really know how to make a targeted response.

Check out the guy that shot up all those people at Virginia Tech. He went to public school and then went to a college yet people shunned him or treated him like some sort of odd person out. Yet those people he shot sure got a lesson in socialism they will never forget.

So what the hell is your argument here? Because one hateful piece of **** that shot up a college who happened to come from a public school, that somehow the whole system isnt needed or is to blame?

It almost sounds like your making excuses for what he did. Like its public schools fault this kid had the parents he did, or was the nut job he was. For real, im furious right now kinda like i was the first time i read your post. Your whole line of thinking, you using this in defense of your argument(whatever the fvk it is), everything , is deeply flawed and it makes me question where the hell you came from.

Now you have schools looking very closely at people who might commit crimes or do something on the level of Virginia Tech.

Of course they are going to look for the next Chu. The next Trench coats. Thats their jobs, thats what anyone with half a brain would do. Whats your point?

Whatever non-bullying legislation or zero tolerance policies they pass to implement in public schools it only shows that not only are you groomed to be a solid citizen but also pushed on a path of complacency.

So they are implementing school rules that carry zero tolerance punishments for bullies, and that sort of thing. This has NOTHING to do with the point your trying to make.

Our education system is not perfect. People fall through the cracks, but its not simply the education system, or the governments fault. The lions share of responsibility lies with the parents, community, ect. To say that there is some kind of 'Mold' being made that kids just simply cant break out of is ridiculous. The whole idea of a genius being trapped in a 'mold' forces them to break out and become a free thinker. Why do you think all those people you quoted(google/walmart creators) never finished school?

To say that our public school system, or schooling in general is somehow going to stifle creativity or individuality of a person is absurd. The greats usually rise, the weak will usually fall. This is LIFE, evolution, whatever. There arnt going to be many geniuses who go through public schools who buy into everything that is pumped into their heads, and get trapped in this 'Mold' as you call it. With the age of information in full swing kids are as informed as they want to be. They are learning more about the world through the net than they ever will in school.

I know the public school i went to never told me how to think or be, just tried to give me basic information on how to read, write, count, ect. Im not buying into your whole public cookie cutter child routine. It just doesnt work that way IRL.

Just look at the people who quit school to found Google or Wal-Mart. You don't need a socialized education you need a society that will let you be who you are...namely a free thinker.

Of course you dont need a socialized education. Hell we could all run around all day knowledgeless and ignorant and the world would still be here. However, how do you expect a child, even a genius with no eduction isnt going to come anywhere near the potential he could have had with a basic education. You cant get a higher level of education without a basic one either. You think we would have nuclear fission without the education that Einstein went through?

Also, those people you quoted still went through the education system. They might not have went all the way through it, but they learned what they needed to from it and moved on. The system worked.

So what really are you advocating here? A society of knowledgeless, uneducated free thinkers? Oh man think of where we can go from there! Maybe invent the wheel a few more times and who knows what could come next!

Please, come up with a better idea than socialized education for children. Should we just turn them all loose in a play pen and let them figure life out that way? I seriously doubt you would end up with many of what you would call free thinkers.