http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M4tdMsg3ts
YES! This was a great, well done speech. (And unlike my high school Valedictorian, it wasn't in a Dr. Seuss Rhyme)
This shows that there are some people out there with a head on their shoulder... unlike most of the people I know.
I saw this awhile ago and I don't think I heard a better speech!
Nothing like getting put through the impersonal meat grinder of State-run education.
she probably would have an easier time with delievery if she wrote the speech in a more conversational style. but its hard to fault a high school student for that.
over all, a really interesting speech. i don't disagree with her. and i can empathize with the fact she was reconsidering her "excelling to excel" career path . :(
i am glad she got a great reception at the end. she deserves props.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Great speech. I loved the Mencken quote and how she constantly hit upon the fact that the public school system has little to do with actual learning or education. My one issue was when she said that passion and not money should be one's motivation. I think people should pursue whichever they value higher. For many people that might be money and I don't see anything wrong with that. But overall a really wonderful speech.
It’s great to criticize how the current school system works and all the problems with it. But this is only the first step. A truly great education system doesn’t follow some set of guidelines (since no central planner could ever know the ideal education system), it just lets parents and students choose what’s best for themselves. Most critics of the education system have some other idea how everyone should be learning. It’s hard to tell if they want the free market to run education, or if they just want the public schools to be run in a better way. While Erica Goldson didn’t make any accusations that the ideal school system should be this way or that, I didn’t really get a “let freedom rule our education!” vibe. Also, Bryan Caplan makes the argument that education is largely a signaling effect. That people already have characteristics which determine whether they will be successful in the economy and education just acts as a way to “label” successful people and signal employers. In his view, schooling doesn’t “inspire” people or teach them to be “critical thinkers,” it just signals the market to your work ethic and abilities. If we stopped subsidizing education, Caplan argues that demand for it would fall rapidly since it isn’t really that valuable. http://fee.org/media/the-case-against-education/
That girl has BALLS
(metaphorically)
GooPC: Also, Bryan Caplan makes the argument that education is largely a signaling effect. That people already have characteristics which determine whether they will be successful in the economy and education just acts as a way to “label” successful people and signal employers. In his view, schooling doesn’t “inspire” people or teach them to be “critical thinkers,” it just signals the market to your work ethic and abilities. If we stopped subsidizing education, Caplan argues that demand for it would fall rapidly since it isn’t really that valuable. http://fee.org/media/the-case-against-education/
Also, Bryan Caplan makes the argument that education is largely a signaling effect. That people already have characteristics which determine whether they will be successful in the economy and education just acts as a way to “label” successful people and signal employers. In his view, schooling doesn’t “inspire” people or teach them to be “critical thinkers,” it just signals the market to your work ethic and abilities. If we stopped subsidizing education, Caplan argues that demand for it would fall rapidly since it isn’t really that valuable. http://fee.org/media/the-case-against-education/
Just listened to Caplan's lecture and he made many salient points especially regarding signalling. However is clay and pot analogy there is something seriously amiss- we are neither clay molded by our teaches to be put into the kiln and to be sold and neither are we are already fired to sell. I would argue following Holt that we are born natural learners however there's a huge difference someone's education/ parneting can make to the end result especially in the early years of life. Re the critical thinking point reading more economics and philosophy has certainly aided my own personal evaluation skills in many areas.
Granted he's arguing against the investment, rate of the return, model but he does have a rather rank materialistic edge to his arguments and as such is making a lot of value judgments shrouded in economic language. Finally his use of the word education contra schooling is unwise since it perpetuates the populations conflation of latter with the fomer.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
However is clay and pot analogy there is something seriously amiss- we are neither clay molded by our teaches to be put into the kiln and to be sold and neither are we are already fired to sell. I would argue following Holt that we are born natural learners however there's a huge difference someone's education/ parneting can make to the end result especially in the early years of life
I think Caplan says that it’s a combination of signaling and learning. He claims schooling is like 80% signaling, which seems kinda high to me. But signaling is defiantly part of the reason why schooling is valuable. Signaling does a lot to explain why employers are willing to pay more for people who’ve proven they can sit in classes and memorize things for years.
GooPC, I think we are actually in agreement. The signaling effect is lower than 80% but still significant. It would be crass however to put a figure on it.