Did I say to not have public schools? No, Im fine with paying for others to have that option if they want it. Some utilities are privatized and I pay for those, if they all were undoubtedly I would pay for the private services. It doesnt mean I wouldnt pay my taxes for others who need/want the government to run it. Yes, but making a job more lucrative means there are also more bad applicants, and while you can always be, “more selective”, no ones found the perfect hiring system so just because the pool is bigger doesn't mean you’ll be hiring better. Supposedly the election process is pretty selective and yet here we are...
Wasn't trying to accuse you of being against public education or paying your taxes, just trying to explore the reasons for homeschooling, which I find an interesting choice. There are ways to screw up no matter what the situation, but you've got a better shot at hiring well with a bigger applicant pool. Well, yes. If you hire the least qualified applicant because you want to 'shake things up', the results are not going to be good. barfo
I like Klobuchar but she is toast. She is one of several Democratic candidates who, when they talk, sound like a near perfect candidate to vote for. But then another one talks and I'm all for that one. What makes it so hard to tell which one is the best is the opposition is so horrible that my lawnmower man would be a better President which means all the Democratic candidates are vastly superior, yes, even Inslee and Yang.
She's taking pointers from the Obama campaign where she doe'snt want not to alienate, moderates/independents and mid western democrats in the mid west by not being so hard core progressive in the socialistic way. She smart because she know this country just might vote Trump in again if her party does'nt find a candidate thats more balanced and an non socialist option.
Klobuchar has 2 chances to be the democratic candidate and that's slim and none with none leading by a wide margin in the polls. I have nothing against her but realistically she really isn't a viable candidate.
I like Amy, but she just isn't getting the oxygen with all the other people in the race. Her best hope is that Biden implodes, but even then, his voters won't all go directly to her. It's too bad, because her candidacy makes sense - what we need after Trump is a steady, calm, competent, uncorrupt, knowledgeable president. barfo
A Warren/Klobuchar ticket would be fine with me. Klobuchar could step into the President role when Warren is done. And the good 'ol boys with Trump stickers will really throw a fit.
Will see. I think she may be more palatable than the rest. But thats just my opinion. Who do you see as taking the nomination?
The reality is, Klobachar has limited name exposure and is way behind in the polls with several significantly ahead of her. I have nothing against her, but just looking at it realistically.
I feel like I laid out my reasons fairly well, but you may not have seen them, I don't expect people to read every post in a big thread like this... I'm not sure I agree with you. If you have a 50/50 shot of making a good hire does it matter if you have 2 applicants or 100 applicants? Or say you have a 7 out of 10 shot to get the hire right, does it matter if you have 10 applicants or 100? It's still 7 out of 10... Now I realize that's a really simple way to look at it, but I guess I don't totally buy that the action of paying teachers more has the reaction of better teachers. It may, but I'm not sure if it will. ~ Again I'm not against paying teachers more (I think the middle class / lower class in general needs to be better off). The point wasn't the reasons for the "hire", just that no matter how selective a process may be, it can still be gotten completely wrong. We see it in sports all the time, with free agency, hiring of management, etc. Those are all well-paid positions, and extremely selective as well.
Im saying she will be the dark horse because I think she does have recognition especially in the mid west and how she has performed in congress. But my main reason thinking this and again its just my take, is that she will prove to be a very good debater and she will know how appeal to this that don't buy into the more progressive positions like Bernie & EW (just like Obama did). Thats why I posted that article from the MT I thought the writer was on point and it wasn't written by a Nazi but someone form the demo party. EW is to flighty and all over the place and trying to capture the burn, but Kloby is steady and sharp. Some you you think the primary is over because of polling now but its still as ways out a much can happen. And we all know that polling anymore isn't that accurate.
Do you think the NBA gets it mostly wrong? Do you think that a random selection from all college players would be better? If the Blazers could only draft players from the U of O, would they be just as good? Or do they benefit from being able to select from any college? barfo
I think the NBA gets it wrong fairly regularly. No, but it would be interesting... No, because they would just be the U of O. Your line of questioning seems to have a bias towards if there are more applicants then, of course, the chance to get it right goes up, and that I guess is what I am questioning. Does it? In the NBA example there are thousands of players to choose from, and only a handful get picked, and only a handful make it. Who knows if the others would of made it, but it seems like broadening your scope also broadened the amount of bad applicants. Say you have the U of O or Duke or Kentucky or Gonzaga or any school, and every year they have 2-3 guys who you would consider drafting and every year at least ONE of those players is going to be a good NBA Athlete, then you have a 33/50 percent shot of getting it right. Obviously this isn't how it works, there are a number of years where schools don't have any good NBA players, so being able to pick from all the schools and int. players is a boon, but it still doesn't mean they get it right, and how much does that chance go up? I have no idea. If you have 80% good applicants, and 20% bad applicants do you have a better chance of getting a good player or a good teacher if the pool is 10,000, or 10? I think the NBA has a plethora of examples of getting it right and getting it wrong, even with the caveats of being able to select from any college or international players, and yes, of course, there are benefits to having a broader spectrum to choose from, but there are also negatives to that as well, such as the "costs" of trying to make the right selection, the time involved in the process, and consequences of making a bad selection. Now for teachers, the pro's and cons would be different, but they still exist. Broadening your scope is fine, but it also broadens the number of bad applicants. Who knows if it's 1:1 and the ratio scales the same, but I'd like you to mathematically prove it to me that raising the number of applicants (because of money) has a direct corresponding relationship with increasing the probability of making good hires because I don't think you can. I think it's theoretical at this point, and not empirical. I'm going to feel like I need to add to every post that I'm not against paying teachers more money, that was never my point, though I believe we have gone off the rails.
I have read all of your posts on this and I still don’t follow. Raise pay = increase applicants = increase talent pool. But you think you’ll still end up with the same people/quality? Going with the NBA example. What if we didn’t pay our players the most in the world on average? Wouldn’t they go elsewhere?
Agreed and so stipulated. There are no rails in OT discussions. Will respond to the rest of your post later, perhaps, got to work now. barfo
Because your equation isn't 1:1. Raise Pay = increases bad and good applicants = increased talent pool. The real question (to me) is how do you select the right people to hire to raise the success rate of students having good teachers. Increasing the talent pool may be part of that equation, but the part that no one really seems to talk about is the process of making the selection. If you have 10 and a 50/50 shot to select the right one it doesn't matter if you have 10 or 10000, the ratio remains the same. What you need is to find systems to increase the rate of making the correct hire. Yes, there is a "shortage" of teachers that an increased talent pool can help, but it doesn't really matter if you have an excess or a shortage if you continue to make bad hires. The teacher shortage now is mainly in rural areas and in "minority" schools that are underfunded and can't pay as much, so yes paying more can increase the talent pool, but there are a lot of ineffective teachers in places that don't have the same shortage of teachers. I have numerous times said yeah, pay teachers, fund schools, I'm not against any of that, I just don't think it solves the issue of bad teachers, without also taking steps to make the selection process better.
But who cares about the increased “bad applicants”? You’ll filter through them like you normally would. Unless you are saying schools are intentionally hiring bad teachers or passing up good ones for bad ones. I don’t think they are. Are all teachers great? No. But there’s be less bad ones if the options to hire better ones existed. You’ll end up with additional good/exceptional candidates and that’s your hiring pool.
I have to agree. Actually, there are quite a number of good candidates who are now simply not going anywhere including my favorite, Buttigieg ("Mayor Pete"). Looks like it's going to be a runoff between Biden and Warren. I'm happy with either although I think Warren would be a slight favorite with me. And I'm torn because I think Biden has the best chance of beating Trump and that's got to be a factor worth considering.
I can't wait to hear Warren explain how she will circumvent the Constitution and get a Tax on wealth implemented. That pays for the free college and the Green New Deal you know.
