Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Russoto
At least it's my own response, and not just a regurgitation of what I read in the latest issue of some left-leaning magazine.
|
I was trained to cite my arguments whenever possible. Blame it on the Colorado system of higher education.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
A college is run like a business; if they start sucking, they lose applicants and money. If a high school starts sucking, the kids and the federal money keep right on coming, there's just less learning going on.
|
If all high schools get funding no matter what, why is it that some are far better than others? Random chance?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
I think you and I have different definitions of "successful." I think it is still quite possible for a person to be successful without a college education
|
No, I don't think that we do have different definitions of "successful." Certainly, people can still do well for themselves without going to college. Overall, however, people with a college degree tend to earn more than ones who don't have one. You pointed this out yourself in your previous post. Keep in mind, also, that I am talking about competition on the global scale in the years to come.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Of course they shouldn't. The question is, what will improve those schools? Money is not the answer.
|
I assume, you would feel perfectly comfortable sending your children to school in Paradox, Colorado, then, rather then one in the suburbs of Austin. After all, funding makes no difference in the quality of education, right? Want to give me a source for this perception of yours? I'm not questioning your credibility, just wondering on what facts you have drawn your conclusion from.