[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

You're assuming the DoE isn't already corrupted by coporatism. The government is owned by corporations. Liberals even admit this. We haven't had a capitalist society in a long time. You're confusing capitalism with corporatism. In a free market, education wouldn't be the way corporations are ran today, getting special subsidies, tax reliefs, and grants from the government picking favorites. You're also missing the point. A free market driven educational system gives incentive for educators to grow, and become better teachers. It drives away from standardized testing and focuses on how to contribute to society in a variety of ways. It allows teachers to teach and not force them to force government permitted "fact" down the throats of children.

With respect, I think you're getting your terminology mixed up. What you're referring to sounds more like the theory of corporatocracy as opposed to corporatism, which is a social theory based on groups combining based on shared interests. In any event, the claim that the United States of America (or indeed any modern economy) is in fact a corporatocracy is unsubstantiated thus far. The last officially recognised corporatocracy was the British South Africa Company in the 1920s. There is certainly scope for arguing that lobbying interests have far too strong a position in modern politics, but extending that to claims of a full-blown corporatocracy may be stretching it a bit.

Also, responsibility for education funding and governance is primarily at state level, with limited intervention from the federal government and most decisions made at school board level. So even if we were to assume that the DoE is indeed "corrupted by corporations", they would have limited impact upon the education system proper.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

What makes you think our current education system isn't ran by corporations? What makes you think the government running the education system makes it "fair?" Equality can only occur in free market economics.

See above. Also, equality under the free market is conditional upon all participants having equality in the first place. That seldom, if ever, happens.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

As far as measuring the quality of education, we already do that as consumers. The difference is in a free market, when a company goes under, the tax payers don't owe the government billions of dollars for saving a company. Rather, consumers choose who survives and who doesn't. What makes you think government regulated services means quality? Have you looked at the DMV? Have you look at the economic beliefs of our current and previous administrations? If you can't trust the federal government in small matters, why should we trust them in large matters? You also mistakenly assume that we have no way to measure the quality without government. The government is made up of people, correct? What if we regulated a privatized DoE that rated educational systems? My point is, anything the public does, the privatized sector can do better. Look at healthcare website. We hired the private sector to fix it. The NSA hires private sector employees to do NSA jobs. Why?

Actually, the private sector's track record in carrying out public functions has been very mixed to say the least. There have been frequent stories about private contractors working in the security sector having problems, most notably G4S (of the Olympics security shortfall debacle which resulted in the Armed Forces stepping in, followed by allegations of claiming fees for prisoners it wasn't actually monitoring), and the private sector's role in public transport in the UK has been pretty farcical as well, to name but 2 examples. I have worked in the private sector my entire working life, and while the public sector leaves a lot to be desired at times the private sector is no better.

As for the NSA and the healthcare website, it's probably a combination of requiring particular expertise on a short-term basis and Congress not exactly giving the current administration much money to work with...

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

The problem with one formulated education path is that you get the current result of our society. Over 60% of adults 18-26 are unemployed. A lot of these kids graduating colleges are finding themselves unemployed and in-debt. Why? Because they've all been raised under the same system and put into the same box as every other college grad. Employers are beginning to value work experience over education. A simple google search will show you what I mean. Look at any news source.

Employers have always valued work experience over education - this is not a new phenomenon. What is new is that we've been mired in economic stagnation (to put it mildly) since the 2007 banking crisis dragged the whole global economy down the toilet. It's not so much a question of problems with the education system so much as a fundamental lack of jobs, or funding for new business ideas. Various other countries (including Germany, which has a varied approach to education including defined vocational pathways) have struggled with this as well - it's not just a US-specific problem.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

That's what happens when you live in a coporatist country, not a capitalist one. If you think we are capitalist, my point of indoctrination in my previous post proves accurate.

With all due respect, debating etiquette is that it's for the person raising a claim to provide supporting evidence for it. You should therefore provide some justification for your claim of corporatocracy, rather than asserting that dissenting opinion is merely the result of "indoctrination".