cancel2 2022
Canceled
Lancaster only issues BA degrees, it copies the Oxbridge system. There is no difference otherwise, so if there is any BS around here it's coming from you.
Last edited:
Education in the US
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
Lancaster only issues BA degrees, it copies the Oxbridge system. There is no difference otherwise, so if there is any BS around here it's coming from you.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
New York State has an entire campus in Albany chock full of six-figure administrators - no students - and they do nothing more than push paper around to each other and make mandates to plebe administrators in the local school systems. The camps is funded by the state tax and gives little or no money to local systems, which are supported mainly by local real estate taxes, which are thus punitively high. Plus many school systems are run by individual towns, increasing the administrative ratio even further. The high school that my kids would have gone to sucked, and high-achieving kids could opt to a neighboring school system by paying tuition.
In contrast, the NC Constitution requires the State to provide a minimum education to each student along with transportation, and they do this with a relatively small staff at the State Board of Education to provide guidance curriculum, base teacher's salaries and funding for buses. Local school districts tend to be consolidated county-wide, and they pay for infrastructure, administrative staff, extra-curricula education and in many cases teacher incentive pay. The consolidation allows parents to choose between several schools to send their child, plus there are many programs at centralized schools for gifted students, slow kids, discipline problem kids, and high school technical students.
This is a typical example of liberal-think (spend more money) and conservative-think (spend within a budget and get the most out of it).
We already proved this is not true, yet you cling to your belief.
You are willfully ignorant.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Of course there's a difference:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bachelor-Degree---BA-Vs.--BS&id=272581
Since you weren't able to handle the tougher curriculum, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know the difference between the two degrees.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
...proven by the chronology of the posts...
You are a simpleton. you aren't even worth arguing with because your arguments are sub-par.
Do you have any studies which show better student scores when teachers are paid more? Love to see em!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Of course there's a difference:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bachelor-Degree---BA-Vs.--BS&id=272581
Since you weren't able to handle the tougher curriculum, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know the difference between the two degrees.
God, you are a damned idiot at times. Oxford and Cambridge only issue BA degrees as does Lancaster. That article is talking about the US where there may well be a difference.
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Notice the banner ads in this thread for the for-profit colleges. These schools recruit low income students- even the homeless- and most of their funding is from government loan programs. After a year or two and the students fail, they are stuck with the loans and the school takes no responsibility whatsoever.
Perhaps you should read the article in the OP and get back to me. Also, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of a conditional sentence.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So? If you could handle a more rigorous curriculum you should have gone to a college that offered a BS program.
Tell me Tom, did you use your BA degree to go on to an advanced degree, or are you working in a field where a science degree isn't required?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So? If you could handle a more rigorous curriculum you should have gone to a college that offered a BS program.
Tell me Tom, did you use your BA degree to go on to an advanced degree, or are you working in a field where a science degree isn't required?
So you think a BA from Oxbridge is inferior, that acid you took when you were slithering through the grass like a worm must have affected you more that you thought.
That's silliness. You pay what the market supports, yes even the public sector must pay enough to attract people to get the job done. You don't just keep increasing the pay and think it will solve all your problems. You want people who want to to the job.
It's silly, and simplistic to say "pay more" and it will fix it. Other nations are getting better results with less money, we need to replicate that. We are clearly paying over market and getting a poor result.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
What's really funny is that you think a BA in chemistry is superior to a BS in chemistry because the BA comes from a university with ivy growing on the walls.
Or you can't admit that it isn't, which is more likely since you failed to answer my question. So again, Tom, did you use your BA degree to go on to an advanced degree, or are you working in a field where a science degree isn't required?
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Or you can change the market by changing immigration policy and importing desperate slaves to displace americans. Market forces are really no obstacle when one is really intent on devaluing labor.
Jesus Chrust on a pogo stick you fuckers are dense. The market as it currently exists supports mediocre teachers getting paid a pretty good salary and shitty education outcomes. If you want to change education outcomes by getting smarter people to go into teaching, as the author of the article does, you need to increase teacher compensation to attract the smarter people.
And again, saying that we pay more without specifying who "we" is (public expenditures versus private expenditures) and what we are spending it on (teacher salaries versus administration or other non-instruction related expenditures) doesn't tell you squat. As I said, we sure as shit do not spend more than other countries on teacher salaries (and our teachers spend much more time in the classroom).
This barely scraping the surface analysis is silly.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
This argument only applies for financial sector charlatans and their publicly subsidized bonuses, nigel. Get real.
Right. We agree, this "barely scraping the surface" analysis is beyond silly. "Pay more" isn't the answer it is what we have done in the past and it hasn't improved crap. We keep on saying the same thing is the solution, we keep doing it, we keep getting the same result. At some point we must either say we are the stupidest people on the planet or we should change the approach.
Other nations are spending less per capita publicly for better results, we need to see what they are doing. If it causes some administrators to lose their jobs so we can pay teachers more then so be it. However, just "pay more" isn't the answer, it hasn't been the answer, and it isn't going to be the answer.
And yes, AssHat, stop providing "free" education for those who are here illegally and we'll likely save some money and get better results.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
But it's the answer when getting the best and brightest into the financial sector? Remember when all those financial people even got their bonuses after the meltdown? Why isnt it the answer in education? Because you say so?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wrong. There is no real market right now. Teachers for the most part are paid based on seniority. There is not much flexibility (if any) to pay a teacher what she/he is individually worth.
