Trump names Linda McMahon as his pick for Education secretary

[Hume]

I'm not the one that doesn't know what the Department of Education is doing and its stated mission is...

• Expanding Access to Higher Education by Reducing Costs for Students and Investing in Student Supports:

• • Proposes to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $8,145, a $750 increase over the current level, thereby expanding access and making college more affordable for an estimated 7.2 million students. The maximum Pell Grant award for students at proprietary institutions will be $7,495.
• https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press...ry-cardona-presidents-fiscal-year-2025-budget

 

[T. A. Gardner]

• Expanding Access to Higher Education by Reducing Costs for Students and Investing in Student Supports:
• • Proposes to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $8,145, a $750 increase over the current level, thereby expanding access and making college more affordable for an estimated 7.2 million students. The maximum Pell Grant award for students at proprietary institutions will be $7,495.
• https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press...ry-cardona-presidents-fiscal-year-2025-budget

More proof from you that the DoE is just a money pit.

 

[Hume]

So, your position is that the DoE is nothing but a giant piggy bank for schools and education systems and of no value elsewise... That's a great argument for its abolition in totality.

I know. You hate the educated. Who run the country. Are you really this fucking naive?!

 

[Hume]

More proof from you that the DoE is just a money pit.

So?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I know. You hate the educated. Who run the country. Are you really this fucking naive?!

There is zero correlation between spending on education and outcomes. So, your argument along those lines--which is all you've made so far--is wrong.

Fact Checker: Is there no link between spending more on schools and improved student performance?

The claim: There is no relationship between increased school funding and improved student performance.

www.rgj.com

This paper argues that if you massively increase spending on education you get a small, almost insignificant increase in quality of outcomes.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20847/w20847.pdf

New Study: No Correlation Between School Spending and Student Outcomes

Spending more on Michigan schools has little to no impact on the level of student achievement.

www.mackinac.org

New study shows no link between state education spending and student outcomes - Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Independent, Non-Partisan and Market-Oriented Policy Solutions

www.georgiapolicy.org

 

[Hume]

There is zero correlation between spending on education and outcomes. So, your argument along those lines--which is all you've made so far--is wrong.

Fact Checker: Is there no link between spending more on schools and improved student performance?

The claim: There is no relationship between increased school funding and improved student performance.

www.rgj.com

This paper argues that if you massively increase spending on education you get a small, almost insignificant increase in quality of outcomes.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20847/w20847.pdf

New Study: No Correlation Between School Spending and Student Outcomes

Spending more on Michigan schools has little to no impact on the level of student achievement.

www.mackinac.org

New study shows no link between state education spending and student outcomes - Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Independent, Non-Partisan and Market-Oriented Policy Solutions

www.georgiapolicy.org

Funding. I know you hate funding education.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So?

Well, apparently you are arguing that letting the DoE have a massive budget and throw money at education is a good thing when there is absolute proof it does little or nothing. Your argument makes a great case for getting rid of the Department of Education in its entirety.

 

[Hume]

Well, apparently you are arguing that letting the DoE have a massive budget and throw money at education is a good thing when there is absolute proof it does little or nothing. Your argument makes a great case for getting rid of the Department of Education in its entirety.

blah blah you hate intelligence zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Funding. I know you hate funding education.

No, I want education programs that work, and money isn't the problem. The problem lies in bureaucracy, rigid methodologies, and tunnel vision.

A great teacher who knows their stuff and can teach it well and does it in a shitty classroom will outperform a mediocre, unmotivated, teacher who doesn't know shit about the subject in the highest tech, best designed, and funded classroom every time.

 

[Hume]

No, I want education programs that work, and money isn't the problem. The problem lies in bureaucracy, rigid methodologies, and tunnel vision.

A great teacher who knows their stuff and can teach it well and does it in a shitty classroom will outperform a mediocre, unmotivated, teacher who doesn't know shit about the subject in the highest tech, best designed, and funded classroom every time.

blerf

You're a dope.

 

[Walt]

Bullshit! The main focus of the Department of Education has long been K-12. All of their signature programs are aimed at that portion of education. Grants and loans are about all they do at the collegiate level.

Over 50% of ED's funding goes to college level education, so K-12 is hardly the main focus.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Over 50% of ED's funding goes to college level education, so K-12 is hardly the main focus.

Okay. No reason for that to exist either.

 

[Walt]

So what? The department, on the whole is a complete waste of money. Loans and grants could be handled by a much smaller organization, and likely one that is mostly private run. Why is the DoE enforcing any laws? That's the purview of the Department of Justice. So far, you are giving a good argument for the DoE's abolition in totality.

It is ED, not DOE. DOE is the Department of Energy.

ED has a staff of about 4,000. That is incredibly small. Including guaranteed loans, that means that the average ED employee manages about $100 million. Obviously, many ED employees do not manage any money, so there are employees with absolutely insane money management loads.

They add about 0.1% or 0.2% in overhead. You might think that low overhead means low waste, but the overhead also is the force against waste. With such low overhead, there is no one to track down the waste.

Also there is no one to read the reports, and studies, finding the good ideas. Good ideas are discovered, but never communicated, because we have no one to communicate them to.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It is ED, not DOE. DOE is the Department of Energy.

ED has a staff of about 4,000. That is incredibly small. Including guaranteed loans, that means that the average ED employee manages about $100 million. Obviously, many ED employees do not manage any money, so there are employees with absolutely insane money management loads.

They add about 0.1% or 0.2% in overhead. You might think that low overhead means low waste, but the overhead also is the force against waste. With such low overhead, there is no one to track down the waste.

Also there is no one to read the reports, and studies, finding the good ideas. Good ideas are discovered, but never communicated, because we have no one to communicate them to.

It needs to go bye bye. There is ZERO reason for the federal government to be involved in education. Arguing that the department is a small fraction of the total federal budget is just a useless appeal to wealth. Good ideas in education are published in professional and other media. With the internet, it's fairly easy for anyone to look that stuff up. No need for government bureaucrats to disseminate it.

 

[Walt]

It needs to go bye bye. There is ZERO reason for the federal government to be involved in education. Arguing that the department is a small fraction of the total federal budget is just a useless appeal to wealth. Good ideas in education are published in professional and other media. With the internet, it's fairly easy for anyone to look that stuff up. No need for government bureaucrats to disseminate it.

You do not think the federal government should be involved in education, but you have not given any good reasons. The majority disagrees with you.

As for just having students "look stuff up" on the internet, rather than going to school.... Uhm.... At least the claim that the federal government should not be in education has some limited merit, but is probably wrong. Closing schools for "looking stuff up" on the internet is just crazy.

But the alt right is actually making this argument. They think spending 15 minutes looking on the internet is better than a medical degree. It is all rather pathetic.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Grants and loans are about all they do at the collegiate level.

and they still fucked the universities into oblivion. Now employers would rather have someone without a degree because of the kind of entitled hyper-litigious team-wrecking imbeciles colleges are producing.

Tuition cost didn't skyrocket because the education got better.