Gary Chapman wrote:
> The simple truth is that deep study of science, math, history, literature,
> art or familiarity with current events cannot compete with celebrity gossip
> and scandals, large calamities, TV and video games, voyeurism, consumerism,
> instant fortunes, advertising and popular but ephemeral fascinations.
The less simple truth is that many Americans who would want it
don't get access to decent schools in the first place, because
they can't afford private schools, and the quality of public
schools is too low.
The irony of this privatization is that it hurts the US economy:
In the Washington DC area alone, high-tech companies could make
$300 million more if they could find qualified personnel for just
10% of their 23,000 vacant jobs. They can't, because the number
of US tech graduates is way too low (e.g. electrical engineers: from
25,000 in 1987 to only 12,000 in 1997) -- despite the "tech boom"!
Keith can commend the quality of private schools over public schools,
but the backside of such a system is that it isn't sustainable at all
-- the US has to import geeks from the whole world to sustain their
tech sector. For the whole economy, it would be much smarter to have
enough funds for public schools to achieve decent education for the
many (as we [still] have in parts of Europe) instead of top education
for the cho$en few. Another example where inequality is hazardous.
Chris
____________________________________________________________________________
"I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's
brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and
died in cotton fields and sweatshops." -- Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist
