Credit Card Legislation

[Johan]

Credit card legislation nearing passage. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_credit_cards;_ylt=AtT9Mo4i9xXrCj8aWTYa qwSMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJycnY4NXMxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkw NDMwL3VzX2NvbmdyZXNzX2NyZWRpdF9jYXJkcwRjcG9zAzMEcG 9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjcmVkaXRjYXJk bGU-)

I have a solution to the problem of consumer debt. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU EARN!

[Telefrog]

Credit card legislation nearing passage. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_credit_cards;_ylt=AtT9Mo4i9xXrCj8aWTYa qwSMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJycnY4NXMxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkw NDMwL3VzX2NvbmdyZXNzX2NyZWRpdF9jYXJkcwRjcG9zAzMEcG 9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjcmVkaXRjYXJk bGU-)

I have a solution to the problem of consumer debt. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU EARN!

"I can't be overdrawn! I still have checks in my book!"

[Narradisall]

Silly kids, you cant govern stupidity.

This'll have sub prime lenders and loan sharks in the money.

[ShivaX]

Credit card legislation nearing passage. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_credit_cards;_ylt=AtT9Mo4i9xXrCj8aWTYa qwSMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJycnY4NXMxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkw NDMwL3VzX2NvbmdyZXNzX2NyZWRpdF9jYXJkcwRjcG9zAzMEcG 9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjcmVkaXRjYXJk bGU-)

I have a solution to the problem of consumer debt. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU EARN!

While I'll agree with this sentiment, the credit card companies often pulled some pretty shady shit.

[Johan]

While I'll agree with this sentiment, the credit card companies often pulled some pretty shady shit.

I have a completely foolproof method of avoiding any of their inanity: Use cash. Or, also virtually foolproof: Pay off your balance each month.

Do credit card companies do some "shady" stuff? I'm sure. Funny thing how that's never affected me, even in the midst of some very tight financial struggles in the past. When I first married, I was making less than I would ever want to state publicly, and I paid my bills and I'm debt free but for a mortgage.

[Kelegacy]

As much as I'm against idiots with credit cards, the cc companies can be incredibly shady even to honest, responsible users. I had a payment a few months ago that was due on the 4th, I paid it on the 1st online. I can't remember the exact dates, but I know I paid it 3 or 4 days early. I received a confirmation and everything. It wouldn't go into effect until the next morning, but that was okay by me. It was still on time.

Well, I received a late charge for about $130. I was aghast--I am NEVER late with any payments, hence my excellent credit. This is a credit card purchase that has no interest until October! I called Bank of America and they said it was because I made the payment late. No, I did not. I made the guy look it up, he said he can see where I paid on time but there was "maintainence" done on the second or third day. He said I had halted payment or changed it. I had no idea what he was talking about because that was not ture. I fought with him for a while then asked for a supervisor.

She gave me the same spiel, but came to the conclusion that since I paid for it with funds from my bank, which isn't owned by BoA, that it can take 72 hours for it to clear--even though it's via my debit card. She can see where it was paid on time, but it wasn't posted to my account until after the deadline. I was furious. This is not listed on their website at all and she acknowledged that. I asked if had I sent in a check and it arrived at the same time would I have been charged a late fee as well since it would still need to clear, and she said no. That doesn't make sense. I had a strong feeling this was some sort of scheme for BoA to get more money out of its customers by duping them. I knew the company was having financial issues at the time. I wound up arguing with her for a while until she credited my account.

And in addition to my late fee, I received $30+ finance charges because suddenly there was a "new charge" active on my account (the late fee). And there was another charge that I didn't understand, but it was because of the late fee. In addition, because this is a no-interest credit purchase, the late fee would count as a new "purchase" and would start to accumulate interest each month until it was paid off. And to pay it off, I'd have to pay off the no-interest charge first. Which was in the thousands. This is common practice with these special zero financing deals. I've had it happen to me before by accident. Luckily I talked the lady into taking all of these off and now I pay my BoA card 2 weeks in advance out of paranoia.

It was nearly $200 extra for a mistake that wasn't my doing, and had I never called it would have cost me money each and every month thereafter. So yeah, I'm fine with some credit card legislation. It's basically already loan-sharking. "We'll give you $500, but will charge you criminal interest rates until you pay it off, even if it surpasses your maximum limit." Sure, they won't break your knees, but they'll push you into the poorhouse.

People still need to be responsible, but in today's economy many families are finding it incredibly hard to avoid using credit cards. That's why this legislation is taking place, and I am all for it.

[Goronmon]

Excellent example of why legislation is necessary.Yeah, I have no problems with tougher laws around what credit card customers can do to "dupe" their customers. Though, honestly, I haven't read the legislation to know if it's any good.

[Ox]

People still need to be responsible, but in today's economy many families are finding it incredibly hard to avoid using credit cards. That's why this legislation is taking place, and I am all for it.
The problem, of course, is that restricting "criminal interest rates" means credit is more scarce. Which is fine for you, since you have excellent credit. But lots of people don't have very good credit, and if they need to borrow, they may simply be denied.

As you say, many families are finding it incredibly hard to avoid using credit cards. That sounds like an argument for increasing the availability of credit, not reducing it.

[Wraith]

She gave me the same spiel, but came to the conclusion that since I paid for it with funds from my bank, which isn't owned by BoA, that it can take 72 hours for it to clear--even though it's via my debit card. She can see where it was paid on time, but it wasn't posted to my account until after the deadline. I was furious. This is not listed on their website at all and she acknowledged that. I asked if had I sent in a check and it arrived at the same time would I have been charged a late fee as well since it would still need to clear, and she said no. That doesn't make sense. ... I wound up arguing with her for a while until she credited my account.

And in addition to my late fee, I received $30+ finance charges because suddenly there was a "new charge" active on my account (the late fee). And there was another charge that I didn't understand, but it was because of the late fee. In addition, because this is a no-interest credit purchase, the late fee would count as a new "purchase" and would start to accumulate interest each month until it was paid off. And to pay it off, I'd have to pay off the no-interest charge first. Which was in the thousands. This is common practice with these special zero financing deals. I've had it happen to me before by accident. Luckily I talked the lady into taking all of these off and now I pay my BoA card 2 weeks in advance out of paranoia.Wow. Guess I'm going to keep paying my bill by mail, with a paper check.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I have a solution to the problem of consumer debt. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU EARN!
So no mortgage, then?

[Kelegacy]

The problem, of course, is that restricting "criminal interest rates" means credit is more scarce. Which is fine for you, since you have excellent credit. But lots of people don't have very good credit, and if they need to borrow, they may simply be denied.

As you say, many families are finding it incredibly hard to avoid using credit cards. That sounds like an argument for increasing the availability of credit, not reducing it.

I understand that completely. It's a dilemma, for sure. But I think something needs to be done. Credit card companies have so much freedom, such as retroactive price hikes, overnight rate changes, etc, that I'm willing to back some sort of legislation.

I feel for those people that are trying to keep their heads above water and rely on the credit cards to sustain them--because eventually those interest rates will really start to take their toll. My girlfriend isn't credit-smart, and until I helped her pay off stuff and educate herself, she was paying the minimum monthly balance or slightly more, but her actual balance was barely going down because of the interest. It could take years and many times the original purchase price to pay off even a moderate purchase. Many people, in times of need, can't afford to pay off their entire bill. Even if the economy turned around tonight, these debts, because of the sky-high interest rates, will be with them for a long time.

I guess it's better than starving or going without heating oil, but the alternative is credit nightmare.

Credit cards are great for people that pay off their balances at the end of each month. That's how people new to credit can build it fairly quickly and painlessly. You can even be rewarded if you pay everything off in the form of miles, points, cashback, etc. But there is another side to the coin. I'm not asking for a complete overhaul, but I think the credit companies need to be reigned in a bit. I'm all for a little more "fairness" and transparency.

[Ink Asylum]

So no mortgage, then?

No car leases or college loans either.

[TheFlyingOrc]

No car leases or college loans either.

Yup. I think Johan takes it a bit too far. For many people, going slightly into debt is very helpful in the long term. However, people do need to stop using credit cards to get whatever they want, regardless of their ability to afford it.

Examples would be my acquaintance with $100k in debt from a small christian college(NOT University) to get a B.A. in Psychology. I'd honestly call anyone who gave her loans a predator. That degree isn't worth 2 years of trade school, and she MUST be paying at least $10k a year in interest alone. She will never, at any point, be out of debt.

[Johan]

So no mortgage, then?

Point me in the direction of the post where I said borrowing money is always a bad thing, please.

:rolling eyes:

I didn't say that.

The solution to consumer DEBT is to stop spending more than you earn. Guess what happens then? You can pay off your debts, and have enough left over to eat, house, clothe, and transport yourself...and maybe even some for entertainment!

Not all debt is created equal. Continuing credit card debt is, unless it's an interest-free special, is as stupid a debt load as anyone could carry. You're probably better off with the Sicilian mafia, frankly.

No car leases or college loans either.

Again, not all debt is created equal. Borrowing for a degree that has an end-result of a salary is not a bad thing. Borrowing $40,000 to buy a car you can't afford, which depreciates the moment you drive off the lot, at a high percentage rate, is stupid.

The solution is simple if you're in debt. Spend less than you earn (earn more than you spend). That is only solution.

Yup. I think Johan takes it a bit too far.

Oh horseshit. I'd appreciate your extending the courtesy of responding to what I actually say (post), as opposed to what you want to argue about and which I haven't said.

Thank you.

[Wraith]

I have a solution to the problem of consumer debt. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU EARN!So no mortgage, then?No car leases or college loans either.You can get a mortgage or car loan, while still spending significantly less than you earn. He didn't say never use debt.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The solution is simple if you're in debt. Spend less than you earn (earn more than you spend). That is only solution.

As I said, the far better solution is to cut it off at the start, by not getting into stupid debt early on. My wife made the mistake of using her credit cards too much, and we're paying for it now. (hoping to get rid of one in the next few months, God willing)

[TheFlyingOrc]

You can get a mortgage or car loan, while still spending significantly less than you earn. He didn't say never use debt.

Both of those things are, on paper, spending far more than you earn. (when you buy a house, you have spent the full value of the house).

The rule that's being repeated doesn't help anyone. Many people with huge amounts of debt are not spending more than they earn - however, they should have been taught to appreciate the ongoing effects of debt over time. Appreciating that, by using your card, you're actually paying 2-3 times the cost of the item to get it, is a pretty good motivator.

[Ox]

I think a better phrasing of Johan's point is: stop spending more than you will eventually be able to pay off.

It's fine to borrow money to increase earnings potential (college loans), or converting future savings into present consumption (car loans, mortgages). But your pool of future earnings is a finite resource, and plenty of people borrow money without regard for whether their future income streams will be able to cover the cost. That's bad.

This is a somewhat less pithy slogan than what Johan said, but I think it more accurately summarizes his views.

[Johan]

The rule that's being repeated doesn't help anyone.

It does if you actually follow it.

[National Kato]

Pithy slogans tend to be misunderstood. It comes with the territory.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think a better phrasing of Johan's point is: stop spending more than you will eventually be able to pay off.

It's fine to borrow money to increase earnings potential (college loans), or converting future savings into present consumption (car loans, mortgages). But your pool of future earnings is a finite resource, and plenty of people borrow money without regard for whether their future income streams will be able to cover the cost. That's bad.

This is a somewhat less pithy slogan than what Johan said, but I think it more accurately summarizes his views.

If a slogan can't be expressed in five words or less, that's not a good enough slogan for me.

That's my slogan.

edit: dammit

[Ox]

What strikes me is how few people bother to determine their discount rate. How can you make borrowing or savings decisions without that?

[Wraith]

If a slogan can't be expressed in five words or less, that's not a good enough slogan for me.

That's my slogan.

edit: dammitMaybe "Pay your debt off, dummy!" works better. Instructive and insulting.

[Ink Asylum]

I think a better phrasing of Johan's point is: stop spending more than you will eventually be able to pay off.

A lot of people did do that. They made decisions (tuition, mortgages) years ago, possibly even longer, based on sound predictions about their financial future, played by the rules, made their monthly payments, etc. Then the bottom fell out of the economy and people lost their jobs, or had their pay/hours slashed, etc, through no fault of their own. Nobody has guaranteed future wealth.

[TheFlyingOrc]

A lot of people did do that. They made decisions (tuition, mortgages) years ago, possibly even longer, based on sound predictions about their financial future, played by the rules, made their monthly payments, etc. Then the bottom fell out of the economy and people lost their jobs, or had their pay/hours slashed, etc, through no fault of their own. Nobody has guaranteed future wealth.

It is true that any time you go into debt, you have to gamble a little bit.

[Ox]

Which is why I made sure to point out that I was clarifying Johan's point, not my own.

[Johan]

I think it would be better if we clarify our own points, not those of others. Just a thought. Here's a slogan:

Speak for yourself, not others.

:D

Also, spend less than you earn. It's not rocket science. It's called a budget. Try it!

[Ox]

Speak for yourself, not others.
Christ, Johan, I don't tell you not to teach people. Don't tell me my job shouldn't exist. ;)

[Generation ABXY]

I suppose there are certain areas where this could come in handy, but I am rather wary of any legislation. In this case, mostly because I just don't think it is needed – if you spend your money more wisely, you'll probably never have to worry about this sort of thing in the first place. Or, at least, not to the point where it requires some sort of intervention.

Oddly, my brother and I are sharply divided on this (I read about it last week, I think). He is one of those people who thinks something needs to be done about these companies, and says it is impossible to live without a credit card. The kicker: like me, he doesn't even have one, and we both seem to get along just fine. Personally, I just think he wants these things on a leash so he, too, can get one without worry and start spending beyond his means. Oh, well.

[Johan]

Christ, Johan, I don't tell you not to teach people. Don't tell me my job shouldn't exist. ;)

I would have thought that, as a lawyer with obvious rhetorical skill, you would have at least minimal standards about whom you represent. :)

[johnperkins21]

My problem with introducing this legislation is I don't think that anyone in charge of creating it really gives two shits about the consumer. I think it's possible to introduce some legislation that would be beneficial to the credit card companies and consumers. However, consumers don't have the money to bribe legislators with huge piles of cash like the credit card companies do.

[Superman's Dead]

If a slogan can't be expressed in five words or less, that's not a good enough slogan for me.

That's my slogan.

edit: dammit

I love this post because you didn't actually edit it but it's still funny.

My math credit for my BFA (I just have to have one, and that is glorious) is Personal and Family Finance.

I was one of three students in the class of 25 who doesn't have/has never had some kind of credit card, and planned on probably never having to use one.

I understand that credit is growing increasingly necessary, and that scares me a little.

[Generation ABXY]

I understand that credit is growing increasingly necessary, and that scares me a little.

Actually, I wouldn't say it is. Instead, I just think the idea of instant gratification is getting more and more out of control. I mean, a lot of people get out into the real world and they want to live in a nice home, drive a nice car, eat good food, wear name brand clothes, have their pick of hundreds of channels, etc. And that is fine, but don't expect to have it all NOW. Decide what is important to you at this point in your life, and then work towards everything else.

Personally, I decided that things like having a home were important to me, but if you were to come over, you'd find my entertainment is limited to what I can find for free online. Of course, I'll admit that I am fortunate in other areas - as I don't drive (so there's no car payment, insurance and all that), I get my games for free, etc. - but I do still think it is possible, even with those exceptions.

[Superman's Dead]

Actually, I wouldn't say it is. Instead, I just think the idea of instant gratification is getting more and more out of control.

I was thinking especially of education...student loans are almost a necessity now, with few people wealthy enough to pay for it all at once or lucky enough to get big scholarships. There's practically an entire generation entering the work force with what is, in my opinion, massive debt. Maybe its been going on for years and years and I never knew because I never experienced it, but it's not pleasant to think about.

I see people taking out loans and having to stop taking classes to pay them back pretty frequently.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I love this post because you didn't actually edit it but it's still funny.

It's the exact same joke as the one of mine Lint had in his signature for a while. It might be my favorite type of posting joke.

[Ox]

Maybe its been going on for years and years and I never knew because I never experienced it, but it's not pleasant to think about.
It's gotten worse in recent years, because college tuition has increased much more rapidly than inflation (I saw an estimate a decade ago that 15% per annum or more was about average). This is for two reasons:
1. A college education is more valuable today. Thank meritocracy.

2. Our high schools now suck, which means you need a college diploma just to prove you're toilet-trained.

3. College education is inherently labor-intensive: you need a human professor to teach the class and grade every paper. No machine can do that. Which means that, although other industries have benefited mightily from increased automation, education doesn't. So while the efficiency of production, and therefore price, of everything else tends to fall, the relative price of education doesn't. At any level of general inflation, you expect to see inherently labor-intensive fields like education rise much faster than, say, computers.

I see people taking out loans and having to stop taking classes to pay them back pretty frequently.
What? This makes no sense. I financed my education with loans, and the loans don't require you to start paying them back until after graduation.

If you're saying people voluntarily chose to drop out of school to pay down some of their debt, that's one thing. But that is a choice, and kind of a stupid one at that. Most student lenders expect and even encourage you to stay in school until graduation and simply compound the interest during that time.

[Generation ABXY]

2. Our high schools now suck, which means you need a college diploma just to prove you're toilet-trained.

For me, this is the real problem. A lot of people look at the cost of college, and suggest we do more to help people pay for it, since it is such a necessity these days. But, to me, the high price of higher education is just a symptom of a much bigger problem: public education has become pretty much worthless in the real world.

[Ancalagon]

Actually, I wouldn't say it is. Instead, I just think the idea of instant gratification is getting more and more out of control. I mean, a lot of people get out into the real world and they want to live in a nice home, drive a nice car, eat good food, wear name brand clothes, have their pick of hundreds of channels, etc. And that is fine, but don't expect to have it all NOW. Decide what is important to you at this point in your life, and then work towards everything else.

Yeah, I think thats a big part of it. If you have a credit card, you think, "You know, I can buy this expensive computer right now and not have to pay for it." Its so easy to just decide that you want something, and get it, even if you cant afford it in the long term. In years past, people used to decide that they want something and then save up to buy it (didnt they?). Now, everything needs to be instantaneous to keep up.

I must say, I am very glad that I've paid off my student loan. Having no debt is quite relieving.

[Johan]

Editorial on the credit card legislation. (http://townhall.com/columnists/HoraceCooper/2009/05/01/credit_card_restrictions_threaten_liberty)

2. Our high schools now suck, which means you need a college diploma just to prove you're toilet-trained.

I won't comment on America's lawyers.

[Slack3r78]

People still need to be responsible, but in today's economy many families are finding it incredibly hard to avoid using credit cards. That's why this legislation is taking place, and I am all for it.
In the past at work, the bulk of the money we took in was in the form of credit or debit cards. I've noticed that in the past 6 months or so, we're taking in a LOT more cash.

In the past, we mostly saw cash on small, sub $50 invoices. These days it's not uncommon to have $200-300 invoices paid cash.

Just an anecdotal observation.

[Ox]

Sorry, Johan. I will amend and revise my remarks: many high schools are perceived to suck.

[Johan]

Sorry, Johan. I will amend and revise my remarks: many high schools are perceived to suck.

Don't worry; you haven't ruined my lunch. You have, however, made me fall upon the floor in tears in a fetal position.

Not really. Carry on!

[Slack3r78]

I really hope this whole recession/depression thing kills this stupid notion that everyone needs to go to college. I deal with far too many high functioning retards with college degrees to think that it's a reasonable use of resources and it's inflating the cost of higher education for those who could actually use it.

[roboninja]

Ahhh, credit card companies. Who wants to start a fight club?

[torrefaction]

I'm with Ox's original statement.

High schools suck. Not through any fault of their own really. Lack of budget and lack of quality teachers due to the low pay pretty much ensure this to be the case.

I tend to disagree with Oxonian that technology couldn't solve the education problem. I'd like to see a massive reform of the education system focused around technology. Have video lectures with banks of "TA's" in a very similar way to how most people handle customer service these days. Use virtual whiteboards, video conferencing, and VoIP to provide a near face-to-face style communication.

Pack the classes relatively full, separated into groups, and have what basically amounts to classroom deputies ensure people aren't acting out.

This means you can have a very high quality professor teaching literally thousands of children, and well trained teachers assisting those who actively need help. This is a problem that can be solved, on the current budget, if we were willing to undergo massive reform.

[alienmastermind]

The problem, of course, is that restricting "criminal interest rates" means credit is more scarce. Which is fine for you, since you have excellent credit. But lots of people don't have very good credit, and if they need to borrow, they may simply be denied.

As you say, many families are finding it incredibly hard to avoid using credit cards. That sounds like an argument for increasing the availability of credit, not reducing it.


I think that usury is a biblical example of a moral lapse. And when we bust loan sharks it's for usury, no?

First things first, in 1980 this Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act thing was passed into law.

Federally funded depositories and lenders could charge whatever the hell they wanted for interest, basically eradicating usury laws by exploiting loopholes in FDIC, I believe.

*sigh*

Greed. Gotta love the simple sins, you know? :)

[alienmastermind]

I'm with Ox's original statement.

High schools suck. Not through any fault of their own really. Lack of budget and lack of quality teachers due to the low pay pretty much ensure this to be the case.

Do you think it's the right of American children to go to school? Because I happen to think the kids that are in school right now have a right to an education that I pay for, even though my son is about to enter high school and the wife and I are yet to have another kid.

I think they are deserving of a federally-funded education, since I got one on the dime of the people who paid my way (namely US citizens paying their income taxes, as I was primarily educated and attended middle school on Air Force Bases).

I will say there are other types of schools out there, schools like the one my youngest sibling attends for 'at-risk' students, is a non-linear, online-based cirriculum. It's worked wonders for just about every aspect of his scholastic life. He went from skipping roughly 60 percent of his classes to maintaining a high B average. If there was a way to emphasize the importance of education to American citizens, to make them understand that funding education is vital to our economy, and our nation's strength, then I think we could abolish taxes for education all around.

I'd also like a magical flying pony that distributes chocolate thousand dollar bills.

[torrefaction]

Do you think it's the right of American children to go to school? Because I happen to think the kids that are in school right now have a right to an education that I pay for, even though my son is about to enter high school and the wife and I are yet to have another kid.

I think they are deserving of a federally-funded education, since I got one on the dime of the people who paid my way (namely US citizens paying their income taxes, as I was primarily educated and attended middle school on Air Force Bases).

I will say there are other types of schools out there, schools like the one my youngest sibling attends for 'at-risk' students, is a non-linear, online-based cirriculum. It's worked wonders for just about every aspect of his scholastic life. He went from skipping roughly 60 percent of his classes to maintaining a high B average. If there was a way to emphasize the importance of education to American citizens, to make them understand that funding education is vital to our economy, and our nation's strength, then I think we could abolish taxes for education all around.

I'd also like a magical flying pony that distributes chocolate thousand dollar bills.

I'm a bit confused as to what your point here was. No offense intended, I'm just unsure where you were leading.

Yes, education is one of the few government programs I support (Although I'd rather abolish it than continue to throw money away at the currently busted system), although I don't follow your thread exactly. You want federally funded education, but you want to abolish taxes for education?

[Ox]

I tend to disagree with Oxonian that technology couldn't solve the education problem.
Your recommended techniques are worth trying, although I doubt you'll get the same gains as you get from technology in other fields (you still need a human to help you when you're struggling). But we can agree that, so far, technology hasn't caused a major reduction in the labor-intensity of education. Maybe when your reforms are imposed that will change.

I think that usury is a biblical example of a moral lapse. And when we bust loan sharks it's for usury, no?
Adultery is also a biblical example of a moral lapse, and unlike usury even Jews are forbidden from engaging in it. Shall we start busting adulterers?

Don't expect me to defend usurious interest rates. But that doesn't mean I think we should ban them, either. Sometimes, it's best to let people be as bad as they want.

[torrefaction]

Your recommended techniques are worth trying, although I doubt you'll get the same gains as you get from technology in other fields (you still need a human to help you when you're struggling). But we can agree that, so far, technology hasn't caused a major reduction in the labor-intensity of education. Maybe when your reforms are imposed that will change.

You're absolutely correct. But I think it can improved using the models that most modern business are using for customer service. Sure, there won't be 1:1 gains, but I think there's other things that can be done utilizing technology.

For instance, the limitation of the numbers of examples that we have in textbooks can be eliminated. Typically the more examples available, the easier the concept it to grasp. Basic questions can be fielded by college students studying for education as part of a requirement for graduation. Utilize students in much the same way as we utilize students in the medical industry to supplement the work force.

Then you can have a much more expansive sliding scale of pay, because the amount of people required to lecture is drastically reduced while dramatically increasing the quality of the lectures, therefore providing a higher ceiling of pay since not all teaching jobs in public education will appear equal anymore.

I have so many ideas for education, and it just kills me that it seems so stagnant out there. Technology has changed the face of the world, in everywhere BUT education.

[Ox]

I would love to see these ideas in action. I'm naturally more skeptical than you, of course, but I can't help but think some of these ideas will surprise me.

[alienmastermind]

I'm a bit confused as to what your point here was. No offense intended, I'm just unsure where you were leading.

Yes, education is one of the few government programs I support (Although I'd rather abolish it than continue to throw money away at the currently busted system), although I don't follow your thread exactly. You want federally funded education, but you want to abolish taxes for education?

No, I think that spending the money needs to happen. And I think that the lack of funding of schools is the problem. Now, if we could reduce the property taxes on homeowners, the other local taxes that go into paying for schools, would the populace fund schooling for their kids?

My point is that we need the 'broken' system, I think. We just need to better fund it...and paying for it with taxes seems expedient, if not overly efficient.

[alienmastermind]

Adultery is also a biblical example of a moral lapse, and unlike usury even Jews are forbidden from engaging in it. Shall we start busting adulterers?


Sodomy laws do that, per the narrow view of 'adultery'.

Also, we do have punitive measures for adulterous individuals involved in divorce. It's a civil matter, I guess. But, I find that usury is more of a felonious action...Just saying, it's been illegal for a LONG time. :)

[Ox]

Sodomy laws do that, per the narrow view of 'adultery'.
What sodomy laws?

Also, we do have punitive measures for adulterous individuals involved in divorce.
Most states have abolished that.
But, I find that usury is more of a felonious action...Just saying, it's been illegal for a LONG time. :)
Adultery was illegal for a lot longer, and we used to stone people who did it. I think that qualifies as a felony.

[torrefaction]

No, I think that spending the money needs to happen. And I think that the lack of funding of schools is the problem. Now, if we could reduce the property taxes on homeowners, the other local taxes that go into paying for schools, would the populace fund schooling for their kids?

My point is that we need the 'broken' system, I think. We just need to better fund it...and paying for it with taxes seems expedient, if not overly efficient.

Why do we need the broken system? I've just presented a strongly viable alternative that utilizes centralization and technology to achieve a higher quality of education with less labor and benefits from the economies of scale.

We're not talking about the bad kind of less labor either, which eliminates jobs. We're talking about the good kind of less labor, which resolves a labor shortage issue while shifting the focus to an area (IT) where there is not a shortage of labor or skilled workers.

[Generation ABXY]

I'm with Ox's original statement.

High schools suck. Not through any fault of their own really. Lack of budget and lack of quality teachers due to the low pay pretty much ensure this to be the case.

I tend to disagree with Oxonian that technology couldn't solve the education problem. I'd like to see a massive reform of the education system focused around technology. Have video lectures with banks of "TA's" in a very similar way to how most people handle customer service these days. Use virtual whiteboards, video conferencing, and VoIP to provide a near face-to-face style communication.

Pack the classes relatively full, separated into groups, and have what basically amounts to classroom deputies ensure people aren't acting out.

This means you can have a very high quality professor teaching literally thousands of children, and well trained teachers assisting those who actively need help. This is a problem that can be solved, on the current budget, if we were willing to undergo massive reform.

I have to say, I think that has some fantastic elements to it, torre. Obviously, none of us have any way of telling exactly how well it would work out, but I would be interested in finding out. Now that you've posed it, I think there could be a lot of promise in embracing (or exploiting, if you prefer) modern technology.

[alienmastermind]

What sodomy laws?


Most states have abolished that.

Adultery was illegal for a lot longer, and we used to stone people who did it. I think that qualifies as a felony.

Heh. Perhaps so. But your use of 'most' indicates that you're aware that some states still carry those laws. (They're misdemeanors, usually, I think. Not a practicing sodomite, so, I dunno.)

Usury is against the law, though, yeah? Well, not exactly.

[torrefaction]

Heh. Perhaps so. But your use of 'most' indicates that you're aware that some states still carry those laws. (They're misdemeanors, usually, I think. Not a practicing sodomite, so, I dunno.)

Usury is against the law, though, yeah? Well, not exactly.


You're not a practicing sodomite? Boy do I feel bad for you.

[alienmastermind]

Why do we need the broken system? I've just presented a strongly viable alternative that utilizes centralization and technology to achieve a higher quality of education with less labor and benefits from the economies of scale.

We're not talking about the bad kind of less labor either, which eliminates jobs. We're talking about the good kind of less labor, which resolves a labor shortage issue while shifting the focus to an area (IT) where there is not a shortage of labor or skilled workers.

Ah, I see.

You're right about that, of course. I do agree with you, there, Torre.

[alienmastermind]

You're not a practicing sodomite? Boy do I feel bad for you.

I don't need no practice, holmes.

[Ox]

Heh. Perhaps so. But your use of 'most' indicates that you're aware that some states still carry those laws. (They're misdemeanors, usually, I think. Not a practicing sodomite, so, I dunno.)
No, no state has sodomy laws. 35 states retain fault divorce, which permits a quicker divorce or a divorce with a greater share of the property upon a showing that the other party was adulterous, depending on the state. That's what I was referring to, though, and all states permit no-fault divorce, in which adultery is irrelevant. 15 states don't even have fault divorce anymore: adultery is always irrelevant in divorce proceedings in those states.

Usury is against the law, though, yeah? Well, not exactly.
Depending on how you read your Bible, charging any interest is usurious. That ain't illegal. Are you saying it should be?

[torrefaction]

For reference, alien.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[Johan]

2. Our high schools now suck, which means you need a college diploma just to prove you're toilet-trained.

I'm with Ox's original statement.

If I've correctly read you, regarding which post you were referring to, I find your post incredibly offensive. Incredibly.

If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies. If I'm right, I have nothing more to say.

[torrefaction]

If I've correctly read you, I find your post incredibly offensive. Incredibly.

Seriously? You don't recognize the abject failure of the majority of high schools? That most students out of high school are unable to get any sort of meaningful job?

Because I recognize that teachers are incapable of keeping up with the number of students being thrown at them, and historical methods of teaching are failing in these circumstances. Because I recognize rote memorization is failing to teach critical thinking, but that there's no other way to deal with the number of students and lack of budget, especially in these economic times?

You need thicker skin if you find my utter disgust with the current education system personally offensive. I haven't said a thing bad about teachers, and I never would.

*Edit*

And that's not even getting into the economic disparities of inner cities, etc. The systems I've outlined could potentially resolve all of these problems.

[Johan]

You need thicker skin

No. You should be a bit more attentive to the content of posts before you state that you agree with them. I'm quite offended at the implication that the American high school is such an abject failure that you need a college degree to prove you're toilet trained.

That's hyperbolic, offensive, and you apparently agreed with it. You might try a bit more nuance to your critique of the American high school, which certainly deserves criticism, but not along immature analogies of toilet training.

Thanks.

[torrefaction]

No. You should be a bit more attentive to the content of posts before you state that you agree with them. I'm quite offended at the implication that the American high school is such an abject failure that you need a college degree to prove you're toilet trained.

That's hyperbolic, offensive, and you apparently agreed with it. You might try a bit more nuance to your critique of the American high school, which certainly deserves criticism, but not along immature analogies of toilet training.

Thanks.

Well, then be offended I guess. Sorry? Plenty of teachers out there are doing their best, but American public schools are an abject failure. Honestly I should be using harsher words for it. And if it's not apparent, I give a LOT of thought to education and how to improve it. I find it interesting that this is all you comment on, given the depth of the rest of the post.

[Johan]

Honestly I should be using harsher words for it.

Then I'll suggest the analogy might have been aiming too high.

Honestly, I'm quite aware of the problems in our public schools, but I'm convinced that a very large proportion of the 'blame' for the low achievement of particular students can be traced to socioeconomic and family factors.

Give me a student with an intact family, a stable economic life, and exposure at home to books from an early age, and I'll give you a successful child, even if educated by someone who isn't potty trained.

Schools cannot fix the problems society tasks them with fixing. You can't save children who arrive at school years behind everyone else from their very first day, and who will never have the support at home that they need.

Schools can do better, but even doing better will leave schools looking bad because kids are a mess in society from their families.

I find it interesting that this is all you comment on, given the depth of the rest of the post.

I'm busy and otherwise obligated/focused.

[torrefaction]

Then I'll suggest the analogy might have been aiming too high.

Honestly, I'm quite aware of the problems in our public schools, but I'm convinced that a very large proportion of the 'blame' for the low achievement of particular students can be traced to socioeconomic and family origins.

Give me a student with an intact family, a stable economic life, and exposure at home to books from an early age, and I'll give you a successful child, even if educated by someone who isn't potty trained.

Schools cannot fix the problems society tasks them with fixing. You can't save children who arrive at school years behind everyone else from their very first day, and who will never have the support at home that they need.

Schools can do better, but even doing better will leave schools looking bad because kids are a mess in society from their families.


I'm not convinced this is the case. I'm also thoroughly unconvinced that our schools are even moderately successful with anyone who falls outside dead average. If you're slower or smarter, the school system will fail you. If you get sick, the school system will fail you.

I also remain unconvinced that we can't educate people better and provide closer attention to kids in poor socioeconomic conditions. I agree with you that this is a large part of the problem, but not that it can't be resolved if the students are able to have closer attention from teachers. Putting teachers in "pools" to aid kids rather than hope a single teacher is going to be able to provide all the assistance necessary to a class of 30 (or more!) would go a long way to resolving this problem.

Farming out the basic assistance to grad students is another excellent way of resolving the problem of an inability to focus on a child who just doesn't "get it". Learning handicaps would be exposed easier, because the embarrassment of asking for help would be filtered away by this method.

There are SO many areas that need improvement, and nothing short of a fundamental rethinking of the WAY that we teach will solve the problems that the system is currently incapable of solving.

We can also extend this system so that school and aid does not END when the bell rings at the end of the day. "Pools" of online tutors, pulled from people nationwide, could aid children after the day is over.

All of these things can be done in a cost-efficient way, if we simply throw away the majority of our old ideas about what education has always been and instead begin to think about where it could go.

[pomeroy]

I think that sitting a child in front of a computer and expecting it to fix problems in the education system is so simplistic and ignorant of adolescent and child development that it isn't really worth considering.

Figuring out a way to weed out poor educators without relying on students' generalized test scores as the most important measure of a teacher's success would be much more fruitful since you would be working within the system we have already.

Anyway, the last thing I want to do is get into a debate on education. So I'll be moseying out of here...

[torrefaction]

I think that sitting a child in front of a computer and expecting it to fix problems in the education system is so simplistic and ignorant of adolescent and child development that it isn't really worth considering.

Figuring out a way to weed out poor educators without relying on students' generalized test scores as the most important measure of a teacher's success would be much more fruitful since you would be working within the system we have already.

Anyway, the last thing I want to do is get into a debate on education. So I'll be moseying out of here...

That drastically oversimplified the methods I outlined, so sure, we both agree that wouldn't work.

Luckily for me, that's not what I'm arguing.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That drastically oversimplified the methods I outlined, so sure, we both agree that wouldn't work.

Luckily for me, that's not what I'm arguing.

For what it's worth, I see some really neat ideas in there. I'm not sure grad students are the way to go, because I'm not sure I see a supervisory structure for THEM that wouldn't allow for some terrible, TERRIBLE teaching, but certainly having high schools use a more college-like model, where you have one lecturer who really knows their stuff, and then teachers actually at the campus who focus on tutoring and the like, is just brilliant.

[johnperkins21]

I agree with both Torrefaction and Johan. As with most issues we face there isn't one main cause, or solution. The current school system is inherently flawed, and in general, children do not seem to get the proper support at home (partially due to a lack of personal responsibility society seems to have gravitated towards). That's not to say that all schools suck, or that all parents are worthless, but a good mix of both provides us with the current state of education.

There's definitely no one fix. However doing nothing will most certainly NOT help. Oh well, I don't have any kids and will probably be dead in the next 20 years, so it's not really something I have to worry about.

[Johan]

One of the most powerful means for improving schools is allowing students the freedom to LEAVE underperforming schools and go to successful ones, whether public or private.

Unfortunately, that's apparently only appropriate for people who can afford private schooling, like the Obama's in Washington, and not for "Joe Public." Despite the popularity and success of such an approach, the Democrats are killing off programs that offer such choices, as the one in Washington does; say goodbye to it.

The Democrats are in the teachers' unions pockets, which means institutional rigidity. There will be no fundamental changes in our approach to education as long as that remains the case, and I don't see it changing. Ever.

[Generation ABXY]

Oh, I agree that school vouchers would be a great way to help a number of people now, Johan. However, I still think that that and torre's idea speak to roughly the same need: getting students access to the most capable instructors.

While one might be quicker, I think the other is a more longterm, farther-reaching solution.

[Johan]

While one might be quicker, I think the other is a more longterm, farther-reaching solution.

Unfortunately, those ideas have been tried and are currently being tried now, as well. It's unfortunate because the problems persist.

Putting teachers in "pools" to aid kids rather than hope a single teacher is going to be able to provide all the assistance necessary to a class of 30

Good luck finding the teachers to lower student-teacher ratios. It's not going to happen, not just because it costs money to lower the ratio (hiring more teachers isn't free), but there aren't enough teachers now, let alone if you lower class sizes and try to hire more. Teaching is an unattractive field to many people.

Farming out the basic assistance to grad students is another excellent way of resolving the problem of an inability to focus on a child who just doesn't "get it".

Sounds great. It's been done, and is being done, with volunteers and tutoring and big brother/sister and other programs. This isn't new, and apparently isn't a solution, because the problems persist.

nothing short of a fundamental rethinking of the WAY that we teach will solve the problems that the system is currently incapable of solving.

You won't get that from a political party that is in cahoots with the teachers' unions in maintaining the status quo.

We can also extend this system so that school and aid does not END when the bell rings at the end of the day.

The school day doesn't end when the bell rings, and it never has. There are more programs offered after school than you can shake a stick at, but they require some things that cost money, like staffing, transportation for kids, and the like.

If you want to mandate a longer school day or school year, you'll need a magical ingredient to make it happen. Money. Billions of dollars.

"Pools" of online tutors, pulled from people nationwide, could aid children after the day is over.

This isn't new. None of what you've said is actually new. It's all been done before, or is in use currently.

The problems found within the educational system are not merely the problems of the educational system itself, and require much more than a "shit on the school" approach over our "toilet training."

[Generation ABXY]

Boy, you really took that comment to heart, didn't you Johan?

[Narradisall]

Ive come into a thread where Johan is offended and everyone is apologising to him and being nice, either I have swine flu or, OPPOSITES DAY!

[Johan]

Boy, you really took that comment to heart, didn't you Johan?

We're currently toilet training my two-year-old. Comparing my choice of career to a failed attempt at that...yeah, that struck a bit of a nerve.

Besides, there are a lot of very smart people trying to reform the educational system, and if you can think of an idea on the boards here, I can assure you it's currently being tried, or has been already.

* Incentive pay. Opposed by the teachers' unions
* National educational standards. Opposed by the states.
* End to tenure (in states that have it). Opposed by the teachers' unions.
* School choice (vouchers, tax credits). Opposed by the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party.
* Longer school day and/or year. Costs a bucket full of money, and the bucket has a hole in it. A big one. Keep filling.
* Revisions to school funding, away from localized property tax bases. Opposed by most communities with any resources at all.
* Stricter standards for teachers. Supported by most, but there's a teacher shortage. Woopsie!
* Programs to identify at-risk children earlier, to intervene. Expensive. Get that bucket out again, and fill it.

The problems are broad, deep, complicated, and suffer from multiple, opposed interests creating gridlock. Lots of people smarter than many of us recognize this, have tried to ameliorate the issues, and have repeatedly failed. We should, naturally, continue to try to improve our schools, but let's not kid ourselves about it, or compare it to potty training.

[alienmastermind]

Lots of people smarter than many of us recognize this, have tried to ameliorate the issues, and have repeatedly failed. We should, naturally, continue to try to improve our schools, but let's not kid ourselves about it, or compare it to potty training.

Okay. But I do take offense that you assume the 'top men' working on this situation are any smarter than the lot of us. I guarantee you the members of the School Board in your town are made up of people who are brilliant, people who are average, and a few really ignorant/stupid ones.


I don't like when the argument becomes 'well, smart guys can't figure it out, what makes us worthy of trying to do the same'? And I thought this was about credit cards? :)

Ox - Yeah, wow. I didn't know that. Thank you for the info, man. Cool *(also Torre)* YAY! I can begin practicing again!

[Johan]

Okay. But I do take offense that you assume the 'top men' working on this situation are any smarter than the lot of us.

I didn't say "the lot of;" I said "smarter than many of us." I do actually pay attention to how I word what I post. Some don't pay close attention as they're reading, however.

Is anyone on the boards here an expert in educational research, history, pedagogy, or the like? If so, stop posting about the solutions, which are apparently so obvious to whomever you may be, and publish your work in esteemed research and public-policy journals. Please.

Think of the children, after all. :)

[pomeroy]

Johan, you really are a magnificent asshole.

That's actually a compliment.

[Johan]

Thank you, kind sir. :)

Now, I have to get back to enjoying my kids with their brand new, 15' trampoline. What an absolute kick watching them on that thing. A real blast. :)