[gdfsnob]

Why would you automatically declare an organization like Cato, which comprises a lot of living and dying Nobel Laureates (10 in fact) and read by a large number of PhDs in economics from our top universities, not HN worthy and "political propaganda"? It's a little absurd to make such a claim without substantiating your argument.

[kenjackson]

To be clear, my pronouncement of it not being HN worthy has nothing to with it being from Cato. But purely with the content of the article. Let me explain.

It opens with an unattributed quote. One that is somewhat surprising given what I've seen from the teachers and educators I know who have seen Khan Academy. While some complain about things like the rigor of the exercises, I've never heard the complaint about needing to slow down the education of students. Ben's statement, which Cato parrots needs to be attributed to someone. Cato should known better than to base a story on it.

Furthermore, the Cato story say, "This attitude is a natural outgrowth of our decision to operate education as a monopoly." Is it really? Where is the argument that substantiates such a claim?

Then they say, "In a competitive marketplace, educators have incentives to serve each individual child to the best of their ability, because each child can easily be enrolled elsewhere if they fail to do so." Again, can they substantiate that claim? Supermarkets exist in a competitive marketplace, but things like geography make it far from a frictionless market. Again, I'd love to see the data that supports this claim.

Lastly, "But why should a monopolist bother doing that? It’s easier just to feed children through the system on a uniform conveyor belt based on when they were born." Again, this is a claim with no finding in fact. And ignores a LOT of things like the fact that schools typically have single classes by grade, but subclasses broken out by skill. In my experience a child who is three grade levels ahead in math often should't be placed for social interaction with children three years older.

So again, my point is that this Cato article is full of speculation and absolutely no data. Now your appeals to Cato's authority (Nobel prizes and such) is fine. They should put their skills that won them the Noble prize to work and actually write credible stories. This was a junk story simply meant to attack public schools. Plain and simple. It's political propaganda. No data. No logical arguments. Not worthy of HN.

But that's just my opinion.

[kamens]

I made the original statement in question. I actually felt it was important to not attribute this to any particular teacher. Criticize me all you like for this, but teachers have enough on their plates without worrying about being attacked for trying to figure out how to help kids have the best experience possible in whatever system they'll be using for the next few years.

From the teacher's perspective of trying to help a student not have a year of miserable experience, this is a legitimate concern. That's the core of the problem.

This quote is not about a teacher trying to hold a kid back. So it really doesn't matter who it came from.

It's about a teacher who, even though he/she is passionate and fearless enough to put significant effort into working with a system as new and scary as the Khan Academy, is still constrained by the momentum of an entire educational system that directly contradicts many of the self-paced goals of Khan Academy.

That's an important challenge to acknowledge. And unless they're in some crazy special circumstance, even the most fearless teachers in the world can't yet escape it.

[gdfsnob]

The "appeals to authority" fallacy applies when I'm citing non-experts (like if I'm citing Chomsky for an economics issue). CATO is overwhelmingly filled with PhDs in Economics, and with my economics background, I think it's safe to assume the above article is not controversial at all among economists across the aisle and none of them would term it "purely political propaganda".

You state that CATO is "purely political propaganda" without substantiating that claim with any specifics whatsoever. Where is your data?

American public schools, with few exceptions, don't compete with each other for resources and students. Therefore, it's a form of monopoly. For instance, an American student within a designated area can only attend a certain public school. Geographically-disadvantaged residents can still choose supermarkets outside their areas if they find more utility doing so (or a competitor can start up their own supermarket and take market share from the lazy incumbent), so supermarkets do exist in a competitive market. Public school students rarely have the option to choose new suppliers.

[kenjackson]

The "appeals to authority" fallacy applies when I'm citing non-experts (like if I'm citing Chomsky for an economics issue).

Or when there's not consensus in the field.

You state that CATO is "purely political propaganda" without substantiating that claim with any specifics whatsoever.

Why do you keep saying that? The first sentence of my last post makes it clear that this isn't about Cato. I don't care who wrote it.

I'm from Seattle and this school district, up until this year, has been open enrollment which means students could attend any school in the school district they wanted. And the school district would even pay for busing, but traveling halfway across the city, spending 2 hours a day on the bus typically meant people went to neighborhood schools.

And that's my point with supermarkets too. Go to Watts and check out the selection and quality of food in supermarkets. Then go to La Jolla. Sure its a free market, but people don't really have much in the way of choice in poor areas. Unless they want to hop on a bus for an hour each way.

A PhD in econ may mean you've figured out the optimal way to rapidly approach equilibria, but it won't tell you that you can't ride the L through the westside to get to the good supermarkets if you're known to be from the eastside.

[gdfsnob]

Please cite specifically what you're referring to as "political propaganda". Is it the claim that students don't have much of a choice when it comes to public schools? If so, to call that "political propaganda" is absurd.

Regarding Seattle, you're citing one data point. The majority of American public schools don't operate with open enrollment. If you're in a public school, you're assigned to one school in a designated area, and can't choose a different school.

"Go to Watts and check out the selection and quality of food in supermarkets."

This is just completely false and dishonest. There are a handful of Walmarts and Targets around Watts and the majority of other low-income neighborhoods -- all within a 5-minute drive.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=watts,+california,+walmart&...

[kenjackson]

First, I don't know where you're from, but from Watts to the Walmart in Torrance is a 15 minute drive with no traffic (good luck). And its at LEAST 45 minutes by bus (if the buses are running on time -- good luck). You really need to step out of your house and go to Watts. Then come back and let me know.

Please cite specifically what you're referring to as "political propaganda".

Political propaganda is trying to make political claims with no data or evidence. It's not the specific claim that's relevant so much as the fact that its just a post that says it and nothing else.

It would be like someone posting to HN something that said:

Emacs sucks. Really. It's for dumb programmers who program in languages that no one uses it. If the world didn't have Emacs we'd be better off.

The specific claim here doesn't matter. But I'd be trying to push a specific agenda by using no or deceptive arguments. This Cato post doesn't give any new information. It leads to no new insight. It doesn't present a new perspective. It simply asserts its position.

[pbhjpbhj]

>The "appeals to authority" fallacy applies when I'm citing non-experts

// Not really.

"Appeal to authority" simply means that it's fallacious reasoning to assume a position because of who stated the position.

To restate it, if a usually trustworthy person says some thing that doesn't _necessarily_ make that thing true. Bringing that back to the case in hand, if Cato make a statement on Economics that statement doesn't acquire it's truth from the status/authority of Cato.