a) Coaches can pick and choose their players.
b) They get paid for the risk. Many schools pay more for a football coach than they do for the school principle.
Imagine if each class had to have academic try outs? Now imagine that teachers got massive wages and bonuses for winning academic competitions? Now reflect on the number of deadshits in your classes that never, ever, would have passed an academic try out for anything.
That's right, it's a stupid comparison.
The only good thing is that most people would know they have a second or third rate education. Because they never met the cut to get into schools who used such a stupid system.
That's the reason you can't compare charter to regular schools in a lot of cases. In all 3 of the states that I've lived in, charter schools have competitive entry, or at least an opt-in lottery.
If you took only the students who can pass a test or whose family cares enough about their education to enter a lottery for a charter school and put them in one room, and of coruse they are going to do better than a group of randomly selected kids.
Charter schools really only count when the student population is equivalent to the school it is being compared to, which is a lot less common.
> b) They get paid for the risk. Many schools pay more for a football coach than they do for the school principle.
Some good points in your comment, but this one is off - coaches aren't getting paid for the risk. They're getting paid because talented ones bring in immense amounts of revenue and are in short supply - thus, the wages/price of coaches sets in at a high equilibrium.
There's not the same scarcity of organizational administrators as there are sports coaches, which requires an extremely specialized skillset that's in high demand. Thus the, hmm, "increased revenue over alternative candidates" number is lower for principles than coaches. A lot lower. Thus, they get paid less.
Excuse my ignorance and lack of better knowledge with regard to American school system but what is the thing with high-paid coaches in school? What is the connection between a school and (semi?)professional sports?
A lot of schools charge admission to watch the sporting event, so even though the kids don't earn any money (and many times have to pay to play) the school makes a fair amount of money from the sports. The better the coach, the better the team. The better the team, the more people will come and watch. The more people that watch, the more money for the school.
The kids are not paid directly[1], but the kids that go to the schools that you see on TV are paid indirectly in the form of scholarships and other perqs.
Depending on the school, a full ride scholarship has a value in the range of $10,000 to $50,000 and up.
[1] "Gifts" do happen, but there are severe penalties for both the kids and the schools when caught.
You mean, like a pad computer as suggested by Wieser in the 90s?
I mean like a kids computer, and a socially acceptable computer, as I said so. The physical form factor isn't what's new, the implementation, software, use cases, and the whole experience is what's new.
By anyone you mean analysts, right?
By anyone, I mean everyone who I've shown an iPad to. Most people don't get it, initially, but after a few minutes of playing with it, seeing their kids play with it, watching funny youtube videos together etc, everyone basically admits they didn't think it would be as good as it is.
> The physical form factor isn't what's new, the implementation, software, use cases, and the whole experience is what's new
Actually. I want to explain why I was so vicious before. What made Wieser's ideas about computing so fantastic wasn't physical form factors. It was about a new age of computing where the way that people use computers would be significantly different to what we had then. It's taken more than 20 years for that to /start/ happening. The iPhone/iPad is the start of a Wieserian world because it bought the idea to people, not because they invented it.
The iPad really is an extension of the pad idea from Ubiquitous Computing. End of story. There's no counter argument. It's irrelevant who you've shown your ipad to, or how novel you think it is. You're wrong. End of story.
In fact, the iPhone and iPad are two great examples of what Wieser talked about so often in his work. The only core difference is that Wieser, the optimist he was, believed that devices should be like note pads in the office and not owned by a distinct person. Computers should transend the need for us to serve them, but instead they should serve us. Pads would be used like note pads are today, but with the power of computing facilitating our contextual needs.
But just because it's new to you, and your group of friends is irrelevant. The idea is old. Even from an implementation point of view.
The one thing that Apple can be congratulated for is bringing that idea into a marketable position. That's no small feat there, they deserve recognition. However, they didn't invent the idea. Just a marketable implementation.
He also thought that there should be more computers, everywhere, that pads/tabs/boards interlink with.
Or like the tablet computers released throughout the 90s?
The iPad is cool, but it's only cool because it went the extra mile and released something polished and thoroughly thought-out from a user experience perspective, whereas its progenitors of like form factor targeted specialists (serious digital artists, et al) and they basically worked, but they just required more work, as one might expect when comparing a high-end specialist's tool with what is essentially a portable document, web, game and movie player.
It's all about repackaging the technology in a format that appeals widely to the general mass of consumers and allows them to do things consumers want to do.
Not quite. Other nations have easier access to understanding how many people are unemployed due to unemployment benefits being so readily available. Look at Australia as an example. Anybody can qualify for benefits and it doesn't expire. On top of that they will pay for training and education.
> As an aside, all non-wage benefits that employees receive (like free dental plan or paid vacations) is eventually subtracted from their own pockets.
I think you missed the point of the article. Europe pays dramatically less, and receives dramatically more.
Europe spends "9 percent of GNP on medical" and receives nearly 100% coverage on all health insurance.
USA spends "between 15 to 16 percent of GNP on medical" and has 80% basic coverage and 60% dental insurance. On top of that 20% of the population have access to basic rights of first world nations like sick leave, and roughly 15% of the population has to use food stamps to get buy.
Your assertion of having to pay more to get more is flatly wrong.
The ideas "medical insurance" and "medical care" should not be conflated. Insurance is a policy against rare, but devastating events. For everything else, a consumer is expected to pay retail prices or take out a subscription plan.
Consider the case of car insurance. Do you think you'd need to have an insurance company to pay for oil changes, flat tires or car wash services? If there is a broad policy where the insurance company is obliged to pay for everything, costs would tend to go up because the consumer is suddenly out of the loop (he doesn't have to economize).
The other strange idea is ensuring "pre-existing conditions", which is used as an avenue for free healthcare. At the very least don't call it insurance.
11: People who make amazingly broad predictions will forget that the vast majority of what they said was wrong, but will hyper focus on some specific point of view that infers that their point wasn't a waste of time.
Typing speed is probably irrelevant. Touch typing is probably important for programmers to master, even if it is just so they don't have to break their zen state while programming.
Have to agree with this. Guy had done lots of other work, and just kept plugging away. Then this (an alpha, for those who might have missed that fact) just takes off and he starts bringing in millions.
It's always been discouraging to to build an entire video game and be mildly popular. Then comes a guy to single handedly accomplish this. Certainly gives me a lot of hope.
Imagine if each class had to have academic try outs? Now imagine that teachers got massive wages and bonuses for winning academic competitions? Now reflect on the number of deadshits in your classes that never, ever, would have passed an academic try out for anything.
That's right, it's a stupid comparison.
The only good thing is that most people would know they have a second or third rate education. Because they never met the cut to get into schools who used such a stupid system.