Yes, I agree. Culture is probably the most important factor for education. The job of school is to give you knowlage, but it's your parents/society that will give you values, it's not the job of school to do it, and values are determinant for the school results.

I read some of the bio Angry Koala. Social democracy is not socialism in its true form.

"Socialism is bad because of dictature it needs to have to exist. Gvnt must seize all properties and control the media to avoid unrest and the collapse of the hole "revolution".

Communism is really a theorical [sic] belief where the property is not owned anymore by a gvt, but rather by it's workers, because there is NO GVT."

Communism is different from socialism in that it is a political doctrine as well as economic system. Because it envisions a Utopian society, it is an impossibility. People attempt to get as close as possible by instituting an all powerful government running everything, which inevitably fails. This is proven by history, and lines up perfectly with your definition of socialism. This means a) you confuse socialism with communism, b) everyone in the world confuses communism with socialism and China/USSR/n. Korea are actually socialist, or c) socialism and communism are the same things.
I simply relay the definition of socialism, the ownership of means of production by workers/public, and contrast it with capitalism, to show the impossibility of conflating the two systems. However, it is possible to have social democracy or regulated capitalism.

"The evolution of the ideas of socialism has more then 150 years. Even the capitalism has a lot of different forms, some of this forms are mixed with some ideas of socialism."

There are various forms, like democratic socialist, as others have pointed out. However, true socialism is based on private individuals not controlling the means of production. Things like social democracy and regulated free markets and redistributionism are not actual socialism, but corruptions and conflations. I just wish people could not use the term 'socialist' without understanding its true meaning. I would just rather have people use specific terms like redistributionist.

But I would say your vision of this system is truncated, since in countries like China or South Korea, despite being hundred in a class, you wont have the problem of social interactions going parallel with the studies lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. Why? The answer is culture.

Exactly. But that's because their culture makes so their parents don't want them to use school to socialize but to ACTUALLY STUDY (should be it's sole purpose).

It is not about changing the school system, but changing our culture, the education first inherited from the parents/family, the ethics, the moral, etc. This is my opinion so of course you can disagree with me.

True, but these changes only effectively happen in case every single one of the parents do that. As long as one plays the popularity strife, it'll sure make more and more people get to it. Easier to just change the system because it takes years while changing a culture takes decades.

Canada, Finland and Germany. Those three countries have good school global ratings. Most of the system is public and has a lot of gvnt inside of it.

And the highest suicide rates, too.

Finland places 33rd on the suicide rank.
Canada places 70th.
Germany, 77th.

It might sound kinda low, but no, it's not. The first 20 places or so are basically third world shitpiles, Russia's love zone and a few nordic countries. The only arguably industrialized countries before Finland are Japan, South Korea and Russia. The rest are either Africans (Tanzania, Mozambique...), central asians (Kazakhstan, Nepal) and eastern europeans (Juqland, Ukraine, Lithuania).

In addition, their culture is also majorly different from that of western europe and the USA. Canada aside. Canada is an abomination in literally everything they do and every ranking they participate. Damn hipsters.

Germany has a workaholic culture by most standards so that's expected. And Finland... Well, they are Finland. Perkele.

~~~

What I said pretty much applies to Western Europe (UK + France + Netherlands + Spain + Portugal) and american countries colonized by them. The USA is the shiny, most noticeable failure. Mostly due to culture. Americans do tend to have a higher ego, so the social part of school actually is most of it for them (result = school shootings schedules for every other thursday, grab your popcorn and turn on the television).

But traces of that also happened to show up in other american countries as the government's influence in schools increase. In brazil, we had our first (and so far, last) school shooting in the past decade. Since then, we never had any, as our economy opened to private third parties to own schools in here and a bunch of schools have been sold to several large American companies. Since then, our basic education had a boom, and anyone who goes to the USA during middle school claims their middle school is "too easy" and "shitty", but sadly our college system is still completely dominated by the state. The result? Well...

Unironically, the good colleges in the USA are private and in here, public. Good for us, we have free college! ...And shitty education. Our three best colleges are all located in the southeastern region and take 127th, 215th and 284th position in the world ranking. Meanwhile, the USA's top three are, well, First, second and third worldwide. In fact, out of the top 20 in the world, 16 are american. And they never see "college shootings", they always happen in schools.

@GeneralPE, I never said communism was an attainable goal, I do actually believe it is impossible to archieve and that it is even madness to believe it is possible. Human nature is against it.


As for schools, school and college shootings in the US are a consequence of their gun laws as well as their culture. Brazil hasn't much shootings because we have strict gun laws. Even though it doesn't prevent gun crime to be very high, it does avoid everyone from having a gun at home, which might lead to tragedies every time you're in a bad mood.


As for good college, it is unfair that it is public in Brazil, while good schools are all private. You just go to private schools and then get free college as a reward for being rich.

As an example of this, I've passed to UFRJ (second college in the country). Well, I believe I'm inteligent enough to be there and that I'll fit in it easely. But the truth is, I haven't even studied for the national test to enter on this college. I just did it with my knowlage acquired in the private school I attended and it was really just too easy. It demonstrates the inequality of being in a good school rather then being in a bad one. Good public tuition should be a right, not a thing you can buy.

The biggest irony, is that I will only stay here for a few months before I leave for France, so I'm entering at college here just cause I can and cause it's free.

While I agree with zeph, we do see college shootings (Virginia tech, Umpqua).
I must say, people saying everyone should have free college are so silly. The most obvious effect would be a drop in quality. College is for a) the rich, and b) the intelligent who can get scholarships. I'm sorry, but if you aren't one of those two, get a job, go to trade school, or join the army. Or marry someone rich. But college is a privilege, not a right.

PE, education should be a right not a privilege. Get your facts right for once.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:20:48

@GeneralPE

Nonsense. I said free college is a right, but it is also a privilege. With free college everywhere, you would see a raise in quality. Just put hard tests to enter it.

Because
a) dumb rich people wouldn't join it
b) the ammount of places doesn't need to be higher in a free system, so there will be more competition for college as even poor people will be able to join it


As for the rest:
- Get a job, tipical republican bullshit. You can't pay college with a shitty job, you can barelly live with it.
- Join the army. Hell no one should have to risk their lives to go to college.
- Marry someone rich. That's the most stupid one, I do not need to explain it...

College doesn't need to be an elitist place, but rather a place with elite students.

The most obvious effect would be a drop in quality. College is for a) the rich, and b) the intelligent who can get scholarships.

So you are saying that if college entrance is based on merit rather than who can pay for it, there would be a drop in quality? great logic genius

But college is a privilege, not a right.

i hope that you are just a selfish prick with lots of money who wants to keep its privileges. Because otherwise you are a complete moron

OK, allowing only the best in for free is fair teamguns. But I doubt we would stop at that; after all, it would hurt the feelings of the other kids. And when I said " get a job, go to trade school, or join the army. Or marry someone rich. ", I was saying what to do INSTEAD of college, not to pay for it.

@Hitchslap I made my arguments assuming the person was advocating college for everyone, not just affordable college for the best and brightest. If that is what you want, OK. But I doubt it. Let me get this straight. College is a right; therefore, all should be able to have it, yes? But at the same time, we should only allow in the most intelligent? Pick one or the other.

"i hope that you are just a selfish prick with lots of money who wants to keep its privileges. Because otherwise you are a complete moron"
I am middle-class and by no means rich, but I have an excellent chance for a free or reduced ride at a number of excellent colleges. However, that is not the point. The point is, while a basic education should be given to all, only the most intelligent should move on to higher education. And the rich should be able to go no matter how mental; if they want to pay let them and use that money to help the poorer students.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:28:52

OK, allowing only the best in for free is fair teamguns. But I doubt we would stop at that; after all, it would hurt the feelings of the other kids.

Wow, what another stupid thing you've just said. You say we shouldn't give free college because people would be hurt if they didn't get it?
HOW DOES THE SYSTEM WORK TODAY???

People are already not able to go to college cause they can't pay it, even though they have the grades, I believe that's enough to get feelings hurt.


So first you say college should be a privilege, then I say it should be free but also not easy to enter.
Second, you say people would be hurt cause they can't enter college if their not easy to enter.

I can't understand you.

And when I said " get a job, go to trade school, or join the army. Or marry someone rich. ", I was saying what to do INSTEAD of college, not to pay for it.

So you say the solution not to go to college is either the army, bad jobs or get married to someone rich. That's even worst... for obvious reasons.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer to your edit: rich people shouldn't go to college cause their rich. Just tax their parents and then use the money to make college free.

Meritocray doesn't work when rich students get advantages over poor students. If you're really middle class, you should understand it.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:33:11

"Wow, what another stupid thing you've just said. You say we shouldn't give free college because people would be hurt if they didn't get it?"
I was saying what the Democrats and liberals would say

"People are already not able to go to college cause they can't pay it, even though they have the grades"
Many get scholarships. For those who can't get them for whatever reason, I do believe we should help them a little. If they are athletic-ish and intelligent, service academies are excellent options.

"So first you say college should be a privilege, then I say it should be free but also not easy to enter.
Second, you say people would be hurt cause they can't enter college if their not easy to enter."
That second was sarcasm. However, I do believe that people would complain of not getting in and the bar would gradually lower, until our higher education is a joke.

Yea, it is actually something democrats and liberals would say. I was surprised you were using that argument to defend your idea, didn't got the sarcasm, my bad. Let them complain, people already complain of the actual system, less would of the one I believe it's the right one.

As for scholarships, the problem is that if 10 percent of the places on college are for scholarships, then we have a problem that 90 percent aren't. Because 90 percent of places aren't going to the best students fit for the place.


And higher education can be improved as well, we just need gvt to cut spending on useless sectors and put the money there.

I'd say you spend too much on your military and that you should cut it in order to spend in better areas. A report I've read not a long time ago said 25 percent of your military budget is wasted in bad spending, bureaucracy and corruption. You could cut that for a start.

And if you don't like the idea of cutting military, just cut subsidies and tax-breaks for the rich.

Both these solutions could fund free quality college and schools.

Les gars, c'est juste une perte de temps de débattre avec des gens aussi obtus que lui...

I agree with your last post, and I'm glad we could have such a rational discussion. However. my OP on this was intended to address people saying everyone should get higher education for free since it's a right. I assume you disagree with this

Je peut parle un peu de francais koala, et vous n'etes pas tres gentil

No, not everyone should have higher education for free. The state shouldn't spend billions more to educate morons who doesn't want to work for their places. But everyone should have the opportunity to have it. That's what I believe.

@Angry Koala, nous devons toujours discuter de politique avec des inconnus quand possible, ça aide a changer leur points de vue et les éduquer. Au pire ils sauront comment argumenter mieux leurs points de vue (sauf s'ils sont d'extreme droite, là c'est un cas perdu).

That is reasonable. I agree.

EDIT: the far-right bit also applies to far-left. Any extremist really.

Edited 2/9/2016 19:08:47

Neh, I prefer to talk to far-left people then to far-right ones. Far-right never acknowlages facts against them and are impossible to convince their wrong.

I've managed to make many far-left people agree with my points of view by arguing, never a far-right one.

@General PE

No ones advocates that everyone should go to college. There are limited places to enter college. Making college tuition free makes the entrance into college based on merit, not on money. If you have money but don't have the intellectual capacity to go to college, then you shouldn't be able to enter. And if you have the intellectual capacity to go to college, then you should be able to enter it, no matter your social status. That's what Bernie Sanders always advocated for.

On socialism:

socialism means public programs funded by all society (socially funded), that can be enjoyed by everyone regardless of wealth.
If you think that every citizens should pay taxes to fund the military, to fund road and railroads and public parks and other public infrastructures then you already are a socialist regarding these issues.

What Bernie Sanders advocates for is 3 other social programs:

- Public funding of health care
- Public funding of Education
- Public funding of elections