On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 05:02:16AM -0400, Vitaliy wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gerhard Fiedler" > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 06:38 > Subject: Re: [OT] Using vouchers to improve > thequalityofschools(was:Education reform) > > > > Vitaliy wrote: > > > >>>> We can always agree to disagree, but I think we may have actually > >>>> gotten to the root cause of the disagreement. It appears to me that > >>>> your premise is based on the notion that the majority of people are > >>>> too dumb to make the right choices for themselves and their children. > >>>> That's why the smart people in the government have to make choices for > >>>> them. Correct me if I misinterpreted you. > >>> > >>> I can't talk for Byron, but maybe it's not about "smart" or "dumb" but > >>> about that the majority won't act so that the outcome is something you > >>> (or I) like? > >> > >> I don't understand what you're saying. Can you please rephrase? :-) > > > > You seem to think that, given enough free choice to the people, the things > > will turn out the way you imagine: a better school system, or at least > > better choices at your disposal. (WRT this, I think you may be right here, > > but there's nothing inherent in your proposal that would guarantee that > > you're right.) Exactly. And the problem is compounded/confounded by the fact that the voucher system you propose is inequitable to public schools. If private schools what accept vouchers do not have the same restrictions as public schools in terms of student mix, funding, and expulsion, then you can never measure on a level playing field what system is better. > > > > But it may also be that what will happen is something like a "VHS-ation" > > or > > "Windows-ation" of the school system: the "market" doesn't favor the > > "technically" better options but the ones with the better marketing (or > > the > > better "product politics"), and the unregulated market forces create a > > pseudo monopoly. You may end up with less and worse (in your opinion) > > options than you have now, with all the freedom (in principle) of a > > voucher > > system as you propose. > > There's been a good separate discussion recently regarding the merits of VHS > vs Betamax. IMHO, Betamax was overengineered and did not deliver the value > the customer actually wanted. But the original point remains, market forces tend towards a virtual monopoly of sameness. Fundamentally all cars function the same way because people are used to cars functioning the way they do. If there were a radically different way to build a car, even if it were technically superior and econmincally cheaper, there would be a lot of inertia against moving away from the tried and true. OTOH a virtual monopoly on the best measurable system would in fact be a good thing. But you have to level the playing field as best you can so that actually measure the effect as opposed to being swayed by confounding variables. Back to education. You have stated on multiple occasions that the private school experience is better and cheaper than the public school monopoly. However the private school experience has a completely different makeup than the public school. So how can you measure what's better? > > I strongly doubt that the free market system will produce worse options than > are available now. I would agree as long as the market is truly free. But simply subsidizing private school systems in their current form isn't a free market. BAJ > > Vitaliy > > PS FWIW, I do believe that: > > 1. Monopolies create economic inefficiencies, and should be broken up (think > Standard Oil and Bell). No disagreement there. Competition almost always results in a win for the consumer. > 2. Microsoft is a monopoly. Not by the strict definition. There are other OSes and applications out there. However Microsoft has such a vast share of the market and so much mindshare of the market, that it'll take a significant event to get the market to shift. An event such as charging market value across the board for all their software products and to finally lock down on piracy. Or possibly a devestating source of malware that siginifcantly impacts the Windows experience across the board. When consumers start to feel the real cost of the software, then and only then would they consider the alternatives. Open Source software like Linux, OpenOffice, Mozilla, the GIMP, and the like represent alternatives. However, since they are not the actual name brand, and do have some different look, feel, and behaviors, the mass market will not accept them in liu of Windows, Office, IE, and Photoshop unless they are perfect clones without some impetus. If you want to break the monopoly, you simply have to start working on the mindshare, and getting folks to understand that alternatives are out these. Back in the 90s I worked diligently to try to get everyone I knew to switch to a Linux based infrastructure. But I learned that most folks simply want to follow the market and do what everyone else is doing. So I simply make them aware that alternatives are out there, and that many of these alternatives are run under Windows. A smattering of folks that I know run Firefox (better security). A few run OpenOffice. Some are aware of the GIMP. Virtually none run Linux. The virtual monopoly is now cemented by the market, not by Microsoft. The market can choose to change it. But they have not yet found a reason to make that switch. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist