ldrews

Color me skeptical, but I have seldom seen any societal problem solved by throwing more money at it. Or by simply redistributing existing money. Since I come from the science/engineering/computer disciplines, I would like to see actual measurements of outcomes to justify continuing or additional expenditures. You seem to be of the opinion that the basic problem is underfinancing of certain schools. But since the US currently has the highest per student financing of the 11 countries compared in my earlier post and yet has less than average performance in math and science, I still remain skeptical. So, can we come up with a definition of what our goals for education are, how to measure if we are achieving those goals, and what remedial actions we should take to improve our results? This would include determining what effects changes in financing have on actual results. Or we could content ourselves with making ideological arguments and change nothing.

So, from the above response, I take it that you feel the educational systems is pretty much OK the way it is. Maybe some tweaking of the financial distribution, but otherwise no changes needed.

Illiteracy The above link discusses the functional illiteracy problem in the US. Another example of our failed educational system.

Internation education cost vs results The above link shows a comparison among 11 countries of educational costs per student and student performance. The US has the highest cost per student but less than average math and science scores. In my opinion this does not support the idea that improving distribution of educational funding would improve performance. The US system appears to be simply less effective at delivering education. Also, if funding were to be the significant factor, then redistributing existing funding would simply penalize the better performing schools in favor of the lesser performing schools such that the overall results would probably not change significantly. And if the argument is made that more funding should be provided to lesser performing schools, then we raise the per student cost of education to a multiple of other countries to obtain, perhaps, the same performance that the other countries achieve with much less money. Another argument that the US education system simply not functioning well. Perhaps we could figure out a way to outsource education to other countries?

In regards to medical costs, I met a lady in Puerta Vallarta, Mexico who is a medical referrer. She matches US visitors/residents with local medical suppliers. She has an arrangement with insurance companies to arrange for colonoscopies for the insurance company clients. The insurance company flies the client down to Puerta Vallarta, puts them up in a local hotel, the client has the colonoscopy, spends a day or two in "recovery", flies back to the US. All for less than the cost of a colonoscopy in the US. And the level of medical care equals that of the US. That is crazy.

Perhaps. But the US education spending is in line, proportionally, with the GDP, But it is the 2nd highest on the chart, and our results in comparison to other countries is way down the list. To me this indicates that the problem is not funding, per se, but that the delivery system is not functioning well. Perhaps our model of education delivery needs revamping, or competition needs to be introduced to induce improvements, or something. Certainly if we keep doing the same thing we will get the same result. Granted, our top universities are the equal of any, but our primary/secondary systems suck. Do you have any suggestions on how we might improve the educational system, other than throwing more money at it or redistributing the current money? Or do you think the current systems are just fine the way they are?

International Comparison of Math, Reading, and Science Skills Among 15-Year-Olds Do you think we are getting our money's worth from our education and health expenditures?

Education cost history US

http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg

I stand corrected. Measured from 1967 the median household income, adjusted for inflation, has increased by $9,373, or about 0.4% ($200)/year. From 1989 the increase has been $351, or about 0.03% ($14)/year. Truly a robust result. The U.S. Census Bureau currently publishes median household income data from 1967 until present day. Year No. of Households Nominal $ Inflation Adjusted $ 2014 124,587,000 $53,013 $53,657 2013 123,931,000 $52,937 $54,462 2012 122,459,000 $50,396 $52,605 2011 121,084,000 $49,423 $52,690 2010 119,927,000 $48,691 $53,507 2009 117,538,000 $49,158 $54,925 2008 117,181,000 $49,671 $55,313 2007 116,783,000 $49,614 $57,357 2006 116,011,000 $47,599 $56,598 2005 114,384,000 $45,770 $56,160 2004 113,343,000 $43,785 $55,565 2003 112,000,000 $42,823 $55,759 2002 111,278,000 $41,911 $55,807 2001 109,297,000 $41,728 $56,466 2000 108,209,000 $41,446 $57,724 1999 106,434,000 $40,201 $57,843 1998 103,874,000 $38,383 $56,445 1997 102,528,000 $36,477 $54,443 1996 101,018,000 $34,941 $53,345 1995 99,627,000 $33,456 $52,604 1994 98,990,000 $31,522 $51,006 1993 97,107,000 $30,404 $50,421 1992 96,426,000 $29,640 $50,667 1991 95,669,000 $29,017 $51,086 1990 94,312,000 $28,680 $52,623 1989 93,347,000 $27,559 $53,306 1988 92,830,000 $25,872 $52,372 1987 91,124,000 $24,635 $51,973 1986 89,479,000 $23,457 $51,329 1985 88,458,000 $22,259 $49,574 1984 86,789,000 $21,072 $48,664 1983 85,407,000 $19,647 $47,229 1982 83,918,000 $19,155 $47,530 1981 83,527,000 $18,062 $47,658 1980 82,368,000 $16,671 $48,462 1979 80,776,000 $15,177 $50,089 1978 77,330,000 $13,650 $50,184 1977 76,030,000 $12,224 $48,315 1976 74,142,000 $11,379 $48,011 1975 72,867,000 $10,579 $47,227 1974 71,163,000 $9,990 $48,497 1973 69,859,000 $9,265 $50,083 1972 68,251,000 $8,542 $49,092 1971 66,676,000 $7,956 $47,076 1970 64,778,000 $7,701 $47,538 1969 63,401,000 $7,330 $47,910 1968 62,214,000 $6,698 $46,192 1967 60,813,000 $6,155 $44,284

You are kidding me, right? With the US/NATO provocations against Russia currently going on I think we are facing the highest probability of nuclear war in the last 50 years. How far can we push Russia before Russia decides that peaceful co-existence with the West is impossible and they might as well get it all over with? Of course, training children what to do in the case of a nuclear attack is probably useless. As the joke goes, find a doorway, bend over, and kiss your ass goodbye. And Russia has been busy building nuclear bomb shelters all over the place. Maybe they know something we don't.

Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has gone down Labor force participation has declined Education quality, relative to other modern countries, has declined. (US now ranks 43rd in arithmetic/math competency) The US has lost a significant portion of its manufacturing capability to other countries. {*]The US has a higher per capita prison population than any other country. Inner city violence has increased. Chicago just set a new record for homicides in 2016, The US has been continuously involved in a foreign war/police action/whatever every day for the last 8 years. The US now has more than 800 foreign military installations. Is this the tradeoff we make to get a more socially acceptable society? Everyone is respected and treated humanely but fewer people can find work because we cannot compete with other countries? That we kill thousandsm, perhaps 100s of thousands, of other countries' civilians in our attempt to be the world's policeman and enforce our vision of the proper way to live? That we continue to let our inner cities fester so that the cultural elites can feel safe, secure, and comfortable? That we continue to imprison a significant percentage of our population for what to me is essentially a medical problem?

Yes, but what about the other 99% of the population?

Do you truly believe that Republicans are characterized by "white supremacists"? If you wish to indulge in character assassination by association then we can both a field day. But I would expect better of you. I do think that Republicans/conservatives must pay attention and heed the messages from the Democrats/liberals if they want to remain in power. Would you agree that the quality of life, both economically and socially, has deteriorated significantly over the last few decades for the average person in the US? If so, then would that not be evidence that the policies and approaches being pursued during those years are not working well? And therefore alternative policies and approaches should be tried?

When the Electoral College and 85% of the counties had a majority vote for Trump it is not an aberration. And unless you think approximately half of the voting public are actual idiots for voting for Trump, then there must be a significant message there. The Democrats/liberals had better understand the message and the reasons if they ever want to regain power.

I was thinking about the deteriorating education levels in the US. How to improve them in the midst of all the political crap. How about this: Establish a national high school competency test Hire the Scholastic Aptitude Test people to administer the test Require all colleges and universities to accept the competency test passage in lieu of a high school diploma This would allow families to home teach, use alternative schools, etc. The competition would cause the educational establishment to improve. No service provider (teachers, teachers' unions) likes competition so there would be howls and gnashing of teeth. But external competition is about the only thing that causes calcified institutions to change.

You seem to dismiss another poster in a quite condescending tone, in my opinion. Could you enlighten me regarding how you form your opinions and what factual bases you use in the current political climate?

OK, I am impelled to jump in here. Winstonn, what is your factual evidence to the contrary?

Draw 2 more rounds of trump ending up in dummy, being careful to preserve 6♦ in declarers hand for later entry to dummy. Lead J[clubs from dummy and finess for Q. If it fails rest of clubs are good and lead is through the dummy protecting the K♠. If finesse is successful, lead small to K♣, return to dummy with 6♦, run rest of clubs sluffing ♥. Lead small ♠ from dummy to J♠. This fails if E has 4♣ to Q.

Thanks for all of the responses. It seems to me that having the ability to open all 11 hcp hands in a predictable manner, the pre-emptive value of opening 1N (with suitable escape bids) gives us some advantage, although I could not quantify it in any way. Can someone give me the arguments why a 3 or 4 point range for 1N is better than 5. The tradeoffs of more precision vs less frequency? The elimination of the artificial 1D bids. etc. We are currently using the 12-15 range pending resolution of this question. We just have to pass balanced 11 hcp hands that do not have 4+ D.

Stephen, Thank you for the reply. We are playing a modified Precision Club where 1NT is 11-15 hcp, balanced hand with no more than one doubleton. This allows the 1D to be natural (4+ cards). 2C is 6+ clubs or 5 clubs + 4 card major. So all 11-15 point hands have a "natural" bid except the 2D which is the traditional 4414. Whether this is wise or not I will let you know after we have played it a while. So far it has allowed us, both < 20 ACBL masterpoints and less than 4 months learning and practicing the system, to play at the average level of a local duplicate club where players range from 0 to 1000 masterpoints.

Partner and I want to use an 11-15 hcp, balanced hand as a 1NT open. One local director says that a 5 pt range is not GCC legal. I cannot find any prohibition about that. Can someone chime in authoritatively about this?

Latest poll from California shows Trump ahead by 7 points.

avigo- I, too, am an intermediate Precision player, retired. Unfortunately I live in Mexico which puts us at opposite times of the day, so setting a time to play would be very difficult. I have modified the Wei Precision Club system slightly to fit my preferences: 1NT is 11-15 hcp, same as 1D, 1H, 1S, 2C. This allows 1D to be natural (4+ cards). Of course one must develop escape bids when the 1NT is doubled! (see Meckwell Escapes). I have also adopted the 1H response to opening 1C as 8-11 hcp, forcing. All other positive responses to 1C are 12+ hcp. This immediately segregates the hands into part score/game/possible slam. The 1H response also elimnates most of the need for the "impossible negative" response with 4441 type hands. Other small changes to support the above. I wish you good fortune in finding a partner in a compatible time zone. Regards, Larry Drews