the U.S. is so diverse in a million ways that a cookie cutter DoE was always a ridiculous solution to localized problems

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48325576)

The country would probably be better off in the long run without the bloat and bias of the DoE and yet I also think we need to have some sort of Federal level very basic educational standards. Do we need this massive bloated department, subject to the predations of lobbyists? I'm thinking no, probably not, and the more legislation the state passes through it, the worse and worse the children of the nation seem to be doing educationally. No Child Left Behind, Common Core, etc it's just been getting worse and worse, even in the era before Tiktok and Twitter brainrot slopfeeds

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48325954)

you dems are hysterical teenagers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48325585)

Just wondering if it's even going to be the win that they think it is. There's good arguments for both sides on this one

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48325614)

fed edu loans only impact 5-10% of credit score iirc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48325998)

https://www.cnbc.com/select/how-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-could-impact-credit-score/

im referring to private loans tbf, you can neogtiate the fed loans

https://thecollegeinvestor.com/34921/statute-of-limitations-on-student-loan-debt/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48326014)

I recommend you review the difference between 5-10 points and 5-10 percent.

10% off a 650 credit score takes you to 585. 10 points takes you to 640.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329608)

2%? seems like a really good way to cede global superpower status to someone else

The US currently produces about 430K STEM grads every year. I suspect that number would plummet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329613)

LOL at anyone receiving PSLF after Trump takes office

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329624)

It would be smart to support a law passing at the federal level that completely de-politicizes K-12 education and sets stiff parameters on what can or can't be taught, something that completely removes palpable left and right wing coded influence in K-12 liberal arts education and mandates truly neutral reporting on history. A pro-America bent can be allowed but beyond that the curriculum w/r/t history books and supplements to literature needs to have explicitly political content removed from it. Let the kids form their own opinions as they go along and have them debate them in class, but we need far less of the prescriptive variety of teaching as it is clearly having a deleterious effect on the orientations of these students

The hard part would be getting together enough historians/English scholars/anthro/psych/etc types who aren't already heavily biased to determine what true neutrality in this hypothetical curriculum would look like in vivo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48326008)

When EVERYONE's opinion matters, no one's opinion matters

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48330024)

The digital age has allowed for this experience to be much more sophisticated and less isolating; it's probably more feasible now with better outcomes than the practice has had in decades

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48326042)

As to the weird thing, that is separate and probably more accurate. But if you're a weird kid from a weird set of parents going to public school isn't going to unweird you. Lots of weird or maladjusted kids in regular school too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48326087)

There’s other benefits too - learning to handle difficult social situations with kids different than yourself etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48326100)

if you spend a minute actually thinking about this issue, you'll realize that it makes no sense at all to believe, in principle, that kids spending time around average kids would make them more healthy and well-adjusted. this would pretty obviously make them less healthy and well-adjusted, as anyone who has actually spent time around average kids can attest to

if you and your children have even a shred of human capital or talent in you, you really, really, really do not want your kids to be around average kids in the most formative years of their lives

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329464)

> all empirical evidence shows that home-schooled kids are *more* normal

I don't understand how you arrive at math that shows 5% of the population is more normal than 95% of the population. What is your definition of "normal"? If it's something approximately like "average," then how is an extreme minority definitionally "more average"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329640)

Done, there you go

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48330542)

Weeding out ~10% of every agency seems more effective long term and less likely to draw a fight short term but idk

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48326005)

public schools shouldn't even exist. there have been enormous strides made in private education options in recent years. public schools will always be a lowest common denominator nightmare, even if you set aside this country's horrific racial issues

really, i'm not exaggerating: public schooling of any kind should absolutely not exist. education is a need that will ALWAYS be more efficiently and effectively provided by private enterprise

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329444)

What hasn’t been discussed ITT is that the 19th Amendment makes any sort of education reform extremely difficult - it’s the biggest casualty of women prioritizing empathy whenever it conflicts with reason. Quite simply, any suggestion that at least some education money is spent inefficiently draws immediate rejection from women who “want what’s best for kids” and want to “properly fund education.”

In my view, the next two years might be the last time conservatives control government in our lifetimes, and we should go down swinging by ripping the bandaid off of bloat like the DOE.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329482)

you gotta just seize power and then mandate this stuff out of existence by force. it's the only way. cripple it sufficiently, and private education options will gain enough momentum to do the rest

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48329498)

They should just be administered at the state level, and federal funds earmarked for education should flow into them without so many stipulations

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48330016)

Why should public schools exist?

I can name about 100 reasons why and how public schools harm society. What is your reason(s) for why they should exist? Why do you think that public schools could ever provide better education for society's kids than private schools?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48330538)

Kamala’s admin withheld funds for student lunches unless schools bowed down to tranny bathrooms and locker rooms. Thus public schools across the country had to change their policies to continue receiving these funds.

If you support the DoE, you support this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5632454&forum_id=2...id.#48330045)