A Brief Overview of Government Failure

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Democrat and Republican government failures wouldn't be so bad, except that the politically enforced solutions always cost you and I more money. Consider what Democrats and Republicans have accomplished in the following areas.

EDUCATION:

In 1972, according to the Cato Institute, 2,817 students scored above 750 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test math test. A perfect score is 800. By 1994, only 1,438 students scored above 750. This was despite a larger pool of students taking the test, 30 additional minutes to take it, use of calculators permitted, and many of the hardest questions having been removed in the mid 80's. The Carter administration created the Department of Education in 1979. Congress funded it with $14.5 billion taxpayer dollars. In 2002 a Republican congress budgeted $47.6 billion for DOE. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone could own or work in a BILLION dollar company that accrues more authority, more income, and has less responsibility for increasing rates of failure?

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Created in 1935 by the Roosevelt administration, this socialist mountebank was reformed and reinforced by the Reagan administration and multiple Congresses. Today's retirees are paid with contributions collected from today's workers. Surplus funds are used for general government expenditures. What's left in the so-called "trust fund lock box" is similar to the Dumb and Dumber movie brief case with hand written IOU's. If Social Security were sold on the open market it would be classified as a pyramid scheme and would be illegal in every state.

In 1950, there were 16 workers for every Social Security beneficiary. In 1996, there were 3.3. According to a 1998 Boston University study, an 18 year old earning average income over their lifetime would contribute $723,591 in Social Security taxes. They would only receive $140,000 in benefits. Government has created a system that pits generation against generation, while rewarding disrespect and personal irresponsibility.

MEDICARE:

This socialist morass was created in 1965 by the Johnson administration. The Clinton and Bush administrations along with several bi-partisan Congresses expanded Medicare's reach and subsidy. In Medicare's first year, outgoing payments reached $1 billion. They ballooned to $8 billion by 1971. In 1974, in an effort to contain exploding expenditures, Congress created subsidized HMO's, limited hospital construction, and fixed the length of hospital stay for Medicare patients. Surely these God like powers and dictates would do the trick.

Seven payroll tax hikes later, criminal penalties for doctors and patients, mountains of paperwork for all, and annual budgets of $150 billion have only managed to sabotage what used to be the best health care industry in the world. Citing Bush's $400 billion prescription subsidy, the Medicare Board of Trustees said Medicare will be bankrupt by 2019.

MONETARY POLICY/FEDERAL RESERVE:

In 1770, just prior to the American Revolution, the purchasing power of $100 was equivalent to $2,151 in today's money. In 1900, it stood at $2,130 having bobbed up and down during the preceding 130 years. Each downturn tended to be related to war or state banking policies that allowed fractional reserves (banks print money in excess of what could be redeemed in gold or silver). Like every other business, some state banks were more responsible than others. After each downturn and banking failure, purchasing power tended to move back to its historical value.

All this changed when Congress authorized the Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) in 1913. This paved the way for successive American administrations to move U.S. currency away from a direct connection to hard money goal and silver, as is required by the U.S. Constitution. This disconnect, allowed government to pursue a policy of slow steady inflation. They create inflation by expanding the money supply and "selling" this new money to banks at a discount. The banks then loan this new money into the system. Each new dollar waters down the value of every other dollar already in the system. This affect becomes more pronounced the longer the new dollar is in the system.

Inflation means your money buys less every year. Deflation means your money buys more. When money is controlled by the free market and tied to a hard asset like gold, it has a natural tendency to become more valuable. This is due to competitive productivity gains that reduce the cost of most products. The natural result is slow steady deflation. This means we become wealthier without pay raises and our standard of living improves. Now you understand why households in the 1950's needed one income, whereas they now need two.

The Federal Reserve is a private entity that government allows to counterfeit money. The benefactors are government, which receives payment from the banks for the new money; and the banks, which benefit from use of the money before it gets watered down in the system. Cozy, isn't it

I suspect education, health, and personal finance rank high pretty high on most people's list. Unfortunately, the government goofs above are just the tip of the political iceberg. Both parties participated in the creation and perpetuation of these costly fiascos. There is no logical reason to continue supporting political parties that excel at failure, incompetence and theft. Pay no attention to what politicians say. The truth can be found in their actions; and their actions continue to be a disaster for you and me. Do not waste your votes on Democrats and Republicans. They have earned nothing but scorn.

Text

Those who vote Republican or Democrat, these are some serious issues I would like to see you address.

Technical note: In the "Monetary Policy/Federal Reserve" section the author made the slight error of conflating a general decline of prices with deflation. Deflation is a contraction of the money supply, and while a general decline of prices is an effect of deflation, it is not deflation itself. The author is really referring to a general decline of prices brought about by a fixed supply of money in a growing economy. In other words in an economy with a growing output but a fixed money supply you will have a general decline in prices, since you would have the same quantity of currency chasing a growing number of goods. This has a positive benefit to society, while deflation being a contraction of the money supply is as bad or worse than inflation, which is an increase in the money supply. More on this here. This is what often confuses people so much about deflation.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,805
29
86
Money is not the essence or meaning of life for the vast majority of the people on this planet.

Political reform never comes from without, it comes from within. If you condemn politics altogether, you will never be anything but part of the fringe and categorically shunned.

This is not a reply to your post in particular, but your outlook in general.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,406
6,079
126
Genetic engineering and the creation of a population with an average IQ of 200 to start might go a long way in improving government efficienccy. Textbooks also need to be put in a pill so that everybody can have hundreds of degrees.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Painman
Money is not the essence or meaning of life for the vast majority of the people on this planet.

Neither are the innumerable other things in our lives, but this does not mean that they are not important to us. I hope this was not an attempt on your part to justify government waste & harm.

Political reform never comes from without, it comes from within. If you condemn politics altogether, you will never be anything but part of the fringe and categorically shunned.

I don't know what you mean by shunned. Personally, I have publically voiced my views to various people and none of them have shunned me. As for being on the "fringe," I take great pride in being able to re-examine those things we call sacred cows, such as democracy.


This is not a reply to your post in particular, but your outlook in general.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Genetic engineering and the creation of a population with an average IQ of 200 to start might go a long way in improving government efficienccy.

Textbooks also need to be put in a pill so that everybody can have hundreds of degrees.

I disagree with your first statement. Even those who have been deemed highly intelligent have succumbed to believing that individuals do not own their own life (your life essentially being your time), that for some reason (unknown to myself) "society" has a claim to it. Furthermore, these highly intelligent people have been led to believe that government is a medium through which "society" can be served.
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,396
383
126
If the figures are indeed true, they do show many of the problems of big government - solve a small problem today by creating a big problem in the future.

I do disagree on this though:

Originally posted by: Dissipate
MONETARY POLICY/FEDERAL RESERVE:

Inflation means your money buys less every year. Deflation means your money buys more. When money is controlled by the free market and tied to a hard asset like gold, it has a natural tendency to become more valuable. This is due to competitive productivity gains that reduce the cost of most products. The natural result is slow steady deflation. This means we become wealthier without pay raises and our standard of living improves. Now you understand why households in the 1950's needed one income, whereas they now need two.


In some ways this is true; however another big reason for inflation is growth of demand. Demand due to population growth and increased wealth has grown faster than suppply for many products. This is evident in the price of oil.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Humans will go extinct eventually, so who relly cares how they score on test? We are a petty war making, short sighted species.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: KB
If the figures are indeed true, they do show many of the problems of big government - solve a small problem today by creating a big problem in the future.

I do disagree on this though:

Originally posted by: Dissipate
MONETARY POLICY/FEDERAL RESERVE:

Inflation means your money buys less every year. Deflation means your money buys more. When money is controlled by the free market and tied to a hard asset like gold, it has a natural tendency to become more valuable. This is due to competitive productivity gains that reduce the cost of most products. The natural result is slow steady deflation. This means we become wealthier without pay raises and our standard of living improves. Now you understand why households in the 1950's needed one income, whereas they now need two.


In some ways this is true; however another big reason for inflation is growth of demand. Demand due to population growth and increased wealth has grown faster than suppply for many products. This is evident in the price of oil.

Wrong. Inflation has been the main factor in the never ending increase of the price of oil. In terms of gold, oil prices have been flat for decades.



Text
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,406
6,079
126
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Genetic engineering and the creation of a population with an average IQ of 200 to start might go a long way in improving government efficienccy.

Textbooks also need to be put in a pill so that everybody can have hundreds of degrees.

I disagree with your first statement. Even those who have been deemed highly intelligent have succumbed to believing that individuals do not own their own life (your life essentially being your time), that for some reason (unknown to myself) "society" has a claim to it. Furthermore, these highly intelligent people have been led to believe that government is a medium through which "society" can be served.

That reminds me of a story told by an anthropologist studying baboons in the wild. A leopard started to stalk a baboon tribe and they spotted him. As they moved away two young males waited for it in a tree. As it passed under the tree the two dropped down on it. One was almost instantly disemboweled but the other, before it was killed, inflicted fatal wounds on the leopard.

Millions of years from now I'm sure that the babman race, desendents of the mommy baboon that got away, will lament their governments socialism just as you do because in a busy capitalistically distracted way of life they will have forgotten how they were able to survive the rigors of evolution by working together in the absence of self.

You can disagree with anything you like, but you can't change what you are, a social ape.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Dissipate, I hope you do not take that monetarist crap seriously.

If you were to hold the supply of money constant, and not have it keep pace with economic growth, a few things would happen.

First of all, any time the economy was operating under capacity, the restricted money supply would prolong recession.

Secondly, and more importantly since it doesn't rely on Keynesian assumptions, I agree that a slow ride of decreasing prices wouldl be the result. And actually, inflation (deflation being negative inflation) is measured as a change in the price level. The relationship between inflation and the money supply is outlined in the quantity theory of money, which is generally well-accepted, but has some detractors. But a decreasing price level would lead to a decrease in all prices, including wages. No one would be better off. There is no practical reason to wish for deflation, since wages and the interest rate adjust to match it.

Also, deflation can have very serious contractionary problems. Since prices are declining, many buyers will choose to "hold off" on purchases, waiting for the right price. If they expect the prices to decline, they will wait to buy.

If deflation happens at too high a rate, one can reach a situation where the nominal interest rate falls below 0. This would effectively mean that you would have to pay people to hold your money for you. This would also mean that cash under the mattress would be the most profitable investment you could make. This would bring lending to a standstill, and the accumulation of capital as well. This is in essence what happened during the depression.

I thought all the "hard money" advocates died out in the 50s. Where did you dig this guy up?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Dissipate - How does the Constitution Party measure up? Sure the GOP and Dems(big gov't) are the reason for our failing society and overbearing gov't but the question of how to change/shake up the system is my biggest issue. I've chosen to work from within to change the party instead of beating my head against the wall voting for/supporting those who numerically don't stand a chance. The GOP gives me an option that better fits my ideology than the Dems and the GOP IMO can be transformed into something more Constitutionally oriented than the Dems(left).

*shrugs*

I'd love to see a strong Constitution party but I don't see things changing enough to allow them to compete on a National level yet so I'll continue my change from within Strategy.:)

CkG
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Dissipate, I hope you do not take that monetarist crap seriously.

If you were to hold the supply of money constant, and not have it keep pace with economic growth, a few things would happen.

First of all, any time the economy was operating under capacity, the restricted money supply would prolong recession.

Secondly, and more importantly since it doesn't rely on Keynesian assumptions, I agree that a slow ride of decreasing prices wouldl be the result. And actually, inflation (deflation being negative inflation) is measured as a change in the price level. The relationship between inflation and the money supply is outlined in the quantity theory of money, which is generally well-accepted, but has some detractors. But a decreasing price level would lead to a decrease in all prices, including wages. No one would be better off.

There is no practical reason to wish for deflation, since wages and the interest rate adjust to match it.

Also, deflation can have very serious contractionary problems. Since prices are declining, many buyers will choose to "hold off" on purchases, waiting for the right price. If they expect the prices to decline, they will wait to buy.

If deflation happens at too high a rate, one can reach a situation where the nominal interest rate falls below 0. This would effectively mean that you would have to pay people to hold your money for you. This would also mean that cash under the mattress would be the most profitable investment you could make. This would bring lending to a standstill, and the accumulation of capital as well. This is in essence what happened during the depression.

I thought all the "hard money" advocates died out in the 50s. Where did you dig this guy up?

No, you are very very confused. Hopefully this article will help clear things up for you. Deflation != general decline in prices. Deflation = contraction of money supply, as I explained in the technical note in the OP.

The Anatomy of Deflation

Look at #3 on the left hand side of the chart at the bottom. Real incomes would rise because an increase of productivity would be reflected in lower prices, whether or not aggregate income rose or stayed the same.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dissipate - How does the Constitution Party measure up? Sure the GOP and Dems(big gov't) are the reason for our failing society and overbearing gov't but the question of how to change/shake up the system is my biggest issue. I've chosen to work from within to change the party instead of beating my head against the wall voting for/supporting those who numerically don't stand a chance. The GOP gives me an option that better fits my ideology than the Dems and the GOP IMO can be transformed into something more Constitutionally oriented than the Dems(left).

*shrugs*

I'd love to see a strong Constitution party but I don't see things changing enough to allow them to compete on a National level yet so I'll continue my change from within Strategy.:)

CkG

The Constitution Party has some good points in its platform, but I strongly disagree with its protectionist views, and its Christian ties.

For instance look at this position on gambling:

Gambling

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

This is the fallacy known as guilt by association.

Also:

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

So basically I agree with a lot of what the Constitution Party says, but my views are more closely in line with that of the Libertarian Party.

In any event, I do not believe that any party is truly altruistic in the sense that if we handed all government power to the Libertarian Party we would witness an era of government decline and prosperity. What we would see is a temporary decline in the scope of government followed by a steady increase. No party would be able to avoid the temptation of corruption forever. However, if a third party did gain some political clout what we might witness is the gridlock effect. Studies have shown that the rate of expansion of government is slowed when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House. If a third party were thrown into the mix this effect may be increased.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate

No, you are very very confused. Hopefully this article will help clear things up for you. Deflation != general decline in prices. Deflation = contraction of money supply, as I explained in the technical note in the OP.

The Anatomy of Deflation

Look at #3 on the left hand side of the chart at the bottom. Real incomes would rise because an increase of productivity would be reflected in lower prices, whether or not aggregate income rose or stayed the same.

I did not say that a fall in prices=deflation I said a fall in the price level equals deflation. Prices falling due to more efficient means of prodcution are not deflation. Falling prices caused by a contraction of the money supply relative to money demand do. However, it is still the fall in the price level that is deflation, not the contraction of the money supply. My apologies for the ambiguity.

Note that a general increase in productivty would in most growth models lead to an increase in the wage rate, which makes up a siginificant part of the price level.

Edit: to sum up, a change in prices when overall value/cost ramains the same is inflation/deflation, this is generally accepted as being caused by a change in the supply or demand for money.

A change in prices due to a change in value/cost is not inflation/deflation.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dissipate - How does the Constitution Party measure up? Sure the GOP and Dems(big gov't) are the reason for our failing society and overbearing gov't but the question of how to change/shake up the system is my biggest issue. I've chosen to work from within to change the party instead of beating my head against the wall voting for/supporting those who numerically don't stand a chance. The GOP gives me an option that better fits my ideology than the Dems and the GOP IMO can be transformed into something more Constitutionally oriented than the Dems(left).

*shrugs*

I'd love to see a strong Constitution party but I don't see things changing enough to allow them to compete on a National level yet so I'll continue my change from within Strategy.:)

CkG

The Constitution Party has some good points in its platform, but I strongly disagree with its protectionist views, and its Christian ties.

For instance look at this position on gambling:

Gambling

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

This is the fallacy known as guilt by association.

Also:

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

So basically I agree with a lot of what the Constitution Party says, but my views are more closely in line with that of the Libertarian Party.

In any event, I do not believe that any party is truly altruistic in the sense that if we handed all government power to the Libertarian Party we would witness an era of government decline and prosperity. What we would see is a temporary decline in the scope of government followed by a steady increase. No party would be able to avoid the temptation of corruption forever. However, if a third party did gain some political clout what we might witness is the gridlock effect. Studies have shown that the rate of expansion of government is slowed when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House. If a third party were thrown into the mix this effect may be increased.

The intent wasn't for you to provide your critique of the party as a whole - it was more about the points you were trying to highlight in your OP. I understand there are some "issues" with the Constitution Party but IMO on the points you presented in your OP - the Constitution party presents some good platforms.

I however would love to mix the LP and the Constitution party...but that's just me. The LP just has a few quack things that I just won't/don't support. Same with the Constitution Party but less so. With the GOP being more "mainstream" it sheds some of the quirky fringe things - likewise the Dems shed some of the kook "issues" that are out there on the left due to their "mainstreamness".

Anyway - keep up the good work...even though you seem to want to work it a different way:D

CkG
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dissipate - How does the Constitution Party measure up? Sure the GOP and Dems(big gov't) are the reason for our failing society and overbearing gov't but the question of how to change/shake up the system is my biggest issue. I've chosen to work from within to change the party instead of beating my head against the wall voting for/supporting those who numerically don't stand a chance. The GOP gives me an option that better fits my ideology than the Dems and the GOP IMO can be transformed into something more Constitutionally oriented than the Dems(left).

*shrugs*

I'd love to see a strong Constitution party but I don't see things changing enough to allow them to compete on a National level yet so I'll continue my change from within Strategy.:)

CkG

The Constitution Party has some good points in its platform, but I strongly disagree with its protectionist views, and its Christian ties.

For instance look at this position on gambling:

Gambling

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

This is the fallacy known as guilt by association.

Also:

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

So basically I agree with a lot of what the Constitution Party says, but my views are more closely in line with that of the Libertarian Party.

In any event, I do not believe that any party is truly altruistic in the sense that if we handed all government power to the Libertarian Party we would witness an era of government decline and prosperity. What we would see is a temporary decline in the scope of government followed by a steady increase. No party would be able to avoid the temptation of corruption forever. However, if a third party did gain some political clout what we might witness is the gridlock effect. Studies have shown that the rate of expansion of government is slowed when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House. If a third party were thrown into the mix this effect may be increased.

The intent wasn't for you to provide your critique of the party as a whole - it was more about the points you were trying to highlight in your OP. I understand there are some "issues" with the Constitution Party but IMO on the points you presented in your OP - the Constitution party presents some good platforms.

I however would love to mix the LP and the Constitution party...but that's just me. The LP just has a few quack things that I just won't/don't support.

What quacks are those? The Constitution Party is quite a bit more quaky than the LP, IMO.

Same with the Constitution Party but less so. With the GOP being more "mainstream" it sheds some of the quirky fringe things - likewise the Dems shed some of the kook "issues" that are out there on the left due to their "mainstreamness".

Anyway - keep up the good work...even though you seem to want to work it a different way:D

CkG
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Genetic engineering and the creation of a population with an average IQ of 200 to start might go a long way in improving government efficienccy. Textbooks also need to be put in a pill so that everybody can have hundreds of degrees.


Haha, the first thing they would do is get rid of the RNC and DNC, if they really were that smart.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dissipate
What quacks are those? The Constitution Party is quite a bit more quaky than the LP, IMO.

Their immigration stance for one(not that I'm a wall builder though;) ), but that isn't what this thread is about. Like I said - I'd love to see a mix of both in a party because they are similar on quite a few things. And it doesn't help that both parties haven't exactly fielded the best "break though" candidates. Badnarik would do a good job IMO and so would Peroutka for that matter but again I don't think either of them or their parties are going to break through enough to shake things up. I am still going to continue my change from within course though - sorry:).

CkG
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
In 1972, according to the Cato Institute, 2,817 students scored above 750 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test math test. A perfect score is 800. By 1994, only 1,438 students scored above 750.
Is that for the entire nation? Because I score 780 in 1995. I never knew I was in such elite company!!

But seriously, these numbers don't sound right to me. They're way too low.

...

Yeah, I looked it up. According to the college board, the number of people who score above 750 in 1990 was about 12300 people. I don't know if that's better or worse than how the students of 1972 fared but since at least one piece of critical data has been proven to be so far off, the OP can't claim that the government is failing at improving SAT scores without additional information.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dissipate
What quacks are those? The Constitution Party is quite a bit more quaky than the LP, IMO.

Their immigration stance for one(not that I'm a wall builder though;) ), but that isn't what this thread is about. Like I said - I'd love to see a mix of both in a party because they are similar on quite a few things. And it doesn't help that both parties haven't exactly fielded the best "break though" candidates. Badnarik would do a good job IMO and so would Peroutka for that matter but again I don't think either of them or their parties are going to break through enough to shake things up. I am still going to continue my change from within course though - sorry:).

CkG

Good luck reforming the Republican Party. The GOP is so far off in conservative socialism land I'm afraid it is beyond the point of no return.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
In 1972, according to the Cato Institute, 2,817 students scored above 750 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test math test. A perfect score is 800. By 1994, only 1,438 students scored above 750.
Is that for the entire nation? Because I score 780 in 1995. I never knew I was in such elite company!!

But seriously, these numbers don't sound right to me. They're way too low.

...

Yeah, I looked it up. According to the college board, the number of people who score above 750 in 1990 was about 12300 people. I don't know if that's better or worse than how the students of 1972 fared but since at least one piece of critical data has been proven to be so far off, the OP can't claim that the government is failing at improving SAT scores without additional information.

Weird, you could be right. Although, I'm not sure how much of an impact public schools have on SAT scores. The truth of the matter is that kids who really want to get into college will take one of those SAT review courses or something else to prepare.

My personal experience in the public school system was horrible. I hated my classes, didn't like my teachers much and most of the time I felt like I was in a prison.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
In 1972, according to the Cato Institute, 2,817 students scored above 750 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test math test. A perfect score is 800. By 1994, only 1,438 students scored above 750.
Is that for the entire nation? Because I score 780 in 1995. I never knew I was in such elite company!!

But seriously, these numbers don't sound right to me. They're way too low.

...

Yeah, I looked it up. According to the college board, the number of people who score above 750 in 1990 was about 12300 people. I don't know if that's better or worse than how the students of 1972 fared but since at least one piece of critical data has been proven to be so far off, the OP can't claim that the government is failing at improving SAT scores without additional information.

Weird, you could be right. Although, I'm not sure how much of an impact public schools have on SAT scores. The truth of the matter is that kids who really want to get into college will take one of those SAT review courses or something else to prepare.

My personal experience in the public school system was horrible. I hated my classes, didn't like my teachers much and most of the time I felt like I was in a prison.


Umm - the old SAT scoring and scaling is off compared to the new ones. zephyrprime's numbers aren't scaled to 1972 scoring if I am reading his link correctly. It also could be that he is talking a cumulative SAT score - not just a SAT math score.

Anyway, your "prison" feeling wasn't yours alone. It was like a cage that held kids back. Time for a major restructuring IMO.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,406
6,079
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
In 1972, according to the Cato Institute, 2,817 students scored above 750 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test math test. A perfect score is 800. By 1994, only 1,438 students scored above 750.
Is that for the entire nation? Because I score 780 in 1995. I never knew I was in such elite company!!

But seriously, these numbers don't sound right to me. They're way too low.

...

Yeah, I looked it up. According to the college board, the number of people who score above 750 in 1990 was about 12300 people. I don't know if that's better or worse than how the students of 1972 fared but since at least one piece of critical data has been proven to be so far off, the OP can't claim that the government is failing at improving SAT scores without additional information.

Weird, you could be right. Although, I'm not sure how much of an impact public schools have on SAT scores. The truth of the matter is that kids who really want to get into college will take one of those SAT review courses or something else to prepare.

My personal experience in the public school system was horrible. I hated my classes, didn't like my teachers much and most of the time I felt like I was in a prison.


Umm - the old SAT scoring and scaling is off compared to the new ones. zephyrprime's numbers aren't scaled to 1972 scoring if I am reading his link correctly. It also could be that he is talking a cumulative SAT score - not just a SAT math score.

Anyway, your "prison" feeling wasn't yours alone. It was like a cage that held kids back. Time for a major restructuring IMO.

CkG

Gosh, I was given more than I could possibly absorb and was constantly challenged to think. I was introduced to many, many wonderful thinkers through literature, science, and math. School opened the world of ideas for me. We even had to study advertising and propaganda. School and my liberal instructors were instrumental for me in unlearning everything I was taught. It was a fabulous education. It's helped me unlearn all the rest of my life.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
In 1972, according to the Cato Institute, 2,817 students scored above 750 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test math test. A perfect score is 800. By 1994, only 1,438 students scored above 750.
Is that for the entire nation? Because I score 780 in 1995. I never knew I was in such elite company!!

But seriously, these numbers don't sound right to me. They're way too low.

...

Yeah, I looked it up. According to the college board, the number of people who score above 750 in 1990 was about 12300 people. I don't know if that's better or worse than how the students of 1972 fared but since at least one piece of critical data has been proven to be so far off, the OP can't claim that the government is failing at improving SAT scores without additional information.

Weird, you could be right. Although, I'm not sure how much of an impact public schools have on SAT scores. The truth of the matter is that kids who really want to get into college will take one of those SAT review courses or something else to prepare.

My personal experience in the public school system was horrible. I hated my classes, didn't like my teachers much and most of the time I felt like I was in a prison.


Umm - the old SAT scoring and scaling is off compared to the new ones. zephyrprime's numbers aren't scaled to 1972 scoring if I am reading his link correctly. It also could be that he is talking a cumulative SAT score - not just a SAT math score.

Anyway, your "prison" feeling wasn't yours alone. It was like a cage that held kids back. Time for a major restructuring IMO.

CkG
The SAT scoring was only enacted starting in 1995. My class was the first class that operated under it. Also, since the top score is still only 800, the shifting would only affect a score of 750 by about 10 points.