Citing National Security Concerns, US Stops Exports to Chinese DRAM Maker

[stdragon]

Using national security again as excuse to discriminate other companies and countries...

That in fact, is the role of a sovereign state to look after its own interests. Do they not teach history and civics when you were in school?! Yes, nations have borders, and their own laws!

No, they don't teach civics is most school districts. Something to do with an underfunded education system in the US.

Many school districts spend way more on administration than actual teaching. Besides, a population of uneducated serfs are far easier to control.

 

[theyeti87]

Using national security again as excuse to discriminate other companies and countries...

That in fact, is the role of a sovereign state to look after its own interests. Do they not teach history and civics when you were in school?! Yes, nations have borders, and their own laws!

No, they don't teach civics is most school districts. Something to do with an underfunded education system in the US.

Many school districts spend way more on administration than actual teaching. Besides, a population of uneducated serfs are far easier to control.

Ding ding ding ding!

 

[brian2799]

The US spends more than the countries that top the PISA rankings and often the worst school districts, which are mostly large urban ones, spend more per student than much better performing suburban districts. Blame either incompetence or a careful plan to subvert the system through enforced stupidity of the general populace, but don't blame funding - it will never be enough and the results will continue to suck... by design.

 

[emeralds1000000]

well Samsung is a DRAM maker as well and I think this will make S.K steal all the contracts and supply China. I dont see the strategy of the current US administration at all ...

 

[bit_user]

Many school districts spend way more on administration than actual teaching. Besides, a population of uneducated serfs are far easier to control.

I had a government class, in high-school. In earlier grades, I think government was part of our social studies classes. Also, got all my citizenship merit badges @ boy scouts.

Not that I have kids, but what really bugs me is when people work their social or religious agenda through the school curriculum and textbooks. Both left and right are guilty of this.

 

[bit_user]

The US spends more than the countries that top the PISA rankings and often the worst school districts, which are mostly large urban ones, spend more per student than much better performing suburban districts. Blame either incompetence or a careful plan to subvert the system through enforced stupidity of the general populace, but don't blame funding - it will never be enough and the results will continue to suck... by design.

The thing is that most of those urban districts have kids:

• 
  ■ exposed to crime (including murders)
  ■ with disproportionately high single-parent households
  ■ who are non-native English speakers
  ■ dealing with poverty, hunger, homelessness

All of these things make it much harder to learn or deliver good academic performance. Schools can't solve all of society's ills, no matter how much money you throw at them.

IMO, the poor performance of urban districts is more a symptom of other societal problems than necessarily a problem of the schools, themselves. However, the problems do feed off each other, and you often see good teachers leaving urban districts due to low pay, burn out, etc.

 

[stdragon]

The US spends more than the countries that top the PISA rankings and often the worst school districts, which are mostly large urban ones, spend more per student than much better performing suburban districts. Blame either incompetence or a careful plan to subvert the system through enforced stupidity of the general populace, but don't blame funding - it will never be enough and the results will continue to suck... by design.

The thing is that most of those urban districts have kids:

• 
  ■ exposed to crime (including murders)
  ■ with disproportionately high single-parent households
  ■ who are non-native English speakers
  ■ dealing with poverty, hunger, homelessness

All of these things make it much harder to learn or deliver good academic performance. Schools can't solve all of society's ills, no matter how much money you throw at them.

IMO, the poor performance of urban districts is more a symptom of other societal problems than necessarily a problem of the schools, themselves. However, the problems do feed off each other, and you often see good teachers leaving urban districts due to low pay, burn out, etc.

All true. But the real root of this is in "urban-ism". It's a phenomenon that goes back for thousands of years. Anytime you have densely populated ares (specifically cities), you end up with a have/have-not society. In fact, the concept of a middle-class is very recent. As such, it should come to no surprise that in any metropolis, public education is just a bone thrown out to the poor while those that can afford to live in the city will often just afford private schooling anyways.

Solution? If you've got kids or plan on having them, you'll ideally live in the suburbs if you're lower or middle-class. You get more land per dollar, and your paying for the education anyways that your kids will be using. And because the majority parents have a vested interest in education, there's accountability. Meaning, the district is now having their feet held to the fire.

So what of public education for the poor living urban? Yeah, expensive tax payer funded "day care". Nuff said there.

 

[bit_user]

The US spends more than the countries that top the PISA rankings and often the worst school districts, which are mostly large urban ones, spend more per student than much better performing suburban districts. Blame either incompetence or a careful plan to subvert the system through enforced stupidity of the general populace, but don't blame funding - it will never be enough and the results will continue to suck... by design.

The thing is that most of those urban districts have kids:

• 
  ■ exposed to crime (including murders)
  ■ with disproportionately high single-parent households
  ■ who are non-native English speakers
  ■ dealing with poverty, hunger, homelessness

All of these things make it much harder to learn or deliver good academic performance. Schools can't solve all of society's ills, no matter how much money you throw at them.

IMO, the poor performance of urban districts is more a symptom of other societal problems than necessarily a problem of the schools, themselves. However, the problems do feed off each other, and you often see good teachers leaving urban districts due to low pay, burn out, etc.

All true. But the real root of this is in "urban-ism". It's a phenomenon that goes back for thousands of years. Anytime you have densely populated ares (specifically cities), you end up with a have/have-not society. In fact, the concept of a middle-class is very recent. As such, it should come to no surprise that in any metropolis, public education is just a bone thrown out to the poor while those that can afford to live in the city will often just afford private schooling anyways.

Solution? If you've got kids or plan on having them, you'll ideally live in the suburbs if you're lower or middle-class. You get more land per dollar, and your paying for the education anyways that your kids will be using. And because the majority parents have a vested interest in education, there's accountability. Meaning, the district is now having their feet held to the fire.

I live in a state with good public schools. Somewhat paradoxically, this just means that instead of spending money on private school tuition, the price of housing gets bid up by at least comparable amounts. I have a friend who lives in a more urban area, and they're actually concerned about the affordability of moving out to the 'burbs. I'm pretty sure they would be using public schools, in either case.

So what of public education for the poor living urban? Yeah, expensive tax payer funded "day care". Nuff said there.

It's not worthless. What ends up happening is that you hit a point of diminishing returns, with respect to pure education spending. At some point, it makes more sense to spend money on other programs to create a more child/family-friendly environment. Things like crime reduction, after-school programs, food aid, etc. Of course, as crime rates drop, gentrification occurs and low-income families (and their problems) get displaced to somewhere else.

This also ends up being very expensive. In most places, you don't have the tax base to pay for all of that.