SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefz3r6 wrote

I don't think they're living productive and fulfilling lives RIGHT NOW, let alone thousands of years from now. And there's no way to gauge who "should" live will go to whomever has the most money. And that metric isn't working so great in our current society.


SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefyy4i wrote

Acceptable or not - immortality is a terrible idea, on a personal, societal, and species level. You definitely should die. Everyone should.

Your analogy falls flat - murder isn't a natural cause of death. Cell death is. It is something you will experience. We all will. And that's all right.

There's no such thing as immortality. Resources aren't infinite, so it can't be for everyone. The sun is going to burn out at some point. The universe is going to go cold at some point. You will - sooner or even much, much later - die. The problem becomes how many others have to die prematurely to support a few semi-immortal rich folks. Inequality is a problem now. I don't think we ought to be leveraging tech to make it worse.


SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefyigf wrote

No - another day is well within my natural lifespan. I'm all for improved medical care, as well. But seeking immortality for its own sake? That's not a medical issue - that's a societal issue. I do not think it's a great idea to create a caste of immortal billionaires...and they will be so. There's no way for EVERYONE to live forever...the planet couldn't possibly handle it. It would have to fall to those who can afford it, on an on-going basis. Your tissue can't last forever - it will require resources.


SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j9q1yun wrote

I see this as a 100% self-correcting problem. Moreover, it's GENERATIONALLY self-correcting - the winning child will not produce more "winners."

Godspeed kids. It sounds like a hell of a lot of fun, to be honest.


SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j7nlow1 wrote

Your example is an Allegheny Institute fantasy, though - Pittsburgh isn’t spending double per student. They are spending lots on a large number of disadvantaged students.

I’m not going to get mad about imaginary numbers. You can’t fairly compare a large school district with lots of special needs/disadvantaged kids vs a rich, white suburban school by just dividing by the number of students. Some students cost vastly more to educate - those are much, much rarer in the suburbs.

Trying to boil it down to a percentage is just one problem with your approach. You’re looking at Pittsburgh’s needs vs rich suburbs and not considering ANY of the structural differences between who those districts serve and what they do.

All in the name of cutting money for education - something we definitely don’t need.

The magic number is whatever it takes to give EVERY student a quality education.


SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j7nd0hp wrote

It’s an apples/oranges comparison - that money is making up for shortfalls that rich suburban districts do not have. Poor students need more resources just to get to parity.

You were probably hoodwinked by stuff like this:

“Last month, the Allegheny Institute analyzed the 43 Allegheny county school districts in a policy brief, arguing that “the very worst-performing school districts are not being shortchanged for resources … all but one of the seven very best performing and top-ranked districts spent less than the state average and far less than the average for the weakest performing … [nine] districts.” John Haulk, Institute President and the brief’s author, concludes by impugning the truthfulness of those who advocate for more school funding. “It is time for some honesty from those who continually claim in most vociferous terms that school funding is unfair and that more money is needed,” he wrote.

This kind of analysis and rhetoric might be a good way to get attention, but when one looks closely, it becomes clear that the Allegheny Institute is presenting the issue of school funding in a very misleading way. The Institute came to the conclusion that high-performing districts in Allegheny County spend less than their peers by ignoring the differing needs of districts. The findings of the state’s bi-partisan Basic Education Commission provide some valuable context. After the commission reviewed both extensive testimony from Pennsylvania educators and national research, they confirmed a common sense reality: not all students cost the same to educate. English Language Learners need more help and support than the average student. Students who grow up in poverty come to school less prepared than students who do not, and face additional challenges as well. Unsurprisingly, not all districts have the same percentage of higher costing students.

hen the amount of money spent by districts in 2016-17 for current spending (the very same figure used by the Institute) is divided by the state’s calculation of the number of weighted students each district had that year, the outcomes are very different.

The average district in the state spends $12,812 per weighted student, and every one of the seven high performing districts identified by the Institute is spending well above that figure. Their average spending per weighted student was $15,602, or almost three thousand dollars above the average. As for the nine lowest performing districts identified by the Institute, only two were spending below the state average, but their average of $13,523 was more than $2,000 per weighted student less than the average for high performing districts. Indeed, all low performing districts cited by the Institute were spending below the average amount per weighted student for the high performing districts, except for Pittsburgh and Wilkinsburg. South Fayette was the only high performer spending less than the average for the low performers.

Another issue with the Institute’s methodology is its decision to compare Allegheny school district spending with the state average. This is not entirely appropriate because Allegheny districts face higher costs than many more rural counties. But comparisons between Allegheny County’s districts using the county average spending as a baseline reveal the same funding disparities. The county’s average current spending per weighted student is $14,512. Using that as a base, only two of the seven hjgh performing districts highlighted by the Institute spent less than average, and only three of the nine low performing districts spent more. All in all, there appears to be a real correlation between having low resources and poor academic performance.

South Fayette SD, a high performing district with low per weighted student spending, is the only real outlier highlighted by the Institute’s analysis. It would indeed be worth looking at how this district accomplishes so much, but one outlier does not refute the fact that the 42 other districts in Allegheny County have markedly different experiences. It should be noted that South Fayette is among five districts in the state with the lowest weights added on to the base attendance—less than four percent. This means that South Fayette has relatively few students that require additional support. It may be that South Fayette looks more cost effective because it is relatively cheaper to educate the average student there and the weights for the more expensive students are not big enough to really reflect their additional cost.”