The income tax dates back to the Han dynasty of China. It was used primarily to collect taxes from everyone in order to serve everyone. The income tax, while good for the government and it’s provided services, is not all it’s cracked up to be. Because of the way the American income tax system works, it often discourages savings and investments on the individual level and, on the corporate level, hinders the competitiveness of businesses and economic growth. With problems such as these, organizations such as FairTax surface, giving insight to the American people on new possible ways to provide services.
Instead of an income tax, the FairTax proposes one, visible, Federal sales tax, that would enable people to be taxed ONLY on what goods they choose to purchase, instead of how much they earn. The fair tax allows workers to keep their entire paychecks, enables retirees to keep their entire pensions, and among other things, allows American products to compete fairly. Another positive to the FairTax is that it’s transparent. While the current tax system involves over 60,000 pages, most people don’t actually know what’s included in it.
One of the largest positives for the FairTax is that it doesn’t tax investments. This means that the stock market would have a huge burden lifted off of it, allowing it to have a huge growth, creating many jobs. Another huge pro for the FairTax system, is that all people are taxed based on what they buy. Illegal dealers of drugs such as marijuana and heroin will be taxed on everything they buy whereas now (as they don’t pay an income tax on their illegal earnings), they’re simply rich. Illegal immigrants would also pay the same tax, which goes a great length to solving the illegal immigration problem.
As with anything, there are of course cons to the FairTax system. The FairTax system calls for an abolished income tax, meaning that the sales tax would have to “pick up” in a sense, all current government costs. The current bill in congress calls for a 30% sales tax, turning a $20,000 car into a $26,000 car. For people who have been saving under the current tax code, that would be a huge hit. The FairTax, during the first few stages, would decrease consumer spending, until the break from income taxes would outweigh the cons.
The FairTax is currently supported by five out of eight G.O.P. candidates and one Democratic candidate. The current taxing system does not encourage people to work, invest, or engage in entrepreneurial activities, while the FairTax plan would encourage all of these, causing a huge revenue gain. A full macroeconomic analysis of the proposed plan can be found at http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf.
REFERENCES:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax
2. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
3. http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Revised Healthcare
There is no doubt that something needed to be done with healthcare. With this said, however, is the plan that we have just passed the right one? With commitments such as Medicare, the National Debt, and Social Security, our government, theoretically, should not be taking off more than it can chew. As of now, each citizen shares a portion of the national debt, around $35,000 per household. Still, we are pushing and pushing for more. To make matters worse, not only is the bill difficult to understand, it’s also infeasible.
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and almost no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Existing insurance companies will have to meet government mandates in order to remain in effect. This will lead to the addition of unnecessary physical appointments to be met by patients (while a trained doctor may know what is wrong with his/her patient, he/she may be bound by contract to run unnecessary tests while the patient’s life could be at risk) (4). Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on things risks like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is no incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be dragged down to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. The bill does include a plan that would provide for that, however, it is only available to those without employer-provided insurance (quite likely, in the future, the government-run insurer may be able to compete so that they are the ONLY private insurer, allowing them to up their prices- personal opinion, disregard :). On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage and only pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they would receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This would all be provided for, of course, by those who can afford to cover themselves. In the Senate bill, tax deductions would decline while new taxes would be added on benefits such as a “Gold-plated” health insurance plan (which would be paid by only those who could afford to have the “Gold-plated” plan). The house bill doesn’t call for an increase on taxes for benefits, but rather a 5.4% increase on income taxes for individuals who earn $500,000 a year and families who earn $1,000,000 (4).
The problem is not just in healthcare. Due to the economic recession, globalization, and new technology, unemployment has been steadily increasing, causing the government to take action. While only 54% were employed by the Federal government in 2000, economist Gary Shillings predicts that 2/3 will owe their livelihoods to them by 2018. This will lead to federal deficits much larger than the ones we incur now, and eventually, the market will collapse as foreign lenders will stop lending (5).
The current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority, and more than ever, it needs to start looking at the future of our nation. We’re a sinking ship, but if we start now, we can attempt to save ourselves.
See Gary Shilling’s economic predictions for 2009 at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/gary-shillings-2009-predictions-were-still-screwed
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
4. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20091224/ts_usnews/howthesenatebillwouldchangehealthcare
5. Newman, Rick. How the Government is Swallowing the Economy. US News .com. 2009. http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/11/09/how-the-government-is-swallowing-the-economy
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and almost no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Existing insurance companies will have to meet government mandates in order to remain in effect. This will lead to the addition of unnecessary physical appointments to be met by patients (while a trained doctor may know what is wrong with his/her patient, he/she may be bound by contract to run unnecessary tests while the patient’s life could be at risk) (4). Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on things risks like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is no incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be dragged down to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. The bill does include a plan that would provide for that, however, it is only available to those without employer-provided insurance (quite likely, in the future, the government-run insurer may be able to compete so that they are the ONLY private insurer, allowing them to up their prices- personal opinion, disregard :). On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage and only pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they would receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This would all be provided for, of course, by those who can afford to cover themselves. In the Senate bill, tax deductions would decline while new taxes would be added on benefits such as a “Gold-plated” health insurance plan (which would be paid by only those who could afford to have the “Gold-plated” plan). The house bill doesn’t call for an increase on taxes for benefits, but rather a 5.4% increase on income taxes for individuals who earn $500,000 a year and families who earn $1,000,000 (4).
The problem is not just in healthcare. Due to the economic recession, globalization, and new technology, unemployment has been steadily increasing, causing the government to take action. While only 54% were employed by the Federal government in 2000, economist Gary Shillings predicts that 2/3 will owe their livelihoods to them by 2018. This will lead to federal deficits much larger than the ones we incur now, and eventually, the market will collapse as foreign lenders will stop lending (5).
The current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority, and more than ever, it needs to start looking at the future of our nation. We’re a sinking ship, but if we start now, we can attempt to save ourselves.
See Gary Shilling’s economic predictions for 2009 at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/gary-shillings-2009-predictions-were-still-screwed
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
4. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20091224/ts_usnews/howthesenatebillwouldchangehealthcare
5. Newman, Rick. How the Government is Swallowing the Economy. US News .com. 2009. http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/11/09/how-the-government-is-swallowing-the-economy
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Universal Healthcare Good for All?
There is no doubt that something needed to be done with the previous healthcare system. Is the plan that we have just passed, though, the right one? With commitments such as Medicare, the National Debt, and Social Security, our government should not be biting off more than it can chew. As of now, each citizen shares a portion of the national debt, around $500,000 per household. Still, we are pushing and pushing for more entitlements.
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less coverage to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on risky products like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is little incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be financially burdened to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. If you drive, you MUST have car insurance and you must pay for it. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage to pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they could receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This is considered “tough love,” however; health coverage is not an entitlement- it is a privilege. Should John Doe (who works hard to pay for his child’s leukemia treatments) have to pay double to cover Angela Jones’ child’s doctor visits for every cough she has because Angela decided to buy that big screen TV last month? The answer is no, and the current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority.
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less coverage to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on risky products like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is little incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be financially burdened to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. If you drive, you MUST have car insurance and you must pay for it. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage to pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they could receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This is considered “tough love,” however; health coverage is not an entitlement- it is a privilege. Should John Doe (who works hard to pay for his child’s leukemia treatments) have to pay double to cover Angela Jones’ child’s doctor visits for every cough she has because Angela decided to buy that big screen TV last month? The answer is no, and the current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority.
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
Monday, November 9, 2009
Indoctrination in the U.S.A.?
From grade school and up, we have been programmed to believe that our government system is ideal; flawless; we are the true free nation. Our books, contrary to that of other countries, are not indoctrinated, are not written falsely, and contribute to a national sense of democratization. On the whole, we do not question this system, but if we did, would we find that the system is a fallacy? Rather, the question should be, would we know if it was at all?
Here in the United States of America, we do not learn about Mathew, Peter, John, and Paul in public school education. We are not taught the proper prayer to Allah or of the sacred scrolls from the Torah. In Egypt, however, it’s very natural for students to be taught straight from the Koran. In fact, examining the curriculum from that of a sixth grade level, we can find that an emphasis is placed on the work ethic of the individual, clearly outlined from sections of the Qur’an (1). With 90% of Egypt being Islamic, versus the United States, (whose religion varies greatly on ethnicity, location, and environment), it’s easy to see why the Egyptian school system would implement Islam in their core curriculum. If the United States decided to teach Islam as a core class, on the other hand, the people would rally and fight whatever clause instated it. With this being said, it would be nearly impossible to indoctrinate all of our textbooks here in the United States. People would notice what was being taught, and at some point or another, they would speak out against it, as not everyone in this country has the same core belief.
In the United States, we seemingly have rights that many other countries do not, including the freedom of speech, press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to bear arms, and the right to freedom of religion. We have countless different sources of information, from radio to television to the daily newspaper. There is no opposition towards obtaining information from word-of-mouth. There is not one government official who maintains control over all of these sources; therefore, if the United States were to transmit a set opinion to the whole country, it would be nearly impossible.
Sure, many news-broadcasting channels have political preferences, but those are subject to change after time. Most channels are opposing rivals of one another, and compete for viewers by presenting information that likely adheres to one side of the view or another (for example CNN and FOX). This is not the way that all countries operate their media. In Egypt, there are fewer news stations, and although the country’s economy is free-market based, the few news stations do not present various different viewpoints. Most of Egypt’s media is government controlled through the State Information Service, and the three largest news-broadcasting stations, Al-Ahram, Al-Akhbar, and Al-Gumhuriya, are government owned and operated. Nearly all magazines and newspapers are by printed by one of seven government-owned printing houses (3). What makes Egypt’s control over foreign politics even stricter is the control over these three laws: The Press Law, the Publications Law, and the Penal Code. These three laws allow the Egyptian government to issue and stipulate fines or imprisonment for criticizing the president, members of the government, or any members of state.
When it comes to the bottom line, the United States of America and the Republic of Egypt are two very different countries. The United States houses countless ethnicities and religions, whereas Egypt is primarily dominated by Egyptians and people of the Islamic religion. American media is operated through the free-enterprise system, while Egyptian media is government owned and maintained. So, on the whole, indoctrination in the United States is practically infeasible.
References
1. Guindy, Adel. Islamizing Egyptian Education. Middle East Quarterly. 2009: 76-79
2. Sherbiny, Naiem. America: A View From Egypt. Social Research Online. 2005. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_4_72/ai_n16129794/?tag=content;col1
3. Gross, M. Pamela. Egypt. Press Reference. http://www.pressreference.com/Co-Fa/Egypt.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
American V. Foreign Education
Compared to the United States system of education, the Yemeni system is well up to par, in fact, surpassing that of the US. With a strict European-style system, the Yemeni education offers its students a rigorous study which enables many to come to American universities like MIT, RPI, Brown, etc.
Yemen wasn’t always a country that offered such an education. In fact, until 1960, the county’s infrastructure was incapable of allowing easy transportation, as Yemeni roads were few, and the ones that were, were unpaved. Through the 1970s and 80s, however, Yemen saw a rapid growth in secular development, and a ministry of education was developed. Although this was a definite advancement for Yemen, there were flaws in the implementation of the system, and the accessibility of it to its citizens was limited.
With the unification of the Republic of Yemen, however, education became a heavy importance. Both primary education and secondary grew, especially with the addition of standard texts and curricula. High school students, instead of taking a wide, broad array of subjects would take courses centered around their specific area of interest.
So the question now arises; which system is better? While we observe the United States curriculum, we notice that it doesn’t often change. Often what is required from students is minimal. Many can get by, simply by applying the least amount of effort necessary. However, the lives of the average American teen are much more rounded than that of the studious Yemeni. Is this wrong? Is this right? Should the tight control on Yemeni education be relaxed to allow students to participate in extra-curricular activities like soccer or drama? Or should the American system strengthen its clasp on education and focus on the importance of a strong, intellectual background?
Both systems seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. While Yemeni education equips its students with the knowledge needed to get into top-notch universities throughout the world, how many of those students return to Yemen to aid the government and sciences? In America, many students excel in their high-school careers at various sports like basketball and baseball, and are convinced that their futures hold for them positions in the major associations. The probability of this however is small, and those students are forced into jobs at larger corporation jobs, like a manager of Kmart, or a gym teacher.
With all of this said, what is it that we can do? Where is it that we’re failing as a country, to provide a strong education like that of the Yemeni? Can we still keep our extra-curricular activities available to our students?
Many will argue that the amount of money spent on schools is too little, and that we should be spending more. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have increased our spending 100% since 1971 without a single noticeable increase in education. This is mainly due to the fact that money is often spent on things like landscaping, cleaning, sports, etc. Is this necessary? Sure, however, what if instead of spending the money on, say, gardeners, and put students in charge of maintaining the appearance of their school’s grounds? Not only would this save money for the school district, allowing them to spend more on books and quality teachers, but it would also get the students involved in their community. (Stossel, 2006).
Perhaps with the addition of funds for classroom learning, students would be able to grasp a good portion of knowledge from their classes and could also continue to participate in clubs and activities. This would not only give them a stronger, more competitive education, but would also shape them into well-rounded people. Perhaps neither the Yemeni or American education system is the perfect example; maybe a mixture of the two is the paradox.
References:
1. Stossel, John. "Stupid in America." ABC News, 20/20. January, 2006. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=are+international+students+smarter+than+american+students%3F&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=4&title=John+Stossel%27s+%27Stupid+in+America%27+-+ABC+News&u=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2F2020%2FStossel%2Fstory%3Fid%3D1500338&sg=RR00qIS8uXF6UnvBBRNrZfJVz7N46hUqR9BYHUQQpzg%
3D&tsp=1256170322693
2. Yemen - Educational System—overview
Yemen wasn’t always a country that offered such an education. In fact, until 1960, the county’s infrastructure was incapable of allowing easy transportation, as Yemeni roads were few, and the ones that were, were unpaved. Through the 1970s and 80s, however, Yemen saw a rapid growth in secular development, and a ministry of education was developed. Although this was a definite advancement for Yemen, there were flaws in the implementation of the system, and the accessibility of it to its citizens was limited.
With the unification of the Republic of Yemen, however, education became a heavy importance. Both primary education and secondary grew, especially with the addition of standard texts and curricula. High school students, instead of taking a wide, broad array of subjects would take courses centered around their specific area of interest.
So the question now arises; which system is better? While we observe the United States curriculum, we notice that it doesn’t often change. Often what is required from students is minimal. Many can get by, simply by applying the least amount of effort necessary. However, the lives of the average American teen are much more rounded than that of the studious Yemeni. Is this wrong? Is this right? Should the tight control on Yemeni education be relaxed to allow students to participate in extra-curricular activities like soccer or drama? Or should the American system strengthen its clasp on education and focus on the importance of a strong, intellectual background?
Both systems seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. While Yemeni education equips its students with the knowledge needed to get into top-notch universities throughout the world, how many of those students return to Yemen to aid the government and sciences? In America, many students excel in their high-school careers at various sports like basketball and baseball, and are convinced that their futures hold for them positions in the major associations. The probability of this however is small, and those students are forced into jobs at larger corporation jobs, like a manager of Kmart, or a gym teacher.
With all of this said, what is it that we can do? Where is it that we’re failing as a country, to provide a strong education like that of the Yemeni? Can we still keep our extra-curricular activities available to our students?
Many will argue that the amount of money spent on schools is too little, and that we should be spending more. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have increased our spending 100% since 1971 without a single noticeable increase in education. This is mainly due to the fact that money is often spent on things like landscaping, cleaning, sports, etc. Is this necessary? Sure, however, what if instead of spending the money on, say, gardeners, and put students in charge of maintaining the appearance of their school’s grounds? Not only would this save money for the school district, allowing them to spend more on books and quality teachers, but it would also get the students involved in their community. (Stossel, 2006).
Perhaps with the addition of funds for classroom learning, students would be able to grasp a good portion of knowledge from their classes and could also continue to participate in clubs and activities. This would not only give them a stronger, more competitive education, but would also shape them into well-rounded people. Perhaps neither the Yemeni or American education system is the perfect example; maybe a mixture of the two is the paradox.
References:
1. Stossel, John. "Stupid in America." ABC News, 20/20. January, 2006. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=are+international+students+smarter+than+american+students%3F&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=4&title=John+Stossel%27s+%27Stupid+in+America%27+-+ABC+News&u=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2F2020%2FStossel%2Fstory%3Fid%3D1500338&sg=RR00qIS8uXF6UnvBBRNrZfJVz7N46hUqR9BYHUQQpzg%
3D&tsp=1256170322693
2. Yemen - Educational System—overview
Compared to the United States system of education, the Yemeni system is well up to par, in fact, surpassing that of the US. With a strict European-style system, the Yemeni education offers its students a rigorous study which enables many to come to American universities like MIT, RPI, Brown, etc.
Yemen wasn’t always a country that offered such an education. In fact, until 1960, the county’s infrastructure was incapable of allowing easy transportation, as Yemeni roads were few, and the ones that were, were unpaved. Through the 1970s and 80s, however, Yemen saw a rapid growth in secular development, and a ministry of education was developed. Although this was a definite advancement for Yemen, there were flaws in the implementation of the system, and the accessibility of it to its citizens was limited.
With the unification of the Republic of Yemen, however, education became a heavy importance. Both primary education and secondary grew, especially with the addition of standard texts and curricula. High school students, instead of taking a wide, broad array of subjects would take courses centered around their specific area of interest.
So the question now arises; which system is better? While we observe the United States curriculum, we notice that it doesn’t often change. Often what is required from students is minimal. Many can get by, simply by applying the least amount of effort necessary. However, the lives of the average American teen are much more rounded than that of the studious Yemeni. Is this wrong? Is this right? Should the tight control on Yemeni education be relaxed to allow students to participate in extra-curricular activities like soccer or drama? Or should the American system strengthen its clasp on education and focus on the importance of a strong, intellectual background?
Both systems seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. While Yemeni education equips its students with the knowledge needed to get into top-notch universities throughout the world, how many of those students return to Yemen to aid the government and sciences? In America, many students excel in their high-school careers at various sports like basketball and baseball, and are convinced that their futures hold for them positions in the major associations. The probability of this however is small, and those students are forced into jobs at larger corporation jobs, like a manager of Kmart, or a gym teacher.
With all of this said, what is it that we can do? Where is it that we’re failing as a country, to provide a strong education like that of the Yemeni? Can we still keep our extra-curricular activities available to our students?
Many will argue that the amount of money spent on schools is too little, and that we should be spending more. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have increased our spending 100% since 1971 without a single noticeable increase in education. This is mainly due to the fact that money is often spent on things like landscaping, cleaning, sports, etc. Is this necessary? Sure, however, what if instead of spending the money on, say, gardeners, and put students in charge of maintaining the appearance of their school’s grounds? Not only would this save money for the school district, allowing them to spend more on books and quality teachers, but it would also get the students involved in their community. (Stossel, 2006).
Perhaps with the addition of funds for classroom learning, students would be able to grasp a good portion of knowledge from their classes and could also continue to participate in clubs and activities. This would not only give them a stronger, more competitive education, but would also shape them into well-rounded people. Perhaps neither the Yemeni or American education system is the perfect example; maybe a mixture of the two is the paradox.
References:
1. Stossel, John. "Stupid in America." ABC News, 20/20. January, 2006. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=are+international+students+smarter+than+american+students%3F&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=4&title=John+Stossel%27s+%27Stupid+in+America%27+-+ABC+News&u=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2F2020%2FStossel%2Fstory%3Fid%3D1500338&sg=RR00qIS8uXF6UnvBBRNrZfJVz7N46hUqR9BYHUQQpzg%3D&tsp=1256170322693
Yemen wasn’t always a country that offered such an education. In fact, until 1960, the county’s infrastructure was incapable of allowing easy transportation, as Yemeni roads were few, and the ones that were, were unpaved. Through the 1970s and 80s, however, Yemen saw a rapid growth in secular development, and a ministry of education was developed. Although this was a definite advancement for Yemen, there were flaws in the implementation of the system, and the accessibility of it to its citizens was limited.
With the unification of the Republic of Yemen, however, education became a heavy importance. Both primary education and secondary grew, especially with the addition of standard texts and curricula. High school students, instead of taking a wide, broad array of subjects would take courses centered around their specific area of interest.
So the question now arises; which system is better? While we observe the United States curriculum, we notice that it doesn’t often change. Often what is required from students is minimal. Many can get by, simply by applying the least amount of effort necessary. However, the lives of the average American teen are much more rounded than that of the studious Yemeni. Is this wrong? Is this right? Should the tight control on Yemeni education be relaxed to allow students to participate in extra-curricular activities like soccer or drama? Or should the American system strengthen its clasp on education and focus on the importance of a strong, intellectual background?
Both systems seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. While Yemeni education equips its students with the knowledge needed to get into top-notch universities throughout the world, how many of those students return to Yemen to aid the government and sciences? In America, many students excel in their high-school careers at various sports like basketball and baseball, and are convinced that their futures hold for them positions in the major associations. The probability of this however is small, and those students are forced into jobs at larger corporation jobs, like a manager of Kmart, or a gym teacher.
With all of this said, what is it that we can do? Where is it that we’re failing as a country, to provide a strong education like that of the Yemeni? Can we still keep our extra-curricular activities available to our students?
Many will argue that the amount of money spent on schools is too little, and that we should be spending more. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have increased our spending 100% since 1971 without a single noticeable increase in education. This is mainly due to the fact that money is often spent on things like landscaping, cleaning, sports, etc. Is this necessary? Sure, however, what if instead of spending the money on, say, gardeners, and put students in charge of maintaining the appearance of their school’s grounds? Not only would this save money for the school district, allowing them to spend more on books and quality teachers, but it would also get the students involved in their community. (Stossel, 2006).
Perhaps with the addition of funds for classroom learning, students would be able to grasp a good portion of knowledge from their classes and could also continue to participate in clubs and activities. This would not only give them a stronger, more competitive education, but would also shape them into well-rounded people. Perhaps neither the Yemeni or American education system is the perfect example; maybe a mixture of the two is the paradox.
References:
1. Stossel, John. "Stupid in America." ABC News, 20/20. January, 2006. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=are+international+students+smarter+than+american+students%3F&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=4&title=John+Stossel%27s+%27Stupid+in+America%27+-+ABC+News&u=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2F2020%2FStossel%2Fstory%3Fid%3D1500338&sg=RR00qIS8uXF6UnvBBRNrZfJVz7N46hUqR9BYHUQQpzg%3D&tsp=1256170322693
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Education: Yemen V. United States
Compared to the United States system of education, the Yemeni system is well up to par, in fact, surpassing that of the US. With a strict European-style system, the Yemeni education offers its students a rigorous study which enables many to come to American universities like MIT, RPI, Brown, etc.
Yemen wasn’t always a country that offered such an education. In fact, until 1960, the county’s infrastructure was incapable of allowing easy transportation, as Yemeni roads were few, and the ones that were, were unpaved. Through the 1970s and 80s, however, Yemen saw a rapid growth in secular development, and a ministry of education was developed. Although this was a definite advancement for Yemen, there were flaws in the implementation of the system, and the accessibility of it to its citizens was limited.
With the unification of the Republic of Yemen, however, education became a heavy importance. Both primary education and secondary grew, especially with the addition of standard texts and curricula. High school students, instead of taking a wide, broad array of subjects would take courses centered around their specific area of interest.
So the question now arises; which system is better? While we observe the United States curriculum, we notice that it doesn’t often change. Often what is required from students is minimal. Many can get by, simply by applying the least amount of effort necessary. However, the lives of the average American teen are much more rounded than that of the studious Yemeni. Is this wrong? Is this right? Should the tight control on Yemeni education be relaxed to allow students to participate in extra-curricular activities like soccer or drama? Or should the American system strengthen its clasp on education and focus on the importance of a strong, intellectual background?
Both systems seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. While Yemeni education equips its students with the knowledge needed to get into top-notch universities throughout the world, how many of those students return to Yemen to aid the government and sciences? In America, many students excel in their high-school careers at various sports like basketball and baseball, and are convinced that their futures hold for them positions in the major associations. The probability of this is small, and those students are forced into low-wage careers.
Perhaps neither of these systems are ideal; maybe, a healthy combination of both the American and the Yemeni systems of education are the paragon.
Yemen - Educational System—overview
Yemen wasn’t always a country that offered such an education. In fact, until 1960, the county’s infrastructure was incapable of allowing easy transportation, as Yemeni roads were few, and the ones that were, were unpaved. Through the 1970s and 80s, however, Yemen saw a rapid growth in secular development, and a ministry of education was developed. Although this was a definite advancement for Yemen, there were flaws in the implementation of the system, and the accessibility of it to its citizens was limited.
With the unification of the Republic of Yemen, however, education became a heavy importance. Both primary education and secondary grew, especially with the addition of standard texts and curricula. High school students, instead of taking a wide, broad array of subjects would take courses centered around their specific area of interest.
So the question now arises; which system is better? While we observe the United States curriculum, we notice that it doesn’t often change. Often what is required from students is minimal. Many can get by, simply by applying the least amount of effort necessary. However, the lives of the average American teen are much more rounded than that of the studious Yemeni. Is this wrong? Is this right? Should the tight control on Yemeni education be relaxed to allow students to participate in extra-curricular activities like soccer or drama? Or should the American system strengthen its clasp on education and focus on the importance of a strong, intellectual background?
Both systems seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. While Yemeni education equips its students with the knowledge needed to get into top-notch universities throughout the world, how many of those students return to Yemen to aid the government and sciences? In America, many students excel in their high-school careers at various sports like basketball and baseball, and are convinced that their futures hold for them positions in the major associations. The probability of this is small, and those students are forced into low-wage careers.
Perhaps neither of these systems are ideal; maybe, a healthy combination of both the American and the Yemeni systems of education are the paragon.
Yemen - Educational System—overview
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)