Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
Still watching Battlestar Galactica. Saw a preview of Caprica, and putting it in context, that show looks great. Sorry to find out it got cancelled prematurely, but I’m surprised Syfy had the money to put together a series like Battlestar in the first place. Anyway, it’s awesome.
Stupid consumers won’t buy the right kind of light bulbs, so they must be forced to.
Supposedly because you save enough on energy and replacement costs to justify the investment. If so, why not let bulb manufacturers make that case to consumers, who can then decide for themselves?A noncoercive approach is unacceptable, the Times implies, because consumers are driven by irrational concerns.
Speaking of infrastructure jobs, isn’t the Keystone Pipeline “infrastructure”? Or is it bad when when it’s energy infrastructure? I mean, petroleum energy infrastructure?
I’m sorry, but this is bullsh*t. It’s Google’s g*ddamned search engine. Why the hell can’t they feature search results that feature their own products? Google may not be that great at not being evil, but this is just stupid, and any success they have in this direction just sets a bad precedent. I love how competitive behavior is getting re-defined as “anti-competetive”. Google pimping their own products is now anti-competetive? No, that’s actually competing. In the marketplace.
“Given the scope of Google’s market share in general Internet search, a key question is whether Google is using its market power to steer users to its own web products or secondary services and discriminating against other websites with which it competes,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter sent Monday.
As a call back to our earlier comment-thread discussions about Song of the South, here are the 6 Most Secretly Racist Classic Children’s Books. Sherlock Holmes is a children’s book?
A few years ago I purchased a collection of vintage cartoons intended for children, but also intended to be cheap (most, I imagine, are very inexpensive to license or in the public domain). There was one Tom and Jerry short on there, but not the cat and mouse (indeed, they were later renamed Dick and Larry, to avoid confusion). Two Laurel and Hardy types, only animated, and there’s a sequence where they are flying in a plane and decide to visit Africa, in blackface. Delightfully racist–you know, for kids!
— KW
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
A pipeline, like a stadium, should be funded privately. Isn't the keystone holdup one of approvals, not financing?
LikeLike
"Study in Scarlet" is so brutally critical of Mormons as vicious tribal murderers that I suspect it cannot be found in the libraries of Salt Lake City.The first half or so of the book takes place in the American west, the second half in London. Holmes foils the murderers in London, of course.I think it is the first Holmes novel in point of time.I read them all; the novels, the short stories, before the events in Switzerland, and after the return.They were as compelling to me at 11 and 12 as the Aubrey-Maturin series were for me as an adult.
LikeLike
Kevin:I love how competitive behavior is getting re-defined as "anti-competetive".Couldn't agree more. I noted this nice Orwellian touch to the term "anti-competitive" some years ago when it was being used against Microsoft. Very irritating.
LikeLike
I suspect it cannot be found in the libraries of Salt Lake City.And there you'd be wrong, Mark. Eight copies in the downtown library alone (and all of those hard copies–I didn't search for audio books or videos). Mormons are a very practical people–they only censor what they can without being caught. I was pretty surprised when I read A Study in Scarlet the first time (after I'd moved here) but not overly shocked. The Mormons have a very violent history, and–quite frankly–it's not all that much of an exaggeration of some of the things that The Church really did in the 1800s out here. It was a very Libertarian time in Utah. 😀
LikeLike
Mark:There's an interesting article today in the WSJ about Fan/Fred that touches on your questions from yesterday. (I don't think this one is behind the firewall.)The GSEs began acquiring large numbers of subprime and other low-quality loans in the mid-1990s, as they tried to comply with the government's affordable-housing requirements—quotas for mortgage purchases imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under legislation enacted by Congress in 1992.These quotas initially required that, of all the loans bought by Fannie and Freddie in any year, 30% had to have been made to borrowers earning at or below the median income in their communities. The quotas, however, would increase—they rose to 40% in 1996, 50% in 2000, and 55% in 2007. HUD also added and raised quotas for "special affordable" loans that were to be made to borrowers with low or very low incomes (in some cases a mere 60% of the area median income). It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers whose incomes are below the median, but this becomes more difficult as the quota percentages increase. Indeed, by 2000 Fannie and Freddie were offering to buy zero-down payment loans and buying large numbers of subprime mortgages in order to meet the HUD quotas. According to the SEC, for example, Fannie failed to disclose a low-quality loan known as an Expanded Approval (EA) mortgage—even though these loans had the highest rate of "serious delinquency" (90 days past due, and almost certainly going to foreclosure) in Fannie's book. Those EA loans—as then-Chairman Daniel Mudd told the House Financial Services Committee in April 2007—"helped us meet our HUD affordable housing requirements."
LikeLike
It seems to be that it isn't competetive behavior that is being defined as anti-competitive. It's being too successful that is anti-competitive. You can be as competitive as you want without getting in trouble provided you lose almost as often as you win.Maybe I'm being blinded a bit by more recent events, but it seems to me that this year consumers have proven they can influence business quite effectively. Netflix seems to be a prime example and to a lesser extent the pressure by that "family values" group in Florida that got Lowes and 64 other companies to pull ads from All-American Muslim demonstrates the same thing. I know I'm about to sound like a free market proponent, but if consumers don't like Google pushing their own goods, consumers will start using another search engine. The same goes for the light bulb issue. And I'll just renew my call for a GOP debate on light bulbs.
LikeLike
ashot:I know I'm about to sound like a free market proponent…The horror. The horror.
LikeLike
The horror. The horror.I better find my copy of the Communist Manifesto and get back to my roots.
LikeLike
"It seems to be that it isn't competetive behavior that is being defined as anti-competitive."Well, yes. But the examples give of being anti-competetive–such as using your existing resources to give a leg-up to your other products–is what is actually being called anti-competetive. When, of course, it is actually the opposite. It would be like saying that because I offer you a free bag of flour if you buy two bags of sugar, I'm being anti-competetive. It's lunacy.There are other search-engines. And, frankly, it's easier to compete with Google (in any category), if you've got an outstanding product, than it would be to compete with any manufactured product. It's just crazy. It's like arguing that Google is engaging in anti-competetive behavior because everytime you go to the website, the first thing you see is that big Google logo, instead of sometimes seeing Yahoo! or Bing!Netflix seems to be a prime exampleOf management going temporarily crazy? And a highly spoiled consumer class? 😉 but if consumers don't like Google pushing their own goods, consumers will start using another search engineAlso, if someone comes up with a truly superior offering to what Google is pimping, it will find a market. I've tried lots of the alternatives in terms of shopping sites and map sites. I go back to Google Maps not because it's what Google points me at, but because it's products are what I prefer. I suppose making a superior product that consumers prefer will start being considered anti-competetive. As a tangent, observers have noted that AT&T has rebuilt itself to it's pre-breakup glory (larger, in fact), and thus has restored it's "monopoly". But AT&T, pre-breakup, enjoyed a monopoly that was enshrined in law. It was illegal for you to mess with the phone wiring in your house or to buy a non-AT&T phone. That's gone. And I own all sorts of different brands of phones. I could use someone else for VOIP or cell service if I wanted. It's a whole different world. Because even if you merge and conglomerate (as AT&T is trying to do, by buy T-Mobile), if it's possible to buy competing products (and it's not illegal), it's difficult to maintain a monopoly. Actual monopolies are usually created by the government (state, local or federal) in collusion with given companies. Many cable companies enjoyed monopoly status forever, thanks to having exclusive rights to run cable along utility poles. Imagine if those rights had not be exclusive, and cable had been much more competitive at the outset–we'd have a lot more idle bandwidth out there, and some cable companies who had strung coax would probably be out of the TV business and providing pure high-bandwidth Internet. Alas . . .
LikeLike
Regarding competition, the theoretical underpinnings of antitrust law are indeed elusive and inscrutable in some respects, and oceans of ink have been spilled on these sorts of questions about why tying arrangements, for example, are anti-competitive rather than competitive. I share some of those qualms.One thing to keep in mind, though, is that when behavior like tying is called "anti-competitive," it is mainly the feared results of the behavior rather than the behavior itself that is being described. I.e., the theory is that the aspiring monopolist will use tying of product B to drive competitors for product A out of the market, and thus establish monopoly. Of course, theories of monopoly are controversial and debatable in themselves, but, as far as terminology is concerned, keep in mind here again that one need not engage in "behavior" that is anticompetitive to be considered a monopolist, which is, rather, simply a matter of market domination.I don't know how much any of this helps, but it is useful at least to distinguish conduct from its postulated consequences and market conditions.
LikeLike
But the examples give of being anti-competetive–such as using your existing resources to give a leg-up to your other products–is what is actually being called anti-competetiveYes, but other companies do that and they aren't accused of being anti-competitive. Sure they point to a particular activity, but it's Google's success that is at the root. We finally have more than one cable company option where I live and I switched as soon as I could. I do so even after my old provider offered to match the price. Part of it was being annoyed that they were charging me more when they were willing to charge much less and part of it was just hoping supporting the smaller company will increase competition in general and lead to lower prices and better service from both.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that when behavior like tying is called "anti-competitive," it is mainly the feared results of the behavior rather than the behavior itself that is being described.Per usual, QB said it better, but that was the point I was driving it.
LikeLike
Scott, thanks – the article was not behind the firewall and I have now read it. I am now think FanFred was a bigger player in the debacle than I did previously.'Goose, thanks for checking the Library! I apologize for defaming the First Amendment bona fides of the good folks of Salt Lake City. FWIW, I did not really think it would be banned in SLC. Are you a Holmes fan too?
LikeLike
keep in mind here again that one need not engage in "behavior" that is anticompetitive to be considered a monopolist, which is, rather, simply a matter of market domination.Which has always been my problem with the yardstick of anti-trust–sometimes "monopolies" exist because you're the only company who can offer the product, or the market doesn't support multiple vendors (satellite radio comes to mind). And sometimes "monopolies" are just temporary periods of market domination that will, as market needs change, fade. By the time IBMs anti-trust suit was in it's final round, IBM no longer had a monopoly-level marketshare, because market conditions had changed. Begging the necessity of government trust-busting (outside of where companies enjoy legally codified preference in order to maintain their monopoly).
LikeLike
I am now think FanFred was a bigger player in the debacle than I did previously.I only read the blurb that Scott posted, but it looks like FanFred's hand was forced a bit in getting into the subprime market. Not that it changes the fact that they were a big player. Just trying to make sure I understand what was occurring.
LikeLike
qb:keep in mind here again that one need not engage in "behavior" that is anticompetitive to be considered a monopolist, which is, rather, simply a matter of market domination.Very true. Another thing, though, that ought to be kept in mind (but rarely is) is that there is nothing inherently detrimental or undesireable about an existing monopoly. It is the threat of competition, not necessarily ompetition itself, that forces any business to price "competitively" and provide reasonable service. As long as a monopolist faces the threat of competition, there is nothing particularly detrimental in being able to maintain the monopoly through better pricing/service than potential competitors.The problems arise when the threat of competition is removed, and that generally only happens when the government grants a legal (ie coercive) monopoly…as has been the case with, say, cable companies or, in the distant past, railroads.
LikeLike
Agree with QB; market domination is one of three elusive catchphrases. Another is "relevant market", which is closely related.Cases always turn on how market is defined; thus D's expert may define the telecommunications market as relevant while P's will expert may define vest pocket sized hand held devices as the relevant market.The theory of a "conspiracy in restraint of trade" requires a combination of sellers who should be competitors who work together to restrict competition – you may recall the Archer Daniels Midland case in the 90s.This last catchphrase is the ultimate hammer facing the NFL and the NBA, but not baseball, last time I looked.
LikeLike
Scott, thanks – the article was not behind the firewall and I have now read it. I am now think FanFred was a bigger player in the debacle than I did previously.I'd figure something had to have changed significantly. My dad, who was a banker (account executive, mostly) in the 70s noted that they would have never made the kinds of loans they were in the 2000s, and if they had they probably would have gone to jail. So, clearly, incentives and what was even permissible must have changed considerably between the 70s and the 90s.
LikeLike
KW and Scott,I largely agree, and there's a ton of literature about these issues. Can I hold the world hostage if I own the world's only unobtainium mine? In reality, probably not.But, of course, since Liam is not over here, someone needs to say that you are in favor of rapacious, robber-baron, predatory capitalism!
LikeLike
".as has been the case with, say, cable companies or, in the distant past, railroads."or schools.
LikeLike
NoVA:or schools.An excellent point.
LikeLike
"rapacious, robber-baron, predatory capitalism!" needs more Fat Cats and Koch
LikeLike
Yes, I agree with Mark, too. (Isn't all this agreement sweet?) Antitrust law is interesting and frustrating partly because it is based on these economic notions that seem at first to make some sense but are problematic upon further examination.
LikeLike
NoVa,Indeed, I knew I was missing the right panache.
LikeLike
But, of course, since Liam is not over here, someone needs to say that you are in favor of rapacious, robber-baron, predatory capitalism!Pretty much. And I'm in favor of neither subsidizing, giving special tax breaks, or writing special laws, to favor any one company or industry. NoVA: Public schools are more like a special class of public utility. Although many college sports franchises enjoy a certain special status that might be more appropriate in the free market. 😉 Schools are less monopolies than, say, public utilities. Even when privatized, there's very little actual competition in the public utility space.
LikeLike
TR called railroads and utilities "natural monopolies" and opposed nationalizing them [there was great sentiment to do so c1905] but pushed regulating them.[The Swedish political economists broke from that model by nationalizing the "natural monopolies" while leaving most enterprise private.]TR distinguished natural monopolies from combinations in restraint of trade, shorthanded as "trusts". They were not trusts in the real property or estate transfer sense. They were agreements by oligopolists to close market entry to competitors, and/or to engage in price fixing.
LikeLike
KW — that's an interesting comparison. Knee jerk, I don't agree with it. but i can't immediately put my finger on why. let me come back to that later.
LikeLike
I am getting ready to try to refocus some of my practice on antitrust and competition, so this is of current interest to me.Of interest to some in the way of background trivia is that some of these criticisms of antitrust policy and law were raised in Robert Bork's book the Antitrust Paradox back in the 70s. He said, in short, that antitrust policy was in some respects at war with its own purposes and based on economic fallacies.
LikeLike
someone needs to say that you are in favor of rapacious, robber-baron, predatory capitalism.That all seems a bit redundant to a socialist like me. 😉 there was great sentiment to do so c1905Hmm…there's a joke about Mark's age somewhere in there. I like this public utility concept for schools and would like to hear what others have to say about it. Like, NoVa, I have to think about that a bit more, but it is an interesting perspective.
LikeLike
NoVA: Public Schools vs Private Schools: think of the Post Office vs. Fed Ex/UPS, etc.
LikeLike
The way I read it, Fannie & Freddie were obligated to get into and encourage the growth of the subprime argument by HUD.
LikeLike
One of the issues I'm having with the utility analogy is that I don't view education as a public good.
LikeLike
NoVA: I'm making a comparison on construction or arrangement (while I view public education as a public good, I do like it being at the local level and would prefer the federal government stay out of it). A collusive monopoly is a different thing. Thus I see the railroads as different from schools (although I see them more as a special category, like satellite radio, where the market and the real estate might not support a huge amount of competition, at least as regards to the laying of track). Also, public schools don't enjoy a monopoly. I work for the public schools here, have done some consulting for some private schools, and the private schools do quite well.
LikeLike
kevin:Schools are less monopolies than, say, public utilities.I definitely disagree with this. There are practical and efficiency arguments to be made in favor of public utilities. Does it make sense to have 5 different water companies laying and maintaining their own delivery pipes, an creating their own resevoirs to generate water? Is it really efficient to have 5 different electric companies putting up their own electric poles and wires in each neighborhood?Schools are quite different, and much, much more akin to any other service that we obtain from a private market. The reason that schools are public rather than private is not because of practical/efficiency issues, but rather because the government decided both to require that people go to school and, as a consequence, provide the means for doing so for those that didn't have those means.Public utilities arose from practical, economic considerations. Public schools arose from political considerations, and could easily, and probably more efficiently, exist as private entities.
LikeLike
The main differences between public schools and your average public utility is (if you believe, as do I, that both constitute a necessary public good) that everybody pays for the schools, whether or not they use them, and they all pay an amount based on some arbitrary amount such as the amount of their purchases or the size of their real property, not on their degree of use of the product. Essentially, public utilities charge a metered rate while schools are a flat rate, irrespective of use. The argument there being that it is in everybody's best interest, whether or not you have children, that the children in your community be educated.
LikeLike
Public utilities arose from practical, economic considerations. Public schools arose from political considerations, and could easily, and probably more efficiently, exist as private entities.Agreed. My argument is that, as constituted, they more resemble a public utility (as regards a community service with a unique role in the community) in construction (not in inspiration). Or perhaps the post office, which lacks the practical and efficiency arguments of telephone poles and waterways.However, I don't know if public education rose from entirely political reasons, unless we're classifying a belief that it is in the pubic's interest that everybody receive some basic level of education, irrespective of ability to pay, as a strictly political belief. In that case, the belief that everybody ought to have some form of sewage service might be a political belief, as well (even though both have different practical constraints).
LikeLike
Also, I doubt schools could more efficiently exist as private entities. They might, but I've been on both sides of that coin, and I only see all education being private as more convoluted. There may be good reasons for that approach, but increased efficiency is probably not one of them.
LikeLike
"The argument there being that it is in everybody's best interest, whether or not you have children, that the children in your community be educated."But one thing doesn't lead to the other. I agree that "educated children" is a positive. But that's why I'm opposed to publicly administered education. I think you've hit on the problem. Everyone pays for schools — but that has little to do with how much we're educating the kids. Put it this way. I fully believe that the DC public schools exist to provide middle class jobs. Any kid that leaves the system with an education is a bonus (and an outlier). It's not the purpose of the institution.
LikeLike
Kevin:Also, public schools don't enjoy a monopoly.This is true, but not for want of trying. Afterall, even people who choose to purchase another service still have to pay homage to the public schools. This is a classic coercive monopoly characteristic. It is similar to, say, the BBC in the UK, particularly in the '60s and '70s. There were other broadcasters that were legally allowed to exist, and they did. But their ability to compete with the BBC was severely hampered by the fact that the BBC had automatic, government funding that everyone had to pay for, even if they preferred the other broadcasters. So it was very difficult, to the point of impossibility, for the other broadcasters to really compete with the BBC for viewership.The same is true of public schools. Because they enjoy a monopolistic hold on governmetn funding, and everyone has to pay into it, private competitors can exist but can never truly compete with the public school. Granting public schools this monopoly on public funds is far more "anti-competitive" behavior than anything private companies can do.The governmetn could easily end this monopoly, while at the same time maintaining its commitment to educating the population, by issuing education vouchers to be used at any school rather than maintaining its own schools that everyone must support.
LikeLike
"The argument there being that it is in everybody's best interest, whether or not you have children, that the children in your community be educated."This belief was widely share beyond Franklin and the other founders. New towns on the frontier often tried to hire a teacher as soon as there were children to teach. This was, apparently, America's first great gender issue – women were the proponents of schooling on the frontier first and foremost.Scott, you often use the word "government" to mean a disembodied authority in Washington, D.C. In the case of public schools, it is government of the people and by the people – about as hands on as it gets.NoVAH, do you think, starting from scratch on the frontier, you could do a better job of educating your young ones without enlisting the entire town in the project? I'm just curious about what paradigm you would have invented.
LikeLike
starting from scratch it makes sense. the problem is we haven't really moved that that far from that model. I can't think of a worse way to teach a kid than to sit them in a room with 20-40 other for 6-8 hours a day. Today, I think my kid would be better served with a laptop in a conference room in my office than the local elementary school.
LikeLike
Kevin:However, I don't know if public education rose from entirely political reasons, unless we're classifying a belief that it is in the pubic's interest that everybody receive some basic level of education, irrespective of ability to pay, as a strictly political belief. In that case, the belief that everybody ought to have some form of sewage service might be a political belief, as well (even though both have different practical constraints). True, and such a belief is definitely a political belief in either case. But decision on how to implement the belief need not be. For example, it is a held political belief that everyone should have food. But that belief doesn't compel the government to create public farms, public factories, and other public food production, nor does it compel it to create public grocery strores that everyone has to pay for even if they shop at the local Piggly Wiggly. Instead it provides vouchers (ie food stamps and other monetary assistance) that allows peopel to purchase the service in a private market.For practical/economic reasons, that cannot be done with regard to sewers, hence the existence of public utilities. It could easily be done with regard to education, but is not, for strictly political reasons. Also, I doubt schools could more efficiently exist as private entities. Why? I'd have to dig it up, but I am pretty sure I have seen stuides that show that private schools spend far less per student thatn public schools, and generally have far better results.
LikeLike
Mark:Scott, you often use the word "government" to mean a disembodied authority in Washington, D.C. In the case of public schools, it is government of the people and by the people – about as hands on as it gets.Well, that is less and less true as the federal and state governemnt gets more and more involved in education. But, sure, there is definitely a meaningful distinction to be drawn between local government, state government, and the federal government, and as I have said many times, I am much more amenable to government action at a local level.But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on what local governments, or the amorphous "the people", do.
LikeLike
NoVA:Today, I think my kid would be better served with a laptop in a conference room in my office than the local elementary school.I disagree with this. School, in my mind, is valuable for more than simply textbook learning. There is a lot of value in the socialization that occurs in a classroom (and on the playground) that would be missed sitting alone on a laptop in a conference room somewhere.
LikeLike
I think the classroom gives a false sense of socialization. It's great to be among your peers, but i think the schools largely limit kids to their own age groups, which is bad. teenagers are awkward enough. isolating them from the rest of us makes them more so.
LikeLike
NoVA: I can't think of a worse way to teach a kid than to sit them in a room with 20-40 other for 6-8 hours a day.Well, there are definitely much worse ways to teach kids than that (it's really not that bad; if anything, we ought to be going back towards the frontier model of reading, writing and arithmetic, not away from it). And I'd rather have better teachers and larger class sizes, rather than worse teachers and smaller class sizes. But as long as that laptop in a conference room was accompanied by the guidance of an authority figure or two, I'd have no trouble with that model. Self-guided instruction is best done in small doses, or reserved for going back to school after years in a field. Motivated students have plenty of time to self-educate. A strong basis in math, reading, science, etc., makes that possible. But this is another discussion . . .Scott: Why? I'd have to dig it up, but I am pretty sure I have seen stuides that show that private schools spend far less per student thatn public schools, and generally have far better results.Many private schools do spend less per student, generally with better results, but this would not necessarily be the case with the complete absence of public education. But a more pressing question is what would be done with students who could not afford a private education? Would education still be compulsory? If so, many of the structural challenges dealt with by public school systems would be moved to various private schools. I could also point to what your average school provides for, versus what the public schools provide for, in terms of teachers for homebound students, special ed students, education for the disabled and the blind, and the average cost is necessarily going to go up. Plus, there are efficiencies of scale that do exist, and unless private schools formed broad consortiums and arranged for sharing of resources and student data, it would be difficult for ever separate school to operate with similar efficiencies. There would also be great inefficiencies in regarding transfers, without any form of standardized curriculum, or grade formats, etc. Which might exist–but then that at least suggests a public standard body, which begins the slow creep back towards a public school system.We should discuss this in more detail when I have more time. It is a fascinating subject, and one, for a variety of reasons, I'm very interested in. 😉 This is true, but not for want of trying. Afterall, even people who choose to purchase another service still have to pay homage to the public schools. This is a classic coercive monopoly characteristic. This is true. Although the same can be said of public parks, libraries, street lights, sidewalks and even a variety of road projects. I don't give a damn if there's another exit on I-40, why are my tax dollars paying for it? 😉
LikeLike
NoVA:teenagers are awkward enough. isolating them from the rest of us makes them more so. I've got 2 of them. If anyone should be isolated from the rest of us, it's teenagers. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin:But a more pressing question is what would be done with students who could not afford a private education?One word….vouchers.Plus, there are efficiencies of scale that do exist,Like what?There would also be great inefficiencies in regarding transfers, without any form of standardized curriculum, or grade formats, etc.It seems unlikely to me that curriculums would be so drastically different as to cause major problems. It's not like you'll have 10-year olds in one place doing AP physics and in another learning the alphabet for the first time. I moved from the UK to the US with an 11 year old, a 9 year old, and a 6 year old. Obviously the curriculums between the UK and the US have no formal standardization at all, but the transition was relatively painless.Interestingly, it was most difficult for the youngest one, because in the UK she started school a year earlier than she would have here, and the learning curve is much steeper there at a much earlier age. So she came to the US at least a year ahead of her age peers, and she was near the top of her class even in the UK. Hence she started to get bored at school. We debated with whether to accelerate her up a grade, but decided that socially that would be a problem. Ultimately we were able to work with the school and things have worked out fine. I guess the point is that a lack of standardization is not necessarily a problem, and indeed I would argue it allows a flexibility for schools/parents that can be beneficial.
LikeLike
Obviously the curriculums between the UK and the US have no formal standardization at all, but the transition was relatively painless.I transferred from private to public schools in 7th grade and it was relatively painless. I took placement tests in the few classes where an AP or honors course was offered and other than that I was with my peers. I was a bit bored in a few class, but I suspect that would have been the case even if I had attended public schools throughout.
LikeLike