High School Diploma in Eight Days

[MJM58]

Other than my introduction post, this is my first thread on this forum. I've been reading a lot, and I still feel very drawn to the Objectivist philosophy, especially as it relates to politics. However, every now and then, I come across a news story that makes me question how an Objectivism-based government would deal with certain issues, if it would deal with them at all, and what the consequences of that dealing (or lack thereof) would be. The following is one of those stories:

Doral school awards dubious diplomas

Basically, a private school in Florida put out an ad saying that you can get a high school diploma for $399 and showing up at school for eight days. Obviously, this is not a reliable measure of intellectual prowess, and I'd go as far to say that it's essentially fraud if the school doesn't say how the student obtained the diploma (i.e. $399 and eight days in class).

Now, I understand that in an Objectivist society, education would be entirely privatized and unregulated, and having spent the last twelve years of my life in a public school that was absolutely rampant with hypocrisy and incompetence, this is something that I've been a strong proponent of. But stories like this make me question whether education would become meaningless in a privatized system. So, my question to the members of this forum is: under a privatized, unregulated education system (the kind of system that Objectivism advocates), how would we deal with instances like the above story documents? Would we even deal with them, and if we wouldn't, then what would the consequences of that be?

[FeatherFall]

We don't live in an Objectivist society right now, and InterAmerican Christian Academy seems to be doing ok. So why is this place capitalism's sole responsibility? Here's a point of conjecture: Perhaps Miami Dade College wouldn't accept graduates of IACA if those students didn't get tax money for college. If that's true, then it is the state run education monopoly's fault that such places exist.

But more to your point, I'm not entirely convinced this place is a problem. People like you are already questioning the value of IACA. News stories and word of mouth will quickly ruin such a business if it has nothing to offer. The story to which you linked mentions at least one non-governmental watchdog group that has this place on its radar. Colleges are capable of researching student credentials and deciding for themselves whether or not a student is qualified. Miami Dade College seems to think graduates of IACA pass muster, other colleges don't. You could say that Miami Dade College is being hoodwinked, but I wonder... How do graduates of the IACA perform at Miami Dade? It's too bad that information isn't available to us.

Does anybody know if you can just pass a test to obtain a high school equivilancy degree in Florida? That would be very similar to IACA. Eight days may indeed be enough time to train or retrain a dropout of average intelligence into a position where he is ready to pass a series of tests. If he can pass the tests (HSED, GED or IACA), he should be able to refrence that fact on his resume because it would be useful to both employers and educators.

Edited June 10, 2011 by FeatherFall

[aequalsa]

Does anybody know if you can just pass a test to obtain a high school equivilancy degree in Florida? That would be very similar to IACA. Eight days may indeed be enough time to train or retrain a dropout of average intelligence into a position where he is ready to pass a series of tests. If he can pass the tests (HSED, GED or IACA), he should be able to refrence that fact on his resume because it would be useful to both employers and educators.

When I lived there, you could get a GED.

This was a couple decades ago, but then in Florida the quality of public education was such that it might not be much of an exaggeration to say that you could get the same amount of knowledge in 8 well designed days.

[softwareNerd]

Most likely, a less statist society than today would have more private "certification" businesses. Currently, we have a few businesses that either certify or evaluate the quality of products, services, bond-offerings, mutual funds, movies, and so on. No such scheme is perfect just as the best police force could not bring crime down to zero. Also, every such scheme will evolve. Every fraud teaches the certifier something else he needs to check for.

Today, the government has stepped in to many important certification roles. Some of them even come with government guarantees. There was a time when people tried to judge if a bank was reliable before depositing their money in it. Some banks still took undue risks and depositors suffered. Today, regular folk with accounts under $250,000 don't need to care too much about bank-reliability because the government guarantees their deposits up to that amount. In turn, the government lays down rules for banks and examines them. Risk taking and losses have not come down as a result. The only difference is that tax payers as a group pay up for losses.

Actually, that's not the only difference. Here's the critical one: in the old system each person bore his own loss. If someone judged correctly, it paid off; if another person judged incorrectly, he lost. Now, both lose via the taxes they both pay subsidize the loss. The statist system makes the judgement of individual consumers less relevant. over all, this leads to lower average quality. This has a parallel in what has happened with "private" health insurance in the U.S. The government has encouraged a system that takes away the incentive for the individual to make judgments about health care costs.

[Zip]

I agree with sN. You would see Due-Diligence Firms which would make their name and reputation scrutinizing and rating private firms.

This would reduce the possibility of Bernie Maddof's as much as ensure that Company "X" can provide the services it advertises.

To further what sN said, the current system is designed to create a sort of unconscious citizen who implicitly or explicitly defers to government for his security in almost all matters. Why did people trust Maddof? Because he built a reputation for shrewd investment and the government didn't tell them that they were being ripped off.

If someone had investigated his incredible returns they would have quickly discovered his house of cards

Edited June 10, 2011 by Zip