Oh, I'm not against the graduates so much, but the process they go through.

As far as I'm concerned, any teacher that doesn't get the job done is overpaid. I have yet to meet a teacher worth $30,000 a year plus benefits. Most ought to be making minimum wage for the effort they put into their work.

But more to the point. I don't consider a university education to be any improvement over most Jr. High Schools. I took so many comprehensive tests in 8th grade that said my english and math skills were the same as a sophomore in college, and I had to laugh. I was a mediocre student at best, and when I got to college, I maintained a 3.9 gpa right up to the day they abolished my major and sent me packing. That's okay I suppose, since I went out and made a career where I get to sit and tell engineers and business managers what to do all day, and they pay me plenty to do it. It's called gumption, and it is what is lacking in the public schools system, both primary and secondary.

And what's with this mandatory "Liberal Arts" classes that college students have to take in order to get a degree? The only use I see for it is to pay the tenure on literature profs so they have a reason for being there. If I want to learn how to design a rocket, why do I need to learn shakespeare to do it? Of course, the explanation I get is that it makes the graduates a more complete citizen. HOGWASH.

As for the poor kids, yeah, well, when I got my walking papers at 18, my folks were doing pretty well too, but at 18 I am supposed to be responsible for my own welfare, so why on earth should my financial aid qualification be based on how much someone else makes who is no longer responsible for me? All that did was keep me from getting into college for three years until I could prove that I had been destitute long enough on my own that I now qualified. Going to college ought to be based on whether the student merits the opportunity or not. I'm weary of seeing kids in college barely able to eek out a 3.0 gpa but having their entire expenses covered because of affirmative action programs, which I am paying for. There were certainly plenty of them there when I attended. I don't see why the same philosophy shouldn't be applied to primary school system.

If we could wean the school system off the welfare program and turn it into a business that didn't have to compete with government subsidized substandard programs, the tune would certainly change, and for the better from all I've seen. Then you could start employing teachers based on their actual job performance, just like most of the rest of us are, and start making all the money I've been forced to invest in public education actually have some value.

The public school system, just like the Postal service, the ACOE and many other programs, all provide strong evidence that government has no business running a business, and that if there is a private sector equivalent, then the government has the duty to dissolve it's function in that area. Oversight is one thing, but funding and operations, the government is the least qualified.