Hamburgers. And even then I have my doubts.

Even then you need the government to make sure that the private company's burger won't kill you.

FedEx>USPS

ipods

They can do it better sometimes, but it comes with a price.

I think the big thing private companies do better is education.

I think the big thing private companies do better is education.

Not so much.

"The new study is the first published study to show that public schools are at least as effective as private schools at promoting student learning over time, they say.

Combined with other, yet-unpublished studies of the same data, which produced similar findings, “we think this effectively ends the debate about whether private schools are more effective than publics,” said Christopher Lubienski, whose research has dealt with all aspects of alternative education.

This is important, he said, because many current reforms, such as No Child Left Behind, charter schools and vouchers for private schools, are based on that assumption.

The debate essentially began three years ago with the publication in Phi Delta Kappan of a previous study by the Lubienskis, which challenged the then-common wisdom – supported by well-regarded but dated research – that private schools were superior.

In that 2005 study (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/0411school.html), they found that public school students tested higher in math than their private school peers from similar social and economic backgrounds.

In another, more-extensive study (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/06/0123lubienski.html) in early 2006, they built on those findings, and also raised similar questions about charter schools.

Both studies were based on fourth- and eighth-grade test data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The conclusions of the husband-and-wife team seemed “crazy radical” at the time, Sarah Lubienski said, and generated significant controversy. They were supported, however, later in 2006, with similar findings in U.S. Department of Education studies comparing public schools with privates (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp) and with charters (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006460), which looked at NAEP test data on both math and reading.

(Unlike literacy, math is viewed as being less dependent on a student’s home environment and more an indication of a school’s effectiveness, Sarah Lubienski said.)"


http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0523schools.html



--

Even the big name private academic institutions couldn't have achieved their status in education without government help. Take Harvard for example, who was charted by the local Massachusetts government of the time.

i think the government fails at making cheese

Funny thing is, the government hires private companies to do R and D for projects and manufacture goods. The only reason awesome things get made is because the government has big $$$ to spend.

Porn. The government sucks at it.

Porn. The government sucks at it.

Yeah I saw some government porn once, and it was ridiculously mundane. The female pornstar and male performers were all completely lethargic and lazy, because they know that civil servants can't get fired. And the damn DVD broke after one viewing...

Not so much.

"The new study is the first published study to show that public schools are at least as effective as private schools at promoting student learning over time, they say.

Combined with other, yet-unpublished studies of the same data, which produced similar findings, “we think this effectively ends the debate about whether private schools are more effective than publics,” said Christopher Lubienski, whose research has dealt with all aspects of alternative education.

This is important, he said, because many current reforms, such as No Child Left Behind, charter schools and vouchers for private schools, are based on that assumption.

The debate essentially began three years ago with the publication in Phi Delta Kappan of a previous study by the Lubienskis, which challenged the then-common wisdom – supported by well-regarded but dated research – that private schools were superior.

In that 2005 study (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/0411school.html), they found that public school students tested higher in math than their private school peers from similar social and economic backgrounds.

In another, more-extensive study (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/06/0123lubienski.html) in early 2006, they built on those findings, and also raised similar questions about charter schools.

Both studies were based on fourth- and eighth-grade test data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The conclusions of the husband-and-wife team seemed “crazy radical” at the time, Sarah Lubienski said, and generated significant controversy. They were supported, however, later in 2006, with similar findings in U.S. Department of Education studies comparing public schools with privates (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp) and with charters (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006460), which looked at NAEP test data on both math and reading.

(Unlike literacy, math is viewed as being less dependent on a student’s home environment and more an indication of a school’s effectiveness, Sarah Lubienski said.)"


http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0523schools.html



--

Even the big name private academic institutions couldn't have achieved their status in education without government help. Take Harvard for example, who was charted by the local Massachusetts government of the time.

Going off that it appears that public schools in the US are better then public schools as far as student outcomes are concerned.
That doesn't say everything though...

If we want to compare how private and publicly run schools operate wouldn't we need to give them the same level of funding?

Do you happen to have any stats on how they compare specifically in areas where vouchers systems are implemented?
it might give some idea

It's beside the point but I remember hearing things from exchange students that private school teachers got paid less then public school teachers (which came as a big surprise to me). It sortof makes me think that there might be more to it.

I'm not really trying to argue either way, but it's flawed to compare private schools to public schools in a system where both exist and private schools get little or no government support.

To compare how effectively they use their resources we'd want to compare similar countries where one has a private and one has a public system (not really likely), or compare them in the case where they both get government funding. Voucher systems sortof fit the bill, although in that case private schools can end up being better funded.

Surely at least attempting to control for resourcing even would provide a better way to answer the question - even just adding the school's revenue to existing data on grades and trying to see where the correlations are.

The question I'm aiming for here isn't "are private schools better then public" as is, but whether a private *provision* of schooling is better or worse then public provision, given the same level of resourcing.

The one thing that sets private school students apart from public school students is that private school students have real time motivation to do good in school. Students in private schools are expected to do better because they are actually paying additional fees just to go there. Under performing would be considered a waste of money and a lack of gratitude.

It all really comes down to how much motivation a student really has, independent of school. Information is out there and its the same everywhere you go. It really depends on whether or not an individual feels they really need to take that information and make something out of it.

Also, due to this misconception of one being better than the other, the parents that raise the student are different. Parents that are willing to pay additional fees for their children to go to private schools will show more of an interest in their child's schooling as they have made it into an investment. Parents who have sent their children to public schools are less inclined to do so.

Science labs.

Governments are bound by populist morals and so are hindered in the fields of cloning and stem cell research and the like.

buy low sell high

If we want to compare how private and publicly run schools operate wouldn't we need to give them the same level of funding?

Do you happen to have any stats on how they compare specifically in areas where vouchers systems are implemented?
it might give some idea

While you are correct that they might not have the same level of funding and therefore that this study might not tell us if these results would stay the same if they did, the question misses the important fact that those very things are what sets these two types of institutions apart!

So while you could claim philosophically that private schools might (I say might because we haven't established this either way) be more efficient given the same amount of resources that is rather useless in practice when what matters to those being educated is who's giving the best education: These studies indicate that public schools are giving equal or better education.

If public institutions were forced to give the same funding as private institutions get from private investments, then your question would prove very relevant; since they aren't - since that's precisely what sets them apart - the question isn't that important in practice.

Science labs.

Governments are bound by populist morals and so are hindered in the fields of cloning and stem cell research and the like.

Private labs are bound by populist morals as well, since they are bound by both law and private investments.

The one thing that sets private school students apart from public school students is that private school students have real time motivation to do good in school. Students in private schools are expected to do better because they are actually paying additional fees just to go there. Under performing would be considered a waste of money and a lack of gratitude..

Yet these studies show that they are under performing since students in private schools performed equally or worse on average than those in public schools!

"Waste of money" and "lack of gratitude" as arguments, would work both ways:

For every student whose parents are busting their ass (working overtime, more than one job, etc.) to send their kids to school - and thus have enormous pressure to perform well - could you not also find a student who's parents are overwhelmingly rich therefore don't care if they under perform or waste money?

Private industry could hardly have pulled off the moon landings, the ISS, and the feats of NASA, the ESA, CNSA the soviet unions space program, etc. These ventures add to human knowledge and understanding of the universe, but they haven't been found to be profitable enough.

Also, would you want a corporation to develop and patent nuclear weapons?

When I hear the words "Government Porn," my thoughts drift to a single, lonely man:

Ralph E. Whittington. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=125360&title=Stacks-'N'-Racks)

Private labs are bound by populist morals as well, since they are bound by both law and private investments.

There are also renegade scientists who work for neither company nor government, like Samuel H. Wood and Miodrag Stojković.

Fighting foreign wars...

While you are correct that they might not have the same level of funding and therefore that this study might not tell us if these results would stay the same if they did, the question misses the important fact that those very things are what sets these two types of institutions apart!

So while you could claim philosophically that private schools might (I say might because we haven't established this either way) be more efficient given the same amount of resources that is rather useless in practice when what matters to those being educated is who's giving the best education: These studies indicate that public schools are giving equal or better education.

If public institutions were forced to give the same funding as private institutions get from private investments, then your question would prove very relevant; since they aren't - since that's precisely what sets them apart - the question isn't that important in practice.

The question is quite important as far as how education systems ought to be set up or reformed.
The big issue being education vouchers.

Comparing how private education works in a system where you pay for public education whether you use it or not doesn't tell us much.
Parents face the choice:
-Send kids to public school (free - already paid through taxes)
-Send kids to private school (pay entire cost on top of taxation)

Yes under the current system of a primarily public sector education system it's clear public schools are better.
However that doesn't mean that we can say from there that "the government can run education better then a private company". That being the 'theme' of the thread.

The government funds the public system through taxation and the private system is funded privately given the existence of the public system - the public system being better doesn't tell us whether it is better run, which is the actual point.
To compare how they are run we need to compare public versus private systems, or compare student outcomes in a context where the funding situation isn't warped (maybe voucher system?).

However that doesn't mean that we can say from there that "the government can run education better then a private company". That being the 'theme' of the thread.

Actually, that's exactly what we can say. It can run it better in that it is giving better results.

To use a analogy it would be like asking who's the strongest man: A man who uses steroids and lifts 500 pounds or a man who does not use steroids and lifts 450.

The answer is clear: the man who uses steroids is stronger. That it isn't an even playing field (i.e. that one uses steroids and one does not - analogous to any possible advantage a public school might have in funding, which again hasn't been established) isn't relevant in practice, because we care about strength now, not strength in some hypothetical scenario where the strongest man loses his advantage.

I don't see how "Let's compare government and private institutions performance in hypothetical scenarios where one loses the fundamental advantages it has over the other one" is the theme of the thread.

There are also renegade scientists who work for neither company nor government, like Samuel H. Wood and Miodrag Stojković.

According to wikipedia, they both work for companies and/or governments.

Actually, that's exactly what we can say. It can run it better in that it is giving better results.

To use a analogy it would be like asking who's the strongest man: A man who uses steroids and lifts 500 pounds or a man who does not use steroids and lifts 450.

The answer is clear: the man who uses steroids is stronger. That it isn't an even playing field (i.e. that one uses steroids and one does not - analogous to any possible advantage a public school might have in funding, which again hasn't been established) isn't relevant in practice, because we care about strength now, not strength in some hypothetical scenario where the strongest man loses his advantage.

I don't see how "Let's compare government and private institutions performance in hypothetical scenarios where one loses the fundamental advantages it has over the other one" is the theme of the thread.

Beyond all that, I don't even trust coca cola and gatorade machines in schools. If public education were phased out until all schools were private I guarantee not all private schools would be like the prep schools we see now. There would be dependence on corporate sponsorship and shareholders deciding on curriculum and not electable school board members like we have now. Studying marketing just freaks me out.I can just imagine schools with commercials before powerpoint lectures and students being chided for challenging their corporate overlords. I dunno, it would just be a double whammy. Since school should be a requirement for everyone, how will poor kids that don't perform that well get by?

Well, foremost, about the schools, you need to stop misrepresenting what your study says:
1) Catholic schools do worse than public schools
2) Secular private schools do about the same as public schools - perhaps a bit better.

**

Further, you need to recognize that when you start trying to account for socio-family-economic differences between students, the results become obscured, and I would be hesitant to ascribe a high degree of accuracy to the results of the study.

Indeed, here's a study from 1997 (which isn't really very long ago) which also accounts for such differences between students, but comes to a somewhat different conclusion:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irpweb/publications/dps/pdfs/dp114197.pdf

Note that it deals with a different age group.

***

Also note that the existence of private schools improves public schools.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4978.pdf

***********

But, then, this isn't the topic of discussion this thread is supposed to be about.

We are asked to find _one_ field in which the private sector does better... not that the private sector _always_ does better.
Because I'll agree that public infrastructure often does better under the responsive monopoly that the state can offer.

Well, foremost, about the schools, you need to stop misrepresenting what your study says:
1) Catholic schools do worse than public schools
2) Secular private schools do about the same as public schools - perhaps a bit better.



I have not misrepresented anything. You need to read what I've said again.

I've said that they do as good if not better (e.g. " These studies indicate that public schools are giving equal or better education.").

That's fits perfectly with what you just said, which is that Catholic private schools were doing worse and other private schools do equally good, on average.

Further, you need to recognize that when you start trying to account for socio-family-economic differences between students, the results become obscured, and I would be hesitant to ascribe a high degree of accuracy to the results of the study.

That's absurd: the point of accounting for socio-economic differences is precisely to provide more accurate results! It would be completely unfair and not very useful to not account for such differences.


Indeed, here's a study from 1997 (which isn't really very long ago) which also accounts for such differences between students, but comes to a somewhat different conclusion:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irpweb/publications/dps/pdfs/dp114197.pdf

Note that it deals with a different age group.

1997 would be the date the study was published, not the date of the data it is using. If you read the study it's clear it is using data that is pre-1994, mainly data from 1988, the year they use as a reference for determining economic data like income, etc.

So yes, it's signifcantly older than the data the study I references used, which uses data from the NAEP which is a bigger and better sample to begin with.


***

Also note that the existence of private schools improves public schools.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4978.pdf

***********

Which not only has much less to do with the topic at hand, but also hasn't been denied by anyone here. I don't see anyone here denying that private schools could help motivate public schools to improve themselves through competition?


We are asked to find _one_ field in which the private sector does better... not that the private sector _always_ does better.

Again, who said otherwise? You're bringing up points that are completely irrelevant because nobody suggested that the request was to prove that the private sector is always better.

The argument regarding private/public schools was the result of someone saying that the private sector does schools better. I provided a study which had results which contradicted that claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg

Thought you guys might like to take a break from this serious discussion to get the perspective of a legend.

Ups>usps

Health care and hospitals.

Again, about the schools:

*******

"Your" study: "public schools do as well, or better, than private ones"
"my" study: "secular private schools do better than public schools"

These statements do not mean the same thing.

*******

"the point of accounting for socio-economic differences is precisely to provide more accurate results!"

No. Rather, the point is to arrive at more useful results.

And to get to turn the obvious result - "private schools do better" - into the result they cared about (that a student will do better if placed in school type A instead of type B), they had to apply a whole bunch of math to their data. Presumably, considering that the math itself was based upon a statistical analysis of a dataset considering a finite number of student attributes, imperfect math.

Beyond the imperfections in the math, they may have ignored some important quality of the students environment.
If such where true, they found [performance of students by school type, adjusted for factor X&Y&Z] instead of what they claim to have found: [performance of students by school type, adjusted to account for everything external to that question].

*******

Private schools are presumably better because they have to compete to provide a service better than that of their competitors. I thought I'd point out that, at least, this concept is sound.


*************************

But anyways, you want a list of things that private industry does better than the government?

Simple: any service that is unpopular with the majority of the population.
Government-run organizations offering services that the majority of the population finds unappealing will tend not to exist, because people won't want to support those industries with their tax money.

Again, about the schools:

*******

"Your" study: "public schools do as well, or better, than private ones"
"my" study: "secular private schools do better than public schools"

These statements do not mean the same thing.

Who said they did? Are you even reading my posts? I never once said those statements where the same.

Please follow the discussion: you accused me of misrepresenting what my study said so I explained to you how I never misrepresented anything my study said - what I said was supported by the study: Public schools on average do as good or better than private schools.

You then provided a different study and I explained to you how that study had much older data than you thought (you said that it was from 1997 so "it wasn't that old", when in reality the data was almost 10 years older than that) as well as how it used a worse data set.


No. Rather, the point is to arrive at more useful results. And to get to turn the obvious result - "private schools do better" - into the result they cared about (that a student will do better if placed in school type A instead of type B), they had to apply a whole bunch of math to their data. Presumably, considering that the math itself was based upon a statistical analysis of a dataset considering a finite number of student attributes, imperfect math.


Beyond the imperfections in the math, they may have ignored some important quality of the students environment.
If such where true, they found [performance of students by school type, adjusted for factor X&Y&Z] instead of what they claim to have found: [performance of students by school type, adjusted to account for everything external to that question].
1. You're splitting hairs. The results are more useful because they account for other differences; in removing those extraneous differences they have made them more accurate for scope of the study.

2. "Imperfections" in the math do not mean the conclusion is wrong. All our circles created with approximations of PI are imperfect; they contain error. We still do a pretty damn good job of creating a circle though...


3. Yes, they may have ignored an important aspect in the study... Hence why nobody here is saying that's absolute proof. I said exactly what can be said with the study I provided: it seems to contradict the claim he made.




Private schools are presumably better because they have to compete to provide a service better than that of their competitors. I thought I'd point out that, at least, this concept is sound.Actually you're wrong here too. I can grant you that it's sound that competition could increase their performance but that doesn't mean that they are better when everything else is considered. It's a beneffit, not a conclusion.

Moreover the benefit, according to the study you provided, could already apply to public schools if private schools exist. They do. They both have the same benefit.



Simple: any service that is unpopular with the majority of the population.
Government-run organizations offering services that the majority of the population finds unappealing will tend not to exist, because people won't want to support those industries with their tax money.How is that a list? A list you can't even give an example of?

not sure if it was mentioned. but make money. the private sector is way better at making money than the government could ever hope to be.