Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Myrhial Arkenath]

I recognize the example of your mother. We used to have to do with very little at home, and that lifestyle has stuck with me. Even when I was working, and got a very nice income for my age (programmers get paid well here) I never bought anything until the old thing basically fell apart. Some of my clothes are four years old 

In my case there is also a feeling of guilt involved, as the largest part of my savings comes from the inheritance of my mother and grandmother. Both have taught me to spend my money wisely, but I am taking it to an extreme and need to learn that I am now an adult and can "spoil" myself once in a while.

It's a curious thing, since I used to get very badly teased for wearing clothes my mother made for me (the joys of living in a narrow-minded small town). You'd think I'd be making up for that now. In a way I am happy that I don't "throw money away" on things like going out every weekend or smoking. I always find myself surprised at people my age who work a job and then another just to pay for those habits. But on the other hand I know I need to learn not to be so greedy, as I am lucky enough to have a good education, that my boyfriend makes enough money to pay for the house so only daily expenses have to be paid by me, and that I can afford to quit the job I ended up not liking to take the time for myself and discover what I really want in life.

Now I am going to say something which is highly controversial: The credit crunch is a good thing as much as it is a bad thing. I can't believe the kinds of things people loaned money for! Or that we now have a law here that makes all loan advertisements include a warning saying "Loans cost money", meaning that you will repay more in the end. That such warnings are needed shows imo that something is very wrong. And I hope this is the start of a change in attitude, because mass ignorance about finances does scare me. Or just mass ignorance in general.

[Zuzanna Alondra]

Finical education in public school is non- existent in America and that bugs me.

Below is an article I thought to be a little gem for you all to enjoy in the mean time.

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/48/four-rookie-mistakes-people-make-that-keep-them-poor/

[Myrhial Arkenath]

Finical education in public school is non- existent in America and that bugs me.

Not to much being done about that back here either. Even during my last two years of highschool, where I switched to what we call a business school to take the equivalent of an IT study all we got was bookkeeping and financial law. Considering most other educations at that school prepared people for studying economics and similar positions you'd think some attention to personal finance would be given, but alas, that'd make too much sense or something

[Wanoah]

Finical education in public school is non- existent in America and that bugs me.

Not to much being done about that back here either. Even during my last two years of highschool, where I switched to what we call a business school to take the equivalent of an IT study all we got was bookkeeping and financial law. Considering most other educations at that school prepared people for studying economics and similar positions you'd think some attention to personal finance would be given, but alas, that'd make too much sense or something

I don't think I've heard of any public education anywhere that really covers personal finance at all.

[Zuzanna Alondra]

Leads to the question: Who knows how to balance a checkbook and where did you learn it from?

[Vikarion]

The reason financial education isn't taught is that it would be both more difficult to market products to a population wary of overspending and impossible to buy votes via unsupportable government spending.

Since neither the public sector nor the private sector has a compelling interest, well, we raise generation after generation of financial illiterates.

I learned how to balance a checkbook at 13, doing my father's accounting on Quicken. 

[Lillith Blackheart]

We're required to take a full semester course on Economics in NY in High School, and it gets pretty heavy into business practices, economic value, financial math and statistics, etc.

It doesn't teach you how to balance your checkbook, though. It teaches you stuff way beyond it. I figured this was something states in general did. . .

It's even a sophmore year course if I recall, maybe Junior level. I don't remember, but it was before Senior year.

One of the more interesting courses I took, too. I enjoyed the stock market game that they ran -- which is why I thought most states in the US did, as it was a nationwide contest amongst economics classes.

As for my checkbook: I learned by doing. Best way to teach someone about that sort of thing in my opinion.

[Vikarion]

Most states require no form of consumer economics whatsoever. Considering how much it is used in daily life, I personally consider consumer econ much more important than, say, Algebra.

[orange]

(New Yorkers) required to take a full semester course on Economics in NY in High School,

This does not mean most people learn or remember the information imparted.

[Lillith Blackheart]

@Vik: Nonsense. That's for people to learn on their own. You're starting to move into some serious Nanny State shit with that sort of thing. That's a hair's breadth from telling people what and how to buy. Everyone learns how to balance a checkbook in 4th grade. Arithmatic with decimals. That's what they need.

@Dex: Then what fucking difference does it make if you add more shit they're not going to learn or remember the information imparted? In fact what's the point of education at all?

[Vikarion]

I don't think your statement follows mine logically.

I consider basic consumer economics a necessary part of education. Offering consumer economics as a choice in the educational system, or even as a requirement, is not forcing economic decisions, any more than requiring algebra forces persons to become mathematicians. It is a requirement, no less and no more, that people be trained to understand such things as debt, interest, basic accounting, and so forth.

If our basic educational system is intended to prepare one to live in our society, isn't it failing those who rely on it?

Now, you may take issue with public education in general. That's fine, but it's not the issue here.

[Lillith Blackheart]

Except all of those things are already taught in other courses. Mostly math courses, and also debt is taught pretty heavily in a regular Economics class. They are, of course, taught on a macro-scale when it comes to nations, but that doesn't make it suddenly work differently when it is an individual borrowing instead of an entity.

Interest, basic accounting, all of those are subsets of arithmetic. People are taught these things.

You can't teach the value of a dollar. No matter how you try to do it, the only way people will ever understand is from experience. You can tell someone that it's that important until you're blue in the face, and it won't change a thing.

It's for them to learn on their own. The tools have already been handed to them, as well as the logic and reasoning that sits behind them. If they then opt not to use those tools, it's not that the system is failing them, it's that they are failing themselves.

It may not be forcing economic decisions, but it's damn close to doing so. Hence "that's a hair's breadth from telling people what and how to buy" and not "that's telling people what and how to buy".

My statement follows yours fine.

[orange]

@Dex: Then what  difference does it make if you add more stuff they're not going to learn or remember the information imparted? In fact what's the point of education at all?

I didn't say it made a difference one way or another.  My comment was intended to be on the motivation of many students to learn more than is required to pass/graduate.  I think adding additional, interesting material for those students actually interested in learning is great.

As for "What's the point of education at all?"

Everyone learns how to balance a checkbook in 4th grade. Arithmatic with decimals. That's what they need.

In my experience (multiple public school systems in multiple States and countries), the core curriculum in the US is geared towards ensuring the masses grasp what many of us understood by the 6th grade.

Some would say the point of education is to prepare people to be contributing members of society or to prepare future citizens to be good and well informed citizens (so they can make informed decisions about who they are voting for or at the townhall meeting), etc.

The sad reality is many students do not see their formal educations as a necessary part of their future.    They do not see themselves using the stuff they learn in history or macro-economics in whatever job they take on.

I apologize if my comment frustrated you.

[Lillith Blackheart]

I didn't say it made a difference one way or another.  My comment was intended to be on the motivation of many students to learn more than is required to pass/graduate.  I think adding additional, interesting material for those students actually interested in learning is great.

I don't think it's necessary to add more material. Granted, I think we should, but not material of this nature -- no reason to teach it again, we already taught it. The reason I think we should is students in the US come out of high school behind the curve internationally. They simply aren't prepared for college. There's no reason that they can't be taught Physics well before senior year. They should know it by then.

In my experience (multiple public school systems in multiple States and countries), the core curriculum in the US is geared towards ensuring the masses grasp what many of us understood by the 6th grade.

In all actuality, our schooling system is not designed so much to make sure they grasp things, it actually is designed to indoctrinate people. Somewhere along the lines people saw how good the schools were doing in Prussia and figured it was a good idea.

The epic fail involved is that we've hybridized our prior method with the Prussian method, and that makes for really shoddy schooling. Either method works damn well. However you have to make sure that's the only method you're using. Otherwise it falls to hell.

Much like our system is dealing with now.

Some would say the point of education is to prepare people to be contributing members of society or to prepare future citizens to be good and well informed citizens (so they can make informed decisions about who they are voting for or at the townhall meeting), etc.

I would suggest "well informed" is not the goal.

The sad reality is many students do not see their formal educations as a necessary part of their future.    They do not see themselves using the stuff they learn in history or macro-economics in whatever job they take on.

This is a problem, and there's no good solution with the current system, because the current system relies to heavily on rote memorization. And let's face it: That's not really interesting.

I apologize if my comment frustrated you.

Do not take my emphatic method of writing to imply that I am angry/frustrated/overjoyed/whatever. I'm pretty laid back and find it difficult to give a crap about most things beyond the fact that I enjoy debate.

[Zuzanna Alondra]

I personally saw a bit taught in Home Etc class about personal budgeting when I was in highschool.  I don't think it need to be an extensive education, but enough to make people realize how to budget.  Then again I think Home etc, basic firstaide/cpr and the class that makes you have the fake babydoll for a week should be required courses for every adult so they at least know how to take care of themselves; as sadly these skills are not always taught at home.

But I derail a little from finances - lovely debate - keep going!