Yael Petar, a frustrated student fears that she is going to lose another semester due to the government's insistence on not funding higher education and dropping the cost on the students
What has always distinguished the people of Israel is that they are the people of the book. Our heritage is based entirely on learning and memorization. The industrious havarach, the Jewish patent inventor and the shrewd Jewish businessman - what connects them all is that they are educated - they know how to turn coal into gold.
The State of Israel is not rich in natural resources - we do not export diamonds, oil or agriculture. We export brains. We send physicists to represent us in the CERN particle accelerator, we sell patents and startups in the global high-tech market, the percentage of Jews who win Nobel Prizes is one of the highest in the world, and even on the stage of the Emmy Awards, Jewish producers and directors star who do not embarrass us in Hollywood. If so, it is not clear why our elected officials are not interested in leveraging this powerful resource we have - brains - and lead us to progress and well-being.
Money brings money - this is the first lesson you learn in economics. Money invested wisely doubles and more. Money invested in academic education, in research, in the future generation, yields the State of Israel progress, inventions, breakthroughs and well-being. There is a short-term investment and a long-term investment. A short-term investment is, for example, an investment in a leather chair for ministers. A leather chair has a lifespan of so-and-so years, it wears out and ends its life. A long-term investment such as academic studies is an investment that yields a product for the country for many years. As long as the educated person lives, he produces a product for the country. Investing in education and academia is a safe and effective investment, both financially and socially. Economically because this is an investment that yields products that exceed the amount of the initial investment, and socially because everyone in the country is allowed and should have the opportunity to study at high levels regardless of what socioeconomic level they are from.
Academic studies should be within the reach of everyone who desires it, one of the reasons is so that the economic and social gaps between the classes do not grow. If the rich continue to be rich, and the poor continue to be poor, then what have we actually done? If the poor continue to live in the vicious circle of ignorance and lack of means, society will deteriorate. An old proverb says "If a beggar knocks on your door, don't give him money, but teach him to fish", the meaning is that you will help the disabled to learn a trade and be able to produce by themselves. In other words, if there are so many poor and unemployed in the country, it is better to teach them how to work and produce. They can contribute to society and the economy, they just don't know how yet.
In the modern world, academic studies are not a luxury product, but a necessity. Once upon a time, most jobs were manual labor, but the modern era has brought with it machines that do all these jobs. Until 40-50 years ago if you were a carpenter or a farmer, then you could really live off of it and make a decent living (even without a degree). Today most jobs are thinking jobs. Nowadays knowledge really is power. The power to be free, live a fulfilling life, make money and enjoy life.
We are entering a global period in which huge gaps are created between the able-bodied and the less-able. What most people don't know is that the able-bodied depend on a close relationship with the less-able. In order for the standard of living in a certain country to rise, all citizens need to live a prosperous life, only then does the national economy prosper and the quality of life increases.
Finally, I have a question for you, Mr. Minister, in your opinion, would you be able to get to your comfortable leather chair somewhere in Migdal Hasan in Jerusalem, if you did not have a degree? What do you think, that Moshiko from Sderot and Ortel from Bat Yam don't want to come to where you sit? They dream of being ministers, marketers, producers, biologists, businessmen, musicians, psychologists, geographers, and doctors but guess what, they barely survive the day, so there is nothing to talk about academic intelligence at all.
Signed
A frustrated student
65 תגובות
Anonymous user:
As a continuation of what Higgs said and what I also said - the problem is that almost everyone agrees and the right steps are not taken only for political reasons.
When I say "almost" I mean that there is only one sector in the country that does not agree.
This sector has a political power that is disproportionate to its size and certainly not to its contribution to society, but, unfortunately, at least the matter of size is going to change in the coming years.
Only vigorous political activity has a (not high) chance of stopping the avalanche.
Anonymous user + Yael
Hey girls why don't you do something real get together or something not just talk and text and letters. Only action will bring a result.
Although it is a bit "late" and the discussions here have expanded a bit to other places, I wanted to say that I agree with Yael.
Bottom line, there is no doubt that there are quite a few problems in our country, but the issue of education and higher education is particularly troubling.
It is disturbing that not enough is invested in education here and there are many teachers who choose this profession due to considerations of comfort and conditions only.
It is troubling that there is an entire industry that makes a lot of money due to a high acceptance threshold for studies, which is usually set due to the level of demand for the field only (referring to psychometrics). A matter that ultimately leads to studies in non-subsidized educational institutions such as colleges, where the cost of tuition is two or three times higher than university tuition.
It's disturbing that budgets are being cut, making it difficult for anyone who wants to learn, considering closing certain classes just because they don't have much demand or they don't necessarily contribute practically in "the rest of the way"... disturbing!
And as Yael pointed out, it's a real shame that the situation is like this, because it's about the future of our country and society..
Yael:
There was a discussion between you and Roy about the subject of the treatment of animals.
Although on the whole my views are close to yours - I did not hesitate to contradict your claims that seemed to me to be wrong.
I also explained why I do this, as I explained here.
If you didn't see and still answered, I don't have much to do.
Michael,
Don't tell me what I saw and what I didn't.
higgs,
As Aryeh Seter already pointed out, the article was also published in Maariv. The letter was not initially intended to be sent directly to the Minister of Finance. The goal was to raise the issue in the public discourse and raise awareness of the issue.
Higgs
You wrote "Besides the readers of the science, did anyone read there on the comfortable executive chairs at the heights of government. Your letter rested in the nearest recycling bin in my opinion."
Well, Yael did something beyond publishing knowledge. This article of hers was also published in Maariv (and maybe in other newspapers that I haven't seen).
Itamar:
You are a prominent example of the saying "Hafosal - Bamomo Fosal".
In order to talk about a different allocation of resources, there is no need to discredit the army and there is no need to do so by lying - as Daniel did - or by making unfounded claims - as you and Yael did.
This is what takes the discussion to irrelevant channels.
If only the discussion had stuck to the issue of education and had not been diverted by you to channels that do not belong in an unfounded manner, you would not have heard criticism from me about the things and then - obviously - you would also not have "forgotten" that I also said other things in this discussion - things that are relevant to it and support the original words of Yael.
Lying is not smart and making unfounded claims is also not smart.
Yael has already seen this approach of mine in other discussions: I am a vegetarian and vehemently opposed to the killing of animals, but nevertheless I prefer to expose false and demagogic arguments even in those who share my final conclusions because I think that these types of arguments are harmful to the cause and not helpful to it. It is better for these arguments to be contradicted "at home" by partners of the general claim than to be glossed over uncritically by those who agree to the general conclusion - only to be caught by those who oppose the general claim and serve as a means to contradict this goal.
My opinion on education is similar.
Hello Itamar,
What a taste... I licked my fingers!
You know what else I lack in the concept of security, except that the best would be a doctor and not the one who has the money for it. I hear talk in the American and British army about the war on hearts & minds, why don't the IDF hear that? What does that mean? That we are infantile and emotionally disabled. Although I am not perfect, but that is how screwed up I am!!!
Higgs - calm down!, in the end Yael will take over the stage theater and it will end badly (remembers Moscow).
Shabbat Shalom
Michael,
Your response is an example that sometimes it really is better to be smart and not right. All of your assumptions are reasonable, and indeed people have a tendency to make assumptions without knowing all the facts.
And yet, in spite of everything, anyone with eyes in his head knows that the army is a body whose efficiency is from it onwards. There may be specific units that are well run, but the army as a whole is a bottomless pit. A person like you who served in the army, and lived in the State of Israel where his friends (let's say, for the most part) served in the army, and who is among his people - cannot deny this.
Too much to be right, you forgot the essence of Yael's letter which called for a different allocation of resources. By doing so, you diverted the discussion to an irrelevant channel.
This response is unfounded, unreasoned and will never (we hope) stand the test of the court. Still, it's true.
If you have an ounce of decency, take the discussion about the level of the Israeli discussion culture somewhere else and let the discussion about the allocation of resources move forward. By doing so, you might even inadvertently contribute to the Israeli discussion culture!
between us:
After all, the heads of the universities, our Nobel laureates and almost everyone who can say something about the subject, have all already spoken about it and said roughly the same thing.
The conclusion is, apparently, that talk does not have enough influence and there is probably no choice but to shut up and act on the political level.
Yael Petar
I don't suspect your ideological and ideal seriousness, but try to be completely honest with yourself for a moment.
Apart from the science readers, has anyone read there on the comfortable executive chairs at the top of the government.
Your letter rested in the nearest recycling bin in my opinion.
Take a real challenge not this blog or that page where people are looking to waste some free time and time out. Take a challenge to make the Minister of Finance really and truly emotionally activated in a way that will make him really respond, that is to say at least try to do something he would not do except keep his throne before your appeal.
I guess you'll have to be very creative to make that happen.
On the other hand, you will be able to stay in the stormy crowd among the herds of Melal running to hit and kill.
higgs,
The state wants to find the balance between the uniformity and the uniqueness of the population.
It is true that the uniformity prevents the state from a lot of headache.
But on the other hand, the uniqueness (which we talked about) leads to technological developments and this actually leads to an increase in the national product, an increase in exports, an improvement in the quality of life and well-being and economic prosperity.
Yael Petar
Here you have reached the hole in the bucket. The endless loop of talk.
Shelton is interested in uniformity and mediocrity to make his life easier. The crowd is also interested in it.
The government wants your freedom of speech so you can vent. And everything will continue as it was.
The government is deaf blind and stupid. The great ideologues who joined the government to change things
became deaf blind and fools at best.
It is better to buy a dog. No mortgage required.
higgs,
First, the discussion is not about me. I'm talking about the children who instead of growing up to be doctors and high-tech people, they become criminals.
Second, of course many qualities are needed for success.
The bottom line of this whole discussion in relation to the article is that if there aren't many of them anyway, then why doesn't the state support the small percentage of the population that does.
The state is pulling us all into a life of mediocrity by not investing in education and not encouraging creativity and research. Instead of a risk-chance ratio of 50%, an absurd situation of zero chance was created.
And what's more, the state's lack of investment in education raises the crime threshold in the country. A talented and smart boy whose maximum he can be in life is known in Basta, would prefer to turn to crime where at least there is a chance that exceeds zero.
Yael Petar
I guess a turkey and a mortgage don't appeal to you.
Have you ever asked yourself why humans are attracted to uniqueness. What is the origin of the belief in some kind of "one truth", one that includes all other truths. Like for example TOE the theory of all theories. The root of this matter is not rational at all, even though its effect on the way we use our rational mind and the decisions we make is very substantial.
Uniqueness is a gamble, a double-edged sword, it can be destructive to the extent that it can express the entirety of perfection. A random set of events may be a miracle to one person and total destruction to another. In both cases we tend to look for a single unifying overall meaning.
The individuals in the herd are afraid of the unique because it could ruin their lives and therefore they are ready to gather under the shepherd's staff who seemingly takes the risk of the bet. Even if the shepherd is completely corrupt.
Those who do not calculate risks in their unique way and approach do not consider the herd and do not read articles that explain their conduct. The source of the explanatory articles is in Ader himself. So all the scholarly explanations about Einstein and kings, masters and servants is a point of view that comes from the herd. So that the individuals in the herd feel good about themselves why they don't take risks except the mortgage dog and the turkey.
In short, everything depends on the individual character and there is no rational explanation for this. Obsessiveness is not enough to fulfill dreams and a unique approach. There is a need for a strong will, ability and giving up flexibility, priorities, stubbornness, intransigence, power, a lot of suffering, a lot of intelligence, a lot of luck, a lot of patience, caution, diligence, independence, vigor, enthusiasm and more.
Yael:
As I said - everything is said about Einstein.
Every group of people tries to associate him with it and it is clear why.
In this sense, some also say that he suffered from OCD, so if Daniel was satisfied with this claim - I would only try to dwarf it with the above reasoning (the one that simply every group of people tries to appropriate Einstein for themselves) - but Daniel went far beyond what someone is telling the truth He ever said - he said he read that Einstein was *diagnosed* as obsessive on a severe level and my objection to his words stemmed, beyond his rudeness, also from this statement.
Of course, he is still welcome to point out a placeholder (just as he is welcome to point out a placeholder for claims about the size of the army or the fact that Dado, Gorodish, Halutz, Peretz, Major General Adam and Gal Hirsch did not give up on military failure, etc.).
As I told you - I also have criticism of the army - and I'm sure more than you have.
It doesn't belong.
You didn't visit the army.
You gave him a grade on the distribution of resources without pointing to one specific thing (one!) that you know can be done better.
Company,
The discussion here is not about how to live life better. This matter is completely subjective. Happiness or unhappiness cannot be quantified, so the question is not which kind of life is better or more fulfilling. Everyone has different character traits, and everyone chooses the lifestyle that suits them.
Danish,
I read in Scientific American that Einstein and Newton may have had Asperger's syndrome (it's a form of mild autism), maybe that's what you meant.
Regarding the parable of the sheep, I will explain at least what I meant, because I don't know what the others meant. This "herd" refers to people whose normative and routine lives satisfy them. Those who go to study a profession, after that will go on a trip to India, return to Israel, get married, work in an office, have children, a mortgage and a dog.
Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that! This is a great and satisfying life and certainly evolution justifies all those who follow this path.
But society also needs a percentage or two out of everyone who will choose not to go down this path. People like Aristotle, Nietzsche, Einstein, Newton, Alexander and more. Those who are curious, obsessed and brave enough to believe in change.
Michael,
The fact that I have criticism of the Israel Defense Forces does not mean that in my opinion this institution should be wiped off the face of the earth, on the contrary, without the IDF it would not exist here. If you work in a certain place and you like it very much, it does not mean that you are not allowed to visit it and say that there is room for improvement.
higgs,
First, I'd like to point out that we're basically saying the same thing, correct me if I'm wrong.
Second, I have an addition
Jean Locke had an interesting theory, he said that kings and lords actually depend on their servants and subjects. The strong depend on the weak just as the weak depend on the strong. The strong get their identity from the weak.
If, for example, all the inhabitants of the Earth were to perish in some particularly deadly meteor strike or plague, and one day you would wake up in the morning and discover that you are the only living person left on earth. So by definition you were the smartest, stupidest, richest, poorest, most beautiful and ugliest person. Be all these together and none of them because there is no one left to give you a counter.
Society is one big fabric where everyone depends on everyone else. You cannot retire from social life. Even our way of thinking is created and developed by the society around us.
Even the rebels, they too are guided by society.
To Danny (except for Daani)
I just wanted you to see that I saw it hadn't happened to you yet.
By the way - I have read a lot about Einstein and I have never come across evidence for what you claimed about him.
There are those who like to claim this as there are those who like to claim that he was religious.
Do you have proof that I have actually been diagnosed as obsessive or are you just quoting a hearsay major?
student:
I assume you studied in chemistry about what is called "action energy".
It is the same here and in every economic field.
Someone can have a wonderful idea that will bring in millions, but if there is no one to invest the 100,000 dollars necessary for development, he will never earn the millions because the investment is required before the profit.
All in all, we have income tax and if the student earns more then he will also pay more tax so that the business pays off for the state as well - even if we ignore the jobs he will create and the advancement he will bring. Unlike some of the students - the state has the ability to bear the expense (especially if it cancels the support for "smart" students and even more so if, over time, additional taxation is imposed on the recipients of assistance in financing their studies to reimburse the expenses)
Hi everyone (except Michael),
My opinion, which is based on autobiographies I've read and my humble personal experience, is that the brilliance is less important, what is more important is the hard work. The focus, the persistence, the intellectual capacity to deal with an abundance of data and with new fields and a significant amount of luck. There is also an important feature (which I do not know the name of) and that is to see order in the chaos of a mass of data. I once read that Einstein was diagnosed as obsessive on an abnormal level and an interpretation that perhaps this compulsion brought him to his breakthroughs.
I didn't understand the analogy about the sheep at all, unless it was humor and then I really didn't understand!
Asher Lech Yael the Virtual: I would actually bet on you thanks to the mass of articles you wrote/translated, even though I liked the letter to the Minister of Finance which is well worded and presents a culture that I personally fantasize about.
But a little math might bring some logic to this discussion.
The tuition fee for a bachelor's degree is around NIS 30,000 (for the entire degree).
Since academics usually earn more than non-academics, the student who has just finished his studies will enter the job market and earn an average of 5,000 net per month (at least). In his first year of work he will earn 60,000 shekels - 2 times the cost of the degree. After all, he has already received a refund times two
If we continue this calculation with the same salary until retirement age - then the student earned much more because of the degree than without it; And this profit is worth millions until retirement age. It is true that all the money "goes to hell" on other things, but still - a return of over 2,000% is not a loss.
Michael
Chen Chen As we know there are such and such people who like to float in their private spaces and imagine that these are the real spaces of reality.
With their vain imagination, they nullify the wisdom of their predecessors and thereby they are caught in the net they have woven for themselves.
In a field where you really believe you have something unique, you can't cancel anyone, you can't afford to be a single player unless you like to hallucinate in broad daylight and results don't really interest you. The man who invented himself out of nowhere was not born.
Higgs:
The title "Leaving the herd" did not seem promising to me, but I read it anyway and was pleasantly surprised.
Things like spurs that many people can learn something from!
Yael Petar
Leaving the herd does not necessarily lead to autism, although excellence in a certain field sometimes manifests itself in mild autism or any emotional disabilities.
However, the departure from the herd originates, as I said, in a unique point of view that manifests itself in everyone in a certain field, especially in unconventional approaches that ignore the standard.
Of course, this is of no use, especially at the beginning when that person is deprived of real tools.
Without the effort to acquire the tools accepted by the herd, the springboard from which he might grow something completely new that will impress the whole herd is missing.
But he who is all about how to impress the flock is like that dog running before his master. Anyone watching from the side can get the impression for a brief moment that it is the dog who is leading his master. But another brief observation shows the dog glancing each time towards his master's face to check if the direction is correct.
Unconventional approaches do not necessarily yield good purposeful solutions, certainly not at the beginning. Usually result in a lot of heartache and dissatisfaction.
Those who are willing to suffer a lot and invest a lot of time and resources have a chance to ever achieve unique real results. Whether it is worth the investment or not is another question.
Many of the people who invested their lives in a certain field and entered history were very unhappy in their lives in different ways.
higgs,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean but I have something to say about "leaving the herd".
Even those who decide to leave the herd still must obey the laws of society, that is, the norms of the herd.
A person cannot completely withdraw from social life. Even the very fact that he speaks their language indicates that he obeys the rules of the norm. Nor will he be able to investigate without obeying the scientific method, the schools and theories that others have created. Even his measuring tools are part of the norm that he must obey because the scientific method has a very specific pattern.
You cannot withdraw completely from social life, because then society will define you as "autistic". Each person chooses where he wants to be on the axis. The laws of society must be obeyed, but everyone chooses their dose.
Yael Petar
A person who is really outside the herd does not know the herd at all because he is simply outside it and in fact he really does not care what the herd thinks or what the herd thinks of him.
As soon as you care what a sheep in the herd thinks of you.
Yael Petar
Those who dreamed of leaving the herd and writing on the pages of history dream of sheep both before and after falling asleep.
Even if that dreamer becomes prime minister or not, history has forgotten her and no archaeologist will find a find outside of what a normal herd leaves behind in the future.
Those who really stand out from the crowd are usually busy trying to solve something they don't understand and have an intense curiosity to try and understand doing and performing and seeing with their own eyes.
It is usually a certain point that that person sees in his unique way. No one else sees it. A person who is also obsessed enough and ready to invest everything in the matter has a certain chance. Often the effort is not enough. So it ended up outside the pages of history.
Or if it happens in a secret body like the military or like secret institutions or regimes.
Hi Danny,
Regarding your comment above - it is true and I will clarify the point. As you said, there is enormous value in breaking out of the herd and choosing a unique route. Most people choose to be normative, they don't have the desire to break out and leave the "safe", risk-free and normative way of life, and there are even evolutionary justifications for this.
We are a herd, we are meant to live a herd life, if we are not a herd maybe we are not survivors. But a flock also needs a shepherd - someone who will find new paths and engage in innovation and breakthroughs. These people, the "shepherds", have a huge risk and also a huge chance. A huge risk because they may spend their whole lives talking which will yield nothing or suddenly discover halfway that the innovative path they have chosen leads to a dead end.
However, there is also a huge chance - the chance to be written on the pages of history, the chance to change the world and succeed in a big way.
Yael:
I did not claim what you attribute to me.
I am really amazed at this attribution when in almost every debate I point out that there is never real "knowledge" and all that exists are the probabilities attributed to the claims but even without this background - what you claim I said - I simply did not say.
What you said under the title "in other words", which is completely different from the claim that preceded it, is more similar to what I said (actually it is only similar because I was not talking about information that you did not share with the readers but only about what you expressed in your words).
What you said you said in the response is indeed what you said in the response and it is partly unfounded and not true in the other part.
The unfounded part is the claim that you have knowledge on the subject. You do state that you have information, but you do not present it. This is called lack of foundation.
The part that is not true is that, in my opinion, you should always keep quiet because there is never one hundred percent certainty. This part is not true both because it is not my opinion and because nothing I said could (fairly) be interpreted as if it were my opinion.
So I wasn't confused at all.
Regarding teasing others - please take things one step further and see where the teasing started.
What is the difference between teasing and slander?
The difference is only in tone and in the person addressed.
Therefore - fundamentally - defamation is a significant amplification of teasing.
The things that were said here about the army were slanderous and I came to its defense (the Israel Defense Forces for the Israel Defense Forces 🙂 ) and I used teasing for that purpose - which is not even a measure against a measure.
In any case, I don't think it's right or honorable to tease others
Michael,
My positions rest on a basis - both an empirical basis and a theoretical basis.
You came and claimed that you should not base a position on something that you do not know for sure. That is, if we have information gaps then we have no right to make claims.
And I told you in response, that we have information gaps about everything.
In other words
You made the statement "You know nothing about the subject"
And I said in response - a) "We do know some of the information, we even have a significant amount of information on the subject"
b) "It is impossible to know for sure anything in the world. According to your logic, you should remain silent and not make any claims about anything, since you do not have perfect information about anything", thereby I clarified the paradox in your initial statement.
There were two different statements of mine and that's probably why you got confused.
Yael:
If I wrote that there are no balloons in the words about the army, both you and Danny would say to yourselves: "Well, well, that's true, but what does it even matter?"
Since I argued that there is no foundation in them - although it is equally evident in them that there are no balloons in them - the debate began.
You turned to the only logical way - the one that considered the question why it is not important that there are no balloons in the things - and you tried to claim that the non-substantiation of the things is neither important nor possible (because of the secrecy, etc.).
It's a debate channel that, even though we don't agree on its conclusions, is at least a logical channel that doesn't try to claim what is clearly the opposite of reality.
I saw it as a kind of sane behavior of a person who wants to defend the things he said but is not willing to lie for the sake of it.
This is what I also see in your last comment.
It is true that you did not admit it, but your words conveyed an acceptance of the facts that cannot be argued with and an attempt to justify the lack of substantiation instead of lying and claiming that there is substantiation. I was the one who interpreted it as a confession.
It is also true that you said that I have the right to believe what I believe, even though on the factual issues I did not say what I believe at all and these things only have meaning if they are attributed to the other debate - the one discussing the question of whether it is permissible to slander the army without substantiation.
Danny went a different way.
He preferred - and so far I have tried to say this in gentle words - to lie.
He started sucking untrue factual claims from his finger and presenting them as the basis for things.
Even if the factual claims were true, it would not change the clear fact that the original statements had no foundation, but the claims were ridiculously wrong.
When I pointed this out, he turned to a completely personal channel in which he tried to discredit me and present me in a ridiculous light.
I guess you know that I have already encountered this phenomenon more than once, so I am not excited.
Even in the things he said for the sole purpose of defamation, in addition to the blatant lie, there are also hints that indicate (perhaps - I don't know if he is intelligent enough to notice this) the burning hat on his head.
He writes that he would have had to kill me if he had revealed his rank to me, and this after he shamelessly revealed (and without even adding a claim about the assessment of some source who knows how to present things in a reserved way that will prevent him from getting involved in crimes, such as a beautiful center for strategic studies) the number of regular soldiers in the IDF (Luckily, this number is also unknown to him!)
Michael,
I did not admit to such a thing.
What I did say is that you have the right to believe what you believe. And I have the right to believe what I believe.
And just so you know:
In a democratic regime it is really allowed to talk nonsense.
One of the interesting things about this regime is that - wonder and wonder - it is also allowed to criticize the nonsense (like Daa)
Danny is like this:
Do you allow me to call you Da?
To which army you had before do you compare our army?
Just because you speak rudely doesn't make you right.
It also doesn't make you rude but only reveals the rudeness that was in you in the first place.
Michael: (Do you allow me to call you Michael?)
In order to simplify my arguments I will give you an example: you bought a new car with the best of your money and it doesn't move uphill, let's say uphill but even on downhills it doesn't move. You're sorry, you turn to the importer's garage with a plea: "Friends" you say. "The new car doesn't drag... even the Bimba I once had drove better." The importer's representative answers you decisively and with great confidence: "Are you a car mechanic?". You are a little surprised by the turn in the conversation but you answer matter-of-factly and briefly: "No". The importer's representative adds and continues: "Are you an automotive engineer?", a slight hesitation climbs up the throat and you reply/object: "No, but..." Oops, the importer's representative interrupts you: "Then please go back home by bus and leave the things to the professionals!!!".
As a follow-up to Yael's letter (which is acceptable to me), I wanted to add a practical insight as to a potential budget source to finance the right solution in my opinion. I can also reveal my military rank to you, but since this is highly classified information, I will have to kill you later and that's a shame.
Assuming that you are a lieutenant colonel in the res. (and ignoring the voices telling you to do things), you will surely agree that in a democratic society Yael's letter and my mistakes are legitimate. as if !!!
Danish:
You're just lashing out.
I checked your words (if you are a graduate of the Technion) with great substantiation and pointed out not only the lack of substantiation of your words but their incorrect substantiation.
I don't need to say anything about Yael because she herself admitted that there is and cannot be any basis for her words.
All this in relation to what you said about the security system.
I didn't check anything else even though there were some inaccuracies there as well because I think this is where most things are based.
In short - your criticism of me joins the series of unfounded things you said.
Hi Yael,
I think I have a certain life experience and even some receipts for successful initiatives, I succeeded because I didn't stay with skeptics, slackers, cynics and other scumbags. Of course, every success was preceded by many failures, I learned from some of the failures, some of the learning led me to success later on. There were always those who tried to let go, some even from my lovers and family members. In my opinion, there is value in being unique in stepping out of line, there is value in stepping out of the herd and going in the opposite direction - in any case it's fun, even if you seriously paid a price. In fact, the open letter to the Minister of Finance has an obligation, some of the population have already written an "open letter" that has been published. I mean, you're already in good company. And maybe in a thousand years an Internet archeologist will do the PhD thesis on you :-), which I think is more likely than Minister Bar On will take to heart.
Michael criticizes a lack of substantiation without providing substantiation for his words, there are some - Niha!
Good luck and you look wonderful today.
Yael,
Well done for the beautiful writing, keep it up!
The academy is responsible for the development of technology. The role of the academy is to publish theoretical and empirical studies. So it is true that there are also private companies that fund research, for example pharmaceutical companies. But they deal with very limited areas and emphasize practice rather than wonderful and innovative breakthroughs.
The role of academia in the national economy is simply impossible to ignore. How will we study lasers in optics? How will we find economic theories that will help us overcome crises and stock market crashes? How will we explore a new and wonderful world of nano medicine that may replace all the medicine we know? How will we investigate the transplantation of artificial limbs?
Who else will investigate these revolutionary things and find solutions if not academia?
That's why I say that the academy is largely responsible for the economic future and the welfare of the country. Each such study opens a window to a new world of technology and applications. Private companies do not create, they only develop existing technologies and focus on practice and "how to make money" from the technology - they do not invent something new.
There is no substitute for academia. And the state must understand this and invest in it before all the brains migrate to more advanced countries where there are more possibilities for research.
Before we begin, I would just like to point out that university students have never come close to the tuition that college students pay - and that is a fact. Take things in proportion and remember that there are those who are not subsidized even a shekel and are in a much more difficult situation financially than any subsidized student. Of course, this does not justify cutting the subsidy for university students - on the contrary - a full, or almost full, subsidy should be given to all students in any academic institution that is non-discriminatory. Those who think that Israel has no money for this, simply do not understand that we live in one of the richest and most developed countries in the world. But the money goes to all kinds of interest groups and leather chairs and not to what is really needed, and this is where the problem begins.
In the end, the root of the problem is that there is no mechanism that enforces the activities of the politicians. In the system as it is today, any politician can lie and lie turbo because there is nothing that will actually guarantee the realization of the statements that the politicians declare to the voters before and during the elections.
Yael, you are asking why the minister's leather chair is more important to him than your tuition. And I ask - why not? He will fill his leather chair for one, two, three years, accumulate capital, connections, and move on. Your education cannot be presented as an achievement in four years, so why bother? What interest does he even have in pursuing a higher education?
One possible solution is direct democracy in the sense that the public will actually make principled decisions directly (for example, to transfer an additional NIS 20 million to the education budget for purposes A and B, as opposed to decisions such as "Abraham Hirschzon for Minister of Finance" through "Ehud Olmert for Prime Minister"). In addition to this, there will be total and formal transparency in regards to budgets and decisions so that politicians will not be able to change the allocation of money other than according to the decision (whoever does this will actually go to prison for embezzlement). In fact, the politician will become a public official who does exactly what he is told and his powers are reduced to a minimum The power and influence in this position, which by definition is subject to the grace and honesty of the incumbent in the current system, must be completely neutralized.
But beyond that, there is a much more fundamental and essential problem. In fact, there is nothing to complain about to politicians. "The public is stupid and the public pays" so writes the poet - the public is the one who single-handedly appointed the Minister of Finance to cut higher education. If there is anyone to make claims, it is only to the stupid voter who in fact he and no one else decided on this. If the majority of the public does not know the importance of higher education, how can it be expected to appoint elected officials who do know its importance? Which raises the question of what is the point of democracy if it is condemned to make mediocre, short-sighted and foolish decisions, but that is already a topic for another discussion.
Yael:
What exactly is my "opinion"?
After all, my whole argument is that with the data I have - and even more so in your hands - it is not possible to form a serious opinion and making claims based on a non-serious opinion is not serious.
If the topic interests you, you should study it and not just talk.
Do you imagine the possibility that you will convince enough people to take action to implement your "conclusions" when these are not true?
Michael,
This is your opinion based on what you think and feel - your right.
I think that the security budget is excessive and that the allocation of resources is ineffective - that is my right.
I'm not teasing you, or talking arrogantly or forcing my opinions on you, so you shouldn't either.
Danish:
seriously?! Did we fail militarily? Such a small country against all the Arabs and we still exist?
you made me laugh
It's true that we expect more from ourselves and it's true that we didn't always achieve everything we wanted, but Dahil Rabak! A little proportion never killed anyone!
Regarding payment for military failure - I wonder how short the memory needs to be to make it possible to forget the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and to a large extent the Prime Minister after the Lebanon War?
So it's true - you could forget Dodo (who actually paid with his life) and Gurodish because it's been a long time but... do you still remember the beginning of the reaction?
So, you might as well draw some graphs anyway.
Yael:
You are not pointing to any data.
zero! Nada! I wonder what pattern can be identified in the absence of data.
There is the Ministry of Defense auditor, there is an economic advisor to the Chief of Staff, there is the State Comptroller, there is the Defense Committee, there is even the National Security College.
All of these are aware of everything there is to know about the army and most of them do not depend on it.
There are also bodies that in some ways compete with the army such as, for example, the Mossad and the Shin Bet.
All of these probably did not undergo the evolution that encourages pattern recognition.
I say again: even though I served many years in the army and even though I am a lieutenant colonel in the reserves - I don't know enough to judge.
I think that in your meetings with me over the pages of this site you have already learned that there is no defect in my ability to recognize patterns.
Believe me: I have much more based criticism of the army than you do, but this criticism does not justify your sweeping description.
I have no less serious criticism of the chief scientist of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Ministry of the Environment, the police, the court, the Ministry of Education, once again the Ministry of Education and a third time the Ministry of Education and in short every institutional body I have ever encountered in my life But I don't allow myself to express myself because you are expressing yourself and to do so without any data.
Michael,
Not only can we make inferences about subjects we have information gaps about, but nature also supports this. Primitive people had to draw conclusions from tiny bits of information, or it might cost them their lives.
Just yesterday I read something that refers to this and I will quote:
"The ability to recognize patterns that represent a threat, and to take the necessary action, became an important tool in early man's war for existence...However, nature did not charge any price for misidentifying the pattern, since in terms of survival, many false alarms are preferable to a single case of a real threat that is not It was detected... This is how the human brain developed the ability to make quick decisions, based on recognizing patterns and drawing an immediate conclusion... This is Darwin at his best..."
(The quote is taken from the book "Do Chimpanzees Think About Retirement" by Jacob Burke)
And now the explanation - the primitive people had to draw conclusions from tiny pieces of information. If they had waited until they had conclusive and victorious proof and complete information about whether or not there was a lion hiding behind the rock, then they simply would not have survived.
So we also need to stand up and put an end to this parade of injustice and start calculating our economic steps as a country in a better way. If we continue to close our eyes and wait for conclusive evidence while reality contradicts us in our face, we will not get far.
If you only draw conclusions about something you have absolute knowledge about you will never draw any conclusions. Even reality itself is unprovable. You can look at any situation from a million directions and get different perspectives and come to opposite conclusions. In this world you must take a stand, decide what to support.
Now in relation to the previous topic which is as mentioned "the security budget in Israel - yes or no", do you really believe that there is any chance that the security system in Israel is efficient and allocates its resources correctly?
After all, all of us here have served in the army (I hope), and we all know how this system works from the inside, what more proof is needed.
Michael,
You're taking care of yourself. Leave my cheeky keyboard, it's really not worth discussing (not even a shekel).
In a web response, it is not possible to specify serial changes backed by data and graphs. Since no one will listen to you and me and young Yael anyway, I'll use mocking humor.
For the sake of brevity I will give a 'bottom line': how many political/military leaders have paid with their heads for their actions in the military conflicts in the last 35 years? And the answer is the other way around: slouch!!! Check me out! Well... now guess what that means!
And from here we will go to the next important question: So how is it that even though we did not really succeed militarily, we as a people and as a country not only survived, but also made more progress in relation to our enemy?. And the answer to my understanding is: because the jurist promoted the legal system, the doctor promoted medicine, the scientist promoted science, the engineer promoted industry, the economist promoted the economy and the businessman made everything happen.
And hence, what doesn't make sense in taking a little from the chubby one who didn't really find a way to get by in life (the IDF) and give a little so that there will be new donkeys who will deal with the real work?
Yael:
I did not say that it is necessary or possible to study the data for Ashuram.
Although I think they can be learned, but it is not related.
What I said is that those who have not studied them should not express decisive opinions because they have nothing to base them on.
There is no law of nature or state law that compels us to express a position on anything and therefore - when we have no information - it is better not to take a decisive position.
Michael,
The IDF is a secret body. It is almost impossible to find material about its internal conduct, especially not in the press. This is actually one of the reasons that makes it an ineffective establishment - there is simply no supervision over it.
The press comes to protect the citizens by supervising institutions - it publishes the truth and informs the public about what is happening, but in the case of the army it is really enshrined in the law that it is forbidden to photograph soldiers or document what happens inside bases.
Similarly, regarding the budget and financial balances of the army, there are many parts that remain confidential. The military budget remains confidential because the technology itself is secret and besides these products have no market so it is more difficult to price them.
By the way, the percentage of suicides among soldiers is very high - not many know this because of the veil of secrecy. If they had known, perhaps the phenomenon could have been prevented or reduced.
In any case, what you say, that the data should be studied and checked, is not realistic at all - I doubt if the Chief of Staff himself knows the data.
Yael:
Although there are numbers mentioned here that I know are not correct, but that is not the point.
What bothers me are these unfounded vapors.
Neither will my agreement or disagreement with things be based.
As I said - I think that you should not be satisfied with the keyboard to visit - you also need to study the data and refer to it.
The same thing should also be done to justify the security system, which is why I did not come to justify it.
All I came up against is the very Israeli phenomenon of voicing criticism without examination.
I did not understand, with which part of the things said here you do not agree
It is interesting to hear all the budget experts express themselves.
Even the numerical data presented here regarding the size of the army are not correct, but this does not deter those who do not let the facts confuse them.
I do not claim that there is no waste and I do not claim to be an expert. I'm just saying that you need a little more than a keyboard to make the claims you make.
The security system is the number one wasteful of the state's resources, billions of shekels are wasted really for nothing, every cut in the security budget is accompanied by statements from the Minister of Security that it is impossible to harm the security of the state (a lame excuse that should work for us that this budget goes exclusively to essential purposes), we must invest more in education In the schools, universities, the health system, infrastructure, etc., in order to promote the country that is deteriorating in all these categories, the security budget, which is 50+ billion shekels, must be optimized and then everyone will see that everything can be done.
Technion graduate,
Right. Our military is one of the most wasteful and inefficient institutions. It would be great if there was some sort of financial advisor helping with the allocation of resources there, but there isn't. Just wasted money going to the wrong places.
But I don't agree with your statement that we are Goliath and they are David. The Mossad, the Shin Bet and sometimes the IDF can be accurate. To hit exactly the sensitive points and neutralize those who need to be neutralized in the enemy. I don't think that security should be eliminated, but only made more efficient.
Yael, you are absolutely right and in my opinion the absurdity is even greater.
I spent about 10 years at the Technion (preparatory + BSC + master's degree). And I didn't see hysterical financial investments in me: I sat in classes with 200-300 students for a good part of the time, the laboratories really weren't the pinnacle of technology and in every factory I met later there were more invested laboratories. The main part of studying at the Technion is self-learning and endless practice - how much does it cost the state? At the Technion I didn't see lecturers in Volvo S80, I saw more professors who live a fairly modest life and PhD students who live below the poverty line. Alternatively, I see a security budget in which hundreds of billions are invested over the years. How much did the F15I deal cost?, talking about the purchase of 35 stealth bombers... against whom? Some hijablons with a clutch and katyushas that we bought at the "Everything in $" store. Terrorists with an explosive belt that costs 99.9 NIS. In all the conflicts in the last 35 years, we fought as the stupid Goliath against the wise David (maniac but wise). I remember the rhetoric from the Second Lebanon War: bombing slums in Beirut with super smart planes, each bomb costs more than the physics faculty. Talking about "assets of Hezbollah", come on!!!
What we lack is intelligence, what has done us good as a people and a country are all the things that Yael mentioned and only came from a culture of learning and hard work. The subject has been studied by economists from all directions and it has always been found that the investments in education and infrastructure are the ones that promote a country.
The State of Israel can easily finance 50,000 students, it's just a matter of culture and worldview (how do you finance a regular army of 300,000?).
One of the things that this discussion has not addressed so far is the subject of the student's personal ability.
The state should allow higher education only for students who demonstrate a certain potential or higher.
Not for everyone.
I think that free education up to the age of 18 (at an institution that teaches the core program) should be enough for every person to acquire the really necessary education and bring to light the personality characteristics that will be used to decide whether it is worth funding his further studies. Anything beyond that should only be financed in cases where there is a high probability that the state's investment will pay off.
It is true that every Jewish mother wants her son to be a scientist, doctor or engineer, but not every son is capable of this and the country also needs other professions.
Even within the framework of high schools - the trend according to which everyone deserves to graduate has led to a lowering of the level of studies and exams instead of raising the level of students.
Much.
How much tax do you pay in these countries?
The letter is welcome, and I agree with the general approach in it. At the same time, it is important to remember that Israel is a small country that a large part of its expenses go to internal and external security. Even in countries like the Netherlands, where there is almost no security budget, students are not financed for free studies. They are given loans, they are assisted in purchasing/borrowing textbooks, and they are expected to return everything at a favorable interest rate after school.
I would be happy to see a similar mechanism in Israel, which would allow a relatively large number of young people to receive a higher education, but it is important to remember that we simply do not have the ability to give everyone a bachelor's degree for free.
Answer to a mighty god. I think it is necessary to distinguish between several different arguments. I completely agree that the culture in Israel is such that there is an expectation that the government and society will give and finance. This is a bad culture and there is no doubt that people should be educated to take responsibility for their lives and fully finance their various needs, including higher education. (I financed all my studies - up to and including doctoral studies - completely independently). However, there is another argument that is not related to the relationship of the individual to society and is related to the viability of a government to encourage academic research in the country. If the state comes to the conclusion that this is a worthwhile investment, then it should be encouraged. In this regard, a distinction must be made between public universities as a body that provides education, but also and mainly a research body, and between colleges as a body that prepares workers for the economy. There are studies in universities that are in the interest of the state that they take place, and therefore it is incumbent upon it to fund them. It should also be taken into account that a company wishing to promote excellence will want to encourage education. The question then is not the tuition but perhaps a different model of education in Israel. For example, to increase tuition fees, but at the same time provide scholarships for outstanding people and in different sectors in order to encourage social leadership. Reduce the number of universities and promote various research needs and the training of employees to channel to colleges. Also, to encourage social projects such as the 'Flower' project in which the students will be rewarded with discounts at the beginning of school for their contribution to society.
Sorry for underestimating your knowledge of English, it was just a little hard for me to understand what you wrote before.
The current response is understandable and worthy of publication (I am also dyslexic, so I try to go over what I write once - twice before I publish a response).
Everything is fine and good in what you said, there is only one thing you are ignoring, the USA is not a welfare state, you are thrown out on the street from work, you need adequate medical care and many other problems such as these, your chances of dealing with the world are significantly reduced
This is no reason not to work and try to improve your status there, yet it is not easy to do so.
It's the same in Israel, people in development towns are not aware of the benefits of education, nor would they know if the situation doesn't improve, they will always live at a low standard of living and well-being and rob the state of much more resources than those who have graduated, although not everyone can be an academic, but at least leave the option accessible
A family that earns on average NIS 80,000 a year at best will not be able to allocate to their son who, if he works full-time as a laborer, about NIS 40,000 (something he will not be able to do while studying) NIS 30,000 a year for school fees (which is the cost of a real school year and the government subsidizes at a ratio of 1: 2 or 1:3 I don't remember) and more money for other living expenses.
So with all due respect to the USA, I would prefer to live in a country that gives equal opportunities, in a country that cares about the welfare of the general and not the welfare of the individual, and yet also knows how to cut back where necessary (something that needs to be improved considerably in Israel).
In the past year, dozens of high-tech companies were sold, the Yishkar company was sold for billions and brought close to a billion dollars into the state coffers, and other knowledge-intensive companies were sold in the last decade to various global corporations and brought a lot of money into the coffers, much more than the government spent on students.
True, a science student will bring much more money to the state than a geography student, and here perhaps we should consider how much the state should fund such studies.
A graduate of computer science or electricity pays taxes of the order of NIS 3000 per month already in the first year after graduating, if you do the math you will see that he returns the state's investment in him quite quickly.
I worked during my studies and I also worked before that, and the amount of money I earned in my life would not have kept me studying with the current tuition fee, which is relatively low compared to the USA, and if I had waited until I was 35 to start studying - until I had finished, no knowledgeable company would have recruited me into its ranks , maybe in the business world it could work, but in the country of Lennoi it would not remove people from the circle of the less able.
Bottom line, I don't agree with everything that happens in the country and I don't like it just as much as you don't like the way certain things are conducted here, but in my opinion education is an important national resource and should not be neglected, I'm not claiming that everyone should be allowed to study for free because it won't contribute anything , but on the other hand studies that will cost as much as a year of net work - this is illogical and will cause the country to lose one of its most important economic resources.
Very few things damage society as much as the altitude you professed to. As to myself since you made me the issue. I lived on the streets since I was 11 years old. Never finished high school. Served in the military for close to six years. Combat soldier and then as an officer. Never asked for special treatment or to be paid extra for being a lone soldier. At 23 I left the military as a first lieutenant. Left Israel to the United States where I became a businessman. As age 35 I went to college. Took full schedule while working full time and raising 2 boys. I paid for my school and paid for my family expenses. And I managed to change diapers on a regular basis at the same time. I'm back here now because my oldest son decided to move to Israel and join the unit I was in. He is now in one of the military's elite units. I never asked anyone for anything and never expected anything from anyone. As for taxes. Over the last couple of years since I moved back I contributed more tax money to the system than your average person. Or for you, as much or more then a couple of these companies you mention. As soon as my kid is done with his military service I will be packing my bags and moving back to the United States. And not because of the weather. Rather because Israel is a "give me society" where everyone thinks that they have the rights to the hard earned money of others. And there are many others like me. So on balance the society loses far more money and brain power because of attitudes like the one you exhibited. These students can make it on their own just like I did. And it would be healthier for them as well as for the rest of society if they, as well as all these other free loaders you mention, did not milk the system. As to my English it is called dyslexia. I'm sure that an educated guy like you knows what that is. So I hope that my English didn't offend you. But regardless. You and your philosophical soul mates are managing to chase away at least one man who contributes a lot of tax money. As well as one young man (my son) who came here to join the military and do his best for this society. Like me he is very disappointed. Because the same attitude that you are a part of infiltrated the military as well. So hoping that I didn't offend you with my less than perfect English. I hope that it is a little food for thought.
The state must finance the students in all tuition fees so that even those who do not have it can start from the same starting point as those who do. High tuition fees will cause the gaps in the economy to be maintained and those who don't have it will not be able to break through.
All kinds of interested parties know how to take advantage of state funds, the solution is not that the students pay. Tuition fees should be zero and in addition help with living, housing, etc. just like they do in kollels and yeshivas.
The country must wake up before it is too late.
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sorry, correction - the students are not funded!
Much more is funded than what is invested in this country just for education, so if this is not the case in the future, all the more our situation will deteriorate until we become another typical ID country...
Dad, who do you think pays most of these taxes that finance the students?
The companies that sell for hundreds of millions and bring billions into the state coffers from their Kenyan taxes would not exist without the education that the students should receive.
And the taxes they pay from their salaries after they graduate also return a lot of money to the state coffers.
So if you are worried about the budget, I assure you there are plenty of other places that can be cut so that real free eaters stop being parasites and start doing useful things for the country.
By the way, if you already write in English, then maybe you should learn the language first..
Or learn something at all, it won't hurt you and will only help the country.
drop the cost on the students.
I thought that the students are the only ones getting the education. How far from reasonable have we gotten. No only do the students think that the rest of us should pay for them. Who do they think is paying for it? The government has no money accepted for the money they collect in taxes. In the students words. They drop the payment on me