You have no idea how this works, does you? How much you pay for a service has nothing to do with how much it costs to provide a service. It's a matter of how much the market will bear. Why else do you think there are rubes out there still paying for text messages?
In competitive markets what the market will bear is driven by the cost to provide the product. This is true even if you are required by law to by the product. The auto insurance market is very competitive ("15 minutes will save you...")
The problem isn't the system, or the money, or the tests...it's the parents. All the money and great teachers and fabulous facilities do is set the stage for learning. If the parents can't do their part, it will - by and large - be wasted.
So you would explain the signficant differences in states by different parent behavior? That doesn't seem very plausible.
Redbox for newer release movies, and Vudu for when I've got to watch it now
I used to do same, then I realized the saving in redbox vs Vudu really was not worth it. If you drive a few miles to nearest red box (back and forth, twice) you probably spent a dollar on gas, for a total price delta of less than $2. And you spent thirty minutes of your life to get this saving.
There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
It may be true that they make more money on poker, but it is still an easier game to beat, because you primarily fight other players and not the house.
In black jack, only the most extremely skilled players under very unusual conditions can generate a positive average return based on their strategy.
In poker, there may be one player at every table of 10 (i.e. 10%) that shows a positive average return based on their strategy.
Not a game - or entertainment or luck. Just calculation of reall odds and risk.
Luck is a huge component, as the winner himself said he was ready to walk away with a $400k loss which could have happened had the cards come out differently.
Only if you have an infinite amount of time and an infinite loss tolerance (or if you cheat) can you avoid the impact of luck.
There's nothing that can't be hacked!
Including people. Point is, "zero" is not a reasonable basis on which to evaluate new risks and technologies. A reasonable basis of comparison is current technologies. Sure, computers can get hacked, but people can get tired and make mistakes, or defect for that matter. Not to mention they are very costly to train and keep trained (and support after they retire). There is little doubt that the cost/benefit/risk equation for bomber aircraft has shifted significantly in favor of robots.
When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"