Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[tracer]

Well, from my dealings with some transexual friends, I DO know that there's this one little doo-dad in the human brain, snuggled into a region of the Corpus Callosum called the BSTC if I recall, that tends to be present in females and absent in males.

This was significant to the transexual community, because one study found that most M->F transexuals had said doo-dad in their brain, which would give them a brain structure more similar to the average female than to the average male.

[volatile]

Well, from my dealings with some transexual friends, I DO know that there's this one little doo-dad in the human brain, snuggled into a region of the Corpus Callosum called the BSTC if I recall, that tends to be present in females and absent in males.

This was significant to the transexual community, because one study found that most M->F transexuals had said doo-dad in their brain, which would give them a brain structure more similar to the average female than to the average male.

Indeed (see http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm) - this was a stuy done by the University of Amsterdam, although it's not a doo-dad, just a different sized Stria Terminalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_terminalis). It's a very small sample (only six patients - as you might expect, transsexual brains are hard to come by for the purposes of scientific study) and far from conclusive. Furthermore, the only conclusions they were able to draw was that this pituitary gland difference was indicative only of the feeling of transsexuality, not the sexual behaviour or other behavioural characteristics of the individuals concerned.

The study tells us virtually nothing about infant development, nor is it indicative of any fundamental and inalienable behavioural differences between males and females, and is thus entirely unrelated to the point Tokie was trying to make (that is that little boys and little girls are fundamentally different behaviourally ).

See, I have read this stuff.

[Prometheus]

I only suggested that it might be easier to get rid of the union if you had a way of convincing most teachers (I am something of an anomaly) that they don't need it.

But this is what you said: "On the other hand, I'm certain that they're far from the only thing preventing change, and they'd be a lot less powerful if we had some other standard way of making teachers feel like they're not getting a raw deal."

How is it that you infer any discrepancy at all between my two statements? There's certainly none logically implied nor directly stated.


My mom, shrink and parole officer don't make sure I don't get a raw deal. Why should your profession be any different?

I didn't say it was necessary to make sure teachers don't get a raw deal, I said that if they felt as if they weren't then the union might be less powerful. And even that's only a guess (notice the word "might").


Don't get me wrong, I think your union does a great job at what a union is supposed to do,

From my perspective, not so much.


all the while, screwing the education of millions of Americans over several generations.

This is the sort of statement that I just won't accept without data, but it's certainly possible.


Without a union, you'd make sure you don't get a "raw deal"(not really sure what that is in a free market) by being a better teacher than the other 12 people applying for the job.

My school has had unfilled teaching positions open since I started working there 8 years ago. There isn't anybody applying for my job.

That said, I agree that in most cases a "free market" model is often the most efficient way of bringing quality products/services to consumers, but it would be phenomenally difficult, if not impossible, to implement one where the product is education (BTW private schools are not an example of free market education. Their primary product is reputation, not education.), and even if it could be done, I'm not sure it would be in the State's best interest to do so. From the State's perspective, the reason we have public education in the first place is that an educated populace is a prerequisite to a functioning democracy (hence our nation's failure in that arena as well!). Leaving it up to the whims of the marketplace might not provide the consistency we need to achieve.

[Dancing David]

My understanding was that one of the big problems in education is that the books are too tough for the grade levels they are assigned to. If a child is barely keeping up in 3rd grade, and then their 4th grade text is really meant for 5th graders, that book will be almost 2 years ahead of what they can reasonably handle. If they pass 4th grade, and get stuck with a 6th or 7th grade book in 5th grade, they'll never catch up. Parents will blame the teachers, teachers will blame the parents, everyone will blame the student, and no one notices that the book is written in a way that literally cannot be understood by an average 8 year old.


I will have to read more on this, it seems to me that text books are over produced now and that they are over simplitic and gaudy to the extreme.

The real issue as I see it is that federal and state law makes no provision for the 'slow learners', these are the children whose intelligence is low enough to impact thier learning but still have an IQ above 70. They recieve no support services unless they have an LD.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, surprisingly enough, Tokie, I've actually read some of the literature on this subject, and, well, none of it says that there is a fundamentally biological basis that separate males and females. As usual, it's a lot more complex than that, according to the sources I've read.

On the other hand, if you know something I don't, please do share it. I'd actually like to know, and learn. What, in your opinion, are the fundamental, inalienable differences between boys and girls?

Good for you. I've read much, too.

Difference is, I read people who are simply "doing the science" and not worried whether it will get them fired from their university position if they happen to mention that in general male brains develop at a different rate, than do females, that males physically see (interpret) colors differently, even that males, because their actual physical nerve endings are further apart, don't feel pain as intensely (oops! There goes that old saw about, "men couldn't stand the pain of childbirth!") as do females but they DO, because of the differences in the way our sinuses funtion actually DO feel a head cold more than do females, that there are real, evolutionary reasons men tend to be less adept at multi-tasking, while women are less adept at single-minded focus, that women really can't read maps as well as men and that there are real evolutionary reasons men don't stop to ask for directions (no matter how many uproariously funny comediennes take shots at that) that men really CAN drive better for the very simple reasons of that focus ability and better reflexes, but that women are far better at fine motor skills such as brain surgery.

Oh, also...there are real reasons more men go into sci. and math teaching than do women, and it has nothing to do with Barbara Billingsly telling you in 1952, that "girls are better at ..other things." I think we saw what happens to men in certain positions in academia who dare utter such truths to the feminist power.

Din't we?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Wrong on one of those counts.

Men are also better and clarifying things up front. Women tend to edge around things. For example, here, a man would just say (to me): you are a dumbass. I have three kids.

Or: wrong, moron...I have been a teacher for 36 years!

Instead, you do it this way, forcing your audience to ask more questions.

This is very typical female communication style. It's like when you get home from a hard day at work and tell your husband about all the problems, and he offers suggestions how to go about fixing them and you become infuriated because "why can't he just listen!!??"

Well, because men are NATURALLY problem solvers, not problem listeners-to. We see a nail sticking up, but don't have a hammer handy, we go about devising some means of "fixing" the problem without the proper tool, hopefully damaging ourselves in the process!

Women phone three friends and talk it out.

Tokie

[Jeff Corey]

... in general male brains develop at a different rate, than do females, that males physically see (interpret) colors differently, even that males, because their actual physical nerve endings are further apart, don't feel pain as intensely (oops! There goes that old saw about, "men couldn't stand the pain of childbirth!") as do females but they DO, because of the differences in the way our sinuses funtion actually DO feel a head cold more than do females, that there are real, evolutionary reasons men tend to be less adept at multi-tasking, while women are less adept at single-minded focus, that women really can't read maps as well as men and that there are real evolutionary reasons men don't stop to ask for directions (no matter how many uproariously funny comediennes take shots at that) that men really CAN drive better for the very simple reasons of that focus ability and better reflexes, but that women are far better at fine motor skills such as brain surgery.

Oh, also...there are real reasons more men go into sci. and math teaching than do women...
Well, one close factoid out of about ten. Males are much more likely to be red-green color blind than females.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, one close factoid out of about ten. Males are much more likely to be red-green color blind than females.

LOL.

Your ignorance and bigotry do not negate reality.

Yes. And males actually have fewer of the cones necessary to see color at all. We simply did not evolve the need for it, as women did.

Of course, whipped feminist "men" will say this proves wymyn are "better" than us. Rational people say that no, it proves that men and women are (shocker!) different from one another.

Funnily enough, we know that male and female animals of many sorts are fifferent (sexual dimorphism, for example) but it's ONLY humans who are utterly the same save for differences created by the Western patriarchal system.

Very odd.


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Incidentally, this is yet another of the many ways in which American "education" is a flop: girls and boys learn differently, too.

We KNOW this...but we don't like it, especially in a deeply feminized culture that has turned being male into a pathology. Which is what ADD/ADHD is all about .

Yeah..yeah, I know.. "but some girls are diagnosed with it...what 'bout that, huh?! HUUUUHHHHHH!!!?"

Sheesh.

It's like I'm the only adult in here sometimes.

Tokie

[volatile]

Men are also better and clarifying things up front. Women tend to edge around things. For example, here, a man would just say (to me): you are a dumbass. I have three kids.

Or: wrong, moron...I have been a teacher for 36 years!

Instead, you do it this way, forcing your audience to ask more questions.

This is very typical female communication style. It's like when you get home from a hard day at work and tell your husband about all the problems, and he offers suggestions how to go about fixing them and you become infuriated because "why can't he just listen!!??"

Well, because men are NATURALLY problem solvers, not problem listeners-to. We see a nail sticking up, but don't have a hammer handy, we go about devising some means of "fixing" the problem without the proper tool, hopefully damaging ourselves in the process!

Women phone three friends and talk it out.

Tokie

I'm not a woman.

[Jeff Corey]

...Yes. And males actually have fewer of the cones necessary to see color at all. We simply did not evolve the need for it, as women did...
Not the case. Most males and females are trichromats with three photopigments in the retina.Some males are dichromats and some females are tetrachromats with four photopigments and can discriminate colors at the red end if the visible spectrum better. So your generalization " males actually have fewer cones..'" is false.
I'd offer a link, but you apparently prefer to remain uninformed.

[volatile]

By the way, even if any of your "facts" were true (which they aren't), how exactly does that relate to "forcing boys to behave like girls" as you originally claimed the "radical feminist agenda" was doing?

What would variations in colour vision, pain sensitivity and susceptibility to head colds between children actually have to do with the nature of how to educate kids? None of those things have any bearing on behaviour (or the symptoms diagnosed as ADD) at all.

You made a cognitive and behavioural claim, but didn't present any evidence of biologically "hard-wired" behavioural differences!

[digithead]

Before this derails further into a "how boys and girls differ" thread, I was wondering if Tokenconservative is going to give us the author, title, and publisher of the super textbook published in 1924. Or did he lose the keys to his storage unit?

If I had a textbook that great, I'd always have it handy because I'd want to show it off to people to show them how much better education was back in the 1920s than it is today...

[Prometheus]

I'd be quite interested in getting the details of that old textbook too, but to really get this thread back on track, I'm wondering if anyone has any detailed thoughts about how to actually measure the quality of an educational system. If we really want to answer the question in the OP's title, don't we first have to know what it really means?

So, imagine there's a new "Education Czar" who's been tasked to overhaul our education system, and it's your job to decide whether he/she is successful and keeps the position. What will you measure, and why? What do you consider to be the quantifiable indicators of education quality? Just test scores? Which tests? Or if the necessary tests aren't available yet, and need to be constructed, what should they look like?

[Tokenconservative]

I'm not a woman.

Ouch.

Sucks to be you, then since you apparently don't know there are differnces...or have the feminist wymyn in your life beaten all the manhood out of you?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Not the case. Most males and females are trichromats with three photopigments in the retina.Some males are dichromats and some females are tetrachromats with four photopigments and can discriminate colors at the red end if the visible spectrum better. So your generalization " males actually have fewer cones..'" is false.
I'd offer a link, but you apparently prefer to remain uninformed.

Whatever.

Look, the larger point, whether I recall what it is I read about this 4-5 years ago, is that males evolved a tendency toward recognizing fewer differences in color.

That's why when your wife (husband in your case, Jeff?) asks you whether you like the maroon or rose (or whatever, dude...maybe YOU Pay attention to this stuff...sorry, I don't...) you see no difference and that tends (today) to infuriate wymyn because they cannot understand how you can BE such a pig!

I don't imagine this happens in your life, Jeff.

I imagine your wymyn just point and say "you like this."

You just nod.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Before this derails further into a "how boys and girls differ" thread, I was wondering if Tokenconservative is going to give us the author, title, and publisher of the super textbook published in 1924. Or did he lose the keys to his storage unit?

If I had a textbook that great, I'd always have it handy because I'd want to show it off to people to show them how much better education was back in the 1920s than it is today...

Actually, I looked for it in the storage room the other day, but the light was burned out. Maybe after I replace the bulb (reg'lar incandescent...I like to see...just the kinda hairpin I is!) maybe I'll find it next time I am in there if I remember.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I'd be quite interested in getting the details of that old textbook too, but to really get this thread back on track, I'm wondering if anyone has any detailed thoughts about how to actually measure the quality of an educational system. If we really want to answer the question in the OP's title, don't we first have to know what it really means?

So, imagine there's a new "Education Czar" who's been tasked to overhaul our education system, and it's your job to decide whether he/she is successful and keeps the position. What will you measure, and why? What do you consider to be the quantifiable indicators of education quality? Just test scores? Which tests? Or if the necessary tests aren't available yet, and need to be constructed, what should they look like?


Of course when you say "our" you mean "education professionals," right?

Tokie

[volatile]

Ouch.

Sucks to be you, then since you apparently don't know there are differnces...or have the feminist wymyn in your life beaten all the manhood out of you?

Tokie

*giggle* So men and women are always distinguishable, except when they're not? You are some kind of genius, I swear.

Come on, Tokie. What are the biologically-determined behavioural and cognitive differences between males and females? You still haven't suggested any.

[Tokenconservative]

*giggle* So men and women are always distinguishable, except when they're not? You are some kind of genius, I swear.

Come on, Tokie. What are the biologically-determined behavioural and cognitive differences between males and females? You still haven't suggested any.

I think I presented a catalog of them.

Just because your personal ignorance and strident, shrill, dogmatic ideology does not permit this to be true, does not mean it isn't.

I believe that's the same thing the Church told Galileo: Signor Galileo...just becaus-a that's a what-a your reseach-a has proved, does not-a mean-a it's what we gonna accept as the truth!"

It's the same as your approach to AGW: if you can suppress the truth, then then truth must not be true!

That works very well for IDers, and Creationists...and for PC lefties.

Tokie

[volatile]

I think I presented a catalog of them.

No, you didn't. You said: "single mothers who could not understand that no, it's not just a difference in plumbing, boys and girls are wired differently, female teachers and admins. happy to drug boys if it would get them to act more like girls".

And yet when asked to explain how this behavioural wiring differs, you listed differences in:

- Colour blindness
- Pain reaction
- Sensitivity to head colds
- Multi-tasking
- Map-reading ability
- Driving ability
- Asking for directions
- Motor skills

Only one of those is behavioural (that is, a difference in how people "act") - asking for directions - but even if that is true, how does that represent a fundamental, inalienable and important distinction between boys and girls?

The others, if true, have no bearing whatsoever on the inalienable differences between boys and girls. You maintain that it's problematic that the education system treats boys and girls equally, and these are the important differences you presented to make your case.

Pray tell, how do you think the US education system should change to take account of differing reactions to head colds between the genders, or even why it's a problem that they don't? If you don't want to approach that one, how about actually tell us what the biologically-determined differences in how boys and girls "act" are ?

[Tokenconservative]

No, you didn't. You said: "single mothers who could not understand that no, it's not just a difference in plumbing, boys and girls are wired differently, female teachers and admins. happy to drug boys if it would get them to act more like girls".

And yet when asked to explain how this behavioural wiring differs, you listed differences in:

- Colour blindness
- Pain reaction
- Sensitivity to head colds
- Multi-tasking
- Map-reading ability
- Driving ability
- Asking for directions
- Motor skills

Only one of those is behavioural (that is, a difference in how people "act") - asking for directions - but even if that is true, how does that represent a fundamental, inalienable and important distinction between boys and girls?

The others, if true, have no bearing whatsoever on the inalienable differences between boys and girls. You maintain that it's problematic that the education system treats boys and girls equally, and these are the important differences you presented to make your case.

Pray tell, how do you think the US education system should change to take account of differing reactions to head colds between the genders, or even why it's a problem that they don't? If you don't want to approach that one, how about actually tell us what the biologically-determined differences in how boys and girls "act" are ?


LOL!

I love this stuff!

Yep, because you have conflated the issue, Tokie must be...a LIIIIIAAARRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

God I love libs!

Okay, I'm game
Color blindness (physiologic difference): it's believed by some (rational thinkers) that women, evolved to stay at home in the cave, while men, evolved to go out an kill things, had a greater need to distinguish between colors: when this tuber is this shade of green, it makes you sick. When it's a darker/lighter shade it's good eatin'!
Pain(physio differenc): Men evolved to kill large things. If in the course of that event, a man got a few broken fingers, he could not sit down on a nearby rock and have good cry. He had to ignore it and continue with the task at hand.
Head colds: Apparently, from my reading, they have no idea what this is about.
Multi-tasking (only partly physio, related to peripheral vision; women have more of it): Men were hunters of large, dangerous animals and needed to focus very intently on that single task. Women stayed in the cave dealing with children, the fire, sewing, tanning hide...a multitude of tasks each of which would need a measure of attention at all times.
Map Reading (probably cultural, but still evolved behavior): Women were in the cave. This was a useless trait for them. Men were roaming the countryside with no global positioning equipment (predictable shriek: these cavemen din't have MAPS!!! Tokie's a fool!!! He thinks cavemen had maps!!! Sight) and had to know (evolve) how to get back home (this is not a simple a YOU probably believe it to be); related: the guy who could do this best, got to be chief and got to mate more. Guys who got lost tended to get eaten by big things.
Driving: (physio) Men were hunting large, very fast animals that were very dangerous and devloped (lots of science to back this up, but I have simple way of demonstrating this if you are man enough) quicker reaction times as a result; the man who was slow, got gored, trampled, ripped to shreds...it was a very effective evolutionary approach.
Directions: goes back to the map thing: the man who had to ask for directions was not a good leader. Therefore he did not get to BE leader or pass on his genes (this is a behavioral condition).
Motor skills: (physio) It doesn't take much in the fine motor skills dept to dodge a charging bison. Women were at home, tanning, sewing taking things out of babies mouths, etc., etc...

Why do you find these things so objectionable? Lions operate this way (in prides): the alpha male is in charge of protecting the pride from other lions and from other predators such as hyennas and leopards and in charge of leading the pride to better hunting grounds, water etc. The females have their job, much ballyhood among feminists like you. Each has its own job in the society.

Yet you find it abhorrant to believe that humans have evolved differences.

Why?

By the way, if you don't believe in evolution, and that's what this is about, just say so, and there the conversation will end.

I respect faith so long as you don't try and back it up with science.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

*giggle* So men and women are always distinguishable, except when they're not? You are some kind of genius, I swear.

Come on, Tokie. What are the biologically-determined behavioural and cognitive differences between males and females? You still haven't suggested any.

Followed by a catalog of them and a demand that I 'splain them....I think you may need to call your shrink today and ask about modifying your meds.

Tokie

[volatile]

*sigh*

Which ones of those are behavioural, or affect how men and women act?

What's that phrase? Not even wrong? I dispute that the scientific evidence even supports the differences you cite, but even if it did, how in the hell is that related to your point that "boys and girls are hard-wired to act differently", and that "radical feminists are drugging boys to act like girls"? I assume that you don't mean that this hypothetical cabal of psychotropic-wielding Boudicas are giving boys beta-carotene to improve their eyesight, so what the hell are you talking about?

What is the biological difference between how boys and girls act? What are the biologically-determined behavioural differences between males and females which support your claim that "boys and girls act differently" due to their biology!

[volatile]

Followed by a catalog of them and a demand that I 'splain them....I think you may need to call your shrink today and ask about modifying your meds.

Tokie

Colour recognition, pain sensitivity and the ability to read maps are not behavioural differences. They have no bearing on how people act.

You said boys and girls act differently due to their biology. How?

[Tokenconservative]

Colour recognition, pain sensitivity and the ability to read maps are not behavioural differences. They have no bearing on how people act.

You said boys and girls act differently due to their biology. How?

Are you really this parochial in your "thinking"?

Of course all of these are going to impact actions.
Pain: men ignore pain a lot more than women do; we are programed by evolution to do so(this is regardless of all uproariously funny commentary to the opposite--anyone who has worked in any capacity where they've observed men and women in pain knows this)
Color recognition: this has virtually no value today and so I cannot give you any real-world, modern examples of why this would alter actions not already covered in my previous post.
Map reading (and the associated navigation abilities): women tend to avoid getting into unfamiliar surroundings due to an instinctual fear of being "lost." This does not (generally...you are probably a girly-man who needs mommy to hold your hand on the way to the 'loo) usually bother men.

Boys are more agressive, naturally. Girls more compliant. That's what the whole Ritalin thing is about.

Please tell me that you are not so blinded by feminist ideology that you really cannot see a difference in the way boy/girls and men/women act?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

*sigh*

Which ones of those are behavioural, or affect how men and women act?

What's that phrase? Not even wrong? I dispute that the scientific evidence even supports the differences you cite, but even if it did, how in the hell is that related to your point that "boys and girls are hard-wired to act differently", and that "radical feminists are drugging boys to act like girls"? I assume that you don't mean that this hypothetical cabal of psychotropic-wielding Boudicas are giving boys beta-carotene to improve their eyesight, so what the hell are you talking about?

What is the biological difference between how boys and girls act? What are the biologically-determined behavioural differences between males and females which support your claim that "boys and girls act differently" due to their biology!


1. Asked and answered.

2. You can parse this however you like, the reality is that Creation (if you prefer) or evolution has "hardwired" (parse it how you will, whatever makes you feel superior) boys and girls to behave differently. Studies (nope, sorry..no link--LIIINNKKKKK!!) show this from the crib on up. You can niggle here and niggle there about whether this or that is "acting," but only the utterly obtuse or those driven by ideology would run around shrieking "I don' get it!!!" now.

Which are you?

3. The ADD/ADHD "epidemic" was wholly created for females who could not deal with/understand male (young male) behavior. To the rescue: big Pharma and shrinks helping to develop a pill to "cure" boyness. Ritalin and a host of similar drugs. Whether you like it or not--or will admit it--the ADD/ADHD "epidemic" was a lie. Boys were being identified as having this because well, they acted so much like boys, and not enough like (sigh...generally) more compliant, more sudious, more thoughtful, and less active girls.

Say, why do you suppose this "epedimic" has subsided? Well, because all but the most shrill, strident feminst--or the most stupid-- "mothers" saw what these drugs did to their sons and stopped requiring their sons to act more like girls, and stop allowing the schools to force them to.

Epidemic cured! But no headlines, for some reason?

4. Asked and answered.

Tokie

[volatile]

Boys are more agressive, naturally. Girls more compliant. That's what the whole Ritalin thing is about.

Thanks for finally admitting this, finally.

That's not true.

For example, see On the Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Aggression, Todd Tieger, Child Development, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 943-963

The prevalence of aggression as a predominantly male behavior pattern has often been noted. The nature and perceived extent of sex differences in aggression have recently revived interest in speculation that such differences are attributable to factors inherent in the biological basis of sex differentiation. This paper will critically examine the empirical and theoretical basis for Maccoby and Jacklin's contention that males are biologically predisposed toward aggressive behavior. The literature to be examined includes: (1) cross-cultural studies of children's behavior, (2) the behavior of nonhuman primates, (3) sex hormones and aggression, and (4) early learning influences in child development. Contrary to Maccoby and Jacklin's assertions, these first 3 research traditions are found to indicate no biological predisposition toward aggression in human males. Furthermore, the pattern of existing evidence suggests that the gender-dimorphic nature of aggression is reliably observable in children's spontaneous behavior only after the age of 5 years. This finding presents great difficulty for the biological theory as proposed by Maccoby and Jacklin. Suggestions are presented for an interactional theory of the etiology of observed sex differences in adult aggression.

or

Developmental Psychobiology of Aggression by David M. Stoff, Elizabeth J. Susman, p. 141 Preview (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=viBDJvVwVhQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA141&dq=biology+aggression+gender&ots=1pgW4a-A3Q&sig=f21SUxL4rvEiOaP8Z563UiInjWM)

Even early-onset agression has poor-parenting correlates [...] suggesting a complex interplay of biological and environmental processes from the start

It is not plausible, correct, lucid or sensible to say that boys and girls are "hard-wired to act differently". As usual, TC, it is much more complex than that.

[Tokenconservative]

Thanks for finally admitting this, finally.

That's not true.

For example, see On the Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Aggression, Todd Tieger, Child Development, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 943-963



or

Developmental Psychobiology of Aggression by David M. Stoff, Elizabeth J. Susman, p. 141 Preview (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=viBDJvVwVhQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA141&dq=biology+aggression+gender&ots=1pgW4a-A3Q&sig=f21SUxL4rvEiOaP8Z563UiInjWM)



It is not plausible, correct, lucid or sensible to say that boys and girls are "hard-wired to act differently". As usual, TC, it is much more complex than that.

God save me from ideologically-drive pedants.

My God...you only need to stand on a playground for 15 minutes to see that little boys (sigh...generally) play more agressively than little girls. Hand a boy a baby doll and he turns it into a gun or starts seeing how high he can throw it. Hand it to a girl and she starts cooing and nurturng it, whether her parents are "good" or "bad."

Jesus.

And we wonder why our culture is a screwed up as it is.

Tokie

[Prometheus]

Of course when you say "our" you mean "education professionals," right?

Tokie

Of course when you say "right?" you mean "any notion not in accordance with the extreme right of the political spectrum can't possibly have any truth to it," right?

I believe I've actually been treating your arguments with more respect than most others here, despite your apparent inability (or unwillingness) to engage in a level of discourse worthy of any respect at all. Still, it is slightly amusing that you so readily home right in on the single least important word in my entire post, and ignore entirely the substance.

[volatile]

God save me from ideologically-drive pedants.

Ditto... :rolleyes:

My God...you only need to stand on a playground for 15 minutes to see that little boys (sigh...generally) play more agressively than little girls. Hand a boy a baby doll and he turns it into a gun or starts seeing how high he can throw it. Hand it to a girl and she starts cooing and nurturng it, whether her parents are "good" or "bad."

How do you know that's "hard-wired" and not a result of socialisation? The literature says it's a rather complicated mix of both, with socialisation (parenting, cultural factors, biological determinism) being uppermost.

Boys are NOT hard-wired biologically to act differently to girls, at least not in the way you are implying. It's not pedantic, it's fact. Ergo, it is thus pretty impossible to "drug boys to behave like girls", given that the distinction required to make that kind of judgement is one entirely of your own invention.

You never met a girl who liked playing with trucks and rough-housing? You never met a boy who liked dolls and handbags? You cannot be biologically deterministic about gender roles, Tokie. It's so blunt.

[Dancing David]

*giggle* So men and women are always distinguishable, except when they're not? You are some kind of genius, I swear.

Come on, Tokie. What are the biologically-determined behavioural and cognitive differences between males and females? You still haven't suggested any.


There are the effects of the androgens , but ooops those are converted to estrogen in the cell. There is a biological basis but it is overwhelmed by social and cultural conditioning.

Notice how Tokie still uses womyn, even Zee Budapest has stopped that.

Most femminists in fact like to be girly.

But someo people are stuck in the past and use appeals to emotion rather than critical thought.

[Dancing David]

Ditto... :rolleyes:

How do you know that's "hard-wired" and not a result of socialisation? The literature says it's a rather complicated mix of both, with socialisation (parenting, cultural factors, biological determinism) being uppermost.

Boys are NOT hard-wired biologically to act differently to girls, at least not in the way you are implying. It's not pedantic, it's fact. Ergo, it is thus pretty impossible to "drug boys to behave like girls", given that the distinction required to make that kind of judgement is one entirely of your own invention.

You never met a girl who liked playing with trucks and rough-housing? You never met a boy who liked dolls and handbags? You cannot be biologically deterministic about gender roles, Tokie. It's so blunt.


It is in that durn bible, and because Tokie says so. No rational critical thinking involved, just chain yanking.

[digithead]

Actually, I looked for it in the storage room the other day, but the light was burned out. Maybe after I replace the bulb (reg'lar incandescent...I like to see...just the kinda hairpin I is!) maybe I'll find it next time I am in there if I remember.

Tokie

You don't own a flashlight?

In any event, can you at least tell us the subject of this awesome textbook?

[Tokenconservative]

There are the effects of the androgens , but ooops those are converted to estrogen in the cell. There is a biological basis but it is overwhelmed by social and cultural conditioning.

Notice how Tokie still uses womyn, even Zee Budapest has stopped that.

Most femminists in fact like to be girly.

But someo people are stuck in the past and use appeals to emotion rather than critical thought.

I deal with folks as I finds 'em. There were once feminine feminsts...they just wanted equal rights. No problem with that....was pretty stupid not to shift in that direction. Same as with non-white folks.

Just plain economic stupidity to do it any other way.

Wymyn are a different issue. These are radical feminists who, even today, believe that they face "glass ceilings" and open discrimination in the workplace, that they are "second class citizens" etc., etc. They hate men and believe that there are no physiological differences between the genders, and that any differences are entirely a matter of "nurture" rather than "nature."

This is utter poppycock, but it is the wymyn, who run the feminist movement today, and have insinuated themselves into many areas of ourculture which produce enormous impact, esp. the schools and the media. From these perches, they can continue to keep reality from being discovered by making research into the DIFFERENCES between men and women a no-man's land where anyone who dares tread is risking career and income.

In this way, by disallowing any such research that concludes what any rational, thinking person knows (shhhh!! Men and women, and yes, boys and girls, are DIFFERENT physiologically which results in DIFFERENT behaviors!! Who knew!?) they are able to maintain the utterly ridiculous position that ALL differences demonstrated between the genders are "cultural" and that "if only" we did not live in a strict, prejudicial, bigoted patriarchy, more girls would get science and math degrees, more would become roofers and truck drivers, more would be NFL coaches, etc., etc.

As a leftist-feminist yourself, thoroughly inculcated in this nonsensical propaganda all your life, you've been completely brainwashed to believe it and worse, to belive that anyone noting that there are DIFFERENCES is first, saying that the primary difference is that "men are better!!" and that to note the DIFFERENCES clearly demonstrates that the one doing the noting is a sexist pig.

And I say "wymyn" Two "y"s. To make fun of people who think like you do.
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

You don't own a flashlight?

In any event, can you at least tell us the subject of this awesome textbook?

Okay...here it is for you to Google (gonna need you to offer some proof, by the way, that you found this online when you come back and lie...er, say that ya did, okay? You can prove it by telling me what is sketched on the inside cover): The Standard Referenc Work, Vol. VIII, Chicago Standard Education Society, 1927.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Ditto... :rolleyes:

How do you know that's "hard-wired" and not a result of socialisation? The literature says it's a rather complicated mix of both, with socialisation (parenting, cultural factors, biological determinism) being uppermost.

Boys are NOT hard-wired biologically to act differently to girls, at least not in the way you are implying. It's not pedantic, it's fact. Ergo, it is thus pretty impossible to "drug boys to behave like girls", given that the distinction required to make that kind of judgement is one entirely of your own invention.

You never met a girl who liked playing with trucks and rough-housing? You never met a boy who liked dolls and handbags? You cannot be biologically deterministic about gender roles, Tokie. It's so blunt.

I sense by your language you are a Brit. I am guessing Ritalin was never big in your schools?

It was here. Slowed down a bit once people started noticing what it was doing to their sons.

By the way, do you know what "generally" means?

I realize generally that I am generallyremiss in not generally placing that word generously every other word, but I am assuming here that we are all rational, reasonbably educated adults who understand, generally, what the term "generally" means and that it does not, therefore, need, generally, to be placed in discussion of this sort, generally, every, generally, two, generally, or three, generally words.

Can you point out where in my posts I said that these things apply to all members of either group? I'm sure I must've done so based on your closing comment here.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

It is in that durn bible, and because Tokie says so. No rational critical thinking involved, just chain yanking.

I never mentioned the Bible.

If I am mistaken, mayhaps you'll be able to point to where I mentioned it?

Tokie

[volatile]

Can you point out where in my posts I said that these things apply to all members of either group? I'm sure I must've done so based on your closing comment here.



Maybe the words "hard-wired" mean something different in America?

[Tokenconservative]

The problem with this discussion is twofold:

1. Inculcation,
2. Fear.

1. Since the late 60s we (Western society, though Europe to a far lesser degree than US/Canada) have been told over and over and over and over and over that only the brutal, dictatorial, bigoted, sexist patriarchy is what makes boys and girls and men and women behave differently. If not for (for the slow in here everything I will be saying applies in GENERAL terms) the brutal, dictatorial, bigoted, sexist patriarchy under which girls and women are brutally repressed and suppressed, girls and boys (and men an women) would act exactly alike. This has been pounded into our heads in the schools, and especially the universities and from our media, along with the irrational nonsense that noting a difference is, in and of itself stating "men are 'better' than women."

2. This campaign to convince us that since, absent the brutal, dictatorial, repressive, suppressive, bigoted, sexixt patriarchy, boys/girls and men/women would act exactly the same, that suggesting otherwise is heresy. Any academician doing so does so only at very great risk to his...or her, career and livlihood. This has worked extremely well, the recent pillorying--and career destruction--of a Harvard president for the crime of simply implying that it may be the differences between male/female brains that guide more men into higher math and science and more women in to the liberal arts is proof of this.

This makes it easier for those who shriek that there are no differences to point to the "peer-reviewed" research ans shriek "see!?? SEEEEEEE!!!!?" It's like being in Nazi (Godwin!! GODWIN!!!!) Germany circa 1942, noting as how so few Jews seem to be in evidence, and concluding therefore that there have never been Jews in Germany, and then if someone disagrees saying, "well, can you find me some books written by Jews here, lately?" and concluding that since, no, nothing of the sort is to be had, that this is further proof of your assertion.

If you make it virtually impossible to research the differences, as is the case in America, then of course the "peer-reviewed" research doing so is going to be a little scarce.

Duh.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Maybe the words "hard-wired" mean something different in America?

Maybe.

Say, what does "pedantic ass" mean in Britain?

Tokie

[volatile]

Maybe.

Say, what does "pedantic ass" mean in Britain?

Tokie

So... ummm... the behavioural differences between boys and girls aren't "hard-wired"? Just so we're clear.

[Jeff Corey]

The problem with this discussion is twofold:

1. Inculcation,
2. Fear.

1. Since the late 60s we (Western society, though Europe to a far lesser degree than US/Canada) have been told over and over and over and over and over that only the brutal, dictatorial, bigoted, sexist patriarchy is what makes boys and girls and men and women behave differently. If not for (for the slow in here everything I will be saying applies in GENERAL terms) the brutal, dictatorial, bigoted, sexist patriarchy under which girls and women are brutally repressed and suppressed, girls and boys (and men an women) would act exactly alike. This has been pounded into our heads in the schools, and especially the universities and from our media, along with the irrational nonsense that noting a difference is, in and of itself stating "men are 'better' than women."

2. This campaign to convince us that since, absent the brutal, dictatorial, repressive, suppressive, bigoted, sexixt patriarchy, boys/girls and men/women would act exactly the same, that suggesting otherwise is heresy. Any academician doing so does so only at very great risk to his...or her, career and livlihood. This has worked extremely well, the recent pillorying--and career destruction--of a Harvard president for the crime of simply implying that it may be the differences between male/female brains that guide more men into higher math and science and more women in to the liberal arts is proof of this.

This makes it easier for those who shriek that there are no differences to point to the "peer-reviewed" research ans shriek "see!?? SEEEEEEE!!!!?" It's like being in Nazi (Godwin!! GODWIN!!!!) Germany circa 1942, noting as how so few Jews seem to be in evidence, and concluding therefore that there have never been Jews in Germany, and then if someone disagrees saying, "well, can you find me some books written by Jews here, lately?" and concluding that since, no, nothing of the sort is to be had, that this is further proof of your assertion.

If you make it virtually impossible to research the differences, as is the case in America, then of course the "peer-reviewed" research doing so is going to be a little scarce.

Duh.

Tokie

The problem with this discussion is one fold. You offer no facts, only your uniformed bigoted opinion, expressed in an obnoxious manner. You have no idea what research is going on in this area and don't seem to have the background to understand it if you did.

[volatile]

The problem with this discussion is one fold. You offer no facts, only your uniformed bigoted opinion, expressed in an obnoxious manner. You have no idea what research is going on in this area and don't seem to have the background to understand it if you did.

It's like his stance on Global Warming. It's not that he's wrong, or that the evidence doesn't support him, it's that there is in fact a vast conspiracy in operation to suppress the truth of the matter, which he "knew" was right all along.

[Tokenconservative]

So... ummm... the behavioural differences between boys and girls aren't "hard-wired"? Just so we're clear.

In rational discourse, you don't answere a question WITH a question.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The problem with this discussion is one fold. You offer no facts, only your uniformed bigoted opinion, expressed in an obnoxious manner. You have no idea what research is going on in this area and don't seem to have the background to understand it if you did.

Curious...you just, in essence, called me a stupid bigot.

In another thread, when I pointed up that you hate me because I am conservative, you ran to the mods and complained that I was "attacking the person making the argument, not the argument..."

What sort of wussy does this?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

It's like his stance on Global Warming. It's not that he's wrong, or that the evidence doesn't support him, it's that there is in fact a vast conspiracy in operation to suppress the truth of the matter, which he "knew" was right all along.

Indeed.

And just so.

Can you prove there ISN'T a vast conspiracy, on either count?

No?

But maybe you are right, maybe I am simply an irrational, far rightwing loon.

In either case if you, as a professional researcher of any sort write that there are differences between men and women or write that climate change is not being caused by humans, you will never see another dime in funding and will likely be driven out of academia.

This is a given.

So, what would it look like if there really WERE a Vast Conspiracy?


Tokie

[Jeff Corey]

Curious...you just, in essence, called me a stupid bigot.

In another thread, when I pointed up that you hate me because I am conservative, you ran to the mods and complained that I was "attacking the person making the argument, not the argument..."

What sort of wussy does this?

Tokie

I don't know because you are wrong. It never happened and is probably a product of your demented imagination. Or you are simply a liar.
Which is it, Okie?

[volatile]

In rational discourse, you don't answere a question WITH a question.

Tokie

Well, look. In rational discourse, you discuss things rationally. You don't, as you've done here, blindly claim that the behavioural differences between male and female children are both "hard-wired" and only "generally" applicable, only to stomp your feet and bitch about "pedant[ry]" (calling the other party in the discussion an "ass" in the process, by the way) when it's pointed out you that "hard-wired" and "generally" are mutually exclusive.

Man up, Tokie. You were wrong. There's no shame in admitting it. Say after me: "The behavioural differences between boys and girls are not 'hard-wired'".

You can even copy and paste that if you feel typing will bring on apoplexy.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, look. In rational discourse, you discuss things rationally. You don't, as you've done here, blindly claim that the behavioural differences between male and female children are both "hard-wired" and only "generally" applicable, only to stomp your feet and bitch about "pedant[ry]" (calling the other party in the discussion an "ass" in the process, by the way) when it's pointed out you that "hard-wired" and "generally" are mutually exclusive.

Man up, Tokie. You were wrong. There's no shame in admitting it. Say after me: "The behavioural differences between boys and girls are not 'hard-wired'".

You can even copy and paste that if you feel typing will bring on apoplexy.

Sure, I'll man up and admit that that was an overbroad statement.

Now, you grow a pair (and don't report me to a mod for saying it that way) and admit that you are being overly pedantic...you knew what I meant.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I don't know because you are wrong. It never happened and is probably a product of your demented imagination. Or you are simply a liar.
Which is it, Okie?

Well, I am not from OK but I think that if I were, I'd be a bit put out by that...so now you are saying that being from Oklahoma makes you...what?

Stupid?

Tokie

[volatile]

Hey, I didn't object to being called a pedant, it was more the "ass" part. I wear my pedantry with pride.

I don't think it's pedantic to point out the inherent gaps in the arguments of others, though. Nevertheless, thanks for clearing up your opinions, because it really wasn't clear what you meant. If you don't mean to say that there is a fundamentally biological basis to male and female behaviour, don't say that there is.

[Jeff Corey]

Okie - I notice you didn't answer my question. When you incorrectly stated I reported your post, were you demented or lying?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The problem with this discussion is one fold. You offer no facts, only your uniformed bigoted opinion, expressed in an obnoxious manner. You have no idea what research is going on in this area and don't seem to have the background to understand it if you did.

What? You dare ask for a LIIIIIINNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!

The DIFFERENCES are COMMON knowledge.





(The shouting helps ;) )

[Tokenconservative]

Okie - I notice you didn't answer my question. When you incorrectly stated I reported your post, were you demented or lying?

It really does't matter whether I am demented or lying...you are part of the little sniping cabal, so whether it's you or a fellow member, who cares?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

What? You dare ask for a LIIIIIINNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!

The DIFFERENCES are COMMON knowledge.




(The shouting helps ;) )


It's simply a matter of effective communcation.

I like to speak the language of those I'm talking with. Libs shriek. So I shriek back.













SO THEY DON'T GET CONFUSICATED!!!!!!!!!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Hey, I didn't object to being called a pedant, it was more the "ass" part. I wear my pedantry with pride.

I don't think it's pedantic to point out the inherent gaps in the arguments of others, though. Nevertheless, thanks for clearing up your opinions, because it really wasn't clear what you meant. If you don't mean to say that there is a fundamentally biological basis to male and female behaviour, don't say that there is.

Once again, you are simply playing with language to avoid the truth.

The truth is that IN GENERAL, males and females have FUNDAMENTAL physiological differences, including in their brains, and that these differences have nothing to do with culture (why do boys in virtually all cultures...yes, yes, the Kung...zzzzzzzz) behave the same--IN GENERAL--being more agressive, more active, having less tolerance for sitting still for long periods, wrestling, fighting, playing at war or other inherentlyviolent games, taking more risks....or are you saying that Japanese culture is the same as American culture is the same as Peruvian culture is the same as Icelandic culture is...

Oh...yeah, except the Kung!

Which proves that you are right.

Tokie

[volatile]

Once again, you are simply playing with language to avoid the truth.

The truth is that IN GENERAL, males and females have FUNDAMENTAL physiological differences,

Oh, for Ed's sake. "IN GENERAL" is the opposite of "FUNDAMENTAL".

If it is *general*, it cannot, by definition, be *hard wired*, can it? If there is a hard and firm biological basis to the traits you ascribe to the biologically male phenotype, it cannot be "general".

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either (as you claim) there is a "hard-wired" biological basis for masculine behaviour, or (as biologists claim) behaviour is a complex mix of biology and socialisation.

If boys and girls are "hard-wired" differently, what, in your opinion, makes "girly" boys and "tomboy" girls act they way they do? Either it's "generally" true that boys and girls behave differently (which indicates something rather more nuanced than you're claiming) or it's biologically in-built and intricately connected with gender, as you imply (in which case ALL boys and ALL girls would behave in the same way).

The truth of the matter, Tokie, is that there does seem to be biological bases for some behavioural traits, but they are resolutely not "hard-wired" to gender.

It is not correct to say that boys and girls are "hard-wired" to act in pre-determined ways. You are wrong. Would you like to borrow a shovel?

[Jeff Corey]

It really does't matter whether I am demented or lying...you are part of the little sniping cabal, so whether it's you or a fellow member, who cares?

Tokie

People who care about accuracy. Evidently you don't.

[Jeff Corey]

...You are wrong. Would you like to borrow a shovel?
Apparently he's already got one. He's been shoveling the crap since he started posting here.

[volatile]

Oh, and while I forget, and to try and get this thread back on topic:

How does treating boys like boys (who, as we all know, all like to play with guns) and girls like girls (who all love to nurture dolls) improve the education system?

[Prometheus]

I was once a witness to a boy/girl differences conversation very similar to what this thread has devolved into, but it had a very funny ending. After hours of back-and-forth between "Scott" who, at first, argued that all observed differences were from socialization, and "Mr. K." who thought they were hard-wired, Scott finally admitted that, "Perhaps there's a small biologically hard-wired difference, but not enough to matter."

Mr. K responded, "Gee Scott, I'm sorry to hear that your "difference" is so very small!" :rolleyes:

[volatile]

Are you comparing me to "Scott"?

[Prometheus]

Sorry, I should have included the disclaimer:

"The persons and events described in this anecdote are based on real people--but not anyone in this thread"

:D

[digithead]

Okay...here it is for you to Google (gonna need you to offer some proof, by the way, that you found this online when you come back and lie...er, say that ya did, okay? You can prove it by telling me what is sketched on the inside cover): The Standard Referenc Work, Vol. VIII, Chicago Standard Education Society, 1927.

Tokie

No need to Google, I just ordered it through interlibrary loan. We have a kick-ass higher education library system here Washington State. However, it's from 1922 though so it's probably not the same edition as yours but it should be close enough for government work. The 1922 edition I ordered is edited by Harold M. Stanford...

I'll let you know when I get it...

[Prometheus]

Okay...here it is for you to Google (gonna need you to offer some proof, by the way, that you found this online when you come back and lie...er, say that ya did, okay? You can prove it by telling me what is sketched on the inside cover): The Standard Referenc Work, Vol. VIII, Chicago Standard Education Society, 1927.

Tokie

Nice!

Could the above book have any relation to this one (http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/top/000249.shtml), published in 1913 in Chicago by the Progressive Educational Society?

Could Tokie have been enamoured of a PROGRESSIVE tome, all along?

[Jeff Corey]

Wasn't John Dewey the force behind Progressive Education? But, according to Okie, he was a socialist, left wing, liberal radical - you know, all the things that make him shriek, foam at the mouth and type all in caps! Maybe all this frenetic behavior is Okie's inner conservative fighting the good fight against the evil mindworm emitted by this subversive tome that has targeted his prefrontal cortex.

[Tokenconservative]

Nice!

Could the above book have any relation to this one (http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/top/000249.shtml), published in 1913 in Chicago by the Progressive Educational Society?

Could Tokie have been enamoured of a PROGRESSIVE tome, all along?

I have no idea.

I don't access links provided by libs.

Too worrisome.

I did not say I was "enamored" I said "tomes" of that time used as school texts were much more advanced than they are today.

I believe it was you (or a fellow leftist--what the hell is a "progressive"?) who claimed that texts today are "smarter" or some such.

If you have access to a text similar to the one I am referencing, only an utter idealogue intent on never admitting how wrong he is would not agree...this text is MUCH tougher than anything a 9th or 10 grader will see today.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Wasn't John Dewey the force behind Progressive Education? But, according to Okie, he was a socialist, left wing, liberal radical - you know, all the things that make him shriek, foam at the mouth and type all in caps! Maybe all this frenetic behavior is Okie's inner conservative fighting the good fight against the evil mindworm emitted by this subversive tome that has targeted his prefrontal cortex.


I love this (necessary) conflation on libs' parts!

It's always wonderful to see them drag themselves into this minefield.

Why is it that your ideology utterly blinds you to anything else?

Serious quesiton...I'd like to know.

It's pretty obvious, by-the-by, who the truly well, let's not put lipstick on a pig, unintelligent (I din't call ya stupid! Don't run to a mod!!) libs are, by the way, in this response. The more...circumspect libs are silent, because they can see the trap this sets for them: they can rush in and shriek "Tokie is referencing a 'progressive' (LOL!) text!!!" like you two are doing, or they can remain silent, recognizing that (yikes!) reglardless of any political bent of the publisher, or of that the text itself takes, it is quite simply more difficult going intellectually (...yes, an analytical conundrum for you) than anything similar you'll find since at least the late 1960s.

That raises the obvious question: why, if it indisputably the case that the schools have not "dumbed-down" their materials, was this sort of text in widespead use in the US so long ago? Someone in here argued that kids today are "smarter" (conflating the notions that ability to operate a contemporary piece of machinery equates to "smart"--I wonder how many kids today could hitch a team to a plow?)

Of course, you cannot answer address any of this. All you can do is sit like a magpie on a wire shrieking "lookit here!! Lookit here!"

Astounding.

And, I'm pretty sure you were calling...MY intellect into question?

Tokie

[Prometheus]

I have no idea.

I don't access links provided by libs.

Too worrisome.

I did not say I was "enamored" I said "tomes" of that time used as school texts were much more advanced than they are today.

Sheesh! Grow a sense of humor. I just thought you might enjoy being mischaracterized in much the same way you do to others.


I believe it was you (or a fellow leftist--what the hell is a "progressive"?) who claimed that texts today are "smarter" or some such.

Nah, I don't use textbooks in my classes. I just make stuff up as I go along, and shout, "LIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNKKKKKK!!!!" if anybody questions me. Why do you think the NEA let's me keep my job, even though I rag on them whenever I get the chance?



If you have access to a text similar to the one I am referencing, only an utter idealogue intent on never admitting how wrong he is would not agree...this text is MUCH tougher than anything a 9th or 10 grader will see today.

From a 1924 lawsuit in Kansas (http://brownvboard.org/research/handbook/sources/thurman/thurman-330.htm) (my bolding):


Methods of education and courses of study have been and are still undergoing a transition which has resulted in great confusion so far as classification of grades is concerned. Courses originally taught in high schools are being taught in the elementary grades, while courses taught in the elementary grades are being extended into the high schools....A large number of the school systems of the state have departed...from what was originally known as the "8-4" plan of school organization--eight years in the elementary schools and four years in the high school....other systems are being organized on what is termed the "6-2-4" plan--six years in the elementary grades, two years of intermediate and four years of high school. Another plan now gaining in popularity is what is known as the "6-3-3" plan--six years in the elementary grades, three years intermediate....The transition in educational methods in Kansas is not different from that in other states.


So the existence of your book in no way implies that the materials it covers were representative of the work that all 9th or 10th graders were capable of at the time.

[Prometheus]

--what the hell is a "progressive"?

At least we know Tokie's not Bill O'Reilly in disguise. :D

[Prometheus]

The more...circumspect libs are silent, because they can see the trap this sets for them: they can rush in and shriek "Tokie is referencing a 'progressive' (LOL!) text!!!" like you two are doing, or they can remain silent,

...Or we can have fun pulling irrelevant "facts" out of our behinds and tossing them about like they mean something (sound familiar?)


That raises the obvious question: why, if it indisputably the case that the schools have not "dumbed-down" their materials, was this sort of text in widespead use in the US so long ago?


I've already stated earlier in this thread that I agree that school curricula have been "dumbed down" to use your favorite (self-descriptive?) turn of phrase. Obviously, the earlier, far-too-difficult texts weren't getting the job done. They were attempting to provide a level of sophistication that was inaccessible to most children. And this "dumbing down" hasn't hurt any of the smarter kids of today, because they get moved into "accelerated" programs that give them the most difficult work that they can handle. The overall effect is a net improvement.

[Dancing David]

I deal with folks as I finds 'em. There were once feminine feminsts...they just wanted equal rights. No problem with that....was pretty stupid not to shift in that direction. Same as with non-white folks.

Just plain economic stupidity to do it any other way.

Wymyn are a different issue. These are radical feminists who, even today, believe that they face "glass ceilings" and open discrimination in the workplace, that they are "second class citizens" etc., etc. They hate men and believe that there are no physiological differences between the genders, and that any differences are entirely a matter of "nurture" rather than "nature."

This is utter poppycock, but it is the wymyn, who run the feminist movement today, and have insinuated themselves into many areas of ourculture which produce enormous impact, esp. the schools and the media. From these perches, they can continue to keep reality from being discovered by making research into the DIFFERENCES between men and women a no-man's land where anyone who dares tread is risking career and income.

In this way, by disallowing any such research that concludes what any rational, thinking person knows (shhhh!! Men and women, and yes, boys and girls, are DIFFERENT physiologically which results in DIFFERENT behaviors!! Who knew!?) they are able to maintain the utterly ridiculous position that ALL differences demonstrated between the genders are "cultural" and that "if only" we did not live in a strict, prejudicial, bigoted patriarchy, more girls would get science and math degrees, more would become roofers and truck drivers, more would be NFL coaches, etc., etc.

As a leftist-feminist yourself, thoroughly inculcated in this nonsensical propaganda all your life, you've been completely brainwashed to believe it and worse, to belive that anyone noting that there are DIFFERENCES is first, saying that the primary difference is that "men are better!!" and that to note the DIFFERENCES clearly demonstrates that the one doing the noting is a sexist pig.

And I say "wymyn" Two "y"s. To make fun of people who think like you do.
Tokie


Ever the psychic eh? Hope you find a good income reading minds!

I said there are biological basis to behavior, but since you eschew science for hyperbole I shall not plauge you with evidence.

There are some feminists who are as you say, but there are plenty who are not. Discrimination based upon gender is real. I worked as a man in a domestic violence shelter, so I may have some experience with it.

There are differences but to determine which is biological and which is conditioning is another matter.

Chauvanists and radicals of any sort suffer from a lack critical thought.

While you are watching children, watch the way that parents discipline the same behaviors in juveniles of both sexes.

[Dancing David]

I sense by your language you are a Brit. I am guessing Ritalin was never big in your schools?

It was here. Slowed down a bit once people started noticing what it was doing to their sons.

By the way, do you know what "generally" means?

I realize generally that I am generallyremiss in not generally placing that word generously every other word, but I am assuming here that we are all rational, reasonbably educated adults who understand, generally, what the term "generally" means and that it does not, therefore, need, generally, to be placed in discussion of this sort, generally, every, generally, two, generally, or three, generally words.

Can you point out where in my posts I said that these things apply to all members of either group? I'm sure I must've done so based on your closing comment here.

Tokie

Ever the anecdotal evidence eh, tiss better to cry LIIIIINK than to state a mere personal opinion.

I saw many children in intake assesments, almost none were there because of the school, almost all were there because of the parents. Tis a sad thing to currently work with kids who could perchance benefit from medicine but decline its use. They bounce around the rooms and have tantrums, but it is their course that they have set upon.


There is a coomon resistance to medicating children, but some educators are over the board. Fortunately they self select away from middle school.

[Dancing David]

I never mentioned the Bible.

If I am mistaken, mayhaps you'll be able to point to where I mentioned it?

Tokie


LIIIIIIINK?

Twere humor. Just as much of your witty dialouge is.

[Dancing David]

Maybe.

Say, what does "pedantic ass" mean in Britain?

Tokie

Why it is right below your picture in yonder dictionary.

[Dancing David]

Okie - I notice you didn't answer my question. When you incorrectly stated I reported your post, were you demented or lying?


He behaves like a troll.

[Jeff Corey]

He behaves like a troll.

She's not a troll, she's just a silly little girl.

[Dancing David]

She's not a troll, she's just a silly little girl.


She looks just like a troll, she acts just like a troll but she cries just like a little girl...

(Sorry Bobby D., I can't stand that song anyhow.)

[Tokenconservative]

...Or we can have

I've already stated earlier in this thread that I agree that school curricula have been "dumbed down" to use your favorite (self-descriptive?) turn of phrase. Obviously, the earlier, far-too-difficult texts weren't getting the job done. They were attempting to provide a level of sophistication that was inaccessible to most children. And this "dumbing down" hasn't hurt any of the smarter kids of today, because they get moved into "accelerated" programs that give them the most difficult work that they can handle. The overall effect is a net improvement.

Let me see if I follow you:
1. Kids today are "dumber" than were kids, 50-100 years ago,
2. Therefore, texts from the past would be to "hard" for kids today.
3. The fact that Americans routinely score embarassingly low in competition with kids in 3rd world countries is not a concern because,
4. Our kids are all being dumbed-down to the same level, except a few of the especially bright ones who are dumbed down a little les.

Well, that certainly clears it up for me.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Ever the psychic eh? Hope you find a good income reading minds!

I said there are biological basis to behavior, but since you eschew science for hyperbole I shall not plauge you with evidence.

There are some feminists who are as you say, but there are plenty who are not. Discrimination based upon gender is real. I worked as a man in a domestic violence shelter, so I may have some experience with it.

There are differences but to determine which is biological and which is conditioning is another matter.

Chauvanists and radicals of any sort suffer from a lack critical thought.

While you are watching children, watch the way that parents discipline the same behaviors in juveniles of both sexes.

I try to read minds but find reading blank pages especially...challenging.

Hmm...but I've been beaten up for suggesting that there are biological reasons for behavior, especially the quite obvious differences in behavior between males and females...as a staunch lefty, surely you are not ageeing? If so, turn in your red card immediately!

Let me see if I follow your reasoning: because some men beat women, institunalized sexism (racism, too?) is rampant?

And no, no feminist who wants to keep that mantel will ever admit that the quite obvious and sometimes extraordinary differences in behaviors between boys and girls can be anything but "nurture."

I would say that in many cases, the way to tell the differences, are easy: they are physiological differences. As a males pain receptors (sigh...in general) are further apart (sigh....in general) than are a female's (sigh...in general) then the male (sigh...in general) tends to feel pain less acutely than does the female (sigh....in general).

Wouldn't this discussion be made much more clear by my not having to put "in general" behind everthing I say?

Ah, and by calling me names...this accomplishes what in a rational discussion? Remind me, it's been a while since I've taken a class in critical thinking...I misremember: is it lesson one or two where you learn that shouting "oh, yeah!!? Well so's yer muttter!!!" is the very best approach to a critical response?

Watch the way they do it NOW, or 50 years ago? Today, little boys (sigh...in general) are being taught to be little girls. Too many are being raised either by women alone or by men who are not their fathers and/or are too weak themselves or have been so thoroughly inculcated to act as females that they will discipline their boys for being well, boys.

I don't know who this is manifesting itself where you live (or even whether it's taking place, actually) but here, it's manifesting in...not nice ways among boys who see no problem in hitting girls, for example or view girls entirely as sex toys.

Of course, these are behaviors that are learned--did I say otherwise? And of course they apply only, sigh...in general to the male population. There is also considerable "confusion" as so many young men (this is being fixed to some extent as those rasied in this hyper-feminist environment of the 80s and 90s are now having their own kids and reversing the trend of trying to make boys into girls, themselves, and much to the horror of the feminist cultural hegemony) are uncertain how to behave as "men" in our society. No...sigh...this does not mean abusing women or some such, it means acting like men.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

LIIIIIIINK?

Twere humor. Just as much of your witty dialouge is.

Oh...like this? "Why it is right below your picture in yonder dictionary."

Hmm...okay, let me try that approach.

Oh, yeah!? Sez you!

Hmm....no, no....I think I'll go back to the adult side.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

He behaves like a troll.

This is a standard claim of those who dislike having the bright, brutal light of truth shined on their leftist ideologies.

Tokie

[Prometheus]

Let me see if I follow you:
1. Kids today are "dumber" than were kids, 50-100 years ago,
2. Therefore, texts from the past would be to "hard" for kids today.
3. The fact that Americans routinely score embarassingly low in competition with kids in 3rd world countries is not a concern because,
4. Our kids are all being dumbed-down to the same level, except a few of the especially bright ones who are dumbed down a little les.

Well, that certainly clears it up for me.

Tokie

Nice try, but no. Let me take your points in order:

1. I have no idea. Since kids today and kids 50-100 years ago have never taken the same tests, or worked within the same environment, or applied themselves to the same problems, it's impossible to make a genuine comparison.

2. No, my contention is that texts from the past were likely too hard for the kids they were used with in the first place, and this mismatch would have been even worse if the schools of the past had been more inclusive.

3. There's nothing "routine" here at all. The testing refered to in the OP has only actually been carried out a handful of times (I think three, actually), and only in the current decade. Leaving aside the fact that the methodology of the testing in question seems to be biased against the U.S. school system in the first place, it's extremely likely that if the same sort of testing had been carried out regularly over the past century, with differences in demographics and enrollment taken into account, the U.S. would have done far more poorly in the past and would have demonstrated a trend of improvement in the last 100 years.

4. That does not follow from what I said at all. Our kids are not being "dumbed down". They are receiving instruction more appropriate to their abilities in the first place. The vast majority of kids, who would have been left behind with the old texts, are now getting texts they can handle. Those who could have handled the difficulty of the old texts are receiving even better texts of similar difficulty.

[Prometheus]

....And no, no feminist who wants to keep that mantel will ever admit that the quite obvious and sometimes extraordinary differences in behaviors between boys and girls can be anything but "nurture."

I knew an outspoken activist feminist in college who was quite fond of claiming that the fact that men are 5 times more likely than women to be struck by lightning was proof of a biological difference in intelligence (because men were too stupid to come in out of the rain). She was wrong, but that didn't stop her. And none of the other feminists stripped her of her mantel, so to speak.

[Jeff Corey]

So, you're saying she was as intellectually impaired as Okie?

[Tokenconservative]

I knew an outspoken activist feminist in college who was quite fond of claiming that the fact that men are 5 times more likely than women to be struck by lightning was proof of a biological difference in intelligence (because men were too stupid to come in out of the rain). She was wrong, but that didn't stop her. And none of the other feminists stripped her of her mantel, so to speak.

I sincerely hope you are trying to be facetious...if not, I've greatly overestimated your intellect.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Nice try, but no. Let me take your points in order:

1. I have no idea. Since kids today and kids 50-100 years ago have never taken the same tests, or worked within the same environment, or applied themselves to the same problems, it's impossible to make a genuine comparison.

2. No, my contention is that texts from the past were likely too hard for the kids they were used with in the first place, and this mismatch would have been even worse if the schools of the past had been more inclusive.

3. There's nothing "routine" here at all. The testing refered to in the OP has only actually been carried out a handful of times (I think three, actually), and only in the current decade. Leaving aside the fact that the methodology of the testing in question seems to be biased against the U.S. school system in the first place, it's extremely likely that if the same sort of testing had been carried out regularly over the past century, with differences in demographics and enrollment taken into account, the U.S. would have done far more poorly in the past and would have demonstrated a trend of improvement in the last 100 years.

4. That does not follow from what I said at all. Our kids are not being "dumbed down". They are receiving instruction more appropriate to their abilities in the first place. The vast majority of kids, who would have been left behind with the old texts, are now getting texts they can handle. Those who could have handled the difficulty of the old texts are receiving even better texts of similar difficulty.

1. Okay. I can buy that. That of course, can be controlled-for, factored in.
2 & 4. So let me see if I follow your (repititious) reasoning here: Since a minority of kids 50 years ago (using your timeframes, and that's fine) did well, a larger group did okay, and another group did lousy with those old texts, and since grading today shows that a small number of kids do well, a larger group does okay, and a smaller group does poorly, that proves that older texts were "too hard" for kids then, who in a more agrarian society had little to no access to any other resource material, typically had jobs before and after school, had no access to "free breakfast and lunch" etc., etc.

Have I got that right?

3. So, if we are to take testing/scores, whatever from the past into account we need to control for various issues, but when we look at testing today, the only thing we need to control for is whether older texts were "too hard"?

Hmmm.

Tokie

[Prometheus]

1. Okay. I can buy that. That of course, can be controlled-for, factored in.
2 & 4. So let me see if I follow your (repititious) reasoning here: Since a minority of kids 50 years ago (using your timeframes, and that's fine) did well, a larger group did okay, and another group did lousy with those old texts, and since grading today shows that a small number of kids do well, a larger group does okay, and a smaller group does poorly, that proves that older texts were "too hard" for kids then, who in a more agrarian society had little to no access to any other resource material, typically had jobs before and after school, had no access to "free breakfast and lunch" etc., etc.

Have I got that right?

3. So, if we are to take testing/scores, whatever from the past into account we need to control for various issues, but when we look at testing today, the only thing we need to control for is whether older texts were "too hard"?

Hmmm.

Tokie

2/4 ) Basically, except I wouldn't use the word "prove". I'm just guessing based on personal experience and incomplete (and not particularly trustworthy) data.

3) Not at all. We really need a concerted effort to completely revamp the way we test, the way we interpret tests, and the way we base policy on the results. As far as coming up with a confident estimate of how we're doing now compared to decades in the past, it's probably a lost cause.

[Tokenconservative]

2/4 ) Basically, except I wouldn't use the word "prove". I'm just guessing based on personal experience and incomplete (and not particularly trustworthy) data.

3) Not at all. We really need a concerted effort to completely revamp the way we test, the way we interpret tests, and the way we base policy on the results. As far as coming up with a confident estimate of how we're doing now compared to decades in the past, it's probably a lost cause.

1. So you are saying that if the results from 50 yeas ago with the "hard" texts were exactly the same as the results from today with the more appropriate texts are exactly the same this proves that the texts from 50 years ago were too hard?

I guess I don't follow your reasoning.

Does your reasoning here factor in grade inflation, too?


3. Sounds like a teacher, to me. "It's not that I can't teach, it's um...the tests! The tests don't accurately reflect um...anything!"

Oh. Better idear: revamp the entire system, starting with school choice.

Of course, if you permit choice the system will revamp itself.

Tokie

[Prometheus]

1. So you are saying that if the results from 50 yeas ago with the "hard" texts were exactly the same as the results from today with the more appropriate texts are exactly the same this proves that the texts from 50 years ago were too hard?

I guess I don't follow your reasoning.

Does your reasoning here factor in grade inflation, too?


3. Sounds like a teacher, to me. "It's not that I can't teach, it's um...the tests! The tests don't accurately reflect um...anything!"

Oh. Better idear: revamp the entire system, starting with school choice.

Of course, if you permit choice the system will revamp itself.

Tokie

There are tests that accurately reflect certain aspects of teaching, and I regularly try to make use of them to improve my own practice. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of crappy tests, that many people don't realize are crappy, and there's even more misunderstanding of how to analyze what any test is actually measuring.

I like tests. I want more of them. But I want the people who make policy and practice decisions based on those tests (myself included) to have a much better understanding of the tests they use, and of what their relative strengths and weaknesses are, as well.

As far as school choice is concerned. I am in qualified agreement with you. Informed free choice is a far more efficient and effective way to improve than government edict.

Unfortunately, most people are not well-informed enough to make this work, and except for the very wealthy, most people can never have a truly free choice, either--you can't fit enough schools in any given location.

Of course, you could institute a truly staggering tax increase in order to pay for all parents to have the option of sending their children to any school in the country (I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that this would not be your favorite solution :D ). That would provide enough free choice, and then you'd just have to make sure that every parent knew all of the strengths and weaknesses of every school. :boggled:

A real, workable solution needs to be some sort of a compromise, but I'm not sure what it would look like.

[Tokenconservative]

There are tests that accurately reflect certain aspects of teaching, and I regularly try to make use of them to improve my own practice. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of crappy tests, that many people don't realize are crappy, and there's even more misunderstanding of how to analyze what any test is actually measuring.

I like tests. I want more of them. But I want the people who make policy and practice decisions based on those tests (myself included) to have a much better understanding of the tests they use, and of what their relative strengths and weaknesses are, as well.

As far as school choice is concerned. I am in qualified agreement with you. Informed free choice is a far more efficient and effective way to improve than government edict.

Unfortunately, most people are not well-informed enough to make this work, and except for the very wealthy, most people can never have a truly free choice, either--you can't fit enough schools in any given location.

Of course, you could institute a truly staggering tax increase in order to pay for all parents to have the option of sending their children to any school in the country (I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that this would not be your favorite solution :D ). That would provide enough free choice, and then you'd just have to make sure that every parent knew all of the strengths and weaknesses of every school. :boggled:

A real, workable solution needs to be some sort of a compromise, but I'm not sure what it would look like.

I think we can agree on the testing. Most of it appears to be designed to make sure that teachers are not too damaged by the outcome.

But let's talk about your misunderstanding of school choice.

I, being fabulously wealthy, sent my kids to a private school K-8-9. The most I paid per head (middle school level) was around $2500/yr. The local district "charges" around $6k/head at the middle school level.

My kids are currently (10th grade) learning online for about $1250/head (these are yearly numbers). The local district "charges" $7500/head for schooling at this level.

Tell me again how it is "only" the superwealthy would be able to send their kids to private schools with a voucher plan that would make a portion of the per-head cost in the district portable for the parent?

By the way, I recently heard that the hands-down worst school district in the US is the one in Washington, DC...where it costs around $13k/head for a kid to go to high school.

Also, what constitutes "well-informed" for you. That they have to be a public schools teacher to know what a good curriculum should look like?

Tokie

[Dancing David]

I try to read minds but find reading blank pages especially...challenging.

Hmm...but I've been beaten up for suggesting that there are biological reasons for behavior, especially the quite obvious differences in behavior between males and females...as a staunch lefty, surely you are not ageeing? If so, turn in your red card immediately!

There is a biological basis to all behavior but the case for detrmined behavior (IE instinctual) versus conditioned is fraught with peril.

Why do women have a marked tolerance for pain overall? Is it because of some biological factor? You bet. But is it because women are designed to tolerate pain? Or is it because most of them have to deal with menstrual cramps?


Let me see if I follow your reasoning: because some men beat women, institunalized sexism (racism, too?) is rampant?

I don't recall saying that, the effects of culture, social and personal makeup all go into domestic violence. It influences the choices that individuals make.

I am not aware of institutional discrimination being as strong as it was perhaps in the past. However the abuse of power and position still continues.


And no, no feminist who wants to keep that mantel will ever admit that the quite obvious and sometimes extraordinary differences in behaviors between boys and girls can be anything but "nurture."

Again I would say that it is a mix, there is some biological determinism, but it is less than what conditioning does. I have met women who are very masculine and men who are very feminine so it would appear to be determined and conditioned both.

Certainly when it comes to violence in school, we currently have a lot of violent disrespectfull young women. (They are currently in the lead for expulsion and suspension at my middle school.)

[quote]
I would say that in many cases, the way to tell the differences, are easy: they are physiological differences. As a males pain receptors (sigh...in general) are further apart (sigh....in general) than are a female's (sigh...in general) then the male (sigh...in general) tends to feel pain less acutely than does the female (sigh....in general).

Well except that is not what pain tolerance studies might indicate, however there may be a difference between sensitivity and tolerance. Females have a marked tolerance.


Wouldn't this discussion be made much more clear by my not having to put "in general" behind everthing I say?

Ah, and by calling me names...this accomplishes what in a rational discussion? Remind me, it's been a while since I've taken a class in critical thinking...I misremember: is it lesson one or two where you learn that shouting "oh, yeah!!? Well so's yer muttter!!!" is the very best approach to a critical response?

You were the one reading minds.


Watch the way they do it NOW, or 50 years ago? Today, little boys (sigh...in general) are being taught to be little girls. Too many are being raised either by women alone or by men who are not their fathers and/or are too weak themselves or have been so thoroughly inculcated to act as females that they will discipline their boys for being well, boys.

Hmm, what bias is that?
:)

Discipline :arbitrary label: for being :percieved label:.

What i meant is that young women generaly recieve a reprimand when a young man will not, in comparable situations.


I don't know who this is manifesting itself where you live (or even whether it's taking place, actually) but here, it's manifesting in...not nice ways among boys who see no problem in hitting girls, for example or view girls entirely as sex toys.

Oh, that is old behavior at least since the rise of the patriarchial dominance. ;)


Of course, these are behaviors that are learned--did I say otherwise? And of course they apply only, sigh...in general to the male population. There is also considerable "confusion" as so many young men (this is being fixed to some extent as those rasied in this hyper-feminist environment of the 80s and 90s are now having their own kids and reversing the trend of trying to make boys into girls, themselves, and much to the horror of the feminist cultural hegemony) are uncertain how to behave as "men" in our society. No...sigh...this does not mean abusing women or some such, it means acting like men.

Tokie

So why not act like a rational being. Some men are masculine, some are not. I don't think I should change my behavior to suit cultural mores. I follow the law but I am who I am.

[Dancing David]

Oh...like this? "Why it is right below your picture in yonder dictionary."

Hmm...okay, let me try that approach.

Oh, yeah!? Sez you!

Hmm....no, no....I think I'll go back to the adult side.

Tokie


As if!

[Dancing David]

This is a standard claim of those who dislike having the bright, brutal light of truth shined on their leftist ideologies.

Tokie

Could be but i have other criteria.

Something about yanking chains, another thing about hyperbole as evidence and something about links, I can't remember right now.


I am way left of center but also have some rightest values. I am certainly critical of most idealogies, leftist as much as rightist.

[Prometheus]

I think we can agree on the testing. Most of it appears to be designed to make sure that teachers are not too damaged by the outcome.

But let's talk about your misunderstanding of school choice.

I, being fabulously wealthy, sent my kids to a private school K-8-9. The most I paid per head (middle school level) was around $2500/yr. The local district "charges" around $6k/head at the middle school level.

My kids are currently (10th grade) learning online for about $1250/head (these are yearly numbers). The local district "charges" $7500/head for schooling at this level.

Tell me again how it is "only" the superwealthy would be able to send their kids to private schools with a voucher plan that would make a portion of the per-head cost in the district portable for the parent?

By the way, I recently heard that the hands-down worst school district in the US is the one in Washington, DC...where it costs around $13k/head for a kid to go to high school.

Also, what constitutes "well-informed" for you. That they have to be a public schools teacher to know what a good curriculum should look like?

Tokie

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have been more clear. I am not saying that private schools are too expensive to be affordable. I'm saying that there aren't, and in many areas could never be, enough of them around to provide the sort of free market benefits we want to everyone. For example, I live in a small town that has one public elementary and middle school. We share a high school with the next town over. There is a private high school 45 minutes drive away, but the nearest private K-8 schools are almost 2 hours drive. We can't really have a free market school economy here because the community just isn't big enough to support one. We can't hope that more private schools will move in because the "market", such as it is, is already saturated. Even in big cities, the physical distance, transportation, and other logistical problems mean that the vast majority of people have at best only a small handful of choices of where to send their kids. Also, overt competition between schools is unworkable in many places because the "winners" can't simply take-over their erstwhile competitors' customers, without expanding their size/resources and this takes time and money and real estate, that might not be available.

ETA: As for "well-informed", no I would not say that only a public school teacher knows what a good curriculum looks like, or even that merely recognizing a good curriculum constitutes being well-informed. In fact, I wouldn't even try to come up with a hard and fast definition for this purpose, as it's likely to mean different things to different people. A tentative definition would be something like: Having the knowlege and ability to meaningfully analyze the quality of education being delivered, and accurately compare the product of different schools. This certainly doesn't require a degree in Education, nor experience working in the field (in fact, from what I've seen, a degree in Education might actually work against one for this purpose!), but it's not easy, either.

[Tokenconservative]

There is a biological basis to all behavior but the case for detrmined behavior (IE instinctual) versus conditioned is fraught with peril.

Why do women have a marked tolerance for pain overall? Is it because of some biological factor? You bet. But is it because women are designed to tolerate pain? Or is it because most of them have to deal with menstrual cramps?

I don't recall saying that, the effects of culture, social and personal makeup all go into domestic violence. It influences the choices that individuals make.

I am not aware of institutional discrimination being as strong as it was perhaps in the past. However the abuse of power and position still continues.

Again I would say that it is a mix, there is some biological determinism, but it is less than what conditioning does. I have met women who are very masculine and men who are very feminine so it would appear to be determined and conditioned both.

Certainly when it comes to violence in school, we currently have a lot of violent disrespectfull young women. (They are currently in the lead for expulsion and suspension at my middle school.)
[quote]

Well except that is not what pain tolerance studies might indicate, however there may be a difference between sensitivity and tolerance. Females have a marked tolerance.

You were the one reading minds.

Hmm, what bias is that?
:)

Discipline :arbitrary label: for being :percieved label:.

What i meant is that young women generaly recieve a reprimand when a young man will not, in comparable situations.

Oh, that is old behavior at least since the rise of the patriarchial dominance. ;)


So why not act like a rational being. Some men are masculine, some are not. I don't think I should change my behavior to suit cultural mores. I follow the law but I am who I am.

It's fraught with peril only because today, science is restricted by politics, in the case of the study of the differences between men and women, workers must walk on eggshells, lest the get Larry Sommer'd.

I'm not sure what you are asking about women's "marked" tolerance for pain. Physiologically, as nerve receptors are further apart in men (sigh...generally) men have a greater tolerance for pain, which only makes sense evolutionarily.

I don't believe domestic abuse has a thing to do with physiology. That's definitely cultural, learned behavior. While we as a species on a violent planet and one that had to fight it's way to the top of the pile, so to speak, we have an instinctual violent streak, if you will. Now, as far as the propensity for men to be MORE violent than women, I believe that IS a physiological trait, though it can be exacerbated by culture, macro or micro.

Abuse of Power: Gee, ya think? And um...so, women don't abuse their power? Does the name "Hillary" and the term "Travelgate" mean anything to you?

Of course behaviors in humans (as in most higher mammals) are both. I never said they weren't. You don't read by instinct. This either/or strawman is precisely what feminist demands produce, as does the underlying assumption that DIFFERENCE means better or worse, which drive the entire feminist perspective on this: if it's discovered that there is a difference, why this them MUST be saying that the male difference is "better." Does it? I don't see how the physiological fact that women have greater peripheral vision than men (sigh...in general) makes men "better" than women. Can you explain how?

Indeed. Our culture has done a 180 on sexual identity in our schools. Our boys are admonished and often drugged for acting like boys (feminized) and girls are praised and even encouraged to act more like boys. Is it any wonder all of them come out of things so confused? Also, since boys are typically treated with more harshly in the feminized schools than are girls (hmmm...) boys learn at an earlier age not to engage in typical male behaviors such as fighting. Girls don't, and since they are being encouraged to do this, is it surprising that they um...do it?

Tokie

[sundownjoe]

While many differences between men and women are the result of socialization, it is silly to assert that there are only physical differences. Many people want to believe this is true, but I find it hard to believe.

According to Indiana University, "[Newborn] males react more than females. If you give a little puff of air to the abdomen, they are more likely to startle than females." Females have more rhythmic qualities. "They suck on their tongues, they move their lips and so forth, more than males do."

These are statistical analysis with obvious outliers. Obviously, no one should force men to not be teachers (I am one), and nobody should be able to force women to stay away from engineering.

I'm not sure exactly what Lawrence Summers said, but I do think he was treated unfairly. I am sure there is anecdotal evidence of women being treated unfairly in the "more masculine" fields, but I doubt much of the sexism is institutionalized. I think that we have to except that, whether some differences are innate or socialized, men and women have tendencies toward different career and life goals.

The focus needs to be on equality of opportunity and not on equality of results.

[JoeEllison]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have been more clear. I am not saying that private schools are too expensive to be affordable. I'm saying that there aren't, and in many areas could never be, enough of them around to provide the sort of free market benefits we want to everyone.

Well, it is like saying that we should shut down the public colleges, and give everyone a voucher to go to an Ivy League school, isn't it? Not only are there not spaces for everyone, the nonexistent "free market" won't make more top-tier schools by the magic that the free market cult claims.

[sundownjoe]

Well, it is like saying that we should shut down the public colleges, and give everyone a voucher to go to an Ivy League school, isn't it? Not only are there not spaces for everyone, the nonexistent "free market" won't make more top-tier schools by the magic that the free market cult claims.

Nobody is saying we should shut down public k-12 education. Competition typically makes things better. A government monopoly is still a monopoly.

[Tokenconservative]

While many differences between men and women are the result of socialization, it is silly to assert that there are only physical differences. Many people want to believe this is true, but I find it hard to believe.

According to Indiana University, "[Newborn] males react more than females. If you give a little puff of air to the abdomen, they are more likely to startle than females." Females have more rhythmic qualities. "They suck on their tongues, they move their lips and so forth, more than males do."

These are statistical analysis with obvious outliers. Obviously, no one should force men to not be teachers (I am one), and nobody should be able to force women to stay away from engineering.

I'm not sure exactly what Lawrence Summers said, but I do think he was treated unfairly. I am sure there is anecdotal evidence of women being treated unfairly in the "more masculine" fields, but I doubt much of the sexism is institutionalized. I think that we have to except that, whether some differences are innate or socialized, men and women have tendencies toward different career and life goals.

The focus needs to be on equality of opportunity and not on equality of results.

And....there it is! The SOP, Playboo, leftist-feminist, strawman!

Can you perhaps identify where anyone said that behavior is ONLY "nature" and that "nurture" is a null issue?

Nobody I've ever read or talked to since, oh, the 70s anyway, has asserted anything of the sort.

Then you mis-read the data in that study...in that study what they found was that newborn males react more to the stimuli...not that they flatly, react more. Meantime, newborn females react MORE to human faces and learn to recognize/differentiate between them much faster than (sigh...generally...) males.

Who said anything about "forcing" women to do anything? Our anti-male, feminized culture is taking care, quite nicely, of forcing males to do all sorts of things they are unsuited to...such as acting like girls in school to make it easier on teachers.

Sommers said (summarizing) that we need to figure out why it is fewer girls/women go into the hard sciences and math than do males. This was so objectionable, that one attendee, a shrill, barkingmoonbat leftist feminist type reported that his rather bland and perfectly rational comments forced her to leave the hall in a fit of naseous distress.

I get the feeling you don't know what the term "institutionalized" means, so it's difficult to comment on your assertion here. But let's look at it: how do you think straigh males do in fields such as literary editing?

But you close well. Tho you are not going to make any friends amongst the lefties in here with that kind of crazy talk! Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome!?

HERETIC!!!!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Prometheus said at some point (can't find it):
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have been more clear. I am not saying that private schools are too expensive to be affordable. I'm saying that there aren't, and in many areas could never be, enough of them around to provide the sort of free market benefits we want to everyone.

Hmm...say, how many gas stations were there when Henry Ford rolled the first Model T off the assembly line?

How many Gateway and CompUSA and Dell stores were there when IBM introduced the first PC?



Tokie

[Hindmost]

Nobody is saying we should shut down public k-12 education. Competition typically makes things better. A government monopoly is still a monopoly.

If it were true competition, that would be possible...however, the voucher system just dilutes existing funds. There is no evidence that indicates it would be beneficial. Wisconsin has tried for 20 years with no measurable outcome.

glenn

[Tokenconservative]

If it were true competition, that would be possible...however, the voucher system just dilutes existing funds. There is no evidence that indicates it would be beneficial. Wisconsin has tried for 20 years with no measurable outcome.

glenn

What does that mean, "no measurable outcome"?

Tokie

[Prometheus]

Prometheus said at some point (can't find it):
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have been more clear. I am not saying that private schools are too expensive to be affordable. I'm saying that there aren't, and in many areas could never be, enough of them around to provide the sort of free market benefits we want to everyone.

Hmm...say, how many gas stations were there when Henry Ford rolled the first Model T off the assembly line?

How many Gateway and CompUSA and Dell stores were there when IBM introduced the first PC?



Tokie

I don't know. Why do you think it matters? Education is fundamentally different than gasoline or PC's, and can't possibly operate the same way economically. You can't manufacture only as much as you want/need in whatever location is cheapest and ship it to where you need it, for one thing.

Besides, free market education existed for centuries before the public school was invented. Only elite people got educated, at fabulous expense, and knowlege (power) got used more to oppress the masses than to free them.

[Hindmost]

What does that mean, "no measurable outcome"?

Tokie

After 20 years, they have nothing that indicates that vouchers work.

glenn

[Tokenconservative]

After 20 years, they have nothing that indicates that vouchers work.

glenn

Sigh.

Again, what do you mean by "work"?

And based on WHOSE research (I don't require a link--LIIIINNKKKKK!!!!--I'll believe you if you just tell me who did the research and who funded it).

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I don't know. Why do you think it matters? Education is fundamentally different than gasoline or PC's, and can't possibly operate the same way economically. You can't manufacture only as much as you want/need in whatever location is cheapest and ship it to where you need it, for one thing.

Besides, free market education existed for centuries before the public school was invented. Only elite people got educated, at fabulous expense, and knowlege (power) got used more to oppress the masses than to free them.

No, actually, it's no different at all when viewed economically. That's why so many private schools have sprung up over the past oh, 20 years, to react to the DEMAND for more such, the SUPPLY of which was not meeting the need previous.

Wrong in your example, too. Where I live they've recently built a new high school, a new middle school, a new charter (8-12) school and two new elementary schools to meet the burgeoning demand--an increase of 79 (seventy-nine--the number after 78, and before 80 to be clear) students this year.

The large local Christian school K-12 has had to add on and open a new, seperate high school.

Now, you tell me: which of these is more responsive to local economic demands, the public system that's spent upwards of oh, 40 million to address the needs of 79 students, or the private?

Tokie

[Prometheus]

No, actually, it's no different at all when viewed economically. That's why so many private schools have sprung up over the past oh, 20 years, to react to the DEMAND for more such, the SUPPLY of which was not meeting the need previous.

Wrong in your example, too. Where I live they've recently built a new high school, a new middle school, a new charter (8-12) school and two new elementary schools to meet the burgeoning demand--an increase of 79 (seventy-nine--the number after 78, and before 80 to be clear) students this year.

The large local Christian school K-12 has had to add on and open a new, seperate high school.

Now, you tell me: which of these is more responsive to local economic demands, the public system that's spent upwards of oh, 40 million to address the needs of 79 students, or the private?

Tokie

Beats me. I'm not an economist and so I'm not at all invested in whether my tentative opinion turns out to be correct. I'm just guessing. Well, that and I was trying to work out a plausible-sounding argument that included the phrase, "oppress the masses," in hopes of baiting you into calling me a Commie. :D

Congratulations for not falling victim to my evil leftist plot!

[Hindmost]

Sigh.

Again, what do you mean by "work"?

And based on WHOSE research (I don't require a link--LIIIINNKKKKK!!!!--I'll believe you if you just tell me who did the research and who funded it).

Tokie

I posted all these in the past and you dismissed them. This is all from multiple sources.

Essentially, the voucher schools refused to provide any data on students test scores, graduation rates and college acceptance. In many cases, they didn't take state mandated tests either. (even if state mandated tests are not the best, a voucher school should have taken them to prove superiority) The voucher schools had no accountability to the state authorities. There were successes and failures, but about 30-40% of the schools had no accredidation and some of the accredidations were hand waiving from religious groups. As a result of the accredidation issues, some students had troubles getting into their preferred colleges. There were horrible abuses as well.

I think the biggest issue was the fact that the voucher schools refused to publish test scores (such as SATs or avanced placement exams) or even take the state tests is deplorable. If one is going to claim better teaching, then proving it should be a non-issue.

When I was teaching, I had an open door policy...I would tell parents they could walk in on my class whenever they wanted. Many of the voucher schools wouldn't even allow anyone to audit their classes.

Wisconsin has about 20 years of experience...if they can't prove efficacy after a generation, then I would call that failure.

glenn

[Tokenconservative]

I posted all these in the past and you dismissed them. This is all from multiple sources.

Essentially, the voucher schools refused to provide any data on students test scores, graduation rates and college acceptance. In many cases, they didn't take state mandated tests either. (even if state mandated tests are not the best, a voucher school should have taken them to prove superiority) The voucher schools had no accountability to the state authorities. There were successes and failures, but about 30-40% of the schools had no accredidation and some of the accredidations were hand waiving from religious groups. As a result of the accredidation issues, some students had troubles getting into their preferred colleges. There were horrible abuses as well.

I think the biggest issue was the fact that the voucher schools refused to publish test scores (such as SATs or avanced placement exams) or even take the state tests is deplorable. If one is going to claim better teaching, then proving it should be a non-issue.

When I was teaching, I had an open door policy...I would tell parents they could walk in on my class whenever they wanted. Many of the voucher schools wouldn't even allow anyone to audit their classes.

Wisconsin has about 20 years of experience...if they can't prove efficacy after a generation, then I would call that failure.

glenn

LOL!

So...because Wisonsin either accidentally or (more likely) purposefully set this up to fail as miserably as it did there, that means that vouchers set up to work would also be a failure?

Am I following your reasoning here? Next time, you'd do better (knowing I won't access links) to be less...honest.

It's pretty clear (by the way, you failed to mention the limitations of WI vouchers: they go only to "the poor" don't they?) this system was set up to fail or set up by utter incompetents. Now, if "educators" were heavily involved in this, and yes, you can shriek "CT!!! CT!!!" all you want, but from your description (non-accredidation, no testing required, willy-nilly testing where it's given...) it had either to be utter incompetents or those setting it up to fail.

Which is it?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Beats me. I'm not an economist and so I'm not at all invested in whether my tentative opinion turns out to be correct. I'm just guessing. Well, that and I was trying to work out a plausible-sounding argument that included the phrase, "oppress the masses," in hopes of baiting you into calling me a Commie. :D

Congratulations for not falling victim to my evil leftist plot!


Why would I call you a commie...anymore than I would note that milk is white or that it's dark at night?

I am not a federal employee working int the Department of Redundancy Dept.

The reality is, that if given the impetus, as with any other product/service, the market rises to meet demand. There was 0 demand for gas stations, for example, in 1890. By 1920 there were thousands across the nation ... sigh, no...no link. You may have to rely on a little thing I call "common sense" occasionally...or not, up to you.

How did that happen? A massive government program to put a gas station every 5 miles?

Um...no, prolly not (sigh...again, that ol' common sense thing).

So why would private schools not work the same way? They do now...there are far more today, as Americans lose confidence in the publica while gaining income to support sending kids to private schools, and there are far more private schools around today than there were in say, 1960...again, no...sorry, no link--LIINNNNKKKK!

See: common sense.

So why does this work with everything else in our economy, including private schools, but would suddenly stop working this way if more money were available to be spent on private schooling.

I really want to know. It's utterly counterintuitive and counter to any MODERN (leaving aside Keynesian) economics, but you seem to believe this would happen, so I'd like to know how.

Tokie

[Hindmost]

LOL!

So...because Wisonsin either accidentally or (more likely) purposefully set this up to fail as miserably as it did there, that means that vouchers set up to work would also be a failure?

Am I following your reasoning here? Next time, you'd do better (knowing I won't access links) to be less...honest.

It's pretty clear (by the way, you failed to mention the limitations of WI vouchers: they go only to "the poor" don't they?) this system was set up to fail or set up by utter incompetents. Now, if "educators" were heavily involved in this, and yes, you can shriek "CT!!! CT!!!" all you want, but from your description (non-accredidation, no testing required, willy-nilly testing where it's given...) it had either to be utter incompetents or those setting it up to fail.

Which is it?

Tokie

:rolleyes:

[Prometheus]

...So why does this work with everything else in our economy, including private schools, but would suddenly stop working this way if more money were available to be spent on private schooling....


Spoken like a true Tax-and-Spend Leftist! So that's the real reason you didn't call me a commie--you're one of us! :D

But seriously, it's not that I think it can't work. I have been strongly attracted to the idea of privatizing education for a long time, and I've been thinking about it a lot. I think it could work, but it would be a lot more difficult than you seem to think; the real problem is that I think it's highly unlikely to achieve the level of political will necessary to ensure that it works.

One particularly thorny issue is that of compulsory education. We can't abandon this principle without serious social harm. But if private schools in a given area really do outperform public schools, and lot's of parents use vouchers to take their kids out of the public schools, then at some point it will become necessary to close the public schools (otherwise keep them operating and an even more ridiculously wasteful cost ratio than they are now), and then the private schools would have to be forced to accept any students who's parents want them to enroll, thereby eliminating one of their primary advantages to the public schools--that they don't have to deal with nearly as many underperforming, special needs, or "problem" students.

[Tokenconservative]

Spoken like a true Tax-and-Spend Leftist! So that's the real reason you didn't call me a commie--you're one of us! :D

But seriously, it's not that I think it can't work. I have been strongly attracted to the idea of privatizing education for a long time, and I've been thinking about it a lot. I think it could work, but it would be a lot more difficult than you seem to think; the real problem is that I think it's highly unlikely to achieve the level of political will necessary to ensure that it works.

One particularly thorny issue is that of compulsory education. We can't abandon this principle without serious social harm. But if private schools in a given area really do outperform public schools, and lot's of parents use vouchers to take their kids out of the public schools, then at some point it will become necessary to close the public schools (otherwise keep them operating and an even more ridiculously wasteful cost ratio than they are now), and then the private schools would have to be forced to accept any students who's parents want them to enroll, thereby eliminating one of their primary advantages to the public schools--that they don't have to deal with nearly as many underperforming, special needs, or "problem" students.

I always find libbie conflation, obfuscation, deliberate misrepresentation, hyperbole, hysteria, projection and outright lying to be the very strongest parts of their otherwise alogical assertions!

I assumed you had the analytic and comprehension skills to understand my meaning to ben "if parents were permitted to use at least a portion of the exorbitant $$ used to "edcuate" their kids in a public screwel..."

Oh, well...you know what happens when you assume!

But then, you must know that from your non-evidentiary assumption that I think it would be "easy." Of course not, crushing the most powerful union in the history of the US would hardly be easy and that of course would be required in order to move forward in education in this country no matter what else we do. As for using vouchers, that too would have its growing period. Of course, we can rely on places where "it was tried and din't work!!" thanks to union interference, the tying of hands, etc., or we could look at it as it WOULD work if applied across the boards and with the unions out of the way.

But we don't WANT to do that. We'd rather have our cake and eat it, too. Paramount in any such discussion is the position of the teachers. Now, if one naively accepts that the schools are for educating our kids and are not what they are, a jobs program for union employees, we can come up with all sorts of pie-in-the-sky idears.

If one is more rational and more...adult about it, one recognizes that of course vouchers will not work when you have the teachers fighting them tooth and nail.

The problems you present are at best, wholly surmountable. The reality is, that many parents are not going to take the time and effort required to send their kids to a private, even if a portion of their public screwel dollars are made available to them to do so. Others are doctrinaire liberals who'll send their kids into a minefield so long as it proves to the world what Good Liberals they are. Others may actually LIKE the public schools (perhaps we should have some sort of intelligence testing done?).

So, the public schools would still get plenty of business. On top of that (and this is where the math gets tricky) since no voucher program I've ever seen demands that ALL of the per-head $$ that goes to the publics will be withdrawn, they will in fact end (likely) end up with a surplus.

I've tried this math in here before and it seems to befuddle some, but let's give it another shot, shall we (based on HS costs where I live)?

Per head cost: $7,500

Voucher: $3,500

$$ remaining at the public though the child who it is supposed to be educating is elsewhere: $4,000

Now the really tricky part of this math (the story problem part): If I have $7500 to spend on a child's "education" in a public school and I take $3500 of that and send it with the child to a public school that leave $4000 that still goes to the public school to educate and empty chair. So, how much money does it cost to educate an empty chair?

If you can do this math, you'll know that the answer is $0.00. Therefore, the school has a SURPLUS of $4000 per child who does not attend.

How a school's swimming in surplus funds will bankrupt the school is, apparently, economics at a level of sophistication I simply don't understand.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

:rolleyes:

About the sort of thoughtful, rational, well-considered riposte I'd anticipate.

Thanks for living up to my expectations!

Tokie

[Hindmost]

About the sort of thoughtful, rational, well-considered riposte I'd anticipate.

Thanks for living up to my expectations!

Tokie

Do some research yourself...I gave you all the links previously.

glenn

[Prometheus]

I always find libbie conflation, obfuscation, deliberate misrepresentation, hyperbole, hysteria, projection and outright lying to be the very strongest parts of their otherwise alogical assertions!

I thought you'd like that part. :rolleyes:


I assumed you had the analytic and comprehension skills to understand my meaning to ben "if parents were permitted to use at least a portion of the exorbitant $$ used to "edcuate" their kids in a public screwel..."


I understood you perfectly. It's just that I've discovered it's so much more fun to take a page out of your book, and pretend that I'm an idiot just to bait my opponents.

As to the math, it is important to note that although the average cost of schooling kids may work out to $7500 per head, removing a child from a public school does not actually diminish that school's operating cost by $7500. Most of the money is going into maintenance, salaries, infrastructure and administrative costs that stay the same even absent a few kids. So your imagined surplus just isn't there.

[Alt+F4]

...crushing the most powerful union in the history of the US would hardly be easy...

I know, those Teamsters can be tough...

[Alt+F4]

Per head cost: $7,500

Guess there are no children with autism where you live, $60,000 a year to educate them. Lucky you.

[Tokenconservative]

Do some research yourself...I gave you all the links previously.

glenn

I've done all I need to do, and from sources that are not leftist-shills.

Thanks anyway!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I thought you'd like that part. :rolleyes:



I understood you perfectly. It's just that I've discovered it's so much more fun to take a page out of your book, and pretend that I'm an idiot just to bait my opponents.

As to the math, it is important to note that although the average cost of schooling kids may work out to $7500 per head, removing a child from a public school does not actually diminish that school's operating cost by $7500. Most of the money is going into maintenance, salaries, infrastructure and administrative costs that stay the same even absent a few kids. So your imagined surplus just isn't there.

Ah, the ol' "It still costs a lot 'cuz they gots t' have heat in the school, don't they!? Huh, don't they!?"

Right. The biggest cost is personnel. That means teachers and administrators (yes, yes...janitors to...sigh). So, let's say you empty a school by 1/3. Now, under the union, that means you have to increase the number of teachers there (and under the district, that means an increase in admin).

It's not that it's "fun" it's that you are wholly driven by your blinkered ideology...you are not PERMITTED to understand these sorts of economic realities.

This is why vouchers of course will not work (as intended) with the union still running the show. Sans the union, the school would naturally have to cut back to a level of employment that meets the school population's needs, not the unions demands.

It's really pretty simple economics, that you cannot admit to because of ideological requirements--as a socialist, you MUST adhere to this sort of thinking.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Guess there are no children with autism where you live, $60,000 a year to educate them. Lucky you.

What are you talking about?

I have a hard time not applying to those who make posts of this sort, epithets that would be appropriate.

I've discovered in this forum that when I do that, these same types immediately run to complain about me, however, desiring to silence the heretic among them.

What does this have to do with anything?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I know, those Teamsters can be tough...

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. The Teasmsters have nowhere near the political clout the Teachers do.

Try and keep up...it's tough for a doctrinaire socialist, but do try.

Tokie

[Hindmost]

I've done all I need to do, and from sources that are not leftist-shills.

Thanks anyway!

Tokie

I would actually like to see some of this...what research has shown any school voucher system in the US to be effective?

glenn

[Alt+F4]

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. The Teasmsters have nowhere near the political clout the Teachers do.

Try and keep up...it's tough for a doctrinaire socialist, but do try.

Tokie

I'm a teacher in the largest school district in the United States, I and my union have no clout at all. You must be discussing a nation other than the United States.

[Alt+F4]

What does this have to do with anything?

Tokie

If you understand the difference between a charter school and a voucher program you would know that voucher programs don't work.

[Radrook]

Want an example of what our schools usually turn out-look at the show I love New York.

[Prometheus]

Ah, the ol' "It still costs a lot 'cuz they gots t' have heat in the school, don't they!? Huh, don't they!?"

Right. The biggest cost is personnel. That means teachers and administrators (yes, yes...janitors to...sigh).

Well, you managed to stay within the confines of reality this far, anyway. Of course, at this point you're still just agreeing with me, anyway (I did include salaries and administration in my list of costs)


So, let's say you empty a school by 1/3. Now, under the union, that means you have to increase the number of teachers there (and under the district, that means an increase in admin).


This is just plain wrong. For all but the largest big city schools, removing 1/3 of the students would allow you to lay off some part-time teachers. Even if you only bleed the school's budget by the $3500/student figure you suggested, with an average class size of you'll end up with a huge deficit. For example, if a school of, say 621 kids and an average class size of 21, were to lose 1/3 its enrollment to vouchers, you could get rid of 9 part-time teachers who were earning an average of around $36k. You'd save $324k in salaries, but lose $724k in vouchers. The school has already fired it's janitors, and is now cleaned by an outside company using illegal aliens, due to last year's budget cuts. The administrative staff is already just 3 full time admins and 2 part-time secretaries, so no savings there. The textbooks are all used and recycled, so no savings there. The building costs just as much to maintain, so no savings there.


It's not that it's "fun" it's that you are wholly driven by your blinkered ideology...you are not PERMITTED to understand these sorts of economic realities.

If there's some sort of HIDDEN POWER not permitting me to slip into the same fantasy world in which you torture yourself, then I feel nothing but gratitude for whoever it might be.


This is why vouchers of course will not work (as intended) with the union still running the show.

Oh yes, I forgot about the ALL-POWERFUL UNION--so powerful, in fact, that they were actually able to get my colleagues and I a whopping $0.26 an hour raise, once in the last 8 years. And they only had to agree to a 5% cut in the number of full-time positions, and a 100% increase in the size of our out-of-pocket health insurance costs to do it. Gosh! With power like that we should all bow down before them and weep tears of joy that they have deigned not to smite us from the Earth!


Sans the union, the school would naturally have to cut back to a level of employment that meets the school population's needs, not the unions demands.

Most schools are already operating with far less staff than would truly meet their population needs.


It's really pretty simple economics,...

Which makes it all the more sad that you just don't get it. ;)


... --as a socialist, you MUST adhere to this sort of thinking.


Doh! So close! Come on, you can say it: "commie" You know you want to....:D

[Dancing David]

I would actually like to see some of this...what research has shown any school voucher system in the US to be effective?

glenn

Oh noes not the LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINK!

[Radrook]

Or simply try to hold an intelligent conversation with the first ten HS graduates you meet and see how far you can get. The religion philosophy forum on this site is a good place to start.

[Chris Haynes]

Or simply try to hold an intelligent conversation with the first ten HS graduates you meet and see how far you can get. The religion philosophy forum on this site is a good place to start.

hmmm... I don't seem to have a problem having an intelligent conversation with my high school son and his friends. Granted, most of them are only juniors in high school taking physics, AP US History and AP Calculus AB, and a couple are lifeguards, so it may be a biased sample. (one just got his first W-2 form, so that has been an interesting conversation!)

Oh, and we are still waiting for someone to show us that calculus instruction was common in high school during the "good ol' days".

Could you please be more specific? What does the religion section have to do with it? Are you speaking of those who have only graduated from high school but have not started college? What do you regard as "intelligent conversation"? Whether or not they believe the same as you do in regard to religion or lack of religion?

[Radrook]

hmmm... I don't seem to have a problem having an intelligent conversation with my high school son and his friends. Granted, most of them are only juniors in high school taking physics, AP US History and AP Calculus AB, and a couple are lifeguards, so it may be a biased sample. (one just got his first W-2 form, so that has been an interesting conversation!)

Oh, and we are still waiting for someone to show us that calculus instruction was common in high school during the "good ol' days".

Could you please be more specific? What does the religion section have to do with it? Are you speaking of those who have only graduated from high school but have not started college? What do you regard as "intelligent conversation"? Whether or not they believe the same as you do in regard to religion or lack of religion?

I'm speaking of all the high schoolers I have ever met during my life who have shown a miserable deficiency in most if not all the High-School required subjects and yet have a diploma which proves mere attendance.

BTW
The ones I met in college fared only a little better. Perhaps you are unaware that here in the USA there was once policy of passing a student from grade to grade regardless of how he did in academically but simply based on attendance and age. The diploma given meant that he or she had attended. This policy was established during the 1960s.

[Chris Haynes]

I'm speaking of all the high schoolers I have ever met during my life who have shown a miserable deficiency in most if not all the High-School required subjects and yet have a diploma which proves mere attendance.

...
.


That is an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not data. Do you have some other criteria to judge education? Perhaps something more succinct than half of high school graduates are below average. :rolleyes:

[Prometheus]

I'm speaking of all the high schoolers I have ever met during my life who have shown a miserable deficiency in most if not all the High-School required subjects and yet have a diploma which proves mere attendance.

BTW
The ones I met in college fared only a little better. Perhaps you are unaware that here in the USA there was once policy of passing a student from grade to grade regardless of how he did in academically but simply based on attendance and age. The diploma given meant that he or she had attended. This policy was established during the 1960s.

Perhaps you are aware that here in the USA, educational policy is set at the local, or in some cases, the state level, and that policies differ from location to location. If such a ridiculous policy ever existed anywhere, it was certainly not nationwide.

[Prometheus]

... Perhaps something more succinct than half of high school graduates are below average. :rolleyes:

:D

I actually heard a political candidate once make the campaign promise: "I will not rest until all students have above-average math scores!" :boggled:

[Jeff Corey]

That's like the possible urban legend that in 1957 President Eisenhower was stunned to hear that half the American people were below average in intelligence.
Bush was stunned to find that half were above average, given the fact that he was selected twice.

[volatile]

Or simply try to hold an intelligent conversation with the first ten HS graduates you meet and see how far you can get. The religion philosophy forum on this site is a good place to start.

That's rich, coming from a member of a cult who actually denies the utility of education. (Source (http://www.freeminds.org/psych/miseduca.htm))

"The printed policy of the Watchtower until 1992 is shocking. The 1969 Watchtower said this: "Many schools now have student counselors who encourage one to pursue higher education after high school, to pursue a career with a future in this system of things. Do not be influenced by them. Do not let them brainwash you with the Devils propaganda to get ahead, to make something of yourself in this world. This world has very little time left . . . make pioneer service, the full-time ministry, with the possibility of Bethel or missionary service your goal." (March 15, 1969, p. 171)"

[volatile]

Perhaps you are aware that here in the USA, educational policy is set at the local, or in some cases, the state level, and that policies differ from location to location. If such a ridiculous policy ever existed anywhere, it was certainly not nationwide.

In the UK, pupils do generally simply advance through school based on age alone, though they resolutely do not receive a certificate just for attendance. We don't have the US system of holding people back, or of requiring people to pass tests to graduate from each school year.

[Chris Haynes]

Or simply try to hold an intelligent conversation with the first ten HS graduates you meet and see how far you can get. The religion philosophy forum on this site is a good place to start.

...Could you please be more specific? What does the religion section have to do with it? ............................Whether or not they believe the same as you do in regard to religion or lack of religion?

That's rich, coming from a member of a cult who actually denies the utility of education. (Source (http://www.freeminds.org/psych/miseduca.htm))

....


I do not wander much into the Religion Section, and I am not very familiar with Radrook, but did I come close to figuring out his reasons for an opinion on someone's religion/education?

[volatile]

I do not wander much into the Religion Section, and I am not very familiar with Radrook, but did I come close to figuring out his reasons for an opinion on someone's religion/education?

Spot on. He's pretty transparent...

[Dancing David]

Or simply try to hold an intelligent conversation with the first ten HS graduates you meet and see how far you can get. The religion philosophy forum on this site is a good place to start.

bam bam bam, another senseless driveby posting.

[digithead]

Okay...here it is for you to Google (gonna need you to offer some proof, by the way, that you found this online when you come back and lie...er, say that ya did, okay? You can prove it by telling me what is sketched on the inside cover): The Standard Referenc Work, Vol. VIII, Chicago Standard Education Society, 1927.

Tokie

Well, I see he's suspended again but the book that I got from interlibrary loan, The Standard Reference Work: For the Home, School and Library edited by Harold M. Stanford and published by the Minneapolis and Chicago Standard Education Society in 1922, was simply an encyclopedia (P through Z was the volume I got)...

I have a hard time believing that schools in the 1920s taught out of it but I could see it being on the shelf as a reference book...

If anyone learned from this book they would know very little about a lot of subjects, not the rigorous and scholarly subject matter that Tokie is describing. But it would give some a starting point to research things and it had some great illustrations of wildlife...

Btw, sex is not one of the entries in the volume, I guess they didn't want to corrupt young minds back then...

[Supercharts]

This has been e-mailed around. I haven't checked Snopes.

IDIOT SIGHTING:

We had to have the garage door repaired. The Sears repairman told us

that one of our problems was that we did not have a "large" enough motor

on the opener. I thought for a minute, and said that we had the largest

one Sears made at that time, a 1/2 horsepower. He shook his head and

said, "Lady, you need a 1/4 horsepower." I responded that 1/2 was larger

than 1/4. He said, "NO, it's not." Four is larger than two.."

We haven't used Sears repair since.


IDIOT SIGHTING

My daughter and I went through the McDonald's take-out window and I

gave the clerk a $5 bill. Our total was $4.25, so I also handed her a

quarter. She said, "you gave me too much money." I said, "Yes I know,

but this way you can just give me a dollar bill back." She sighed and

went to get the manager who asked me to repeat my request. I did so, and

he handed me back the quarter, and said "We're sorry but they could not

do that kind of thing." The clerk then proceeded to give me back $1 and

75 cents in change.

Do not confuse the clerks at McD's.


IDIOT SIGHTING:

I live in a semi rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the

local township administrative office to request the removal of the DEER

CROSSING sign on our road. The reason: "Too many deer are being hit by

cars out here! I don't think this is a good place for them to be

crossing anymore."

From Kingman , KS


IDIOT SIGHTING IN FOOD SERVICE:

My daughter went to a local Taco Bell and ordered a taco. She asked the

person behind the counter for "minimal lettuce." He said he was sorry,

but they only had iceberg lettuce.

From Kansas City

IDIOT SIGHTING:

I was at the airport, checking in at the gate when an airport employee

asked, "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?"

To which I replied, "If it was without my knowledge, how would I know?"

He smiled knowingly and nodded,

"That's why we ask."

Happened in Birmingham , Ala.

IDIOT SIGHTING:

The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street.

I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine. She

asked if I knew what the buzzer was for. I explained that it signals

blind people when the light is red. Appalled, she responded, "What on

earth are blind people doing driving?!"

She was a probation officer in Wichita , KS



IDIOT SIGHTING:

At a good-bye luncheon for an old and dear coworker. She was leaving

the company due to "downsizing." Our manager commented cheerfully, "This

is fun. We should do this more often." Not another word was spoken. We

all just looked at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights stare.


This was a lunch at Texas Instruments.



IDIOT SIGHTING:


I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself

and for the sake of her life, couldn't understand why her system would

not turn on.



A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriffs office, no less.



IDIOT SIGHTING:

When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up

our car, we were told the keys had been locked in it. We went to the

service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock the

drivers side door. As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively

tried the door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. "Hey," I

announced to the technician, "its open!" His reply, "I know. I already

got that side."


This was at the Ford dealership in Canton , Mississippi

[Prometheus]

A slight correction:

....

My daughter and I went through the McDonald's take-out window and I

gave the clerk a $5 bill. Our total was $4.25....The clerk then proceeded to give me back $1 and

75 cents in change.

Do not confuse the clerks at McD's.


I wish I had a dollar for every time a McD's worker got confused! :D

[volatile]

In the factory we used to suppy parts to, they once had a recent engineering grad they'd sent to the workshop for some woodscrews come back empty-handed, only to announce she could "only find metal ones".

[Prometheus]

In the White House, where we keep the figurehead leader of the country, we once had still have a President who thought the word is pronounced "nuke-u-ler"....

[Kestrel]

In the factory we used to suppy parts to, they once had a recent engineering grad they'd sent to the workshop for some woodscrews come back empty-handed, only to announce she could "only find metal ones".

Sounds like a story they made to show that women don't belong in certain occupations.

[volatile]

Sounds like a story they made to show that women don't belong in certain occupations.

It could be, I suppose. But it wasn't told to me in that way; rather, the toolshop guy I as talking to was ragging on the relative naivety of college graduates new to working on the factory floor.

I'm sure its veracity is dubious, I just thought it was funny, and pertinent. :)

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This has been e-mailed around. I haven't checked Snopes.

IDIOT SIGHTING:

We had to have the garage door repaired. The Sears repairman told us

that one of our problems was that we did not have a "large" enough motor

on the opener. I thought for a minute, and said that we had the largest

one Sears made at that time, a 1/2 horsepower. He shook his head and

said, "Lady, you need a 1/4 horsepower." I responded that 1/2 was larger

than 1/4. He said, "NO, it's not." Four is larger than two.."

We haven't used Sears repair since.


IDIOT SIGHTING

My daughter and I went through the McDonald's take-out window and I

gave the clerk a $5 bill. Our total was $4.25, so I also handed her a

quarter. She said, "you gave me too much money." I said, "Yes I know,

but this way you can just give me a dollar bill back." She sighed and

went to get the manager who asked me to repeat my request. I did so, and

he handed me back the quarter, and said "We're sorry but they could not

do that kind of thing." The clerk then proceeded to give me back $1 and

75 cents in change.

Do not confuse the clerks at McD's.


IDIOT SIGHTING:

I live in a semi rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the

local township administrative office to request the removal of the DEER

CROSSING sign on our road. The reason: "Too many deer are being hit by

cars out here! I don't think this is a good place for them to be

crossing anymore."

From Kingman , KS


IDIOT SIGHTING IN FOOD SERVICE:

My daughter went to a local Taco Bell and ordered a taco. She asked the

person behind the counter for "minimal lettuce." He said he was sorry,

but they only had iceberg lettuce.

From Kansas City

IDIOT SIGHTING:

I was at the airport, checking in at the gate when an airport employee

asked, "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?"

To which I replied, "If it was without my knowledge, how would I know?"

He smiled knowingly and nodded,

"That's why we ask."

Happened in Birmingham , Ala.

IDIOT SIGHTING:

The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street.

I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine. She

asked if I knew what the buzzer was for. I explained that it signals

blind people when the light is red. Appalled, she responded, "What on

earth are blind people doing driving?!"

She was a probation officer in Wichita , KS



IDIOT SIGHTING:

At a good-bye luncheon for an old and dear coworker. She was leaving

the company due to "downsizing." Our manager commented cheerfully, "This

is fun. We should do this more often." Not another word was spoken. We

all just looked at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights stare.


This was a lunch at Texas Instruments.



IDIOT SIGHTING:


I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself

and for the sake of her life, couldn't understand why her system would

not turn on.



A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriffs office, no less.



IDIOT SIGHTING:

When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up

our car, we were told the keys had been locked in it. We went to the

service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock the

drivers side door. As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively

tried the door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. "Hey," I

announced to the technician, "its open!" His reply, "I know. I already

got that side."


This was at the Ford dealership in Canton , Mississippi
I think someone posted earlier that our education system is not getting worse, it just has to do with how and where someone makes their point. It think it is safe to say that examples like the ones above, can be found all over the world.

[Tokenconservative]

I think someone posted earlier that our education system is not getting worse, it just has to do with how and where someone makes their point. It think it is safe to say that examples like the ones above, can be found all over the world.

Sigh...that's an old joke you know.

Someone that stupid would not be hired to work on $30-$120,000 cars. Auto mechanics are rarely Goober Pyle these days.

My mechanic quotes Kant and plays the mandolin in a band....

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Do some research yourself...I gave you all the links previously.

glenn


Thanks, Glenn, I'll do that.

By the way, can you show me where, in the post to which you made this reply I told you to "do some research"?

Best,
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, I see he's suspended again but the book that I got from interlibrary loan, The Standard Reference Work: For the Home, School and Library edited by Harold M. Stanford and published by the Minneapolis and Chicago Standard Education Society in 1922, was simply an encyclopedia (P through Z was the volume I got)...

I have a hard time believing that schools in the 1920s taught out of it but I could see it being on the shelf as a reference book...

If anyone learned from this book they would know very little about a lot of subjects, not the rigorous and scholarly subject matter that Tokie is describing. But it would give some a starting point to research things and it had some great illustrations of wildlife...

Btw, sex is not one of the entries in the volume, I guess they didn't want to corrupt young minds back then...

I got it from the guy who used it in school. He said they all had them and they were used for a variety of studies, mostly history, geography and that sort of stuff and that they had to use them to produce essays.

I have two sets of books from about the same time, not intended (near as I can tell) for school, the first titled "What Every Boy Should Know" the second "What Every Young Man Should Know." In one (sorry, can't remember which volume...and not going to go find it) it talks in some detail about how a boy or young man should properly go about "relieving" his "sexual pressures" or some such.

But thanks for your input, it's greatly appreciated

Best,
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

hmmm... I don't seem to have a problem having an intelligent conversation with my high school son and his friends. Granted, most of them are only juniors in high school taking physics, AP US History and AP Calculus AB, and a couple are lifeguards, so it may be a biased sample. (one just got his first W-2 form, so that has been an interesting conversation!)

Oh, and we are still waiting for someone to show us that calculus instruction was common in high school during the "good ol' days".

Could you please be more specific? What does the religion section have to do with it? Are you speaking of those who have only graduated from high school but have not started college? What do you regard as "intelligent conversation"? Whether or not they believe the same as you do in regard to religion or lack of religion?

Apparently you don't understand how a site like this tends to self-select for intelligence. It's likely, since you visit here (regularly, I assume) out of intellectual curiosity (lots of swimsuit, bass fishing and NASCAR sites out there you know). That would, one hopes, tend to rub off on your progeny and they would, one hopes, tend to gather unto them friends of like mind.

That said, you do know that your assertion here is so illogical it's nearly alogical, right? A sample of one (your son and his friends are to be taken in such an assertion as a single unit of measure) is the old "singlefile Indian" argument: I know all Indians walk single file because the two I saw were...

I'm not going to "show" anything, but I know my dad took trig in high school in the 30s, and I just heard a local radio host talking about taking it in high school in the 50s. Haven't heard much about calculus, but I know that my brother took it in high school in the mid-70s.

But what's your point?

Tokie

[Prometheus]

Tokie!

Welcome back. This place just isn't the same without you!

Have you ever heard of Peter Senge? If not you should have a look at some of his writing. He's one of the few people around who really gives me hope that it might really be possible to solve some of the U.S. education system's most intractable problems. He's a business management guru with a very different take on things than you normally hear from people inside the education establishment. Check him out. (http://www.fieldbook.com/STL/STLpr.html)

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie!

Welcome back. This place just isn't the same without you!

Have you ever heard of Peter Senge? If not you should have a look at some of his writing. He's one of the few people around who really gives me hope that it might really be possible to solve some of the U.S. education system's most intractable problems. He's a business management guru with a very different take on things than you normally hear from people inside the education establishment. Check him out. (http://www.fieldbook.com/STL/STLpr.html)

Thanks Prometheus.

Yes, I've heard of him, even heard him on a radio program.

Have not read him, though. Does he call for the dismantling of the unions that have a hammerlock on the schools?

If not, anything else he proposes is useless.

Tokie

[Prometheus]

Thanks Prometheus.

Yes, I've heard of him, even heard him on a radio program.

Have not read him, though. Does he call for the dismantling of the unions that have a hammerlock on the schools?

If not, anything else he proposes is useless.

Tokie

I have not seen Senge specifically address unions, but his core idea is that schools are highly complex systems which can only be made to work if all of their parts are organized so that all involved stakeholders (teachers, admin, parents, students, government, etc.) have the same goals and are aware of how each of their roles contribute toward achieving those common goals. I suspect, therefore, that he might say that unions are one of the stakeholders involved and that they must be reoriented, at the least, so as not to be working against the rest of the system.

He also points out that the way public schools are currently organized is based on the needs that stakeholders had at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, rather than on the goals that the people involved have today, and that the cookie-cutter, assembly-line approach which worked then can never be adapted to contemporary society, but needs to be replaced.

So to the extent that unions have disparate goals from the rest of the system, and insist on the same work rules across the board, I'd bet Senge would agree with you. But he'd also probably point out that that's only a small fraction of the problem that needs to be addressed.

[Chris Haynes]

Apparently you don't understand how a site like this tends to self-select for intelligence. It's likely, since you visit here (regularly, I assume) out of intellectual curiosity (lots of swimsuit, bass fishing and NASCAR sites out there you know). That would, one hopes, tend to rub off on your progeny and they would, one hopes, tend to gather unto them friends of like mind.

That said, you do know that your assertion here is so illogical it's nearly alogical, right? A sample of one (your son and his friends are to be taken in such an assertion as a single unit of measure) is the old "singlefile Indian" argument: I know all Indians walk single file because the two I saw were...

I'm not going to "show" anything, but I know my dad took trig in high school in the 30s, and I just heard a local radio host talking about taking it in high school in the 50s. Haven't heard much about calculus, but I know that my brother took it in high school in the mid-70s.

But what's your point?

Tokie

That you don't have a point.

Why would you assume that I would have an interest in swimsuits, bass fishing or NASCAR? I am just kind of curious what in my posting history would point to those items.

Also, since I did attend a high school that offered calculus in the 1970s, your comment is actually quite silly (the 2nd high school offered it at year later). I was referring to calculus being commonly taught during the 1950s and before. Just go up thread and review the discussion.

[Hindmost]

Thanks, Glenn, I'll do that.

By the way, can you show me where, in the post to which you made this reply I told you to "do some research"?

Best,
Tokie

I will trust you are being sincere. I really didn't feel like doing this as I believe you will question my ancestry, compare my intelligence with an ameoba and add and ann coulterism or two for kicks.

The issue was related to school vouchers...which I feel will be ineffective as the infrastructure in just not available in the US.

Anyhow, here it is: (the first link is no longer available.)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3128239&postcount=102

Again...shields up.

glenn

[Tokenconservative]

I have not seen Senge specifically address unions, but his core idea is that schools are highly complex systems which can only be made to work if all of their parts are organized so that all involved stakeholders (teachers, admin, parents, students, government, etc.) have the same goals and are aware of how each of their roles contribute toward achieving those common goals. I suspect, therefore, that he might say that unions are one of the stakeholders involved and that they must be reoriented, at the least, so as not to be working against the rest of the system.

He also points out that the way public schools are currently organized is based on the needs that stakeholders had at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, rather than on the goals that the people involved have today, and that the cookie-cutter, assembly-line approach which worked then can never be adapted to contemporary society, but needs to be replaced.

So to the extent that unions have disparate goals from the rest of the system, and insist on the same work rules across the board, I'd bet Senge would agree with you. But he'd also probably point out that that's only a small fraction of the problem that needs to be addressed.

Ah.

Sounds (your descrip in para one) like a lot of the same old same old then?

I think someone, somewhere has perennially been calling for just this for as long as I can remember, often simply changing emphasis to make it appear "fresh."

I don't agree that all of these agents, in general, have the "same goals" in mind, and can't imagine that anyone who believes that knows much about or is being honest about the schools.

If, as you believe, Senge would say (and I don't require a qoute or link...this is just us discussing it, I'll take your word for it) that the unions simply need to "reorient," so as not to be working against the rest of the system, he doesn't know much about the schools or the union.

In fact, if the unions are not a prominent player in his theorizing...I can't imagine how he can possibly be taken seriously. Can anyone deny that this, the most powerful union in the country right now (and for some time) is hugely influential in the schools? If the union is not, at minimum, #1 on his list...I can't say that I'd take him terribly seriously.

Many others, for decades now, have pointed out that the schools are old-fashioned in many ways...look at summers off...how many kids need to have summers off to help on the family farm? None would be my guess, given what I know of modern agriculture. Not sure I'd WANT my 8 yr-old running a $240,000 harvester...would you?

If Senge is not addressing the "cookie cutter" orientation of the schools from the understanding that this is designed, entirely, as a means of making it "easier" on teachers who may not be terribly competent teachers and may be even worse in their particular discipline, then he does not understand the problem at all. The schools are not at all, today (and have been getting away from that, rapidly, since I was a kid in them in the 60s and 70s) turning out kids able to read and write and do math at the minimal levels required by (past) American industry, but instead concentrate almost entirely on sending kids to college...in fact, districts and sometimes individual schools brag on how many of their graduates go on to college, don't they? Do they brag about their auto shop or woodworking or metal shop classes and how many graduates with an emphasis in those areas go on to get jobs in those fields?

Do most schools even HAVE shop these days? I know for a fact it has been phased out of the middle/jr high school system where I live (the new middle school here has NO shop classes and NO shop teachers).

It seems Senge suffers from some of the "old-fashioned" thinking he is accusing the schools of.

No, the last thing the schools "suffer" from is "old-fashioned" thinking..unless Stalinism is viewed as "old fashioned".

If Senge believes the uniona are only a small part of the problem, then he is either not paying attention or like so many other "reformers" knows very well on which side his bread is buttered: make the unions happy and as a "reformer" you may go far...piss them off, and you will find your maunderings relegated to the "rightwingnut kook" stacks in the library.

Best wishes,
Tokie

[Prometheus]

Like I said, I'm just guessing as to Senge's position on unions. However, he already has been taken seriously by dozens of charter and magnet schools, and a few municipalities as well, who have hired him to help regorganize their schools. And he's gotten results. But he does not try to apply the same solution to each school he goes to (that would be just another cookie-cutter approach). In one of the schools he worked with, for instance, he actually took the teachers out of the classroom, asked local businesses/employers what skills they wanted to see in graduating students, brought in volunteers from local employers to teach those skills, and used the professional teachers as "teacher-trainers" who had to train the volunteers in how to teach and manage a classroom.

And I didn't say that all the agents have the same goals in mind. Rather, they need to have the same goals in mind.

My area has several "college-track" high schools, and a vocational H.S. that teaches everything from metal shop to computer repair, and an agricultural school that teaches kids how to operate $240,000 harvesters, as well as forestry management, animal breeding, and environmental clean up. 8th graders all have to choose one of the three tracks before starting 9th grade.

[jimbob]

Of course it was better some time ago (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/14/usa.schoolsworldwide):

A retired teacher who now spends his time campaigning for improved literacy has revealed that he taught classes for 17 years even though he could not read or write.

Despite his illiteracy, John Corcoran worked as a teacher then as a property developer until the age of 48, when he decided to seek help. He used oral and visual stimuli with his pupils, rather than words, and insists he was a very successful teacher.

He continued undetected through high school and the University of Texas at El Paso, where he gained an athletics scholarship and was then automatically offered a teaching job. That is when he created an elaborate oral teaching method to avoid detection in the high school classes he taught - including English grammar.

My italics, I think I can see the problem there.

[Prometheus]

I saw that story. It is amazing how well some illiterate adults are able to cope. It would be interesting to hear from some of his students what they thought of his classes.

[jimbob]

He obviously was very resourceful, and his strategies might have worked quite well.

[Alt+F4]

He obviously was very resourceful, and his strategies might have worked quite well.

Lying and cheating. Yup, I'm sure his students learned quite a bit.

[jimbob]

Well he was (automatically) qualified, and I bet he never said that he could read...

[Prometheus]

Lying and cheating. Yup, I'm sure his students learned quite a bit.

Enough to get them all the way to the White House, anyway.

[Alt+F4]

Well he was (automatically) qualified, and I bet he never said that he could read...

Well according to him it was during a teacher shortage. I wonder what might have caused that (or any) teacher shortage?

[Admiral]

Well according to him it was during a teacher shortage. I wonder what might have caused that (or any) teacher shortage?

What is it that you would blame the teacher shortage on?

[Alt+F4]

What is it that you would blame the teacher shortage on?

Increased student enrollment and teacher retirements.

[Tokenconservative]

Like I said, I'm just guessing as to Senge's position on unions. However, he already has been taken seriously by dozens of charter and magnet schools, and a few municipalities as well, who have hired him to help regorganize their schools. And he's gotten results. But he does not try to apply the same solution to each school he goes to (that would be just another cookie-cutter approach). In one of the schools he worked with, for instance, he actually took the teachers out of the classroom, asked local businesses/employers what skills they wanted to see in graduating students, brought in volunteers from local employers to teach those skills, and used the professional teachers as "teacher-trainers" who had to train the volunteers in how to teach and manage a classroom.

And I didn't say that all the agents have the same goals in mind. Rather, they need to have the same goals in mind.

My area has several "college-track" high schools, and a vocational H.S. that teaches everything from metal shop to computer repair, and an agricultural school that teaches kids how to operate $240,000 harvesters, as well as forestry management, animal breeding, and environmental clean up. 8th graders all have to choose one of the three tracks before starting 9th grade.

I have issues with the "tracking" system. That's what was en vogue when I was a kid. Too many smart kids with issues at home, or other problems get "tracked" into food service or other scutwork, while, typically, only those kids from upper-income families (regardless of smarts) get tracked toward college.

Not sure that's what PUBLIC schools in America should be about...it never seemed to work in GB...not sure why it would here. Did you know what you wanted or were capable of doing at say, 13 or 14? I didn't.

I didn't go to college until I was 30. Got straight As in my admittedly not very tough Lib Arts major, but also in my Honors minor. Got pretty much Ds and Fs in the public schools.

There is nothing like what you describe in this state. There are a few vocational schools around, but they are very limited in the numbers of kids who can attend. As far as I know, though ag, mining, forestry, etc. are the second largest industries in this state, there is not teaching of that stuff in any school in this state, even in areas where those industries are prominent, and no plans to do anything like that, either.

In fact, "shop" has been atttritioned out of the schools here.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

A retired teacher who now spends his time campaigning for improved literacy has revealed that he taught classes for 17 years even though he could not read or write.

Despite his illiteracy, John Corcoran worked as a teacher then as a property developer until the age of 48, when he decided to seek help. He used oral and visual stimuli with his pupils, rather than words, and insists he was a very successful teacher.
Quote:
He continued undetected through high school and the University of Texas at El Paso, where he gained an athletics scholarship and was then automatically offered a teaching job. That is when he created an elaborate oral teaching method to avoid detection in the high school classes he taught - including English grammar.

Did it work? How successful was he?

The assumption by the "education" industry is that only those who've been through a "diverse" Ed. program at a "diverse" teaching college then have the skills to teach a "diverse" (you may notice the emphasis on "diversit") student population, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Hmm...I never went through one of those course, yet I was able, in under six weeks, to get 5th graders who'd been doing math at the 1st and 2nd grade level, ready to enter the last half of their 7th grade year in math.

How?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well he was (automatically) qualified, and I bet he never said that he could read...

I doubt any state has done this autoqualifying for some time, and certainly not under NCLB.

Tokie

[Prometheus]

I have issues with the "tracking" system. That's what was en vogue when I was a kid. Too many smart kids with issues at home, or other problems get "tracked" into food service or other scutwork, while, typically, only those kids from upper-income families (regardless of smarts) get tracked toward college.

Not sure that's what PUBLIC schools in America should be about...it never seemed to work in GB...not sure why it would here. Did you know what you wanted or were capable of doing at say, 13 or 14? I didn't.

I didn't go to college until I was 30. Got straight As in my admittedly not very tough Lib Arts major, but also in my Honors minor. Got pretty much Ds and Fs in the public schools.

There is nothing like what you describe in this state. There are a few vocational schools around, but they are very limited in the numbers of kids who can attend. As far as I know, though ag, mining, forestry, etc. are the second largest industries in this state, there is not teaching of that stuff in any school in this state, even in areas where those industries are prominent, and no plans to do anything like that, either.

In fact, "shop" has been atttritioned out of the schools here.

Tokie

I agree completely with your misgivings as to the tracking system. My state still uses it, although from what I understand, the vast majority of students get tracked into college prep now. There's only one agricultural school, with a few hundred seats, for the entire state. When I was getting ready for high school I had one class mate who wound up going there, and his decision was primarily motivated by the fact that he came from a family of farmers, and was in line to inherit a very profitable string of farms and farmstands. There are vocational schools in every county, and the kids that go to them are pretty much always low socio-economic and/or bottom quintile academically (which by no means indicates low intelligence--lot's of kids are quite smart but have emotional or learning disabilities that are not diagnosed properly that prevent them from doing well in traditional academics. There's a push on now to overcome this, but they're doing it the wrong way around: requiring teachers to attempt to diagnose and report problems, without the training to do so correctly; my brother's life is currently complicated by an idiot teacher who thinks her Ph.D. in Education qualifies her to diagnose his son as autistic, and she keeps reporting this to the state, even though his family doctor, a psychiatrist and a neurologist have all examined him and pronounced him absolutely normal).

[Alt+F4]

We are skeptics on this forum, right?

While still teaching, Corcoran dabbled in real estate. He was granted a leave of absence, eventually becoming a successful real estate developer.

Linky: http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html

[Tokenconservative]

I agree completely with your misgivings as to the tracking system. My state still uses it, although from what I understand, the vast majority of students get tracked into college prep now. There's only one agricultural school, with a few hundred seats, for the entire state. When I was getting ready for high school I had one class mate who wound up going there, and his decision was primarily motivated by the fact that he came from a family of farmers, and was in line to inherit a very profitable string of farms and farmstands. There are vocational schools in every county, and the kids that go to them are pretty much always low socio-economic and/or bottom quintile academically (which by no means indicates low intelligence--lot's of kids are quite smart but have emotional or learning disabilities that are not diagnosed properly that prevent them from doing well in traditional academics. There's a push on now to overcome this, but they're doing it the wrong way around: requiring teachers to attempt to diagnose and report problems, without the training to do so correctly; my brother's life is currently complicated by an idiot teacher who thinks her Ph.D. in Education qualifies her to diagnose his son as autistic, and she keeps reporting this to the state, even though his family doctor, a psychiatrist and a neurologist have all examined him and pronounced him absolutely normal).

"Tracking" was what was done to me in the mid 60s. Given, it was my parent's fault, but because of a vacation schedule, I started 3rd grade late in an extremely overcrowded school and my parents never bothered telling the teachers I hadn't been there for those 2 weeks, and they just assumed I had, and since I was utterly clueless, I was "dummy" tracked. Of course, I had no idea I'd been tracked as a dummy, but every teacher I had from then out knew it, and that's how I was treated.

From about 8th grade on, I spent most of my time ditching class, in the library and barely graduated.

I would guess there are some ag programs at vo-tech schools in more rural parts of this state, but they have been attritioning out "shop" for a couple of decades.

One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that HS teachers think it beneath them to be teaching kids how to read and write to become plumbers and electricians (I could fit my entire house inside my plumber's living room...) so EVERY kid is being college-tracked and those who can't cut that are now the "dummies" (like my plumber...I wish I'd been as dumb as him 30 years ago...).

Those who dismiss "the old days" do so for vested reasons quite often...they are teachers themselves, or forcing a kid of their own who'd make a great plumber into college, etc. 'cause of course only "dummies" become plumbers.

Who live in mansions.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I agree my brother's life is currently complicated by an idiot teacher who thinks her Ph.D. in Education qualifies her to diagnose his son as autistic, and she keeps reporting this to the state, even though his family doctor, a psychiatrist and a neurologist have all examined him and pronounced him absolutely normal).

And clearly the "good old days" predate my own...my parents were told by my Kindergarten teacher (circa 1965 or so) that I was demonstrating "abnormal" psychology because I like to color in red so much.

This, too, complicated my life as this became a part of the dreaded "permanent" record...which, by the by, your nephew will be confronted with from here on out.

My recomendation having gone through this myself (but of course I was unaware of it until I was an adult...and it was too late to sue) is that your brother and his wife remove that kid from that school district TODAY...homeschool him, get him into a private, or just take him to another school in the district and start fresh (don't let them insist on transfer of records, etc...they HAVE to take any kid who shows up...hence, all the illegals).

He is going to be nothing but damaged by this as the school will not now, under any circumstances back down from this "diagnosis" out of fear of lawsuits, and because of this, the boy's "record" will be the first thing every new teacher he has for the rest of his school career (in that district or elsewhere, including college) will see.

Listen, I sub teach, and I can't tell you how many teachers have given me files on kids (when I'm going to be there a few days) or lists saying "look out for this one, etc...

Often, they are right. Just as often, they are wrong. I sub'd for a few weeks for a Spec. Ed. (learning disabilities, not the phys. stuff) last year, who had had a nervous breakdown and was given that list. Not one of the kids on the list gave me any trouble at all, and in fact a couple of them were very helpful.

Tokie

[volatile]

Hey, I'll agree with you (:-O) that there are plenty of people whose parents force them to do degrees they don't want to do. Interestingly, this seems to be a result of the type of market-led thinking you've expounded, and has gotten worse (as far as I can tell) since we introduced tuition fees.

I know plenty of amazing artists, musicians, philosophers, kids interested in politics, history, archeology and a tonne of other subjects, who have been shoehorned by their parents (either implicitly or often explicitly) into law, finance and business management degrees because it would make them "more employable". Most of them dropped out, having no interest or inclination in their (un)chosen major.

[Tokenconservative]

Hey, I'll agree with you (:-O) that there are plenty of people whose parents force them to do degrees they don't want to do. Interestingly, this seems to be a result of the type of market-led thinking you've expounded, and has gotten worse (as far as I can tell) since we introduced tuition fees.

I know plenty of amazing artists, musicians, philosophers, kids interested in politics, history, archeology and a tonne of other subjects, who have been shoehorned by their parents (either implicitly or often explicitly) into law, finance and business management degrees because it would make them "more employable". Most of them dropped out, having no interest or inclination in their (un)chosen major.

One of my kids has expressed an intereste in either paleontology or astronomy, primarily because she feels she should be expressing an interest in SOMETHING.

Now, if this kid had been showing a real interest in either of these area for some time, I'd be right behind her, encouraging her to go into either of these, tough as it may be to find work in them...yes, yes....we can argue back and forth, but the reality is, you are not going to go onto Job.com or Craigslist, plug in "paleontologist" and "astronomer" and find even ONE listing.

So, I've told her (and expect her, anyway) to get double major, business, computers, something else that's marketable (she's interested in biochemistry...so that has REAL potential and easily cross-references to dozens of other areas) AND either a second major in one of these or certainly a minor. Of course, we are still doing the research, to see what else is out there for her.

Believe it or not (and I know you don't, you are a liberal) some parents have their kids' best interests at heart. I don't want my kids waking up 20-30 years from now, having spent 10-15 years getting various "fun" degrees only to discover they are unemployable with and often BECAUSE of those degrees.

I am not a wealthy liberal who has million-dollar trusts set up for these kids and will not be leaving them a fortune when I die, either. While I'd love to see the one who is a classical pianist work in that field, given that there are what, at most 50 people in the US working as classical pianists, and given that she is not Chinese, and is while good, not spectacularly so, her liklihood of making a living at that is close to nil. I encourage her writing of music more because that has some real potential as a career.

Yes, yes...we all learned in the 60s and 70s that we need to be "happy" and the money will come.

Right. That is the problem in a nutshell with a great many of my cohort, myself included. It's easy to be happy when you are 20 and not too worried about anything but maybe the cable or 'net bill. It's a different sort of thing when you are 50 and worried over whether you'll be able to buy groceries this month.

While those comfortably ensconsed in academic positions can harrumph over this, those of us living a bit closer to where the rubber meets the road cannot afford to be quite so quixotic about it.

Tokie

[volatile]

Believe it or not (and I know you don't, you are a liberal) some parents have their kids' best interests at heart. I don't want my kids waking up 20-30 years from now, having spent 10-15 years getting various "fun" degrees only to discover they are unemployable with and often BECAUSE of those degrees.

That sounds OK in theory (Dad knows best, right?), but in practice it means that business and law classes are either clogged with disinterested and disengaged students, or empty because of all the people skipping class. You can lead a horse to water, as they say.

As I said, those people I know whose parents selected their major (or even just their minor) serially skipped class, flunked assignments and dropped out. This is through no lack of intelligence (all did well at high school, and most have gone on to rewarding and profitable careers in other fields), it was just because they didn't give a fig for the subject they were expected to study. This does not help students, it hinders them. It is not in their best interests, or yours, for them to be emotionally or financially (often both) blackmailed into remaining under the panopticon of parental supervision and in a subject set they have utterly no interest in.

If you tell your daughter she "must" do business or computing, not only will her overall grade suffer (say she gets As in palentology and Es in business; then you really will have scuppered her chances of working with dino bones for a living!), so will her personal development. I know you only "mean well", but you have a terrible way of showing her (if you don't mind me saying).

Further, though you keep saying arts graduates are unemployable, it isn't true. You've been shown the earnings figures for grads vs. non-grads, and you've been shown the job adverts explicitly seeking arts degrees. Pay attention.

I am not a wealthy liberal who has million-dollar trusts set up for these kids and will not be leaving them a fortune when I die, either. While I'd love to see the one who is a classical pianist work in that field, given that there are what, at most 50 people in the US working as classical pianists, and given that she is not Chinese, and is while good, not spectacularly so, her liklihood of making a living at that is close to nil. I encourage her writing of music more because that has some real potential as a career.Degrees, as I keep saying, are not training for careers (except in a very rare number of fields, one of which is medicine). No-one gets a job in the exact same field they completed their undergrad degree in. To expect this is absurd, given the number of possible careers compared to the pedagogical limitations of tertiary curricula.

Let her do what she wants, make her own choices and live her own life. You're not doing her any favours whatsoever.


Right. That is the problem in a nutshell with a great many of my cohort, myself included. It's easy to be happy when you are 20 and not too worried about anything but maybe the cable or 'net bill. It's a different sort of thing when you are 50 and worried over whether you'll be able to buy groceries this month.

While those comfortably ensconsed in academic positions can harrumph over this, those of us living a bit closer to where the rubber meets the road cannot afford to be quite so quixotic about it.I chose a vocational undergraduate degree. Now, it was of my own volition, but the fact is that when I ended up in the field I'd selected, I realised it wasn't for me. Luckily I had the wherewithal, and the lucky breaks, to end up doing something I really do enjoy, but I can tell you it would have been a damn site easier had I gone with my heart instead of my head in the first place.

Undergraduate degrees are not apprenticeships. Unless your daughter has a strong desire to be a doctor of medicine, a vet or a dentist, her choice of major is (broadly) unimportant at this stage. If she's sciencey, let her do a science degree. If she's more arty, let her do an art degree. Why are you doing research for her? Why are you "seeing what's out there for her"? It has nothing to do with you.

[Tokenconservative]

That sounds OK in theory (Dad knows best, right?), but in practice it means that business and law classes are either clogged with disinterested and disengaged students, or empty because of all the people skipping class. You can lead a horse to water, as they say.

As I said, those people I know whose parents selected their major (or even just their minor) serially skipped class, flunked assignments and dropped out. This is through no lack of intelligence (all did well at high school, and most have gone on to rewarding and profitable careers in other fields), it was just because they didn't give a fig for the subject they were expected to study. This does not help students, it hinders them. It is not in their best interests, or yours, for them to be emotionally or financially (often both) blackmailed into remaining under the panopticon of parental supervision and in a subject set they have utterly no interest in.

If you tell your daughter she "must" do business or computing, not only will her overall grade suffer (say she gets As in palentology and Es in business; then you really will have scuppered her chances of working with dino bones for a living!), so will her personal development. I know you only "mean well", but you have a terrible way of showing her (if you don't mind me saying).

Further, though you keep saying arts graduates are unemployable, it isn't true. You've been shown the earnings figures for grads vs. non-grads, and you've been shown the job adverts explicitly seeking arts degrees. Pay attention.

Degrees, as I keep saying, are not training for careers (except in a very rare number of fields, one of which is medicine). No-one gets a job in the exact same field they completed their undergrad degree in. To expect this is absurd, given the number of possible careers compared to the pedagogical limitations of tertiary curricula.

Let her do what she wants, make her own choices and live her own life. You're not doing her any favours whatsoever.


I chose a vocational undergraduate degree. Now, it was of my own volition, but the fact is that when I ended up in the field I'd selected, I realised it wasn't for me. Luckily I had the wherewithal, and the lucky breaks, to end up doing something I really do enjoy, but I can tell you it would have been a damn site easier had I gone with my heart instead of my head in the first place.

Undergraduate degrees are not apprenticeships. Unless your daughter has a strong desire to be a doctor of medicine, a vet or a dentist, her choice of major is (broadly) unimportant at this stage. If she's sciencey, let her do a science degree. If she's more arty, let her do an art degree. Why are you doing research for her? Why are you "seeing what's out there for her"? It has nothing to do with you.

1. Not THIS dad, most likely, but I do the best I can, and I know too many liberal arts majors (yrs. truly included) whose degrees have been worse than useless to them, and since both of my kids are good at math and science, they will not be getting (only) lib arts degrees on my dime and I've been encouraging (you would call it "conservative brainwashing") them to seek useful educations, given their skills in those areas, instead. If I turn out being wrong, I will be LESS wrong than I was in my thinking in getting a lib arts degree myself, and so will die happier than had I not encouraged them to seek an education with some utility.

2. You must beg the question in order to "show" me that..you are comparing graduates in some liberal art to those who failed to graduate from an lib. arts program and are saying "see!? SEEEE!!! The graduates make a better living!!!" Golly, I guess you shore dun showed this dumby redneck!

3. As to your parenting advice: thanks. As with the frequent offers I get for free internet psychoanalysis, I am certain it is worth at least thrice the price.

4. Are YOU a parent, by the way?

5. Degrees (in the US) are indicators of skills, aptitudes and interest. The Art History major who applies for a job as a manager of a engineering firm, loses that job to the computer sci major...maybe not in GB, but in the US...which is where I and my kids live.

6. Again, thanks for that sage parenting advice...and the 1970s-era hippy -dippy approach, too. I um...lived through that period and discovered that such advice is...flawed. One thing I believe in, is that every generation has an obligation to create in the next generation better people. My kids are much better humans than am I (maybe not such a stretch, you would probably believe) and will be better educated and in better DIRECTIONs than was I.

6. When you have kids of your own, come back and tell me again what a terrible parent I am for wanting my kids to have a better life than I have had.

Tokie

[volatile]

1. Not THIS dad, most likely, but I do the best I can, and I know too many liberal arts majors (yrs. truly included) whose degrees have been worse than useless to them

Huh? You got a career as an English teacher. How, then, was your degree "worse than useless"? Presumably you also learnt about some wonderful literature, learned about history, sampled some inspirational prose and actually lived a little? How, dear Sir, is being culturally literate to the point that you are considerably employable (you *did* get a job because of your degree, right?) worse than useless.

Further, you claim to be "successful" in whatever you are doing now, though you haven't said what as far as I can tell. How to you extricate this from your past experiences?


and since both of my kids are good at math and science, they will not be getting (only) lib arts degrees on my dime and I've been encouraging (you would call it "conservative brainwashing") them to seek useful educations, given their skills in those areas, instead. So you'd rather they get a bad business degree than a good arts one? You think someone who fails business is more employable than someone who passes history? You'd rather spend how ever many thousands of dollars for your daughter to not attend a business class than for her to attend an arts one? More fool you, frankly.

I think you hate "liberal arts" subjects because they have the word "liberal" in their title....


If I turn out being wrong, I will be LESS wrong than I was in my thinking in getting a lib arts degree myself, and so will die happier than had I not encouraged them to seek an education with some utility.All education has utility.


2. You must beg the question in order to "show" me that..you are comparing graduates in some liberal art to those who failed to graduate from an lib. arts program and are saying "see!? SEEEE!!! The graduates make a better living!!!" Golly, I guess you shore dun showed this dumby redneck!Do you know what "begging the question" means? It is analogous to "circular reasoning". There is none of that in my second paragraph. I also did not mention people who failed liberal arts, I mentioned people who failed science and business courses that their parents forced them to take.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that artistically-minded acquaintances of mine who were forced to take "profitable", "useful", "worthwhile" or "vocational" courses failed them because it was not what they wanted to be doing. They had no interest in the things they had been emotionally and financially blackmailed into doing.

Your daughter is an adult. Let her live like one.

Are YOU a parent, by the way?No, but as I pointed out to you, I am a university lecturer. I know how disinterested students act.

egrees (in the US) are indicators of skills, aptitudes and interest. The Art History major who applies for a job as a manager of a engineering firm, loses that job to the computer sci major...maybe not in GB, but in the US...which is where I and my kids live.Why would an art history major (or a comp sci one, actually) apply for a job as the manager of an engineering firm? This makes no sense.

You seem to be claiming that all these people who have great jobs using the skills and interests of their humanities degrees would much rather be managing engineering firms. That's absurd. Hell, I'm sure even if you asked those poor saps with philosophy degrees waiting tables if they would want to manage an engineering firm, the answer would be a resounding no. What planet are you living on where the ultimate goal of everyone, everywhere, is to have a well-paid desk job in a scientific discipline?

Again, thanks for that sage parenting advice...and the 1970s-era hippy -dippy approach, too. I um...lived through that period and discovered that such advice is...flawed. One thing I believe in, is that every generation has an obligation to create in the next generation better people. My kids are much better humans than am I (maybe not such a stretch, you would probably believe) and will be better educated and in better DIRECTIONs than was I. How is cultural literacy, employability and a well-rounded, learned approach to life worse than what you have? I'm confused.

I agree that we have a duty to pass on our knowledge; that's why I'm a research academic. I'm very, very passionate about the benefits of education.

When you have kids of your own, come back and tell me again what a terrible parent I am for wanting my kids to have a better life than I have had.You are defining quality of life in a very narrow, and very narrow-minded, way. Better life does not mean higher wages.

In any case - incidentally, I earn more than my parents, but the fact that my life is "better" than theirs has little to do with this. My life is better because I am more aware of the world, more culturally literate, more well-read, better travelled, have a wider circle of friends and a greater range of interests. All of these things are a direct result of my "liberal arts" education. I have learnt about art, literature and music. I have learned about the cultures of countries I could never have dreamed of. I have met some of the most fascinating, awe-inspiring and enlightening people. I have the answers to questions they never thought of asking. I have learnt so much, shared so much. I have looked far into the past, and far into the future. All of these things make my life "better", and they have nothing to do with my employability, or the numbers in my bank balance.

If you define "better life" as "more money", then frankly, I pity you. This is doubly true if, as you claim, you really were a teacher of literature, and triply true if you plan to enforce this view on your reluctant, eager-to-learn progeny.