grats on being the master raceJohnG@lt wrote:
Hey, that's me!11 Bravo wrote:
and blond haired blue eyed 6 foot tall ones....Turquoise wrote:
and... we need Germany's two-tier system of dividing kids by technical and academic skills.
My grandmother was Hitler Youth... no lie11 Bravo wrote:
grats on being the master raceJohnG@lt wrote:
Hey, that's me!11 Bravo wrote:
and blond haired blue eyed 6 foot tall ones....
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I can see now why you seem to favor independent study. Some students are better at that format -- including me.JohnG@lt wrote:
I was all conference in football, all county in wrestling and captain of both teams. I played lacrosse in the spring and wasn't great at it but it was my favorite.Turquoise wrote:
You're the exception to the rule then. Most people are more specialized in one or the other.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hand me a test and I'll ace it. Hand me a set of tools and I'll build you something cool. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm generally good at whatever I try (except art).
I'm very academic, but I sucked at sports and anything technical, which is why I was always good at school. The majority of our system is geared toward academics, but it seems like it neglects technically minded people for the most part.
I ace tests like nobodies business but homework was always my big issue so it kept my average in school down ---> no chance at scholarship despite high SAT score ---> joining the army to pay for college.
I get ADD in class. Listening to a professor drone on while teaching to the lowest common denominator in class bores me to tears. Hand me the textbook, give me a few hours to study and I'll kill the test. My biggest problem in college has been motivating myself to actually show up in class.Turquoise wrote:
I can see now why you seem to favor independent study. Some students are better at that format -- including me.JohnG@lt wrote:
I was all conference in football, all county in wrestling and captain of both teams. I played lacrosse in the spring and wasn't great at it but it was my favorite.Turquoise wrote:
You're the exception to the rule then. Most people are more specialized in one or the other.
I'm very academic, but I sucked at sports and anything technical, which is why I was always good at school. The majority of our system is geared toward academics, but it seems like it neglects technically minded people for the most part.
I ace tests like nobodies business but homework was always my big issue so it kept my average in school down ---> no chance at scholarship despite high SAT score ---> joining the army to pay for college.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
My brother was the same except for classes that actually interested him. He's now getting an aviation tech degree, since he's much more interested in working on computers, cars, and aircraft than in reading literature.JohnG@lt wrote:
I get ADD in class. Listening to a professor drone on while teaching to the lowest common denominator in class bores me to tears. Hand me the textbook, give me a few hours to study and I'll kill the test. My biggest problem in college has been motivating myself to actually show up in class.Turquoise wrote:
I can see now why you seem to favor independent study. Some students are better at that format -- including me.JohnG@lt wrote:
I was all conference in football, all county in wrestling and captain of both teams. I played lacrosse in the spring and wasn't great at it but it was my favorite.
I ace tests like nobodies business but homework was always my big issue so it kept my average in school down ---> no chance at scholarship despite high SAT score ---> joining the army to pay for college.
It's why I chose EE. I'll sit and play with spreadsheets and AutoCAD all day and enjoy it. I'm a voracious reader but fiction generally bores me. I had to take English 101 three times to pass it because I kept ending up with professors who bored the pants off me. I ended up with a hippie who let me show up whenever I wanted to and who gave me an A for the class based on a single piece that I wrote for him (it was really good, and longer than all the dinky little one page papers he assigned during the semester combined).Turquoise wrote:
My brother was the same except for classes that actually interested him. He's now getting an aviation tech degree, since he's much more interested in working on computers, cars, and aircraft than in reading literature.JohnG@lt wrote:
I get ADD in class. Listening to a professor drone on while teaching to the lowest common denominator in class bores me to tears. Hand me the textbook, give me a few hours to study and I'll kill the test. My biggest problem in college has been motivating myself to actually show up in class.Turquoise wrote:
I can see now why you seem to favor independent study. Some students are better at that format -- including me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Do you understand now why I am so adamant about not living in a world where being average is the goal? I'd rather kill myself.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No I just have a lot of friends who been in US public schools and they all talk about doing sports after school every single day for like 3 hours. football training all summer etc. It's not just about scholarships, kids who have been in sports have a much higher % of getting into college compared to someone with the same grades. It's fine if you can keep your grades up, but in some cases kids pass or do well on the class because pressure from team coaches on the teachers (sometimes the coaches are teachers...).JohnG@lt wrote:
Says someone who never went to a US public school...Cybargs wrote:
I think the schools in the US concentrate waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on sports... shit most kids use sports to get into colleges not grades. Sure sports is good and all but seriously come on.JohnG@lt wrote:
My problem is, as usual, with pay scales. Why does a gym teacher make the same pay as a physics teacher? There are thousands of applicants for every gym teacher opening here in NYC/Long Island which means that they could pay them peanuts and still attract a babysitter with dodgeball knowledge. I don't get it.
Athletics happen to be an easier path to a scholarship than scholastics. While that is sad to a certain extent, there is a reason for it: colleges make money by selling tickets to sporting events so it's in their interest to attract talent with subsidized schooling. Excess money is then funneled into school coffers and allows for scholastic based scholarships.
The focus is by no means on athletics in public schools but it does act like a nice carrot on a stick. Hell, half the time I went to class because I knew that if I skipped I couldn't practice. No practice meant sitting on the bench for game day. Class always bored me because I never felt challenged but in athletics I was always challenged.
US schools are seriously way too easy in the level of work (unless you take APs which is a bit different...). Everyone I know who fucked off to America in grade ten (4 of them) all had shitty GPA's at the school im at in Taiwan (around 1.7 avg...) got insta bumped to a 3.9 GPA and I seriously doubt they suddenly got their shit together.
Yes, kids who play sports do end up in college more than kids who don't, and for precisely the reason that I listed earlier. In order to play, kids have to show up for class, they can't skip. Thus they have higher attendance, have higher graduation rates, and have higher college acceptance rates. Being into sports and doing well in class are not mutually exclusive.Cybargs wrote:
No I just have a lot of friends who been in US public schools and they all talk about doing sports after school every single day for like 3 hours. football training all summer etc. It's not just about scholarships, kids who have been in sports have a much higher % of getting into college compared to someone with the same grades. It's fine if you can keep your grades up, but in some cases kids pass or do well on the class because pressure from team coaches on the teachers (sometimes the coaches are teachers...).JohnG@lt wrote:
Says someone who never went to a US public school...Cybargs wrote:
I think the schools in the US concentrate waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on sports... shit most kids use sports to get into colleges not grades. Sure sports is good and all but seriously come on.
Athletics happen to be an easier path to a scholarship than scholastics. While that is sad to a certain extent, there is a reason for it: colleges make money by selling tickets to sporting events so it's in their interest to attract talent with subsidized schooling. Excess money is then funneled into school coffers and allows for scholastic based scholarships.
The focus is by no means on athletics in public schools but it does act like a nice carrot on a stick. Hell, half the time I went to class because I knew that if I skipped I couldn't practice. No practice meant sitting on the bench for game day. Class always bored me because I never felt challenged but in athletics I was always challenged.
US schools are seriously way too easy in the level of work (unless you take APs which is a bit different...). Everyone I know who fucked off to America in grade ten (4 of them) all had shitty GPA's at the school im at in Taiwan (around 1.7 avg...) got insta bumped to a 3.9 GPA and I seriously doubt they suddenly got their shit together.
Schools are easier here because passing kids is the path of least resistance for teachers. Failing them and holding them back is rarely done simply because it leads to headaches for the teacher involved. Your schools teach to the top of the class in order to challenge them and don't worry about the bottom. Our schools teach to the bottom of the class in order to carry them along so they get a 'fair' education.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Hmmm good point about the sports getting kids to attend (I remember about something you posted about your high school times).JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, kids who play sports do end up in college more than kids who don't, and for precisely the reason that I listed earlier. In order to play, kids have to show up for class, they can't skip. Thus they have higher attendance, have higher graduation rates, and have higher college acceptance rates. Being into sports and doing well in class are not mutually exclusive.Cybargs wrote:
No I just have a lot of friends who been in US public schools and they all talk about doing sports after school every single day for like 3 hours. football training all summer etc. It's not just about scholarships, kids who have been in sports have a much higher % of getting into college compared to someone with the same grades. It's fine if you can keep your grades up, but in some cases kids pass or do well on the class because pressure from team coaches on the teachers (sometimes the coaches are teachers...).JohnG@lt wrote:
Says someone who never went to a US public school...
Athletics happen to be an easier path to a scholarship than scholastics. While that is sad to a certain extent, there is a reason for it: colleges make money by selling tickets to sporting events so it's in their interest to attract talent with subsidized schooling. Excess money is then funneled into school coffers and allows for scholastic based scholarships.
The focus is by no means on athletics in public schools but it does act like a nice carrot on a stick. Hell, half the time I went to class because I knew that if I skipped I couldn't practice. No practice meant sitting on the bench for game day. Class always bored me because I never felt challenged but in athletics I was always challenged.
US schools are seriously way too easy in the level of work (unless you take APs which is a bit different...). Everyone I know who fucked off to America in grade ten (4 of them) all had shitty GPA's at the school im at in Taiwan (around 1.7 avg...) got insta bumped to a 3.9 GPA and I seriously doubt they suddenly got their shit together.
Schools are easier here because passing kids is the path of least resistance for teachers. Failing them and holding them back is rarely done simply because it leads to headaches for the teacher involved. Your schools teach to the top of the class in order to challenge them and don't worry about the bottom. Our schools teach to the bottom of the class in order to carry them along so they get a 'fair' education.
My school is kinda weird all the English and Social studies grades are inflated (no interest for azn kids I guess...) and all math and science classes are hard as shit.
Call me when we start prosecuting US teacher's unions and automotive unions under the RICO Act
Racketeering - "[...] business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that the business itself created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed."
We have the engineering talent in this country to design global satellite networks, space probes sent to mars, the F-22 and B-2, nuclear missiles.
Yet we can't manage to beat Japan, Korea, or Germany in making an affordable, reliable, and aesthetically pleasant car?
I'm thinking the problem lies not with our engineering, but with the unions extorting an unreasonable share of the per-car production costs.
Makes it real hard to design a good car, when you have to buy recycled Chinese pot metal machine screws on the cheap so you can afford for Bubba to screw the car together while making $40/hr plus $120/hr in benefits. Spend that money on quality parts, made of proper materials, and pay Bubba $15/hr for the marginally skilled labor that he is? Nope, can't do it - Union would shut down your company, and there's not a thing you can do about it.
Similar deal with the teacher's unions. They demand so many considerations that have nothing to do with actually educating the students, and everything about protecting the teacher's tenure. Y'know what? If you want to be a teacher, then be good at it - or GTFO.
They were just starting to do that No Child Left Behind insanity when I was in high school. Thankfully, they also had the 'Gifted and Talented' programs still around too. Slackers wanted to end up in menial minimum wage jobs, FINE, be a 2.0gpa guppy in high school. World needs a certain number of people to spend their lives asking the burning existential question, "You want fries with that?". But the economy doesn't work so well when you force all of the potential new workforce into that low end pool.
The education system would work much better if it went in the direction of a tiered system. From bottom to top, let the kids segregate themselves by their own performance. Borderline Criminal and Psychotics (10%), Special Needs (2%), Underperforming (20%), Average (58%), Advanced Placement & Honors (10%), Gifted and Talented (2%). The percentages next to them are my estimate of the relative percentages in each category. If your precious snowflake is so precious, let him prove it.
Racketeering - "[...] business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that the business itself created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed."
We have the engineering talent in this country to design global satellite networks, space probes sent to mars, the F-22 and B-2, nuclear missiles.
Yet we can't manage to beat Japan, Korea, or Germany in making an affordable, reliable, and aesthetically pleasant car?
I'm thinking the problem lies not with our engineering, but with the unions extorting an unreasonable share of the per-car production costs.
Makes it real hard to design a good car, when you have to buy recycled Chinese pot metal machine screws on the cheap so you can afford for Bubba to screw the car together while making $40/hr plus $120/hr in benefits. Spend that money on quality parts, made of proper materials, and pay Bubba $15/hr for the marginally skilled labor that he is? Nope, can't do it - Union would shut down your company, and there's not a thing you can do about it.
Similar deal with the teacher's unions. They demand so many considerations that have nothing to do with actually educating the students, and everything about protecting the teacher's tenure. Y'know what? If you want to be a teacher, then be good at it - or GTFO.
"teaching to the lowest common denominator" = No Child Left Behind = Every child's head held under the water, until they all drown in stupidity.JohnG@lt wrote:
Listening to a professor drone on while teaching to the lowest common denominator in class bores me to tears.
They were just starting to do that No Child Left Behind insanity when I was in high school. Thankfully, they also had the 'Gifted and Talented' programs still around too. Slackers wanted to end up in menial minimum wage jobs, FINE, be a 2.0gpa guppy in high school. World needs a certain number of people to spend their lives asking the burning existential question, "You want fries with that?". But the economy doesn't work so well when you force all of the potential new workforce into that low end pool.
The education system would work much better if it went in the direction of a tiered system. From bottom to top, let the kids segregate themselves by their own performance. Borderline Criminal and Psychotics (10%), Special Needs (2%), Underperforming (20%), Average (58%), Advanced Placement & Honors (10%), Gifted and Talented (2%). The percentages next to them are my estimate of the relative percentages in each category. If your precious snowflake is so precious, let him prove it.
'Destroy the talented, so the marginal can feel better about themselves. - Ellsworth Toohey, US Department of EdutainmentJohnG@lt wrote:
Your schools teach to the top of the class in order to challenge them and don't worry about the bottom. Our schools teach to the bottom of the class in order to carry them along so they get a 'fair' education.
Why? If most people are average, and you're well above it, that gives you a significant advantage.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you understand now why I am so adamant about not living in a world where being average is the goal? I'd rather kill myself.
Well, there's another factor involved here.JohnG@lt wrote:
Schools are easier here because passing kids is the path of least resistance for teachers. Failing them and holding them back is rarely done simply because it leads to headaches for the teacher involved. Your schools teach to the top of the class in order to challenge them and don't worry about the bottom. Our schools teach to the bottom of the class in order to carry them along so they get a 'fair' education.
No Child Left Behind set a precedent for funding being tied to performance. While this concept makes sense, it has drawbacks in practice.
What's the easiest way to keep your school properly funded under a performance based system? Lower standards.
Sure, and the sledge I'm pulling becomes progressively heavier as I go.Turquoise wrote:
Why? If most people are average, and you're well above it, that gives you a significant advantage.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you understand now why I am so adamant about not living in a world where being average is the goal? I'd rather kill myself.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I graduated well before No Child Left Behind. This has been the problem with the school system since the 60s.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-18 12:54:17)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, even under the best designed system, you're likely to notice that the average person is exactly that... average.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, and the sledge I'm pulling becomes progressively heavier as I go.Turquoise wrote:
Why? If most people are average, and you're well above it, that gives you a significant advantage.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you understand now why I am so adamant about not living in a world where being average is the goal? I'd rather kill myself.
If you happen to be exceptionally intelligent/productive, then any system you live under will have at least somewhat of that effect.
I'm not denying that. However, I would say that, in some ways, NCLB aggravated the problem.JohnG@lt wrote:
I graduated well before No Child Left Behind. This has been the problem with the school system since the 60s.
Fair enough. Wasn't trying to use you as a specific example of a product of such a system. Your commentary was a good point to start from.JohnG@lt wrote:
I graduated well before No Child Left Behind. This has been the problem with the school system since the 60s.
I can agree with that, but I think you'd have a tough time selling it... lolrdx-fx wrote:
The education system would work much better if it went in the direction of a tiered system. From bottom to top, let the kids segregate themselves by their own performance. Borderline Criminal and Psychotics (10%), Special Needs (2%), Underperforming (20%), Average (58%), Advanced Placement & Honors (10%), Gifted and Talented (2%). The percentages next to them are my estimate of the relative percentages in each category. If your precious snowflake is so precious, let him prove it.
I was in GATE
Tu Stultus Es
i think the difference in today's US schools and when i went, is they treated all the students more or less the same and grades meant something. wtf is ESL? i took German in high school as an elective. my grades and my ACT/SAT scores meant something. today's eduction panders to parents, imo.
Very true... and illegals in many cases.burnzz wrote:
i think the difference in today's US schools and when i went, is they treated all the students more or less the same and grades meant something. wtf is ESL? i took German in high school as an elective. my grades and my ACT/SAT scores meant something. today's eduction panders to parents, imo.
Even still, I think it has less to do with the way that school is set up and more to do with a significant problem in our culture. The intelligent are shit on from a very early age. We call them eggheads and Urkel's and nerds and make fun of them in order to tear them down to our level. The ritualistic hazing that goes on in every single middle school across this country does far more to harm the intelligence level of this country than anything else. I'm speaking from personal experience here. I had to significantly 'dumb myself down' in order to fit in even remotely in middle school and it had a great impact on my view towards school when I got into high school. I didn't do homework because it was 'cool' not to. I still did extremely well on tests but I was forced to hide it, as if I were ashamed of it, instead of being proud of it. We as a society revere the humble, the mediocre, the marginal. It's part of our culture. And we wonder why we fail in comparison to Asian countries in terms of education levels.rdx-fx wrote:
Fair enough. Wasn't trying to use you as a specific example of a product of such a system. Your commentary was a good point to start from.JohnG@lt wrote:
I graduated well before No Child Left Behind. This has been the problem with the school system since the 60s.
To use a pop culture example, let's look at American Idol. You have three out of the four judges who are rather nice or benign towards the contestants and one who tells it how it is. Simon Fuller is considered an arrogant asshole but he's the only one on that panel who I would actually trust as a true judge of talent. Yet he's booed by the audience when he's critical.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Eh... yes and no. Asian cultures often produce excellent students through conformity. There's so much collective pressure on children to excel that the "average" for a Japanese class is much higher than in a typical class here. There are certainly advantages to that, but some of the disadvantages can be pretty nasty... For example, suicide is much higher among Japanese students than American ones.JohnG@lt wrote:
Even still, I think it has less to do with the way that school is set up and more to do with a significant problem in our culture. The intelligent are shit on from a very early age. We call them eggheads and Urkel's and nerds and make fun of them in order to tear them down to our level. The ritualistic hazing that goes on in every single middle school across this country does far more to harm the intelligence level of this country than anything else. I'm speaking from personal experience here. I had to significantly 'dumb myself down' in order to fit in even remotely in middle school and it had a great impact on my view towards school when I got into high school. I didn't do homework because it was 'cool' not to. I still did extremely well on tests but I was forced to hide it, as if I were ashamed of it, instead of being proud of it. We as a society revere the humble, the mediocre, the marginal. It's part of our culture. And we wonder why we fail in comparison to Asian countries in terms of education levels.rdx-fx wrote:
Fair enough. Wasn't trying to use you as a specific example of a product of such a system. Your commentary was a good point to start from.JohnG@lt wrote:
I graduated well before No Child Left Behind. This has been the problem with the school system since the 60s.
Also, I thought you hated conformity?...
Well, Simon is also that "guy you love to hate." A large portion of the Idol audience specifically watches it for his antics. I think some people appreciate hypercriticism -- but only when pointed at others, of course.JohnG@lt wrote:
To use a pop culture example, let's look at American Idol. You have three out of the four judges who are rather nice or benign towards the contestants and one who tells it how it is. Simon Fuller is considered an arrogant asshole but he's the only one on that panel who I would actually trust as a true judge of talent. Yet he's booed by the audience when he's critical.
I do. Now. I had a roommate in the Army from Gastonia who was older than me, 29 to my 21, who used to ask me constantly why I cared what other people thought about me. He was essentially a hermit himself. He'd have his two-liter of Coke, bag of Cool Ranch Doritos with cheese salsa, and pack of Marlboro Reds to keep him happy while he played solitaire on his laptop while watching Bill O'Reilly or Star Trek. He was a thoroughly unhappy person simply because he was back in the military after having been in the Navy previously and watching his job at a GM plant in NC evaporate. He wanted more than anything to be a rock star and became depressed when he turned 29 and was still alive and unsuccessful unlike his idols: Hendrix, Cobain and Morrison.Turquoise wrote:
Also, I thought you hated conformity?...
He watched me get used by 'friends' and watched me get dumped and eventually he made me question my obsequious nature. Why did I care if people liked me? Why did I bend over backwards in order to change my personality to fit what other people wanted? It took years for what he said to sink in but I eventually became happy with myself, who I am, and to reach a point where I'm ok with rejection. People either like me or dislike me and I don't particularly care either way anymore. I detest conformity because I detest what it made of me. It made me a tool.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat