If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Feb 5 2004, 06:29 PM
So who decides on the standards? Surely any decent education system must have common standards and curriculum for students across the country. Without real national standards you end up getting situations where individual schools or school districts can decide what can and cannot be taught to students. The end result of this is that you get schools in hillbilly areas that decide that their students don't need to learn about evolution and natural selection in school because the Bible says something different.
It's a good question, Joe. I think higher national standards are good. I think higher standards from teachers is good. I think higher standards by parents is good. It was my experience that students were being treated as uninterested and dull - when in reality most kids were just a small push away from showing an interest in any subject.
The bureaucracy that arises from attempted homogeneity of educational experience in nations of hundreds or tens of millions is a daunting challenge. National education has only been tried for a few centuries and the real mother of all modern education systems, the Prussian system was created in the 19th century. Consider that there wasn't even a printing press until the 15th century. Imagine the limitations on education imposed by having to copy text by hand. There were political restrictions too. From a westerners point of view, until the Treaty of Westphalia the first half of the phrase "national education" was ambiguous.
Do we wish for every school district to have the same standards with an increasingly homogeneous population? Everyone knows the same things and has increasingly similar beliefs?
Should a school district in Kansas be able to teach creation instead of evolution because that is what the people in that community believe or should we properly indoctrinate them? Why shouldn't we have bible study classes in school? What if a school district is 100% Jewish? Should they be able to hold temple in school? If a Detroit suburb is 100% Muslim, should they be able to have a class on the Koran? What if a democratic nation is 85% Christian? Should they be able to stop the teaching of evolution in the schools or should their education be controlled by the minority group known as "the educators"? There's no way to answer all those "shoulds" satisfactorily. I don't think you can resolve all issues of public education, freedom, liberty and democracy and remain consistent.
As you asked above, who should decide such things?
Last edited by Colin at Feb 6 2004, 06:00 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Feb 6 2004, 07:46 AM I'm an egalitarian by nature. Everyone, irrespective of social circumstances, deseves a good eduction. An educated peopulation benefits everyone. It's an investment in the future of the world; in the future of humanity itself.
Hope this made sense. I'm very drunk.
You're an impressive drunk.
Do you feel that it is more important to make sure that those in unfortunate social circumstances receive equal education or that those who show great promise get the best education?
What benefits the world most? Poor people getting fair educations or smart people getting extraordinary educations? Why not just focus on the cognitive elite and let the dummies work at McDonald's?
Last edited by Colin at Feb 6 2004, 08:07 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Colin@Feb 6 2004, 08:07 AM Do you feel that it is more important to make sure that those in unfortunate social circumstances receive equal education or that those who show great promise get the best education?
What benefits the world most? Poor people getting fair educations or smart people getting extraordinary educations? Why not just focus on the cognitive elite and let the dummies work at McDonald's?
But the problem is, who decides.
Standardized tests aren't good enough to make these decisions, because kids learn differently. Some are auditory learners, some soak up everything they read in a book, some learn by 'experiencing' and really diving into a subject.
Heck just look at the "4 Dummies" line of books that has catapulted so many subjects forward in "dumb" people. It's not that the people are dumb, it's that they're visual learners. The 4Dummies doesn't present material that's any easier than in other books, it just presents the material in a visual fashion. Lots of colors to separate subjects, little light bulbs to highlight things, colored bulleted lists, etc... folks that find a normal HTML book too "heavy" in the material dep't can pick up that same material quickly when presented by a 4Dummies book.
Like Peaches noted, the schools where you end up having the same teacher year after year would really be best for the kids, as those teachers know 'their' kids and how they learn. They can teach to the child the way the child needs to learn; rather than just trying a blanket solution for everyone and those who don't get it - too bad.
One size does not fit all, and what the public schools are attempting to do at this point is force it to fit.
(God it's hard to type when your o key is sticking.)
__________________
Need a kick-ass design done quickly?
I recommend Sex Creator - they absolutely ROCK.
Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 6 2004, 10:22 AM Heck just look at the "4 Dummies" line of books that has catapulted so many subjects forward in "dumb" people. It's not that the people are dumb, it's that they're visual learners.
I'd say anyone purchasing a "Dummies" book has pretty much already come to grips with their cognitive limitations.
Over at Amazon.com, I found out that the same people who bought "Windows Xp for Dummies" bought "Word 2002 for Dummies", "The Internet for Dummies" and "AOL for Dummies".
(Yeah, I really looked it up)
I think this phenomenon goes well beyond these people's supposed "visual learning" prowess. It's not like there is a law of conservation of learning ability. Some people are just dumb. Now there are books for them too. Cool.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Feb 6 2004, 08:46 AM Ultimately I think it's educators who should decide what is taught. People who are leaders in their field. The average parent, as well meaning as they might be, is not what I would consider to be an expert in the eduction of children.
Yet the whole "Don't use the word "evolution" in GA schools" was called for by the superintendent and it was the parents who squashed the idea and make her retract her statements. Your theory looks good on paper yet doesn't withstand the stink test.
Parents MUST be the main source of "education", be it manners, morals, or academics, in their children's lives. No teacher will ever know a child as well as a good parent does.
Having the same teacher year after year could possibly be the worst thing for teaching children the most important thing - getting ready to face the real world.
How many people have had the same boss for their entire life ? The biggest thing students can take (I agree with whover it was that said an education is taken) from their school years is some preperation for real life, which involve interaction with many different people in many different ways.
As far as Standards go, again welcome to real life, the standard for graduation (or promotion to the next level ) should be absolute and non moving, minimum standards should be upheld without exception. It is the way the real world works, if you do not meet the minimum standards your job requires, you are fired (there are a lot of people in the world that could have used this lesson earlier in life)
No Child left behind is a great concept, but the fact is there will always be people that simply do not measure up to the standards that are required. Our current method of lowering the standard is wrong.
Seperate schools based on learning ability ? might be the answer.
People are always screaming about getting equal education, 2 kids in the same classroom, one getting straight A's the other failing, are getting the same education, just points out that natural selection is indeed true.
Carrie ... I think that statements like "It's the gov't that took away the small hometown schools and pushed the kids out of homeschooling and farmed them into their big public school institutions" is further demonstration of the ignorance of history - willful or otherwise - that you exhibited the other day when you asserted that opportunities for black people began in 1865. Just one more thing the rite-thinkin 'merikins can fix once the shit goes down, huh?
I'm not a big fan of the educational establishment. I wen't to school back when a determination of who belonged to the cognitive elite was made by local educators, and was made pretty early. Unfortunately, the criteria applied often had as much to do with who the parents were, what neighborhood they lived in, what church they attended, what race or ethnic background, and - often the most important - how compliant the child was in the factory environment.
Great strides have been made in fixing those sorts of problems (except maybe the later - now we just drug 'em). The solutions have, as usually happens, created a whole new set of problems. Are they any worse now than they were before? I doubt it very seriously.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 6 2004, 11:18 AM
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by Colin@Feb 6 2004, 11:52 AM I had a few college professors who though every kid in the world should learn a year's worth of physics. Most professors probably feel the same way about their chosen field. Not me. Some people just don't care about physics. Let them be. You don't exactly learn a lot of important skills for life in physics 101.
I agree. My kid took AP calculus but I barely made it out trig, lol! Had they required anything past trig to graduate from HS, I'd STILL be there
I also think a lot of college time is wasted on things that should already be known.
College, at least here, is running about $11K a year for in-state tuition, room, food and books.
The first 1 or 2 years are spent teaching what SHOULD have been learned in HS. Why? Why are parents and/or the government (in forms of grants, low interest loans, scholarships) paying big $$$ to teach kids what they should have already learned?
On the other hand, when I enrolled in college, I made the mistake of taking all "major level" courses for my psychology major. I was taking 300-500 class levels the two years I was there which now won't transfer to another college. But I tried to take public health 101, algebra 101, english 101, etc. but I was bored to tears as I'd already learned it.....but they were required for graduation. Why? :angry:
And I won't even get into asking the question "Why does our GA scholarship pay for kids to take remedial english in college?".
Someday scientists will figure out how to create a new universe. And being that they can, they will. Maybe this has already happened. God was a scientist.
- Horton.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 6 2004, 11:17 AM Carrie ... I think that statements like "It's the gov't that took away the small hometown schools and pushed the kids out of homeschooling and farmed them into their big public school institutions" is further demonstration of the ignorance of history - willful or otherwise - that you exhibited the other day when you asserted that opportunities for black people began in 1865. Just one more thing the rite-thinkin 'merikins can fix once the shit goes down, huh?
I'm not a big fan of the educational establishment. I wen't to school back when a determination of who belonged to the cognitive elite was made by local educators, and was made pretty early. Unfortunately, the criteria applied often had as much to do with who the parents were, what neighborhood they lived in, what church they attended, what race or ethnic background, and - often the most important - how compliant the child was in the factory environment.
Great strides have been made in fixing those sorts of problems (except maybe the later - now we just drug 'em). The solutions have, as usually happens, created a whole new set of problems. Are they any worse now than they were before? I doubt it very seriously.
PD my stance from this doesn't really come from being a right-winger. Some of it does - things like requiring students in Cali to dress/act/pray like muslims to force "tolerance" gets my blood boiling.
But if it wasn't the gov't who pushed the kids into the public schools, who was it? There are mandatory attendance laws. Your child *must* attend school or a truancy officer will show up at your door and you could face jailtime. That's the gov't, like it or not.
Thankfully there are still options like private schools and homeschooling. Here in VA the homeschoolers still have to 'report in' yearly with test results (from California standardized tests which don't match the VA SOLs, funnily enough); so it's not like declaring you're going to homeschool gets you out of the attendance requirement and risk of jail.
And I won't even get into what's on the SOLs here and the disgustingly low percentile you can "pass" with on the tests - it's shocking to look at. I don't know why they keep lowering the bar.
It's like the "no child left behind" has become "we'll lower the standards so that every child can pass"; which defeats the purpose.
I just think public schools have gone downhill so horribly decade after decade. I bet the tests that *you* were taking in 8th grade would be considered 11th-grade material now. I can't blame anyone but the gov't for that, because they're the ones that keep lowering the standards.
See what I'm saying?
__________________
Need a kick-ass design done quickly?
I recommend Sex Creator - they absolutely ROCK.
Originally posted by Peaches@Feb 5 2004, 09:16 AM Parents need to be involved in their children's education. Almost without exception every good public school in the US has high parental involvement and every low performing school has little to none. Teachers are paid the same at both sets of schools and have the same educational requirements.
This is very true, no doubt, but it's pretty hard when you've got to work your ass off and take care of everything. I think you know that Peaches.
Today in the US mothers are having babies and returning to work two months later or sooner. Something very wrong with that but they have no choice.
__________________ Live radio and audio downloads have a definite place in marketing and promoting products. Not only will it capture new customers but it is an excellent way to promote new products to existing customers continuing to build good customer relationships. Click here for more info
Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 6 2004, 01:38 PM PD my stance from this doesn't really come from being a right-winger. Some of it does - things like requiring students in Cali to dress/act/pray like muslims to force "tolerance" gets my blood boiling.
But if it wasn't the gov't who pushed the kids into the public schools, who was it? There are mandatory attendance laws. Your child *must* attend school or a truancy officer will show up at your door and you could face jailtime. That's the gov't, like it or not.
Thankfully there are still options like private schools and homeschooling. Here in VA the homeschoolers still have to 'report in' yearly with test results (from California standardized tests which don't match the VA SOLs, funnily enough); so it's not like declaring you're going to homeschool gets you out of the attendance requirement and risk of jail.
And I won't even get into what's on the SOLs here and the disgustingly low percentile you can "pass" with on the tests - it's shocking to look at. I don't know why they keep lowering the bar.
It's like the "no child left behind" has become "we'll lower the standards so that every child can pass"; which defeats the purpose.
I just think public schools have gone downhill so horribly decade after decade. I bet the tests that *you* were taking in 8th grade would be considered 11th-grade material now. I can't blame anyone but the gov't for that, because they're the ones that keep lowering the standards.
See what I'm saying?
Really? Tell me something - does your blood boil as much when some born-again halfwit wants to remove the word evolution from the curricula as it does when "students in Cali [are forced to] dress/act/pray like muslims to force "tolerance""? Assuming for a moment - and it's a BIG assumption, considering how often incidents such as you purport to describe are blown way out of proportion - that what you allege in California is true, mine does.
Based on what I've seen of your posts on the board on this subject, I suspect yours doesn't. You will probably drop back into the role as the pagan apologist for the believers in Creation "Science" (sic).
Public schools evolved as communities sought a way to educate their children - those of their children as did not attend private schools. Mandatory attendance laws, at least in part, stemmed from the socialist/radical notion that children shouldn't be in the workforce. So your depiction of Big Brother imposing his will upon the poor defenseless people just doesn't cut it. It fits well in one paranoid school of thought - but flies in the face of history.
Forgive me if I find your claim that your "stance from this doesn't really come from being a right-winger" to be questionable at best.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by Dianna Vesta@Feb 6 2004, 03:08 PM Today in the US mothers are having babies and returning to work two months later or sooner. Something very wrong with that but they have no choice.
Of course they have a choice. Don't have kids you can't afford.
Sure there are circumstances beyond your control - when I had my son I was married, I was a stay at home mother and my husband made good money. I would never have dreamed I would have been a single mother.
But even as a struggling single mother I was ALWAYS involved with my kid's education. I moved where there were good schools, not where it was convenient for me. I went to every open house, PTA meeting and teacher/parent conference. I went to EXTRA one on one meetings with the teachers and principals if needed.
If someone's not willing to take the time to raise their kid, then they have no business having a kid. They have that choice.
Originally posted by Peaches@Feb 6 2004, 02:59 PM If someone's not willing to take the time to raise their kid, then they have no business having a kid.
Let me repeat that for ya...
If someone's not willing to take the time to raise their kid, then they have no business having a kid.
Oh and in case you missed it...
If someone's not willing to take the time to raise their kid, then they have no business having a kid.
__________________
You can't just cut the throat of every Cocksucker who's character it MIGHT improve!
On the other hand, when I enrolled in college, I made the mistake of taking all "major level" courses for my psychology major. I was taking 300-500 class levels the two years I was there which now won't transfer to another college.
:angry:
Jesus, what a load of shit.
One, its upper division and not "major level". Two, there is not a university worth a shit in this country that would allow someone to just jump into all upper division courses their first year, in fact, I would venture so far as to say it would be damn near impossible. Did you not have an advisor? Did the registrar not question why someone with absolutely no prerequisite courses would be trying to take upper division courses? 500? Thats grad school in 95% of the schools in this country hick, and you are not going to convince anyone on this board that you were taking grad level psych courses your freshman or sophomore year... or have even heard the term GRE. Even as a grad student I would not be able to register for upper division courses in another major without the professors approval, advisors ok, and then passing it on to the registrar.
What you are spewing is 100% bullshit. Upper division psych that wont transfer, give me a fucking break. I have had the pleasure of attending 4 different universities and in order for something not to transfer, it has to be so obscure the university laughs at you, or the school you are transfering from sucks and they wont recognize the shit you learned at that school. Everything transfers if its even half decent.
But then again, I havent been going to community college in Georgia either.
Quote:
But I tried to take public health 101, algebra 101, english 101, etc. but I was bored to tears as I'd already learned it.....but they were required for graduation. Why?
You couldnt make it past your sophomore year and you ask why? You are the reason why. Its a weeding out process. Ask your son.
Ah, my little sweetheart, lol! No, it wasn't a community college but at the time it also wasn't part of the university system. I don't know the exact course numbers - unlike you, I went to college when I was 17, not in my late 20's, so it was quite awhile ago.
Sorry I didn't use the exact course numbers and correct terminology for you. If I knew how much it mattered to you, I would have pulled up my transcripts and given you the exact courses and numbers. :P
Oops, as much you KNOW I hate to prove it, it seems our little Labret is wrong. Here are the course requirements for "Major Requirements" (sorry I used "level" and it confused you. :P ) for a BS in Psychology at my former college (now part of the university system):
Major Requirements
____ PSY 210 (Careers in Psychology)
____ PSY 381 (Psychological Statistics II) PSY 280 is a prerequisite
____ PSY 382 (Research Methods in Psychology)
____ PSY 562 (History and Systems)
____ One of the following courses in the developmental/personality/social content area: PSY 371 (Abnormal Psychology), PSY 374 (Social Psychology), Psych 375 (Developmental Psychology), PSY 376 (Personality Psychology)
____ One of the following courses in the experimental content area: PSY 452 (Cognitive Psychology), PSY 453 (Motivation and Emotion), PSY 455 (Principles of Animal Learning), PSY 457 (Physiological Psychology)
____ One of the following laboratory courses: PSY 552 (Experimental Cognitive Psychology), PSY 553 (Experimental Animal Learning and Cognition), PSY 555 (Experimental Developmental Psychology), PSY 556 (Experimental Social Psychology). For all lab courses there are prerequisites: PSY 382 and the related content course. For example, to take experimental social psychology one must first take social psychology.
____ Three psychology electives, which can be any course 300-level or above
____ Four more electives from outside psychology. At the student's option, this can constitute a "minor" if the student elects to take four courses in the same area (such as Anthropology or Sociology) at the 300 level or above.
____ Six more electives, no more than three from psychology. Five of these must be full five-credit courses; the sixth can be a two-credit course. Under the quarter system, a student needs 190 credit hours to graduate.
Though you ARE right - I'm looking at my transscripts and didn't take above 374. Not bad for an 18 year old though.
but at the time it also wasn't part of the university system
I feel oddly compelled to use an "lol" but I cannot force myself to do it. Gee, I wonder why your classes from Jim Bobs school of Psych and auto repair wont transfer.
Use of appropriate terminology is an indicator of someones familiarity of the subject at hand.
If I went to a doctor and he said he was going to stick a thingamajig in my whatchamacallit and collect some stuff, I would know he was a fraud.
Your absolute butchering of even a basic understanding of how the university system works only further proves my point.
I turned 21 my freshman year, I see you have a touch of Serge-itus today.
BTW, at the University of Michigan, there are also several 500 series psych courses for the undergraduate degree.
Hence why I said
Quote:
Thats grad school in 95% of the schools in this country hick
I am well aware there are places that have 500 level lab courses. Now get back to google and attempt to salvage some credibility.
Quote:
Testy, testy, testy! My kid's STILL further in his education than YOU were at his age. :P
But I graduated. Twice. Your son? Oh thats right, he dropped out and opted for the easy way out. You raising a little AMP of your own. Maybe one day he can mod here, you would be so proud.
Just stop, you are making this all a little too easy and I need to get some food.
Wouldnt ya know it, Peaches never went to a real university. Imagine that.
Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 6 2004, 08:29 PM But I graduated. Twice. Your son? Oh thats right, he dropped out and opted for the easy way out. You raising a little AMP of your own. Maybe one day he can mod here, you would be so proud.
You graduated twice by the time you were 20? No? Not even a freshman yet? Gee - seems he's on track to pass you up academically my little sweetheart. :P Don't be jealous that the rest of us were able to get into college when we graduated from HS.
Quote:
Wouldnt ya know it, Peaches never went to a real university. Imagine that.
Even more amazing is the fact that anyone, especially you, would even care. Thank you!
Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 6 2004, 07:15 PM If I went to a doctor and he said he was going to stick a thingamajig in my whatchamacallit and collect some stuff, I would know he was a fraud.
I'd know I was going to have a good time.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Since you thought it was impossible for me to take the classes I took during the first two years
Thats why I said initially
Quote:
Two, there is not a university worth a shit in this country that would allow someone to just jump into all upper division courses their first year
And lo and behold you didnt attend a university, so I have no doubt you took some seriously fucked up psych classes for two years. And I use the term "classes" lightly.
Quote:
And I don't ever recall saying I had any "experience in psych" and I've said time and time again that I only went for two years
I have read more than enough half baked psych theories from you regarding any number of topics in the past to learn that you fancy yourself the amateur psychiatrist. I am glad those will end today.
Quote:
Thought you needed to go get some food? I'm beginning to think you're more controlled by Oprano than you are by GFY!
Decided to smoke some pot first. Pot makes food better. Besides, I cant eat until Lensman and Serge say I can.
02-05-2004
Why? Why are parents and/or the government (in forms of grants, low interest loans, scholarships) paying big $$$ to teach kids what they should have already learned?
h34r:
Linear Mode
