Useless skills

[Pete Dashwood]

I didn't mark this "OT:" because it actually talks about COBOL and it will
probably be of interest to many here.

While there are few here who are looking for a career in COBOL now, (it's
just as well...but there used to be many), there are still some who are
looking for work.

The article in the link below explores some interesting aspects of job
hunting.

Apparently, it is becoming much less about "what you know" and much more
about "How fast can you learn?"

For over twenty years now I have been urging people here to expand their
skills and not just rely on COBOL. The days when you could learn something
and then make a living out of it for the rest of your life are, sadly, long
gone. (And have been for many years, but inertia just makes some people
dismiss it as "changng fashions")

I think anyone who has spent any time in IT has found that skills they
acquired (sometimes with great effort and over considerable time) are now
obsolete.

Looking back over my own career I can see a very long list of such skills...
there isn't much call for NCR 500 machine language, Burroughs B500
assembler, ROSCOE, CDC COMPASS/SCOPE, ICL PLAN, IBM 1400 Autocoder, or even
IMS DB/DC, and that's just a very few. Hundreds of hours of my life invested
in learning these things and the ROI was not always as promising as it
looked at the time. The ONLY single skill that actually paid off well was
COBOL. OO COBOL was a springboard into a whole 'nother world of stuff which
actually returned some cash, so overall, I have never regretted learning
COBOL. (I've been working with C# for around 5 years now and that has also
generated revenue, but I don't think it is going to make anything like the
money I made from COBOL back in the day. One good thing about it is that it
is "transferable" to web development, and mobile devices, which I will
probably be moving into some time in the future; I couldn't do that with
COBOL.

There is an argument that says the acquisition of knowledge is NEVER a
waste, (it is actually part of a growth process that cannot be priced), but
when you're struggling to make the rent, or put food on the table, the fact
that your personal growth has progressed may be of dubious consolation.

Reading this article (which has some quite astonishing statements in it)
made me think about the "new" skills I have acquired (and am still
acquiring) over the last 10 years or so... I became aware that I actually
know a lot of stuff :-). A PRIMA client commented on this to me (he meant it
as a compliment) but it made me wonder WHY I bother to pursue skills now
that I am no longer in the job market.

The reason is that I can't afford to pay other people to do stuff I
want/need to do (except under very exceptional circumstances) so I HAVE to
learn it myself. After thinking about it, I am persuaded that (at least in
my own case) the pursuit of knowledge is NOT just about getting marketable
skill. But that is still pretty important for younger people who ARE in the
job market.

Anyway, here's the article that prompted this post:

http://readwrite.com/2013/05/01/10-technology-skills-no-longer-in-demand

I hope you enjoy it and I'll be interested to see what others think on this
idea of useless skills.

Pete.

--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

[SkippyPB]

Can't speak about all of their points in the article however the
following is mostly rubbish!

According to a recent story in the Austin Post, tech recruiters
"recommended (that) a 40-year-old still working in COBOL reevaluate
why they're a coder." Pretty harsh. But the fact is, technology
continues to move forward with no time spared for sentiment.

If you are gainfully employed as a PC repair tech, a COBOL coder, or
are working on any of several older technologies, such as voice
telephony or as a PBX technician, say, good for you. But don't count
on keeping that job for the long-term, or being able to find another
one like it.

COBOL coders will be needed for at least another 20 years if not
longer. There is just too much COBOL out there and now on more
platforms than just mainframes. If you are 40 years old and have a
good job coding COBOL don't be stupid and leave it for something else
because it happens to be the soup de jour language of the moment. You
should be able to retire with a nice 401K in the wings if you stay
with your COBOL.

Regards,
--
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
�I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross
the road and not be questioned about their motives.�
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <auj3ml...@mid.individual.net>,

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
> I didn't mark this "OT:" because it actually talks about COBOL and it will
> probably be of interest to many here.
>
> While there are few here who are looking for a career in COBOL now, (it's
> just as well...but there used to be many), there are still some who are
> looking for work.
>
> The article in the link below explores some interesting aspects of job
> hunting.
>
> Apparently, it is becoming much less about "what you know" and much more
> about "How fast can you learn?"
>

I guess it depends on which articles you read. I just read an article
about the prospects for this years graduates and it stated that talks
with hiring managers stated that they will not be looking for people
they have to train. If you don't have the skills they are looking for
they will skip you and look further. So, "How fast can you learn?"
isn't going to help a bit. Probably depends on where you are looking
for a job.

We keep hearing over here about how we need more IT immigrants to fill
jobs and yet the prospects for this years graduates may be the worst
ever in a supposedly rapidly growing field.

I am amazed at how many of the waitresses I meet in restaurants are
unemployed teachers. I think the next class of waiters/waitresses
is going to be unemployed IT graduates.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[Pete Dashwood]

A good response, Steve. I have interspersed my thoughts below...

> Can't speak about all of their points in the article however the
> following is mostly rubbish!
>
> According to a recent story in the Austin Post, tech recruiters
> "recommended (that) a 40-year-old still working in COBOL reevaluate
> why they're a coder." Pretty harsh. But the fact is, technology
> continues to move forward with no time spared for sentiment.
>
> If you are gainfully employed as a PC repair tech, a COBOL coder, or
> are working on any of several older technologies, such as voice
> telephony or as a PBX technician, say, good for you. But don't count
> on keeping that job for the long-term, or being able to find another
> one like it.

I thought that was fair...

>
> COBOL coders will be needed for at least another 20 years if not
> longer.

That is extremely debatable. However, I would agree it is hard to find
solid evidence for either position.

>There is just too much COBOL out there and now on more
> platforms than just mainframes.

Unfortunately, the fact that COBOL is used on workstations does nothing to
prolong the life of COBOL.

The network needs objects and layers; COBOL isn't good at that. People move
to OO COBOL (which IS good at that) and then, once they get the hang of
objects and layers they realize they can create them and maintain them for a
fraction of the cost, if they move OFF COBOL.

So, they start using Java or C# or VB.NET. All of these are free, there is a
vast support network with amazing development tools and all of that is free
as well.

Increasingly there is a trend towards mainframe sites moving to the network
as a cheaper option but they generally don't really get it and think that if
they recompile everything and run it on a LAN or even over the Internet they
have successfully modernized their legacy.

Certainly, they have reduced their hardware costs, but they have done nothig
to address future development and now they have converted systems that are
running on a network they were never designed for and just degrading
everything.

The solution has to be to enable the existing legacy to run alongside the
new technology development and to ensure that it is refactored into objects
so it can work properly in the new environment and can share resources with
the new development. You end up with a component based system that uses both
new technology objects and COBOL legacy objects and everything plays nicely.
As time goes by, there is less development in COBOL and it just dies by
attrition. Meantime old and new can interact with each other and you get the
best of both worlds.

To come to this conclusion by experience will take most sites at least 5 or
6 years. It took me that long and I'm no slouch at IT. After five years of
writing tools to assist migration and modernization I have become persuaded
that the best solution is to "objectify" the legacy code. It then runs very
well in the new environment. Fortunately, most of this refactoring can be
automated and done very quickly by smart tools.

I don't see the process taking 20 years; pressures are mounting to get
networked. That means objects and layers. And that means phasing out and/or
refactoring legacy COBOL.

> If you are 40 years old and have a
> good job coding COBOL don't be stupid and leave it for something else
> because it happens to be the soup de jour language of the moment.

That isn't why people change. And the article did say (see above) if you are
currently gainfully employed, don't move. You don't invest time in learning
a new programming language because it is the "soup du jour"; you do it
because there are jobs available in it, and it will advance your career. It
probably IS the "soup du jour" but that is because it is proving itself
useful in the environments where people want to be

> You
> should be able to retire with a nice 401K in the wings if you stay
> with your COBOL.
>

There are a good number of people approaching retirement out there who are
hoping so. The youngsters are voting with their feet and see COBOL as a
"quaint" anachronism, akin to Fortran.

I know personally of three people who are excellent COBOL programmers (I
trained two of them and worked with the third), who have been using Java for
a few years now. They are all moving into mobile development. They have
COBOL knowledge, but they haven't used it to make a living for a good few
years now. They are all over 40.

It is the over-50s (Old Time COBOLlers) who generally resist the changes and
still regard the world of objects with suspicion. Time will take care of
that, and it won't take 20 years.

[Pete Dashwood]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <auj3ml...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>> I didn't mark this "OT:" because it actually talks about COBOL and
>> it will probably be of interest to many here.
>>
>> While there are few here who are looking for a career in COBOL now,
>> (it's just as well...but there used to be many), there are still
>> some who are looking for work.
>>
>> The article in the link below explores some interesting aspects of
>> job hunting.
>>
>> Apparently, it is becoming much less about "what you know" and much
>> more about "How fast can you learn?"
>>
>
> I guess it depends on which articles you read. I just read an article
> about the prospects for this years graduates and it stated that talks
> with hiring managers stated that they will not be looking for people
> they have to train. If you don't have the skills they are looking for
> they will skip you and look further.

I wonder if that is because their perception is that they can get cheap
immigrants who are paper qualified?

> So, "How fast can you learn?"
> isn't going to help a bit. Probably depends on where you are looking
> for a job.
>
> We keep hearing over here about how we need more IT immigrants to fill
> jobs and yet the prospects for this years graduates may be the worst
> ever in a supposedly rapidly growing field.

I was thinking about this a few days ago (there is a similar perception
here). The "problem" is that the whole field of IT is changing so rapidly
and the traditional conventional wisdom about IT training is lagging behind.

The whole concept of what people call "programming" today is very far
removed from what we understood by that term.

Kids are far more interested in "programming" their mobile devices than they
are in "computer programming". Scripting is not so hard to learn if you are
motivated and I have been amazed at some of the results achieved from
"mashing". ( Search hint: mashing applications. Google this, it is quite
amazing what can be achieved by simply plugging APIs together. There is an
annual contest here in Tauranga and the high schools enter teams who, over a
weekend, achieve results that would take several months of conventional
programming if you built it from the ground up.) There is a generation of
kids coming up who see ONLY the Internet as a transport for applications and
it won't be long before that perception permeates commerce.

They don't have to know or care about the fundamentals that we had to. And
they don't even need training in formal programming languages. (Most of the
ones I've met learn scripting from their friends and by trying stuff then
deducing how the scripting works. I was surprised to find that quite a few
of them use W3C schools to get knowledge about JQuery and Javascript. This
is where I taught myself HTML back in the 90s and since then I have found it
to be an invaluable resource. The Polytechnic here is running mash-up
courses as part of their IT training. The world is much different from how
we perceived it back in the day...

>
> I am amazed at how many of the waitresses I meet in restaurants are
> unemployed teachers. I think the next class of waiters/waitresses
> is going to be unemployed IT graduates.
>
> bill

Whenever I have spent time in the US I have been impressed by the general
standard of service in restaurants and I've had some interesting chats with
people waiting tables. (You can cynically say they are pleasant because they
want a tip, but for whatever reason, it just makes life better when people
seem happy in their work.) If teachers are now being forced to fill these
roles, I see that as sad. Not because there is anything wrong with being a
waiter (in Spain it is considered a "noble profession" and they are
definitely the best at it of any culture I have encountered), but because it
is sad to see demand for teachers declining.

The article claimed that they will take a young person who is quick to
learn, in preference to paying for the experience of of an older person,
because it makes economic sense. Over 18 months they can save many thousands
of dollars and I suppose it is an argument. But it seems really
short-sighted to me. And, if they don't recognize the gained capability by
paying more once the training is complete, then the person they have trained
will just go down the road . Then you get the Management argument I have
heard so many times:"There's no point in paying for training; they'l leave
as soon as they are trained."

You can make a case for the approach of taking keen youngsters and training
them "on the job" or for only getting properly trained, experienced people.
I think it depends on the time period you over which you look at it.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <auo94k...@mid.individual.net>,

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <auj3ml...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>>> I didn't mark this "OT:" because it actually talks about COBOL and
>>> it will probably be of interest to many here.
>>>
>>> While there are few here who are looking for a career in COBOL now,
>>> (it's just as well...but there used to be many), there are still
>>> some who are looking for work.
>>>
>>> The article in the link below explores some interesting aspects of
>>> job hunting.
>>>
>>> Apparently, it is becoming much less about "what you know" and much
>>> more about "How fast can you learn?"
>>>
>>
>> I guess it depends on which articles you read. I just read an article
>> about the prospects for this years graduates and it stated that talks
>> with hiring managers stated that they will not be looking for people
>> they have to train. If you don't have the skills they are looking for
>> they will skip you and look further.
>
> I wonder if that is because their perception is that they can get cheap
> immigrants who are paper qualified?

I think it is more along the lines that if the kid just came out of
school he should have learned something worthwhile. That means that
schools should be paying more attention to what businesses need and
less attention to trying to control what they think businesses need.
If you have to train them anyway, why pay for college grads? This
comes back to the General Dynamics COBOL Internship I mentioned here
quite some time ago. The intent is to have college graduates with
usable skills and not just experience with the practice du jour which
may have no real value in the business world.

>
>> So, "How fast can you learn?"
>> isn't going to help a bit. Probably depends on where you are looking
>> for a job.
>>
>> We keep hearing over here about how we need more IT immigrants to fill
>> jobs and yet the prospects for this years graduates may be the worst
>> ever in a supposedly rapidly growing field.
>
> I was thinking about this a few days ago (there is a similar perception
> here). The "problem" is that the whole field of IT is changing so rapidly
> and the traditional conventional wisdom about IT training is lagging behind.
>
> The whole concept of what people call "programming" today is very far
> removed from what we understood by that term.

We definitely disagree on that idea, too.

>
> Kids are far more interested in "programming" their mobile devices than they
> are in "computer programming". Scripting is not so hard to learn if you are
> motivated and I have been amazed at some of the results achieved from
> "mashing". ( Search hint: mashing applications. Google this, it is quite
> amazing what can be achieved by simply plugging APIs together. There is an
> annual contest here in Tauranga and the high schools enter teams who, over a
> weekend, achieve results that would take several months of conventional
> programming if you built it from the ground up.) There is a generation of
> kids coming up who see ONLY the Internet as a transport for applications and
> it won't be long before that perception permeates commerce.

Sounds like "rapid prototyping" which is the antithesis of Software
Engineering. Of course in an IT world where the average life of a
program is listed in days (rather than the decades that COBOL programs
tend to last) is this surprising? And it is making the programmer
as throw-away as his programs. (I know of at least one place I worked
that is still running COBOL I wrote over 30 years ago. Their operational
model hasn't changed, why should their programs?)

>
> They don't have to know or care about the fundamentals that we had to. And

"or care", there is the crux of the problem. You talk about COBOLers
having a hard time finding new work, without a basis in fundamentals
where do you think these "programmers" are going to be in ten years?

> they don't even need training in formal programming languages. (Most of the

"need"? They most certainly do. That's like saying that electricians
don't need to know mundane things like electrical codes or wiring
standards.

> ones I've met learn scripting from their friends and by trying stuff then
> deducing how the scripting works. I was surprised to find that quite a few
> of them use W3C schools to get knowledge about JQuery and Javascript. This
> is where I taught myself HTML back in the 90s and since then I have found it
> to be an invaluable resource. The Polytechnic here is running mash-up
> courses as part of their IT training. The world is much different from how
> we perceived it back in the day...

Maybe, butnot necessarily in the way or in things you seem to hint at.
My truck is computer controled but the mecahnic who works on it still
needs to know how to use common hand tools (and even uncommon ones
like torque wrenches.)

>>
>> I am amazed at how many of the waitresses I meet in restaurants are
>> unemployed teachers. I think the next class of waiters/waitresses
>> is going to be unemployed IT graduates.
>>
>> bill
>
> Whenever I have spent time in the US I have been impressed by the general
> standard of service in restaurants and I've had some interesting chats with
> people waiting tables. (You can cynically say they are pleasant because they
> want a tip, but for whatever reason, it just makes life better when people
> seem happy in their work.)

You must have visited down south. :-)

> If teachers are now being forced to fill these
> roles, I see that as sad. Not because there is anything wrong with being a
> waiter (in Spain it is considered a "noble profession" and they are
> definitely the best at it of any culture I have encountered), but because it

Not that kind of waiters. Think greasy spoon, not Maitre d'.

> is sad to see demand for teachers declining.
>
> The article claimed that they will take a young person who is quick to
> learn, in preference to paying for the experience of of an older person,
> because it makes economic sense. Over 18 months they can save many thousands
> of dollars and I suppose it is an argument. But it seems really
> short-sighted to me. And, if they don't recognize the gained capability by
> paying more once the training is complete, then the person they have trained
> will just go down the road . Then you get the Management argument I have
> heard so many times:"There's no point in paying for training; they'l leave
> as soon as they are trained."
>
> You can make a case for the approach of taking keen youngsters and training
> them "on the job" or for only getting properly trained, experienced people.
> I think it depends on the time period you over which you look at it.

Penny wise, pound foolish. Business never learns.

[Pete Dashwood]

Really? Do you think that people using scripting have the same background
and skills that a trained programmer has? That's like saying that an
Operations guy who writes JCL is a programmer... And yet, to the average
late teenager, if you mention "programming" that is what they understand by
it.

>
>>
>> Kids are far more interested in "programming" their mobile devices
>> than they are in "computer programming". Scripting is not so hard
>> to learn if you are motivated and I have been amazed at some of the
>> results achieved from "mashing". ( Search hint: mashing
>> applications. Google this, it is quite amazing what can be achieved
>> by simply plugging APIs together. There is an annual contest here in
>> Tauranga and the high schools enter teams who, over a weekend,
>> achieve results that would take several months of conventional
>> programming if you built it from the ground up.) There is a
>> generation of kids coming up who see ONLY the Internet as a
>> transport for applications and it won't be long before that
>> perception permeates commerce.
>
> Sounds like "rapid prototyping" which is the antithesis of Software
> Engineering.

There are some similarities, but this is not prototyping, it is producing a
finished product. Many of the apps used on mobile devices are produced this
way, although some of them are also "programmed" in the traditional sense.
(I know people who write apps using both approaches.)

>Of course in an IT world where the average life of a
> program is listed in days (rather than the decades that COBOL programs
> tend to last) is this surprising? And it is making the programmer
> as throw-away as his programs. (I know of at least one place I worked
> that is still running COBOL I wrote over 30 years ago. Their
> operational model hasn't changed, why should their programs?)

I can think of a number of reasons, but it serves no purpose.

>
>>
>> They don't have to know or care about the fundamentals that we had
>> to. And
>
> "or care", there is the crux of the problem. You talk about COBOLers
> having a hard time finding new work, without a basis in fundamentals
> where do you think these "programmers" are going to be in ten years?

Well, the few that I know will have no trouble at all in 10 years. Their
attitude is "can-do" and as the industry changes, so will they. One of them
taught himself Javascript and XML over a weekend, downloaded some free tools
from Microsoft and built a phone app that has already netted him several
thousand dollars. (I wish I had time to do the same... at the moment I'm too
busy to get into phones, but I have promised myself to do so by the end of
this year.)

>
>> they don't even need training in formal programming languages. (Most
>> of the
>
> "need"? They most certainly do. That's like saying that electricians
> don't need to know mundane things like electrical codes or wiring
> standards.

No Bill, I have worked with some of these kids, mentoring them for the
annual mash-up contest. I learned more from them than they did from me, and
I can assure you they do NOT need formal programming courses. In fact,
formalizing the learning process for them would simply hold them back. They
learn by doing, and nothing is daunting to them. Some of them are like
sponges and they just soak up knowledge. You explain something once or show
them once, and they have it. Some of them live and breathe devices, not just
software. If something doesn't work, they don't take time to go a Javascript
or XML reference and check syntax etc. Instead they just fiddle with it
until it works then remember to do it like that in future. When someone
solves such a problem they gladly share it with the team and the knowledge
is pooled. It is a completely different environment from formalized training
and learning and they achieve really incredible results. A lot of it is
about knowing what APIs are available and how you can bend them to do what
you want. The Javascript/XML is really just glue and it is minimal.

>
>> ones I've met learn scripting from their friends and by trying stuff
>> then deducing how the scripting works. I was surprised to find that
>> quite a few of them use W3C schools to get knowledge about JQuery
>> and Javascript. This is where I taught myself HTML back in the 90s
>> and since then I have found it to be an invaluable resource. The
>> Polytechnic here is running mash-up courses as part of their IT
>> training. The world is much different from how we perceived it back
>> in the day...
>
> Maybe, butnot necessarily in the way or in things you seem to hint at.
> My truck is computer controled but the mecahnic who works on it still
> needs to know how to use common hand tools (and even uncommon ones
> like torque wrenches.)

There is a big difference between physical mechanics and abstract software.
The fact that these kids don't know how to read a core dump and many of them
probably don't recognize or care that hex is a shorthand form of binary ,
for example, doesn't stifle them in any way. Yet for many of us 30 years
ago, these were essential "programming skills".

>
>>>
>>> I am amazed at how many of the waitresses I meet in restaurants are
>>> unemployed teachers. I think the next class of waiters/waitresses
>>> is going to be unemployed IT graduates.
>>>
>>> bill
>>
>> Whenever I have spent time in the US I have been impressed by the
>> general standard of service in restaurants and I've had some
>> interesting chats with people waiting tables. (You can cynically say
>> they are pleasant because they want a tip, but for whatever reason,
>> it just makes life better when people seem happy in their work.)
>
> You must have visited down south. :-)

I have to say I spent only a short time (3 weeks) in New York and a few
days in New England. It was interesting but I really preferred California,
where I spent a lot more time. (About 18months in all...) I was in Texas
for 4 months and loved every minute of it. I then went back to the Southern
States for a holiday (Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee etc.) and that was
fantastic too. Overall, I'm happy to visit the US any time or anywhere, but
I prefer the West and South. (Never been to Scranton... :-))

>
>> If teachers are now being forced to fill
>> these roles, I see that as sad. Not because there is anything wrong
>> with being a waiter (in Spain it is considered a "noble profession"
>> and they are definitely the best at it of any culture I have
>> encountered), but because it
>
> Not that kind of waiters. Think greasy spoon, not Maitre d'.

I was thinking of someone who takes orders and brings food to your table.
That is not the role of a Maitr d'. I seldom frequent greasy spoon places
although I do like American Diners.

>
>> is sad to see demand for teachers declining.
>>
>> The article claimed that they will take a young person who is quick
>> to learn, in preference to paying for the experience of of an older
>> person, because it makes economic sense. Over 18 months they can
>> save many thousands of dollars and I suppose it is an argument. But
>> it seems really short-sighted to me. And, if they don't recognize
>> the gained capability by paying more once the training is complete,
>> then the person they have trained will just go down the road . Then
>> you get the Management argument I have heard so many times:"There's
>> no point in paying for training; they'l leave as soon as they are
>> trained."
>>
>> You can make a case for the approach of taking keen youngsters and
>> training them "on the job" or for only getting properly trained,
>> experienced people. I think it depends on the time period you over
>> which you look at it.
>
> Penny wise, pound foolish. Business never learns.

And yet, they stay in business...

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <auj3ml...@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>Apparently, it is becoming much less about "what you know" and much more
>about "How fast can you learn?"

If this is so - and, perhaps due to my nature, I would like to see a bit
of evidence beyond the standard 'Important Figure from (bodyshop) told our
interviewer' - then that would be a good start.

[snip]

>The reason is that I can't afford to pay other people to do stuff I
>want/need to do (except under very exceptional circumstances) so I HAVE to
>learn it myself. After thinking about it, I am persuaded that (at least in
>my own case) the pursuit of knowledge is NOT just about getting marketable
>skill. But that is still pretty important for younger people who ARE in the
>job market.

What's best for youngsters I leave for those who are more proximate to
them in annuation. The best anecdote regarding 'useful skills' is one I
read in Heath's 'From Thales to Euclid':

--begin quoted text:

The other story is that of a pupil who began to learn geometry with Euclid
and asked, when he had learnt one proposition, 'What advantage shall I get
by learning these things?' And Euclid called a slave and said 'Give him
sixpence, since he must needs gain by what he learns.'

--end quoted text.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <auo94k...@mid.individual.net>,

Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>The whole concept of what people call "programming" today is very far
>removed from what we understood by that term.

I use the term 'programming' to convey 'telling the computer how to do
stuff'. Who's this 'we'?

>
>Kids are far more interested in "programming" their mobile devices than they
>are in "computer programming".

Kids are interested in all manner of kid-ly things. It is one thing to
sit under the blanket at night, with newfangled devices like a 'crystal
radio' or a 'flashlight', and hear the miracles propogated through the
aether...

... it is another thing to participate in the design of a Very Large Array
of radiotelescopes which scour the skies for insight into the
that-from-which-stuff-originated.

[snip]

>They don't have to know or care about the fundamentals that we had to. And
>they don't even need training in formal programming languages.

Those settlement-systems that move credit card transactions nigh
seamlessly across time-zones, currencies and intricate international laws
just write themselves!

Perhaps finance is too abstract... after all, it is just money. Consider
the quality of applications needed for balancing inputs, outputs and
pressures in an oil refinery as the seasonal demand for automobile-quality
fuel ('petrol' or 'gasoline') wanes and the demand for truck ('lorry' in
Britspeak) fuel waxes; this is not mobile-phone-sized, neither in creation
nor testing nor implementation.

A battlefield medic saves lives, surgeons and their teams rebuild limbs.

DD

[Pete Dashwood]

SIXPENCE?!!
In ancient Greece...? I'm assuming this is not to be taken literally; I
catch your drift.

Reminds me of the following English Victorian music hall budget advice:

"I've got sixpence
Jolly jolly sixpence
I've got sixpence
To last me all my life
I've got tuppence to spend
And tuppence to lend
And tuppence to take home to my wife

Gor' Blimey!"

[Pete Dashwood]

docd...@panix.com wrote:
> In article <auo94k...@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The whole concept of what people call "programming" today is very far
>> removed from what we understood by that term.
>
> I use the term 'programming' to convey 'telling the computer how to do
> stuff'. Who's this 'we'?

OK, you are excluded from "we"... :-)

>
>>
>> Kids are far more interested in "programming" their mobile devices
>> than they are in "computer programming".
>
> Kids are interested in all manner of kid-ly things. It is one thing
> to sit under the blanket at night, with newfangled devices like a
> 'crystal radio' or a 'flashlight', and hear the miracles propogated
> through the aether...
>
> ... it is another thing to participate in the design of a Very Large
> Array of radiotelescopes which scour the skies for insight into the
> that-from-which-stuff-originated.
>

Yes, it is. But many of the people who do these higher learning activities
started off listening to crystal sets on headphones. Everyone has to start
somewhere. You don't become expert overnight.

> [snip]
>
>> They don't have to know or care about the fundamentals that we had
>> to. And they don't even need training in formal programming
>> languages.
>
> Those settlement-systems that move credit card transactions nigh
> seamlessly across time-zones, currencies and intricate international
> laws just write themselves!

No, but the WAY in which they do their thing is subect to change and the
change is being done and empowered by different technology than was once the
case.

>
> Perhaps finance is too abstract... after all, it is just money.
> Consider the quality of applications needed for balancing inputs,
> outputs and pressures in an oil refinery as the seasonal demand for
> automobile-quality fuel ('petrol' or 'gasoline') wanes and the demand
> for truck ('lorry' in Britspeak) fuel waxes; this is not
> mobile-phone-sized, neither in creation nor testing nor
> implementation.

Having worked in this area once many years ago I can tell you that indeed it
IS a "mini-computer" application. Before the Internet it was done by linked
desktop computers. In fact, the application of refinery control I worked on
was implemented using Israeli developed CDC SC1800s, which were amongst the
world's first industrial strength "mini computers", designed by Seymour Cray
so they could be more easily located than the huge mainframes which
represented computing at that time. (Mid 1970s).

You may be underestimating the current and future power of "mobile phones".
I understand the movie industry is making feature films with mobile phones
because the quality is good enough; there are a number of projects being run
across the world where movie production students are working on different
parts of what will be a feature length film.

>
> A battlefield medic saves lives, surgeons and their teams rebuild
> limbs.

If you are wounded on a battlefield you would probably rather have a
medic...

Again it comes down to environments and these are rapidly changing in the
computing landscape, just like everywhere else.

The point of my post was that the rising generation sees computer technology
differently from the way that many of us saw it. They are not wrong; both
the technology and the environment have changed dramatically.

I was sitting with a six-year-old who was using Windows 8 with a touch
screen. She was perfectly at home. Takes it for granted just like a TV. I
tested her by asking her if she could get Skype up for me. She was using a
treasure hunt application, running on the desktop. She hit the Windows
button and then tapped the Skype app tile, without breaking her stride. We
made my Skype call and then she went to Facebook to update her status. When
I left her she was back in the treasure hunt... She is not trained as a
programmer but she has no trouble at all in 'telling the computer how to do
stuff.'

So, at least in Doc's eyes, she is a programmer? I guess it is semantics.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <aur1ag...@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>> The best anecdote regarding 'useful skills' is
>> one I read in Heath's 'From Thales to Euclid':
>>
>> --begin quoted text:
>>
>> The other story is that of a pupil who began to learn geometry with
>> Euclid and asked, when he had learnt one proposition, 'What advantage
>> shall I get by learning these things?' And Euclid called a slave and
>> said 'Give him sixpence, since he must needs gain by what he learns.'
>>
>> --end quoted text.
>>
>

>SIXPENCE?!!
>In ancient Greece...? I'm assuming this is not to be taken literally; I
>catch your drift.

<http://books.google.com/books?id=i0g0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=%22him+sixpence,+since+he+must+needs+gain%22&source=bl&ots=5cxPwI10t5&sig=aws9ZgOxMr7FAUVRScnjwKcfEvU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vQuJUYKTJoyE8QSZyYHYCQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22him%20sixpence%2C%20since%20he%20must%20needs%20gain%22&f=false>

(caps original) OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1921

Of course in those days money was different... sixpence was worth
something, like two threepence or 'arf a shilling. Not like nowadays,
when sixpence is worthless, barely a penny more than five pence.

DD

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <aur1ag...@mid.individual.net>,

About one semester ago I took a course that delved into 19th century
education. The Liberal Arts advocates fought long and hard against
the Utilitarian advocates. The Utilitarians won. I have seen the
same battle waged over and over during my 25 years working at a
University. I have yet to meet a potential student, or parent, who's
first concern was not; "Will I or my son or daughter be able to get a
good paying job if they take this course of study?" (I fall in the
middle of the argument. I believe students should acquire usable skills
at University but that they should receive a decent Liberal Arts
background as well.)

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <aur2pb...@mid.individual.net>,

Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <auo94k...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Kids are far more interested in "programming" their mobile devices
>>> than they are in "computer programming".
>>
>> Kids are interested in all manner of kid-ly things. It is one thing
>> to sit under the blanket at night, with newfangled devices like a
>> 'crystal radio' or a 'flashlight', and hear the miracles propogated
>> through the aether...
>>
>> ... it is another thing to participate in the design of a Very Large
>> Array of radiotelescopes which scour the skies for insight into the
>> that-from-which-stuff-originated.
>>
>
>Yes, it is. But many of the people who do these higher learning activities
>started off listening to crystal sets on headphones. Everyone has to start
>somewhere. You don't become expert overnight.

'Grant me patience and I want it NOW!' Immediate expertise is not
required, Mr Dashwood, but it might be good to acknowledge that a
difference in quantity can make for a difference in quality. Both the
crystal-set and the VLA receive electromagnetic transmissions but the
skills needed design both are of different quality.

[snip]

>> Perhaps finance is too abstract... after all, it is just money.
>> Consider the quality of applications needed for balancing inputs,
>> outputs and pressures in an oil refinery as the seasonal demand for
>> automobile-quality fuel ('petrol' or 'gasoline') wanes and the demand
>> for truck ('lorry' in Britspeak) fuel waxes; this is not
>> mobile-phone-sized, neither in creation nor testing nor
>> implementation.
>
>Having worked in this area once many years ago I can tell you that indeed it
>IS a "mini-computer" application. Before the Internet it was done by linked
>desktop computers.

Before the Internet programmers wrote code a bit differently, Mr Dashwood.

[snip]

>
>You may be underestimating the current and future power of "mobile phones".

Not at all... I am trying to accurately estimate the size and scope of
systems upon which safety and trade depend. It doesn't matter to me what
the hardware is, it matters that auditors can trace data and a government
can be told 'until the law is re-written this is not subject to that
claim.'

>I understand the movie industry is making feature films with mobile phones
>because the quality is good enough; there are a number of projects being run
>across the world where movie production students are working on different
>parts of what will be a feature length film.

I saw a documentary recently about the shift from storing images on
celluloid to using digital formats. One of the interviewees tossed off
that between 1950(something) and (a later date) there were (several score
and change) of Videotape Standards.

Videotape holds a bunch of ephemera. Rightly or wrongly computers hold
data which run nations and control lives.

[snip]

>The point of my post was that the rising generation sees computer technology
>differently from the way that many of us saw it. They are not wrong; both
>the technology and the environment have changed dramatically.

Do these changes invalidate 'First you learn to sharpen the knife, next
you learn to cut the wood'?

>
>I was sitting with a six-year-old who was using Windows 8 with a touch
>screen. She was perfectly at home. Takes it for granted just like a TV. I
>tested her by asking her if she could get Skype up for me. She was using a
>treasure hunt application, running on the desktop. She hit the Windows
>button and then tapped the Skype app tile, without breaking her stride. We
>made my Skype call and then she went to Facebook to update her status. When
>I left her she was back in the treasure hunt... She is not trained as a
>programmer but she has no trouble at all in 'telling the computer how to do
>stuff.'
>
>So, at least in Doc's eyes, she is a programmer?

Only as much as requesting a run is the same as writing the application.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <aush7v...@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>I have yet to meet a potential student, or parent, who's
>first concern was not; "Will I or my son or daughter be able to get a
>good paying job if they take this course of study?"

Answer: 'If I could predict the future that well I'd be a stockmarket
billionaire. Getting *any* job depends on a lot more than any one course
of study.'

(note that I have never been able to make a living selling stuff)

DD

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kmb41e$ko7$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

docd...@panix.com () writes:
> In article <aush7v...@mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>I have yet to meet a potential student, or parent, who's
>>first concern was not; "Will I or my son or daughter be able to get a
>>good paying job if they take this course of study?"
>
> Answer: 'If I could predict the future that well I'd be a stockmarket
> billionaire. Getting *any* job depends on a lot more than any one course
> of study.'

Well, of course, and they know that. The answer is to show statistics for
job placement and pay for various careers. Trust me, in my earlier days
I have worked side by side with a lot of people with Masters degrees and
even one PHD. And they didn't stuff toilet paper in cardboard boxes any
better than I did. But then, what else are you going to do with an MS
in Philosophy or a PHD in Art History? I even knew a guy who had an MS
in Marine Biology. Got it from the Naval Academy and Naval Post Graduate
School. Had a faculty position at the Naval Academy for a while but
decided to leave the Navy and try the waters on the outside. The only
degree related work he could get was as a volunteer tour guide at the
Baltimore Aquarium. His day job that paid the bills was retail sales.
So he worked with his MS right alongside high-school kids, one of which
might have even been his manager.

That was 30 years ago. Today, it is even more important to choose what
you are going to study wisely. Many jobs that were in great demand are
of no use whatsoever today.

>
> (note that I have never been able to make a living selling stuff)

Neither could I. I relate better to machines than to humans because I
have a very low tolerance for stupidity. One of the reasons I really
hate the area I live in and can't wait for my wife to reach the same
level of angst. There is nothing worse than iving in the shallow end
of the gene pool. I brought a dog back with me from my last COBOL gig
in Georgia. The IQ level for the area went up 4%, not counting mine.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <ausqmr...@mid.individual.net>,

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <kmb41e$ko7$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> docd...@panix.com () writes:

[snip]

>Trust me, in my earlier days
>I have worked side by side with a lot of people with Masters degrees and
>even one PHD. And they didn't stuff toilet paper in cardboard boxes any
>better than I did. But then, what else are you going to do with an MS
>in Philosophy or a PHD in Art History?

Back in the Oldene Dayse, when Bell Labs was Bell Labs, the riddle was:

Q. What's the difference between the MSs and the PhDs at Bell Labs?

A. The Masters get the coffee.

The idea of substituting education beyond high school for appretencing to
a trade is rather recent and can most likely be attributed to the adoption
of the GI Bill of Rights. It is most likely too soon to tell if this is
of overall benefit.

>I even knew a guy who had an MS
>in Marine Biology. Got it from the Naval Academy and Naval Post Graduate
>School. Had a faculty position at the Naval Academy for a while but
>decided to leave the Navy and try the waters on the outside. The only
>degree related work he could get was as a volunteer tour guide at the
>Baltimore Aquarium. His day job that paid the bills was retail sales.
>So he worked with his MS right alongside high-school kids, one of which
>might have even been his manager.
>
>That was 30 years ago.

Thirty years ago was somewhere between 1980 and 1985. There were
technical schools in abundance and this fellow seems to have made his own
choices.

>Today, it is even more important to choose what
>you are going to study wisely. Many jobs that were in great demand are
>of no use whatsoever today.

If one wants a job one studies for a job. If one loves something then one
studies for love.

>>
>> (note that I have never been able to make a living selling stuff)
>
>Neither could I. I relate better to machines than to humans because I
>have a very low tolerance for stupidity.

Machine stupidity is to human stupidity what machine intelligence is to
human intelligence. A lever is consistently a lever but it takes a human
to see how one might move the world.

>One of the reasons I really
>hate the area I live in and can't wait for my wife to reach the same
>level of angst. There is nothing worse than iving in the shallow end
>of the gene pool.

The good fights I've had keeping myself alive tell me that living in the
shallow end of the gene pool is better than being dead. March on!

DD

[Alistair Maclean]

On Monday, 6 May 2013 13:21:27 UTC+1, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> "Pete Dashwood" writes: The "problem" is that the whole field of IT is changing so rapidly

>
> The whole concept of what people call "programming" today is very far
> removed from what we understood by that term. We definitely disagree on that idea, too.
>
> Kids are far more interested in "programming" their mobile devices than they > are in "computer programming". Scripting is not so hard to learn if you are

> motivated and I have been amazed at some of the results achieved from > "mashing". . . . it is quite amazing what can be achieved by simply plugging
> APIs together.

Kludging together someone elses hard work is not programming it is plagiarism. All this shows is that the modern script kiddies are not up to the dull art of programming (probably because of ADHD).

[Alistair Maclean]

> On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 02:13:15 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> I tested her by asking her if she could get Skype up for me. She was using a
> treasure hunt application, running on the desktop. She hit the Windows button
> and then tapped the Skype app tile, without breaking her stride. We made my
> Skype call and then she went to Facebook to update her status. When I left her
> she was back in the treasure hunt... She is not trained as a programmer but she
> has no trouble at all in 'telling the computer how to do stuff.' So, at least
> in Doc's eyes, she is a programmer? I guess it is semantics. Pete.

Pressing a few icons does not constitute programming. At the age of 6 she is unlikely to be capable of reading and understanding the texts associated with the icons and comprehending their meanings. If DD meant as you ascribed then I disagree with both of you.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 15:18:56 UTC+1, docd...@panix.com wrote:
> Of course in those days money was different... sixpence was worth something,
> like two threepence or 'arf a shilling. Not like nowadays, when sixpence is
> worthless, barely a penny more than five pence. DD

Actually sixpence (as was once) is worth less than five pence (as now is) seeing as sixpence ('alf a bob) is 2.5 New Pence (since 1970) and five pence is an 'ole bob.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 18:07:39 UTC+1, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> I even knew a guy who had an MS in Marine Biology.

My BSc is Marine Biology. The only job available upon graduation was counting marine worms around well heads.

> Today, it is even more important to choose what you are going to study wisely.

Agreed. Media studies and David Beckham Studies don't make the grade anymore. BTW, David Beckham is a footballer formerly playing for Manchester United, LA Galaxy and now Paris Saint Germain.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kmbi42$1v5$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

docd...@panix.com () writes:
> In article <ausqmr...@mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>In article <kmb41e$ko7$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> docd...@panix.com () writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Trust me, in my earlier days
>>I have worked side by side with a lot of people with Masters degrees and
>>even one PHD. And they didn't stuff toilet paper in cardboard boxes any
>>better than I did. But then, what else are you going to do with an MS
>>in Philosophy or a PHD in Art History?
>
> Back in the Oldene Dayse, when Bell Labs was Bell Labs, the riddle was:
>
> Q. What's the difference between the MSs and the PhDs at Bell Labs?
>
> A. The Masters get the coffee.

Gee, I remember:
BS = Bull Shit
MS = More Shit
PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper

>
> The idea of substituting education beyond high school for appretencing to
> a trade is rather recent and can most likely be attributed to the adoption
> of the GI Bill of Rights. It is most likely too soon to tell if this is
> of overall benefit.

Maybe the new one. The old GI Bill (the one I actually got to use
40 years ago) was used more for supplementing the income of an
apprenticeship than actual college for which, even then, it was woefully
inadequate.

As for substituting education for experience, that is a pendulum that
I have personally seen swing back and forth. My first computer job
paying three times what I was currently earning in the Army, thus me
reasone for leaving, was solely based on experience as I had no formal
computer education. I was hired at the Univerity where I worked for
over 20 years without a degree. Today they will not even consider a
replacement who does not have one. They are beginning to require
degrees for clerical positions. What I have seen of industry seems
to show the pendulum on its way back in the other direction again.

>
>>I even knew a guy who had an MS
>>in Marine Biology. Got it from the Naval Academy and Naval Post Graduate
>>School. Had a faculty position at the Naval Academy for a while but
>>decided to leave the Navy and try the waters on the outside. The only
>>degree related work he could get was as a volunteer tour guide at the
>>Baltimore Aquarium. His day job that paid the bills was retail sales.
>>So he worked with his MS right alongside high-school kids, one of which
>>might have even been his manager.
>>
>>That was 30 years ago.
>
> Thirty years ago was somewhere between 1980 and 1985. There were
> technical schools in abundance and this fellow seems to have made his own
> choices.

Yes, he made his choice. Bu he wasn't interested in technical schools.
He wanted to be a Marine Biologist. He just had no realization how
few jobs there actually are in that field beyond teaching in a school
to create even more.

>
>>Today, it is even more important to choose what
>>you are going to study wisely. Many jobs that were in great demand are
>>of no use whatsoever today.
>
> If one wants a job one studies for a job. If one loves something then one
> studies for love.

Ah, the wonder of naivete. Ever tried to live on love? How much
love is needed to pay for a decent apartment? One first needs to
live, if one is lucky they can always study what they love later.
Sadly for me, I ended out having to wait too long and no longer
have the abilities needed to pursue the subject I wanted. So I
will have to continue to pursue it as an amateur. (And, no, it is
neither computers or electronics, the avocations that have kept
me and my family fed, housed and clothed.)

>
>>>
>>> (note that I have never been able to make a living selling stuff)
>>
>>Neither could I. I relate better to machines than to humans because I
>>have a very low tolerance for stupidity.
>
> Machine stupidity is to human stupidity what machine intelligence is to
> human intelligence. A lever is consistently a lever but it takes a human
> to see how one might move the world.

Machines are supposed to be stupid. One likes to thnk that is not true
of humans. Living here might make you wonder, though.

>
>>One of the reasons I really
>>hate the area I live in and can't wait for my wife to reach the same
>>level of angst. There is nothing worse than iving in the shallow end
>>of the gene pool.
>
> The good fights I've had keeping myself alive tell me that living in the
> shallow end of the gene pool is better than being dead. March on!

Oh, my marching days are nearly over. Almost time to sit in the shade
and drown worms.

[Pete Dashwood]

I agree that that is one possible interpretation. Would you agree that what
THEY call "programming" is not what most of us (not Doc, who is excluded
from "we" :-)) mean by programming?

[Pete Dashwood]

This girl reads fluently and I usually give her a book for her birthday. I
think the age limit on Facebook is 12 or 16 (don't know because I don't use
it myself) so I assume her Mother must have vouched for her. If I showed her
your mail she would be insulted.

(BTW, I was reading fluently by the age of 4 and at 7 I read Gibbon's
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." My father quizzed me on it and I
believe he was satisfied. There was no TV in those days...)

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <auu6lm...@mid.individual.net>,

Is there any particular reason why the industry (or anyone for that
matter) should give a rats pitootie about what "THEY" call programming?

It's the dot com bubble all over again. Some kid writes a silly-ass
game for his telephone and expects the world to accept him as the new
Seymour Cray.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <auv191...@mid.individual.net>,

Well, at least we have this in common, except for the quizing part.
I doubt my father ever read that book. :-)

I desgned and built my first radio (not a crystal set or regen) by age
8. And my first AM Transmitter at 9. And then I was informed by a
local ham radio operator that you needed a license to use someting like
that. :-) All of that using parts from Salvation Army Store $5 radios.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 06:38:01 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:

> I agree that that is one possible interpretation. Would you agree that what
> THEY call "programming" is not what most of us (not Doc, who is excluded
> from "we" :-)) mean by programming? Pete.

Yes, agreed.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 14:12:11 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> This girl reads fluently and I usually give her a book for her birthday. I
> think the age limit on Facebook is 12 or 16 (don't know because I don't use

> it myself) so I assume her Mother must have vouched for her. ....

> (BTW, I was reading fluently by the age of 4 and at 7 I read
> Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." My father quizzed me on it
> and I believe he was satisfied. There was no TV in those days...) Pete.

Then she/you are/were unusually precocious.

As for TV, I didn't watch one until I was 8 years old. DD can probably remember the wireless announcement about the invention of the gogglebox.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <db87ed11-335d-4522...@googlegroups.com>,

Currency reform for the unrepentant... how very pensive!

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <aut4dq...@mid.individual.net>,

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <kmbi42$1v5$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> docd...@panix.com () writes:

[snip]

>> If one wants a job one studies for a job. If one loves something then one
>> studies for love.
>
>Ah, the wonder of naivete.

Some folks equate a kind of sour utilitarianism with Worldly Wisdom.

Long ago I sat in a classroom and tried to wrap my head around the
relatively new equations published by James Clerk Maxwell. The professor
(he was called a 'tutor') glanced at the door,leaned forward,
conspiratorially, and said 'They really don't teach it this way, but
watch...'

... and he began to dance at the board. He wrote simple, verifiable facts
and manipulated them by the rules of algebra, this much magnetism produces
that much electricity, this many Gauss, that many amperes, the-other-many
foot-pounds in a standard horsepower, all reproducible experiments and
by-the-book definitions...

... and the chalk-dust danced in the sunlight... start in one corner, down
to its diagonal opposite, across the wall, a different board, up to the
top...

... and at the end a number fell out: three point zero times ten to the
eighth metres per second. It gave me goosebumps then and it does now.

I've never earned a nickel from this incident and not has week has passed
since its happening that I haven't thought of it. I am warmed by it as I
am by the sun and it has nourished and nurtured me through many dreary
work-a-day seasons.

>Ever tried to live on love?

So long as my heart pumps blood and wonder I won't need to live without
it.

>How much
>love is needed to pay for a decent apartment?

As much as the lessor has for abiding by an agreement. Any student of
economics might have learned that much.

>One first needs to
>live, if one is lucky they can always study what they love later.
>Sadly for me, I ended out having to wait too long and no longer
>have the abilities needed to pursue the subject I wanted.

There is a difference between 'pursue' and 'make a living at'.

>So I
>will have to continue to pursue it as an amateur.

My memory is, admittedly, porous... what is the Latin root-word for
'amateur'?

DD

[Richard]

On May 7, 1:13 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> docdw...@panix.com wrote:
> > In article <auo94kFpg0...@mid.individual.net>,

> > Pete Dashwood <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> The whole concept of what people call "programming" today is very far
> >> removed from what we understood by that term.
>
> > I use the term 'programming' to convey 'telling the computer how to do
> > stuff'.  Who's this 'we'?

> She is not trained as a
> programmer but she has no trouble at all in 'telling the computer how to do
> stuff.'
>
> So, at least in Doc's eyes, she is a programmer? I guess it is semantics.

No. That is NOT telling the computer _HOW_ to do stuff, the Skype
program, and ultimately the people that wrote the code, does that.
Telling the computer _what_ to do is not the same as telling it _how_
to do it.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kmedrr$nt5$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

I never intended to make a living at it, except maybe as an educator
passing it on to others who also shared an interest. At this stage I
only wanted to get the education to do it well. Sadly, I no longer
have the abilities needed to do that.

>
>>So I
>>will have to continue to pursue it as an amateur.
>
> My memory is, admittedly, porous... what is the Latin root-word for
> 'amateur'?

I doubt it is that porous.. And the use of the word means exactly what
you are implying.

[Pete Dashwood]

Ah, so you've played "Angry Birds", then? :-)

[Pete Dashwood]

Alistair Maclean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 14:12:11 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> This girl reads fluently and I usually give her a book for her
>> birthday. I think the age limit on Facebook is 12 or 16 (don't know
>> because I don't use it myself) so I assume her Mother must have
>> vouched for her. .... (BTW, I was reading fluently by the age of 4
>> and at 7 I read
>> Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." My father quizzed
>> me on it and I believe he was satisfied. There was no TV in those
>> days...) Pete.
>
> Then she/you are/were unusually precocious.

I'm not sure, Alistair. She is in the top class at her school (as was I,
mostly), but there are other kids there too. I was talking to her mother
last night and I was wrong about her age: she is actually nearly 8. (Time
flies and you tend to lose track; I was present within a few hours of her
birth and it seems like yesterday.)

Maybe kids are just generally smarter these days? Evolution? I dunno...

[Pete Dashwood]

I agree. But where do you draw the line? "Programmers" use APIs to
communicate with an Operating System that was written by someone else. Does
that make them frauds?

If you were to be absolutely accurate about it (and in this forum that is
not something that usually happens) you might decide that until and unless
you had written every single instruction executed by your application, you
could not call yourself a "programmer".

In 1965, when I first started programming, I worked on a machine that had
4.8K and no Operating System. We did indeed program in machine language, and
we wrote every single instruction that was executed (with NO macros...). In
fact, it was some years before a Symbolic Assembler became available for
that particular platform. Ironically, I never got to learn the Assembler
because I had then moved on to COBOL on a different platform.

[Pete Dashwood]

OK, there's no need to pound the table or get hot under the dollar about
it...

[Pete Dashwood]

I came across the importance of Maxwell's field equations when trying to get
my head around the Universe and "understand" the propagation of
electromagnetic waves. (It still worries me, as I have never been able to
decide exactly what it IS that is waving... or paticling... or fielding.)

I think your paragraphs describing your own experience are very beautiful
and thank you muchly for sharing it with us, Doc. It must have been a very
inspiring moment and you have captured it in a way that allowed others to be
there. I wish I had been able to get some formal training with this stuff;
circumstances at the time precluded it. But at least I can now share your
experience of it. I can tell you, I would not have required sixpence from
Euclid...

>
>> Ever tried to live on love?
>
> So long as my heart pumps blood and wonder I won't need to live
> without it.
>
>> How much
>> love is needed to pay for a decent apartment?
>
> As much as the lessor has for abiding by an agreement. Any student of
> economics might have learned that much.
>
>> One first needs to
>> live, if one is lucky they can always study what they love later.
>> Sadly for me, I ended out having to wait too long and no longer
>> have the abilities needed to pursue the subject I wanted.
>
> There is a difference between 'pursue' and 'make a living at'.
>
>> So I
>> will have to continue to pursue it as an amateur.
>
> My memory is, admittedly, porous... what is the Latin root-word for
> 'amateur'?

Yes, very apposite.

To be fair to Bill, I think it is easy for people to get knocked around by
life and lose some of the "love and wonder". Good teachers and good managers
can help to restore some of it.

I was having a conversation with my gardener a few days ago. He was telling
me how much he hated History at school. "All those bloody dates and events
that mean nothing today. Those people are long gone so why should we care?"

Me: "Hmmm... yes, I know what you mean. Did you know that while the Battle
of Waterloo was going on, Napoleon was suffering with piles?"
Him: "Yeah? Really?... My Mother has them something dreadful."
Me: "Yep. And the treatment in those days was to put your arse alternately
into hot and cold buckets of water."

He puts down his trowel...

Him: "Are you kidding me?"
Me: "No. I swear it's true. Can you imagine trying to fight a battle over
three days with your arse in a bucket of water?"
Him: "Bloody Hell! No wonder he lost! See, they never told us stuff like
that at school. "
Me: "No, they didn't. Makes it more real, doesn't it?
Him: "Yeah, I reckon..."
Me: "By-the-way, the date was 1815... Are you ready for a coffee?"
Him: "Yeah, thanks."

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <av08qb...@mid.individual.net>,

Come up to where I live and you might think exactly the opposite.
I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of public education
which is why I am 100% against it.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <av099u...@mid.individual.net>,

Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>> On May 7, 1:13 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
>> <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>> docdw...@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>>>> I use the term 'programming' to convey 'telling the computer how to
>>>> do stuff'. Who's this 'we'?
>>
>>
>>> She is not trained as a
>>> programmer but she has no trouble at all in 'telling the computer
>>> how to do stuff.'
>>>
>>> So, at least in Doc's eyes, she is a programmer? I guess it is
>>> semantics.
>>
>> No. That is NOT telling the computer _HOW_ to do stuff, the Skype
>> program, and ultimately the people that wrote the code, does that.
>> Telling the computer _what_ to do is not the same as telling it _how_
>> to do it.
>
>I agree. But where do you draw the line?

The line might be drawn at the point between 'how to do' differs from
'what to do'.

A spectrum can be tricky... downright shifty!

DD

[Alistair Maclean]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 01:26:50 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Maybe kids are just generally smarter these days? Evolution? I dunno...

I can accept 8 years. Ta.

As for evolution: nah mate. IQ is deemed to increase by one point per decade but there are questions as to exactly what is measured when IQ testing; so I would guess that it is down to advanced exposure to a more complex culture. However, philosophers, psychologists and social anthropologists will be arguing for decades to come over that.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 02:01:08 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Did you know that while the Battle of Waterloo was going on, Napoleon was suffering with piles?

Pete, there is no mention in the memoirs (Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, v14 by Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne, His Private Secretary) of Napoleon suffering from piles. I know it is a common belief as evinced by this:
"The real cause of Napoleon's defeat

Napoleon possibly lost the Battle of Waterloo because on the day of the denouement he suffered an acute attack of haemorrhoids that stopped him riding his horse and keeping up his usual mobile supervision of troop movements. Two days earlier, his doctors had lost the leeches used to relieve the pain of his piles and accidentally overdosed him with laudanum, from whose ill-effects he was still suffering on the morning of the battle. According to some analysts, Napoleon's delays in launching his assault had much to do with his indispositions: originally planned for 6am, then 9am, it did not start until nearly midday."

But it is a fact that he had numerous aide-de-camps who could have supervised troop movements on his behalf and that the assault could not have started much before mid-day due to the ground being muddy and unsuitable for mass troop movements.

On another note: Freud spent much time analysing his gardener. Upon Freud's death the gardener was asked if Freud's analysis was of any benefit. The reply was No. Sometimes, gardeners may best be left to their own devices.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <av1nk2...@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of public education
>which is why I am 100% against it.

In other news a letter has been leaked by the Danbury Baptist Association
from President Thomas Jefferson which refers to '... a wall of separation
between Church and State.'

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <av032p...@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>At this stage I
>only wanted to get the education to do it well. Sadly, I no longer
>have the abilities needed to do that.

Then one does as one is able, Mr Gunshannon, and the fact that it isn't
what could have been done even yesterday is accepted.

So... who was that young fellow who could make love on the back of a
running horse and why did he leave me such a drecrepit body?

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <av0aqm...@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>It must have been a very
>inspiring moment and you have captured it in a way that allowed others to be
>there. I wish I had been able to get some formal training with this stuff;
>circumstances at the time precluded it. But at least I can now share your
>experience of it.

Glad you enjoyed, Mr Dashwood; to me it is a glorious, eternal Song of
Being and I try, with my tone-deaf humming, to pass along the tune.

DD

[Pete Dashwood]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <av08qb...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>> Alistair Maclean wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 14:12:11 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>> This girl reads fluently and I usually give her a book for her
>>>> birthday. I think the age limit on Facebook is 12 or 16 (don't know
>>>> because I don't use it myself) so I assume her Mother must have
>>>> vouched for her. .... (BTW, I was reading fluently by the age of 4
>>>> and at 7 I read
>>>> Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." My father quizzed
>>>> me on it and I believe he was satisfied. There was no TV in those
>>>> days...) Pete.
>>>
>>> Then she/you are/were unusually precocious.
>>
>> I'm not sure, Alistair. She is in the top class at her school (as
>> was I, mostly), but there are other kids there too. I was talking to
>> her mother last night and I was wrong about her age: she is actually
>> nearly 8. (Time flies and you tend to lose track; I was present
>> within a few hours of her birth and it seems like yesterday.)
>>
>> Maybe kids are just generally smarter these days? Evolution? I
>> dunno...
>
> Come up to where I live and you might think exactly the opposite.
> I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of public education
> which is why I am 100% against it.

I do have an opinion on that (as on most things...) :-)

I attended both public and private schools. My parents made sacrifices to
see I went to some of the best schools in NZ. But after my father died it
was pretty much impossible for my mother to do it and I finished off at the
local High School, then applied for Teacher training at a College in South
Auckland where I could attend Auckland University part time as well.

I briefly (about six months) attended a Church School and I felt that far
too much time was spent in prayers and religious studies, (it was before my
father died, so I did not have the atheist convictions I now hold) and I
remember discussing it with the Old Man (who was not overtly religious,
believed everyone has to work out their own thing, and who taught me that
tolerance is next to Godliness). The rigid discipline, and reluctance to
discuss religious matters openly, grated on me and I was glad when they
pulled me out and we moved to another town. However, that same school has
some of the highest scholastic achievements in NZ. At home, I was used to
there being no taboo subjects and having questions discussed and resolved;
at school that was definitely not the case and I was in trouble quite often
for rejecting stuff as patently unlkely. (I was interested to see a video of
Christopher Hitchen the other day where he addressed exactly this. "Either
the Laws of the Universe have been temporarily suspended, in your favour, or
you are under a misapprehension. If the sun reportedly stands still so
Joshua can win a battle, which do you think is the most likely?")

Finally on that: While attending the local Tauranga Boys College (which is a
public high school - no fees) I remember writing an essay for 6th Form
History about the unification of Italy and the role of Garibaldi. At that
time the Pope issued a Doctrine of Papal Infallibility where he delcared
that he was infallible. (God told him... yeah, I know. People get locked up
for less...) Anyway, I was a bit scathing about this in my essay and was
asked to meet with the teacher. Theacher shuffled a bit and then said:
"Peter, you have to realise that Catholics to this day believe that the Pope
is infallible. If your essay is being marked by someone outside, he could
well be a Catholic and you would be marked down on what was an otherwise
excellent paper. If you are going to address Religious issues, try and be a
bit gentler." I was shocked. Then I realised that he was, in fact, a
Catholic, and although what I had written offended him, he was trying very
hard to be fair to me. I took his advice.

There is a very sound reason for separation between Church and State.

When I look back over my education, I realise I was very lucky to have had
the opportunities my folks gave me, but as for the QUALITY of the education,
I'm not sure that the private stuff was really that much better than the
public. I remember excellent teachers (as well as dreadful ones) in ALL the
schools I attended. The facilities were generally better in the private
schools but most of what I learned about Chemistry (for example) I learned
from doing experiments in the garden shed, so a well equipped laboratory was
far from essential.

(I remember my poor mother putting up with some pretty awful stuff. I had
found out somewhere that the organic ester which gives a pineapple its
distinctive smell and taste is methyl butyrate. I decided to make it. It
meant reacting methyl alcohol with butyric acid. The alcohol was pretty
easily obtainable but the butyric acid was much more problematic. It is the
acid formed in butter when it goes rancid so I just left a slab of it to go
off. Unfortunately, it also has a most dreadul smell... My mother asked what
the awful smell was and I said:"I'm making artifical pineapple." She looked
at me and said:" I can get a real one at the market for a couple of dollars.
Can you please make the smell go away..." And so is greatness stifled by
the mundane....)

Generally, in New Zealand, although parents always complain about teaching
standards, the public school system provides a very good grounding for our
kids. NZers seem to be disproportionately represented in all fields of
endeavour, across the world.

[Pete Dashwood]

Probably spent far too much time riding bareback...

[Pete Dashwood]

Alistair Maclean wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 May 2013 02:01:08 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> Did you know that while the Battle of Waterloo was going on,
>> Napoleon was suffering with piles?
>
> Pete, there is no mention in the memoirs (Memoirs of Napoleon
> Bonaparte, v14 by Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne, His Private
> Secretary) of Napoleon suffering from piles.

I wasn't offering it as an excuse for why he lost, and I am pretty sure that
his personal and private secretary (who would no doubt have also been a
friend) would decide there were some things about the Boss that the world
didn't need to know...

I was offering it simply as an alternative to the rote learning of dates as
a study of History (which is actually a really fascinating subject in its
own right but is so often presented poorly.)

If we have personal glimpses of Historic figures it makes them much more
real. I think of Horatio, Lord Nelson, who tried to capture a polar bear
while still in his teens. When his appalled mother asked him if he had no
fear he replied: "What is fear?" Apparently, he also suffered from
seasickness and spent the first few days of every voyage confined to his
cabin... It is stuff like this that makes "Trafalgar, September 1805" much
more real. (I confess that standing on the deck of Victory where he was
shot, may also have influenced my appreciation of what he did...)

Some times stuff gets buried in your head and you come to doubt how it got
there. I happen to know that several thousands of yeas ago, before money was
actually invented, the Ancient Egyptians used copper wire coils called uten
for trading. I was talking about this in passing to someone not long ago and
they wen to look it up. Try as we might be couldn't find it in any of the
encyclopaedias in the house. Just as I was beginning to doubt my own memory,
we managed to get on-line, and, to my relief, it was there on GOOGLE.
(search hint: uten Egyptian). I have no idea where or when I actually filed
this, but it was there in my head as "knowledge"...

Anectdotes and stories make History much more interesting. Just finding out
whether they are true or not is a learning experience.

> I know it is a common
> belief as evinced by this:
> "The real cause of Napoleon's defeat
>
> Napoleon possibly lost the Battle of Waterloo because on the day of
> the denouement he suffered an acute attack of haemorrhoids that
> stopped him riding his horse and keeping up his usual mobile
> supervision of troop movements. Two days earlier, his doctors had
> lost the leeches used to relieve the pain of his piles and
> accidentally overdosed him with laudanum, from whose ill-effects he
> was still suffering on the morning of the battle. According to some
> analysts, Napoleon's delays in launching his assault had much to do
> with his indispositions: originally planned for 6am, then 9am, it did
> not start until nearly midday."
>
> But it is a fact that he had numerous aide-de-camps who could have
> supervised troop movements on his behalf and that the assault could
> not have started much before mid-day due to the ground being muddy
> and unsuitable for mass troop movements.
>
> On another note: Freud spent much time analysing his gardener. Upon
> Freud's death the gardener was asked if Freud's analysis was of any
> benefit. The reply was No. Sometimes, gardeners may best be left to
> their own devices.

Have you seen Peter Sellars in "Being there"? :-)

[Alistair Maclean]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 01:35:39 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> docd...@panix.com wrote:
> In article <av032p...@mid.individual.net>, >

> > So... who was that young fellow who could make love on the back of a
> > running horse and why did he leave me such a drecrepit body?
> Probably spent far too much time riding bareback...

Does that have the seem meaning in the antipodes as it does in the UK? :-O

[Alistair Maclean]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 01:57:26 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> It is stuff like this that makes "Trafalgar, September 1805" much more real.

21st OCTOBER 1805.

> Have you seen Peter Sellars in "Being there"? :-)

No, but I shall look out for it.

[Pete Dashwood]

Yes.

(It never ceases to amaze me how, when you have to explain a joke, it isn't
funny any more... <sigh>)

[Pete Dashwood]

Alistair Maclean wrote:
> On Friday, 10 May 2013 01:57:26 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> It is stuff like this that makes "Trafalgar, September 1805" much
>> more real.
>
>
> 21st OCTOBER 1805.
>

Oh Dear... My Bad. Thanks for the correction.

I wonder how many kids in England today even know where it is or what year
it was, or realize that had he lost, the whole course of European history
might have been changed ...

>> Have you seen Peter Sellars in "Being there"? :-)
>
> No, but I shall look out for it.

I have a service here that allows me to download stream movies. (Very
similar to NetFlix in the USA; in NZ it is called QuickFlix). I watched it
on there a few weeks ago. You might find it at the local video store. I
wouldn't say it is a great movie, but it is entertaining and if you are a
Sellars fan (I am) then he gives the usual inimitable performance. Shirley
Maclaine is also outstanding and there is an hilarious scene where she
masturbates while trying to seduce him and he is unaware of what's
happening.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kmgsc0$7cd$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Are you somehow implying that the only alternative to public
education is religious education? Harvard, Yale and Cornel
might disagree with thast idea. And, at the lower level,
the dozen or so Charter Schools locally.

Government should be in the business of governing, nothing else.

On an equivalent note, Pennsylvania has a concept called "State
Stores". They are the only ones allowed to sell liquor in the
state. They are in the process of deciding wether or not to
"privatize" them. People are busy arguing about things like
revenue that comes from selling booze and arguing that the
state should keep the business. No one, not even the proponents
of privatization has brought up the question of why the government
is selling booze in the first place. It isn't their job and
it is a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act as it is unfair
restraint of trade. Just one more example of government being
involved in things that are none of its business. Like education
and transportation and any number of other actions.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |

A
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <av2teg...@mid.individual.net>,

Yet another attack on the Catholic Church based on the typical
erroneous information. The best way to argue against something
for which there is no valid arguiment is to sidestep the issue.

On top of which, like Doc, you seem to assume the only
alternative to government education is religious education.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kmgsti$7cd$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

docd...@panix.com () writes:
> In article <av032p...@mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>At this stage I
>>only wanted to get the education to do it well. Sadly, I no longer
>>have the abilities needed to do that.
>
> Then one does as one is able, Mr Gunshannon, and the fact that it isn't
> what could have been done even yesterday is accepted.

As I have...

>
> So... who was that young fellow who could make love on the back of a
> running horse and why did he leave me such a drecrepit body?

Don't look at me, I ride alone.

[SkippyPB]

On 10 May 2013 12:36:33 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill

Public Education is governments' attempt at having education available
for everyone. After all many, many people cannot afford to send their
kids to a private or parochial school and many more lack the skills to
home school. Charter schools are a viable alternative but also are
not for everyone. So what are you left with? Their are many public
schools that are very good. Unfortunately there are many that are
not. The Federal government can set standards and provide some
funding but it is up to each individual state to execute their public
education initiatives. Some states are pretty good at it, others not
so much. I went to Catholic schools until college. Don't regret it
at all. I got a most excellent education. My only knock on public
schools is how they are funded. Here in the state of Ohio property
owners pay a levy which goes to the local school board. My area did
veto about 4 levies in a row but passed it on the 5th. It is an
unfair way to fund schools but no one has come up with anything
better.

Regards,
--

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

Bumper Sticker: Constipated People Don't Give A Crap.
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <40fqo81rkoua8np05...@4ax.com>,

Many people see Public Education is governments' attempt at forced
indoctrination of the next generation. Additionaly, where in the
Constitution does it give government the mandate to do this. And
don't throw out the "public good" red herring because a lot of folks
do not see it as any kind of a good, public or otherwise.

> After all many, many people cannot afford to send their
> kids to a private or parochial school

Irrelevant to the argument about wether or not the government should
be doing it. I can't afford a Porsche 911. Should the government
take money from other people to buy me one?

> and many more lack the skills to
> home school.

No argument from me on that one.

> Charter schools are a viable alternative but also are
> not for everyone.

Why" they are merely another form of private school and in every
case I am aware of not connectd to any religion either.

> So what are you left with?

As with pretty much everything else, if the government kept its
nose out and didn't use unfair trade practices to bolster a corrupt
and useless system competitive (and cheaper) alternatives would exist.

> Their are many public
> schools that are very good. Unfortunately there are many that are
> not. The Federal government can set standards and provide some
> funding but it is up to each individual state to execute their public
> education initiatives. Some states are pretty good at it, others not
> so much.

Which still sidesteps the issue of why the government, federal, state
or local should be involved int he first place.

> I went to Catholic schools until college. Don't regret it
> at all. I got a most excellent education.

So did I and my parents were poor. Both my father and mother worked
to support us. I owned a car before my father did. And yet, they
were able to afford it. For four of us. College I paid for myself.
No state schools, no scholarships, no grants, no tax money.

> My only knock on public
> schools is how they are funded. Here in the state of Ohio property
> owners pay a levy which goes to the local school board. My area did
> veto about 4 levies in a row but passed it on the 5th. It is an
> unfair way to fund schools but no one has come up with anything
> better.

There is one obvious system that is better. Get government out of
everything bu government. But, becasue that would involve getting
people to legislate their own jobs away, it is a real uphill battle.

[Pete Dashwood]

Hmmm... so what exactly would you say IS the business of Governement, Bill?

Governing?

Yeah, right.

If they can't run a liquor store what makes you think they can run a
Community? :-)

We have an expression here which is often applied to instances of
incompetence: "He couldn't run a piss-up in a Brewery..."

[Pete Dashwood]

Jeez, Bill, get a grip.

There was no attack on ANY church in the above. I mentioned the word
Catholic in the context of what actually happened (because it was
pertinent) and I reported faithfully what actually went down. I respected
the teacher concerned for his honesty and fairness; how would you construe
that as an "attack"?

Just to remove any shadow of doubt, let me state clearly, I do not "attack"
anyone's Religion. I reserve the right to have an opinion about it, but that
is all it is, just an opinion.

This is pretty much exactly what I was illustrating by the above: If you
question or disagree you are "attacking" and therefore must be suppressed as
a heretic. Catholics are far from being the only religion that takes that
line.

I am pleased to report that I have friends of many different religious
persuasions and we sometimes discuss religious matters.

We are probably never going to change each other's minds but the discussion
can be interesting and it does give insight into how and why people believe
what they do. I am quite moved by the fact that some of my friends fear for
my mortal soul and genuinely worry about me. I have tried to reassure them
but it makes no difference... If it turns out they are right, and I am
wrong, I believe I can make a fair case to the Almighty and if it is the
lake of fire for me, then so be it.

I apologize unreservedly if my post offended you; that was not the intent.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <av5i0h...@mid.individual.net>,

They can't and I never said they coulc. Only that the constitution
gave them the mandate to do that. It never gave them a mandate to
sell liqour (or anything else), run buses or subways, run schools
or any other form of business. A proper government in this country
would be no more than one tenth the size of our current one.

>
> We have an expression here which is often applied to instances of
> incompetence: "He couldn't run a piss-up in a Brewery..."

Even that gives them credit for greater abilities than I would.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |

Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[Alistair Maclean]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 13:36:33 UTC+1, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Yet another attack on the Catholic Church based on the typical
> erroneous information. The best way to argue against something for
> which there is no valid arguiment is to sidestep the issue.

Wrong. The best way is to completely misrepresent the argument, ignore all evidence to the contrary and even to fabricate evidence supporting your argument. If you listen to the Freedom For Thought podcasts you will find that the religious moral right in the USA do exactly that.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 13:02:31 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> Probably spent far too much time riding bareback...
> > Does that have the seem meaning in the antipodes as it does in the
> > UK? :-O
> Yes. (It never ceases to amaze me how, when you have to explain a joke,
> it isn't funny any more... <sigh>)

Yep, I'm good at squashing jokes.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 13:15:59 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Shirley Maclaine is also outstanding and there is an hilarious scene
> where she masturbates while trying to seduce him and he is unaware of
> what's happening.

That didn't make it in to the Wikipedia review.

[SkippyPB]

On 11 May 2013 11:54:55 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill

The constitution does give the Federal Government in the US a mandate
over education. It is administered through the public school system
by the Department of Education. The states, however, have primary
responsibility for the maintenance and operation of public schools.
The Federal Government also has an interest in education. The National
Institute of Education was created to improve education in the United
States.

Each state is required by its state constitution to provide a school
system whereby children may receive an education. State legislatures
exercise power over schools in any manner consistent with the state's
constitution. Many state legislatures delegate power over the school
system to a state board of education.

There is a strong concern with equality in education. Within states
this leads to efforts to assure that each child no matter where he or
she is situated receives an adequate education. The Equal Education
Opportunities Act of 1974 provides that no state shall deny equal
educational opportunity to an individual on the basis of race, color,
sex, or national origin.

For children with disabilities special education is available. To
qualify for special education a child's disability must adversely
affect the child's educational performance. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. งง 1400 et seq) establishes a
process for evaluating a child's special needs and for providing an
individualized education program. The Federal Act is binding on all
states. In addition, most states have their own laws which parallel
the Act. Under the Act, parents and families of special education
children have specific rights such as the right to inspect the child's
school records.

The first US Department of Education was formed in 1867. but was soon
demoted to an Office in 1868. As an agency not represented in the
president's cabinet, it quickly became a relatively minor bureau in
the Department of the Interior. In 1939, the bureau was transferred to
the Federal Security Agency, where it was renamed the Office of
Education. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was upgraded to
cabinet-level status as the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.

In 1979, President Carter advocated for creating a cabinet-level
Department of Education. Carter's plan was to transfer most of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's education-related
functions to the Department of Education. Carter also planned to
transfer the education-related functions of the departments of
Defense, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, as
well as a few other federal entities. Among the federal
education-related programs that were not proposed to be transferred
included Headstart, the Department of Agriculture's school lunch and
nutrition programs, the Department of the Interior's Indian education
programs, and the Department of Labor's education and training
programs

Upgrading Education to cabinet level status in 1979 was opposed by
many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as
unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention
education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal
bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. However many liberals and
Democrats see the department as constitutional under the Commerce
Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional
under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The National Education
Association supported the bill, while the American Federation of
Teachers opposed it.

There is plenty of legal precedence at the Federal and State level
that allows government to be involved, regulate and fund public
education. Saying otherwise ignores current and past laws.

>>
>> We have an expression here which is often applied to instances of
>> incompetence: "He couldn't run a piss-up in a Brewery..."
>
>Even that gives them credit for greater abilities than I would.
>
>bill

Regards,
--
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross
the road and not be questioned about their motives."
-- Unknown

[SkippyPB]

On 10 May 2013 19:19:49 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill

It is more than "public good" and as I provided in an earlier post, is
in every state's constitution. You cannot say there is no mandate
when it is there 50 times (56 if you count the Federal constitution,
Washington DCs and the 4 commonwealths). If there is any
"indoctrination" going on it is because local school boards make it
that way. Ultimately that is where curriculum and other polices are
made. Just look at the books that have been banned in Texas schools.
It is a disgrace. But neither the Federal or State had any sway over
that.

>> After all many, many people cannot afford to send their
>> kids to a private or parochial school
>
>Irrelevant to the argument about wether or not the government should
>be doing it. I can't afford a Porsche 911. Should the government
>take money from other people to buy me one?
>

Wow, how pedantic! There is a world of difference between wanting a
car and a child's education.

>> and many more lack the skills to
>> home school.
>
>No argument from me on that one.
>
>> Charter schools are a viable alternative but also are
>> not for everyone.
>
>Why" they are merely another form of private school and in every
>case I am aware of not connectd to any religion either.
>

That is true however, they don't accept everyone and many local
authorities ban them or severely limit what they can do. Most do not
offer lunch programs or transportation of any kind which also limits
who can attend them.

>> So what are you left with?
>
>As with pretty much everything else, if the government kept its
>nose out and didn't use unfair trade practices to bolster a corrupt
>and useless system competitive (and cheaper) alternatives would exist.
>
>> Their are many public
>> schools that are very good. Unfortunately there are many that are
>> not. The Federal government can set standards and provide some
>> funding but it is up to each individual state to execute their public
>> education initiatives. Some states are pretty good at it, others not
>> so much.
>
>Which still sidesteps the issue of why the government, federal, state
>or local should be involved int he first place.
>
>> I went to Catholic schools until college. Don't regret it
>> at all. I got a most excellent education.
>
>So did I and my parents were poor. Both my father and mother worked
>to support us. I owned a car before my father did. And yet, they
>were able to afford it. For four of us. College I paid for myself.
>No state schools, no scholarships, no grants, no tax money.
>

My parents were also poor. They paid for my schooling in grades 1-8
and I worked and paid for my high school. College was funded through
the GI Bill and a grant for one summer session.

>> My only knock on public
>> schools is how they are funded. Here in the state of Ohio property
>> owners pay a levy which goes to the local school board. My area did
>> veto about 4 levies in a row but passed it on the 5th. It is an
>> unfair way to fund schools but no one has come up with anything
>> better.
>
>There is one obvious system that is better. Get government out of
>everything bu government. But, becasue that would involve getting
>people to legislate their own jobs away, it is a real uphill battle.
>
>

Get government out of it and there'd be more poor school systems like
those in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and others. Those are bad
enough with state and federal government legislation.

>bill
>

Regards,
--
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross
the road and not be questioned about their motives."
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <34ivo819f91vihmhs...@4ax.com>,

What gave them the right to put it there?

> You cannot say there is no mandate
> when it is there 50 times (56 if you count the Federal constitution,
> Washington DCs and the 4 commonwealths).

There is nothing in the US Constitution giveing the government
the right to control or establish education.

> If there is any
> "indoctrination" going on it is because local school boards make it
> that way. Ultimately that is where curriculum and other polices are
> made. Just look at the books that have been banned in Texas schools.
> It is a disgrace.

Matter of opinion. I have seen a lot of books printed that were
just a waste of trees.

> But neither the Federal or State had any sway over
> that.

Now that's naive.

>
>>> After all many, many people cannot afford to send their
>>> kids to a private or parochial school
>>
>>Irrelevant to the argument about wether or not the government should
>>be doing it. I can't afford a Porsche 911. Should the government
>>take money from other people to buy me one?
>>
>
> Wow, how pedantic! There is a world of difference between wanting a
> car and a child's education.

Not in my opinion. They are both personal and private matters.

>
>>> and many more lack the skills to
>>> home school.
>>
>>No argument from me on that one.
>>
>>> Charter schools are a viable alternative but also are
>>> not for everyone.
>>
>>Why" they are merely another form of private school and in every
>>case I am aware of not connectd to any religion either.
>>
>
> That is true however, they don't accept everyone

In what way? I have never seen one that discriminates based on
anything besides the students willingnes to learn and not disrupt
other students who are trying to learn. The only other discriminating
factor I know of is size. But that, also, is for the good of the
educational process.

> and many local
> authorities ban them or severely limit what they can do.

And you don't think that might be because they take money out of
their control giving them much less to squander. It certainly
isn't because the students are receiving a poorer education.
The only bad example of charter schools I have seen is the recent
swell of "online charter schools" which are run by the state and
seem more interested in luring people by offering trinkets (more
squandered money) than in demonstrating any educational advantage
over the normal public school systems.

> Most do not
> offer lunch programs or transportation of any kind which also limits
> who can attend them.

Not the governments business. Nothing in the constitution about free
rides or free meals. By the way, when I was growing up I walked to
school, all 12 years. And I either paid for my lunch or brown bagged it.
And no one thought that in any way strange. Welcome to the world of
the entitlement mentality.

>
>
>>> So what are you left with?
>>
>>As with pretty much everything else, if the government kept its
>>nose out and didn't use unfair trade practices to bolster a corrupt
>>and useless system competitive (and cheaper) alternatives would exist.
>>
>>> Their are many public
>>> schools that are very good. Unfortunately there are many that are
>>> not. The Federal government can set standards and provide some
>>> funding but it is up to each individual state to execute their public
>>> education initiatives. Some states are pretty good at it, others not
>>> so much.
>>
>>Which still sidesteps the issue of why the government, federal, state
>>or local should be involved int he first place.
>>
>>> I went to Catholic schools until college. Don't regret it
>>> at all. I got a most excellent education.
>>
>>So did I and my parents were poor. Both my father and mother worked
>>to support us. I owned a car before my father did. And yet, they
>>were able to afford it. For four of us. College I paid for myself.
>>No state schools, no scholarships, no grants, no tax money.
>>
>
> My parents were also poor. They paid for my schooling in grades 1-8
> and I worked and paid for my high school. College was funded through
> the GI Bill and a grant for one summer session.

So if paying your own way was good enough for you and me, why is it
suddenly someone else's responsibility for this generation?

>
>>> My only knock on public
>>> schools is how they are funded. Here in the state of Ohio property
>>> owners pay a levy which goes to the local school board. My area did
>>> veto about 4 levies in a row but passed it on the 5th. It is an
>>> unfair way to fund schools but no one has come up with anything
>>> better.
>>
>>There is one obvious system that is better. Get government out of
>>everything bu government. But, becasue that would involve getting
>>people to legislate their own jobs away, it is a real uphill battle.
>>
>>
>
> Get government out of it and there'd be more poor school systems like
> those in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and others.

Those are public schools.

> Those are bad
> enough with state and federal government legislation.

And there is no evidence that private would be as bad or worse and
considerable evidence that they would be much better. Even inner-city
schools in places like Baltimore and NYC have seen improvements when
privatized.

[Pete Dashwood]

An interesting exchange.

Obviously, as a non-resident of the USA I can have only a passing interest
in this, but some of the points are valid for Education generally.

1. If Education is to be provided to the poor (and I think we all agree that
Education SHOULD be available to everybody) then how should it be funded and
who should say what will be taught?

2. Is Education a right or a privilege?

I spent some time in the Himalayas. In the Nepalese village where I lived,
children received tuition until the age of 8. It was intended to ensure that
they could do the three "R"s (Reading, Writing, and 'Rithmetic), and this
was so that their culture would be maintained. There was no religious
instruction in school and that was left to the parents. Any kids who were
bright and had dreams of a future (or whose parents did) tried to learn
English, as that was the "official" language and meant they could apply for
a government job. Children as young as two or three were involved in working
with their parents and made to feel like they were contributing. There was a
very tight sense of community and the people were generally supportive,
happy, and peaceable. (I really enjoyed living there and was happy to
contribute with others to community projects.)

BUT, once the kids are eight, the Government can no longer afford to educate
them so it is over to the parents. It costs around $300 a year for a child
to get higher schooling. While this may be a good night out with friends
for us, to them, that is a very large sum of money and most cannot afford
it.

I had a discussion with a couple of young ladies (7 and 8) back home in NZ,
when they were fed up with school and resisting attending. I told them there
were places in the world where children would give anything to go to school
and they should think about that.

Is it a right, is it a privilege?

I honestly don't know.

But I DO know there is no hope for any kind of future without it.

Pete.

[SkippyPB]

On 12 May 2013 18:46:41 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill

Really? I guess you missed that class in school. I suggest you read
the 10th and 14th Amendments or this web site:

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/federal.html

And as I said before, every state has something in their constituions
about providing for a public education.

I didn't say they discriminate. I just said they don't except
everyone like Public Schools do. For example, read this about
Arizona's Charter School addmission criteria:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/00184.htm

>> and many local
>> authorities ban them or severely limit what they can do.
>
>And you don't think that might be because they take money out of
>their control giving them much less to squander. It certainly
>isn't because the students are receiving a poorer education.
>The only bad example of charter schools I have seen is the recent
>swell of "online charter schools" which are run by the state and
>seem more interested in luring people by offering trinkets (more
>squandered money) than in demonstrating any educational advantage
>over the normal public school systems.
>
>> Most do not
>> offer lunch programs or transportation of any kind which also limits
>> who can attend them.
>
>Not the governments business. Nothing in the constitution about free
>rides or free meals. By the way, when I was growing up I walked to
>school, all 12 years. And I either paid for my lunch or brown bagged it.
>And no one thought that in any way strange. Welcome to the world of
>the entitlement mentality.
>

Not the governments business? Clearly you are either delusional or
lving in the 18th century or one of those Romney peopole who say I've
got mine, the hell with you. The US is supposed to be the greatest
country in the world because we do care for all of our citizens and we
go out of our way to make opportunites for everyone. I would debate
parts of that as I've lived in a couple of foreign countries that took
better care of their citizens than the US does, but that is the goal
of the US. It is the governments' business to have educated people.
If that involves lunch programs and bus programs, so be it. The
courts have said so.

>>
>>
>>>> So what are you left with?
>>>
>>>As with pretty much everything else, if the government kept its
>>>nose out and didn't use unfair trade practices to bolster a corrupt
>>>and useless system competitive (and cheaper) alternatives would exist.
>>>
>>>> Their are many public
>>>> schools that are very good. Unfortunately there are many that are
>>>> not. The Federal government can set standards and provide some
>>>> funding but it is up to each individual state to execute their public
>>>> education initiatives. Some states are pretty good at it, others not
>>>> so much.
>>>
>>>Which still sidesteps the issue of why the government, federal, state
>>>or local should be involved int he first place.
>>>

See previous statements about State constitutions. You are just flat
out wrong on this point.

>>>> I went to Catholic schools until college. Don't regret it
>>>> at all. I got a most excellent education.
>>>
>>>So did I and my parents were poor. Both my father and mother worked
>>>to support us. I owned a car before my father did. And yet, they
>>>were able to afford it. For four of us. College I paid for myself.
>>>No state schools, no scholarships, no grants, no tax money.
>>>
>>
>> My parents were also poor. They paid for my schooling in grades 1-8
>> and I worked and paid for my high school. College was funded through
>> the GI Bill and a grant for one summer session.
>
>So if paying your own way was good enough for you and me, why is it
>suddenly someone else's responsibility for this generation?
>

Because it wasn't fun for me. Because I actually care about other
people's well being. Because I think it is right to help the under
privileged. Becuase it is sad to see so many stupid people (see every
realty TV show ever done) and education is one way to cure that. It
is sad there isn't more emphasis on this as American kids are lagging
behind European and Asian kids in math and sciences. It shouldn't be
that way.

>>
>>>> My only knock on public
>>>> schools is how they are funded. Here in the state of Ohio property
>>>> owners pay a levy which goes to the local school board. My area did
>>>> veto about 4 levies in a row but passed it on the 5th. It is an
>>>> unfair way to fund schools but no one has come up with anything
>>>> better.
>>>
>>>There is one obvious system that is better. Get government out of
>>>everything bu government. But, becasue that would involve getting
>>>people to legislate their own jobs away, it is a real uphill battle.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Get government out of it and there'd be more poor school systems like
>> those in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and others.
>
>Those are public schools.
>

And that's what I'm talking about.

>> Those are bad
>> enough with state and federal government legislation.
>
>And there is no evidence that private would be as bad or worse and
>considerable evidence that they would be much better. Even inner-city
>schools in places like Baltimore and NYC have seen improvements when
>privatized.
>
>bill

I'm certainly not against private schools. They have their place,
they fill a need but they don't by their very nature include everyone.
Publc Schools should be cloer in quality to private schools.

Regards,
--

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

Bumper Sticker: Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Charles Hottel]

"SkippyPB" <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jc02p89bhcgb621tt...@4ax.com...

> On 12 May 2013 18:46:41 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill
> Gunshannon) wrote:

<snip>

Those are bad
>>> enough with state and federal government legislation.
>>
>>And there is no evidence that private would be as bad or worse and
>>considerable evidence that they would be much better. Even inner-city
>>schools in places like Baltimore and NYC have seen improvements when
>>privatized.
>>
>>bill

<snip>

I do not see how private schools are the answer. I do not want to single
out Catholic schools, but I mention them simply because I know a little
something about them, because my wife is Catholic. Her church had to close
their school because of not enough enrollment and therefore not enough
money. Church members want to sent their kids to church school but they
cannot afford it. This is happening all over our area and I believe all
over the USA. I do not know if an extra $200,000 would have been enough to
keep the school open or not, but they did raise and spend that much to
renovate the church with some essentials plus some expensive art work and a
$30,000 statue of the Virgin Mary. I see this spending as misplaced
priorities, but I am not Catholic, and if I were I might have different
values and perhaps see it differently.

If all schools were private less people would be getting an education and
that would hardly result in the people around us being less dumb. Most
church related schools that I know about indoctrinate people in religion.
The public schools that I went to did not seem to have ant particular
positions that they were pushing, unless you consider teaching evolution
indoctrination.

[Robert Wessel]

On 12 May 2013 18:46:41 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill

Certainly private schools, as have existed forever in the U.S., tend
to provide better results.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of charter schools, which are
intended to directly replace traditional public schools. Statistically
(and there have now been several fairly broad surveys) their
(educational) results are not meaningfully different than their
surrounding public districts. They are, however, quite a bit more
expensive. Replacing a mediocre, but inexpensive, government run
school with a mediocre, but expensive, private one, is not a net gain
for society.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <BpOdnffP6cfbvQzM...@earthlink.com>,

"Charles Hottel" <cho...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "SkippyPB" <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jc02p89bhcgb621tt...@4ax.com...
>> On 12 May 2013 18:46:41 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill
>> Gunshannon) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Those are bad
>>>> enough with state and federal government legislation.
>>>
>>>And there is no evidence that private would be as bad or worse and
>>>considerable evidence that they would be much better. Even inner-city
>>>schools in places like Baltimore and NYC have seen improvements when
>>>privatized.
>>>
>>>bill
>
> <snip>
>
> I do not see how private schools are the answer. I do not want to single
> out Catholic schools, but I mention them simply because I know a little
> something about them, because my wife is Catholic. Her church had to close
> their school because of not enough enrollment and therefore not enough
> money. Church members want to sent their kids to church school but they
> cannot afford it. This is happening all over our area and I believe all

And, why do you think that is? Do you think the fact that Catholics
who choose that option have to pay double? They have to pay not only
for their children's education but also to educate people in things that
are totally contrary to their beliefs. There are other reason, as well,
but they are a bit more complex and unique to being Catholic.

> over the USA. I do not know if an extra $200,000 would have been enough to
> keep the school open or not, but they did raise and spend that much to
> renovate the church with some essentials plus some expensive art work and a
> $30,000 statue of the Virgin Mary. I see this spending as misplaced
> priorities, but I am not Catholic, and if I were I might have different
> values and perhaps see it differently.

Things are a bit different here. They are closing all the schools
(another just closed the end of this term). But they are not using
the money to fix up churches, they are closing them, too. Usually
based on flimsy and inaccurate basis. (The Church I gre up in was
closed a couple years go. Reason given was that the cost ofu repair,
modernization and bringing the building up to some unspecified "code"
was more than could be afforded. So they sold it. Today it is ---
A Church. Some previously non-existant body of non-Catholic Christians
had no problem accomplishing what the Diocese could not. And, if
you think about it, closing all these schools and churches is a self
fulfilling prophecy. "We do this because attendance is dwindling
and the more we do this the more attendence dwindles.")

>
> If all schools were private less people would be getting an education and
> that would hardly result in the people around us being less dumb.

I do not agree. The people who actually want to be educated will get a
much better product and the people who do not want to be educated can
have their wish. And won't have the opportunity to diminsh the education
of the real students.

> Most
> church related schools that I know about indoctrinate people in religion.

Catholic schools have never done that.And they do accept non-Catholics.
My daughter had two babtists in here grade school with here and when
it was time for religion classes they had a study hall in the library.

> The public schools that I went to did not seem to have ant particular
> positions that they were pushing, unless you consider teaching evolution
> indoctrination.

hing liberal agendas down the throats of impressionable children is
definitely indoctrination.

[Pete Dashwood]

SkippyPB wrote:
> On 12 May 2013 18:46:41 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill
> Gunshannon) wrote:
>
>> In article <34ivo819f91vihmhs...@4ax.com>,
>> SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
>>> On 10 May 2013 19:19:49 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill
>>> Gunshannon) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <40fqo81rkoua8np05...@4ax.com>,
>>>> SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
>>>>> On 10 May 2013 12:36:33 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill
>>>>> Gunshannon) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <av2teg...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>> "Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>>>>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <av08qb...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>> "Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>>>>>>>>> Alistair Maclean wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> So if paying your own way was good enough for you and me, why is it
>> suddenly someone else's responsibility for this generation?
>>
>
> Because it wasn't fun for me. Because I actually care about other
> people's well being. Because I think it is right to help the under
> privileged. Becuase it is sad to see so many stupid people (see every
> realty TV show ever done) and education is one way to cure that. It
> is sad there isn't more emphasis on this as American kids are lagging
> behind European and Asian kids in math and sciences. It shouldn't be
> that way.
>
>

A heartfelt statement. I empathise, but I'm not sure that Education cures
"stupidity". I think the "stupidity" you are referring to (and I agree it is
quite appalling if you watch some of the Reality shows) is more connected
with behaviour than with intelligence.

You can't really expect schools to modify behaviour (although the good
schools certainly try). You might as well abnegate all responsibility for
your children and just put them in school until they are 16. (The Victorians
did something pretty close to this in England and ended up losing an Empire
that took hundreds of years to build - perhaps it isn't fair to blame the
boarding school system, which also produced some very fine people, but it
can be argued that without the nurture of a family at an early age, and
forcing harsh discipline onto young children, with a compelling pressure to
conform to an expected norm, the end result may have been a less than
sympathetic Colonial power which was doomed to fail.) By the Twentieth
century there was a backswing against the Victorian concept of things
"British" (even in Britain) and the de-construction of the Class and
Privilege system began.

During 30 years in Europe (much of it in the UK and right through the
Thatcher years) I saw the process taking place. Gradually more and more
managers were being appointed on merit and not on the tie they wore or the
Club their father belonged to. I saw some of the "chinless wonders" and
"upper class twits" being removed and was glad of it. I wouldn't claim that
modern Britain is a classless society, but it is much less so than it was 50
years ago, and at least Class is no longer a barrier to people improving
their station.

People who have children have a responsibility for them. While it is fair
(although I wouldn't do it) to expect the school system to educate them, I
don't think it is fair to expect the same system to instill values and model
behaviour; that has to be a parental responsibility.


<snip>>

> I'm certainly not against private schools. They have their place,
> they fill a need but they don't by their very nature include everyone.
> Publc Schools should be cloer in quality to private schools.

In some countries (not the USA) a Public School is a school where people pay
fees to attend, so it is what you mean by a private school. Perhaps the
discussion could be clearer (especially for the non-Americans) if we agree
to define "public school" as one where no fees are paid, and "private
school" as one where fees are paid?

The perception is that private schools generally produce better results than
public schools.

Having attended both, I can tell you that isn't always the case.

There are some really excellent public schools.

In the final analysis, it comes down to the quality of the teachers, the
leadership of the Headmaster, and the emphasis the school places on both
scholastic and sporting achievement. I remember being coached for Rugby by
an ex-All Black, and that was at a public school. I remember being taught
Chemistry and Physics by an award winning scientist, and that was at a
public school. I learned French from a Parisian Professor who was teaching
at a public school. Private Education does not guarantee or have a monopoly
on the best teachers. However, at least with a private school, parents can
demand their money back... :-) (I'd really like to see that...)

Pete
--

[Charles Hottel]

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:avdciu...@mid.individual.net...

I attended the School of Engineering at the University of Michigan for two
years and paid one of the highest out of state tuition's in the U.S. The
teaching there was the worst of any college that I have attended. There
were classes taught by graduate students whose English and communication
skills were terrible. One class was taught by a visiting professor who
spoke no English , only Russian. I had to drop that class.

One class in Differential Equations was taught by a professor who had a
great reputation but was pissed off because he was having to teach an
undergraduate class. He would write a matrix of numbers on the board and if
you arrived in class just after that you could not read what he wrote. The
class notes were being written by two professors who were my advisors, and
by the middle of the class the notes stopped coming. So each week the
professor taught different topics out of different books. It got so bad
that the professor finally told us that anyone who showed up for the final
exam and signed their name would get at least a grade of C even if they
could not work any of the test problems. Not so great for those who really
wanted to learn the subject.

I took an Advanced Dynamics class where I and one other student were the
only undergraduates. We had taken the required prerequistes of two classes
while all of the other students had taken many other related classes as they
were all going for a Masters Degree in Dynamics and for them this was a
required course.

I took a mathematics class in Matrices and had a 94% average yet they gave
me a B. For many classes they would ask you what you major was. If you
major was in another subject i.e. if the class was an elective for you, you
could not get an A even with a 100% average. They only gave A's to students
majoring in that field of study. The class sizes were very large. Several
classes had 700 to 1000 students and the lecturer had to wear a microphone.
There were smaller study sessions taught by graduate students.

So why did that school have such a great reputation? I believe it was
because the students attending it were extremely smart, hardworking and
were able to overcome the effects of bad teaching. This is the only school
I attended where I felt that I was only an "average" student. At John's
Hopkins University I might also have been considered average but I believe
my years of computer programming experience and self-study compensated for
this and I did not feel average at that school.

Some of the best teaching I encountered was at a small church related
college. The class sizes were small as the whole college was smaller than
my high school. It was easy to obtain extra help from the teachers and the
quality of the teaching was very high. They all had PhD's and were highly
knowledgeable and experienced.

[Pete Dashwood]

I think you put your finger on a really important point here, Charlie. It is
how you FELT about being at that school. At Johns Hopkins you were not
intimidated because you had experience and had done a lot of extra work. As
a consequence you FELT you were capable.

A GOOD school makes you feel like you can succeed; a BAD school makes you
feel like it is all a pointless waste of time. And the GOOD or BAD is not
dependent on whether it is private or public.

Pete.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <KYOdnQZ9u9mEKAzM...@earthlink.com>,

"Charles Hottel" <cho...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> I attended the School of Engineering at the University of Michigan for two
> years and paid one of the highest out of state tuition's in the U.S. The
> teaching there was the worst of any college that I have attended. There
> were classes taught by graduate students whose English and communication
> skills were terrible. One class was taught by a visiting professor who
> spoke no English , only Russian. I had to drop that class.
>

And my first college experience was at Penn State. I had a Trig teacher
who went to the blackboard with chalk in one hand and an eraser in the
other. She erased what she wrote as she went along so you had about two
feet of information you had to try to copy while also listening to what
she said. Oh, yeah, and she had no office hours. If you didn't get it
in the classroom, tough. (the only class I have ever failed in my life!)

And what is significant about this? These are both public schools.
I worked at a private college for over 20 years. We have had grad
students teach who's english was marginal but once discovered they
don't get put in the classroom again. And every professor I have
ever worked with there (as both a student and a staff member) has
gone out of their way to be available at the students convenience
whenever necessary.

Tell me again how public is so much better than private. Simple
economics denies this. Private schools rely on the satisfaction
of their customers (the student) to make the money needed to survive
in a cut-throat business. Public schools get funded from the wallets
of taxpayers no matter how bad they do. I have never seen a public
school shutdown for non-performance.

[Charles Hottel]

"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:aveo04...@mid.individual.net...

> In article <KYOdnQZ9u9mEKAzM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Charles Hottel" <cho...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> I attended the School of Engineering at the University of Michigan for
>> two
>> years and paid one of the highest out of state tuition's in the U.S. The
>> teaching there was the worst of any college that I have attended. There
>> were classes taught by graduate students whose English and communication
>> skills were terrible. One class was taught by a visiting professor who
>> spoke no English , only Russian. I had to drop that class.
>>
>
> And my first college experience was at Penn State. I had a Trig teacher
> who went to the blackboard with chalk in one hand and an eraser in the
> other. She erased what she wrote as she went along so you had about two
> feet of information you had to try to copy while also listening to what
> she said. Oh, yeah, and she had no office hours. If you didn't get it
> in the classroom, tough. (the only class I have ever failed in my life!)
>

<snip>

One guy at Michigan copied his notes on to the board while reading them
aloud to us. His back was to us most of the time. Computers were so new
back then that there were very few books availble for the computer classes,
so it was all based on notes or on manuals. I remember the textbook for an
assemble class was "Principles of Operations".

At one time I took a couple of classes at George Washington University as I
was considering going there for my Masters. The guy did not know some
topics very well and his lecture for those parts consided of reading to us
from a book. I found it ironic that his Phd degree was was in Education.

I think the things that I have described can happen in public or private
colleges.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <U5udnXP9NuEyqg_M...@earthlink.com>,

Yes, they can. The difference is ECON 101. In the private college
(or any level school) you fix the problem or yout enrollments go down,
you loose money and eventually cease to exist. In the public college
(or any level school) it doesn't matter. If enrollments go down the
funding stays the same or they just increase taxes and pour more money
into the black hole. When your future or paycheck is not determined
by your performance, why would you put in any more than the minimum
effort.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <av47ik...@mid.individual.net>,

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <kmgsc0$7cd$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> docd...@panix.com () writes:
>> In article <av1nk2...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of public education
>>>which is why I am 100% against it.
>>
>> In other news a letter has been leaked by the Danbury Baptist Association
>> from President Thomas Jefferson which refers to '... a wall of separation
>> between Church and State.'
>>
>
>Are you somehow implying that the only alternative to public
>education is religious education?

No.

[snip]

>Government should be in the business of governing, nothing else.

Please try to keep this sort of Confucian 'rectification of names' away
from anything that has to do with my government.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <av47uh...@mid.individual.net>,

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>On top of which, like Doc, you seem to assume the only
>alternative to government education is religious education.

Mr Gunshannon, is it your habit to ask a question and draw your conclusion
before a reply is given?

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <34ivo819f91vihmhs...@4ax.com>,
SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Get government out of it and there'd be more poor school systems like
>those in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and others.

Decades on back a youngster wrote a song which said that in Mississippi
the calendar tells lies when it shows the 'present time'. This may not be
factual but the imagery is stunning.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <avaupc...@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>2. Is Education a right or a privilege?

Education is similar to health. As much as it does anybody good to live
with sick folks it does them good to live with uneducated ones.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <av483v...@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <kmgsti$7cd$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> docd...@panix.com () writes:

[snip]

>>
>> So... who was that young fellow who could make love on the back of a
>> running horse and why did he leave me such a drecrepit body?
>
>Don't look at me, I ride alone.

Some say that makes the eyes weak.

DD

[SkippyPB]

Yes here in the USA a private school is one where fees are paid and a
public school is free though not totally. Depending on school
district you might have to pay for transportation or to partake in
extra-curricular activities.


I saw first hand in Thailand what the difference between private and
public schools can be. My adopted daughter attended Thai school (she
is/was native Thai) for her first three years. On weekends I sent her
to a small private school to learn English. Once she had progressed
well there, I had her apply to an International School which was all
taught in English. She passed her entrance exam just fine but had to
take 3rd grade over again because Thai public school wasn't up to par
with the International school.

>The perception is that private schools generally produce better results than
>public schools.
>
>Having attended both, I can tell you that isn't always the case.
>
>There are some really excellent public schools.
>
>In the final analysis, it comes down to the quality of the teachers, the
>leadership of the Headmaster, and the emphasis the school places on both
>scholastic and sporting achievement. I remember being coached for Rugby by
>an ex-All Black, and that was at a public school. I remember being taught
>Chemistry and Physics by an award winning scientist, and that was at a
>public school. I learned French from a Parisian Professor who was teaching
>at a public school. Private Education does not guarantee or have a monopoly
>on the best teachers. However, at least with a private school, parents can
>demand their money back... :-) (I'd really like to see that...)
>
>Pete

[SkippyPB]

I took my computer tech courses at Purdue. We had a regular text book
for IBM Assembler but also had to have Principles of Operations for
360. I took an I/O Supervior class where the text book was the I/O
Supervior manual from IBM. Also recall taking a couple of mini
computer courses where the labs were run on PDP-11s and the manuals
for the assembler and fortran were the PDP manuals.

Certainly made reading and using IBM manuals in the workplace a lot
easier.

>At one time I took a couple of classes at George Washington University as I
>was considering going there for my Masters. The guy did not know some
>topics very well and his lecture for those parts consided of reading to us
>from a book. I found it ironic that his Phd degree was was in Education.
>
>I think the things that I have described can happen in public or private
>colleges.
>

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <ava6ch...@mid.individual.net>,

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <34ivo819f91vihmhs...@4ax.com>,
> SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:

[snip]

>> It is more than "public good" and as I provided in an earlier post, is
>> in every state's constitution.
>
>What gave them the right to put it there?

The same things that grant a right to any institution: precedent, practise
and current law.

A given opinion may be contrary to these. When a given opinion runs
counter to precedent, practise and current law it rarely accomplishes
much.

DD

[Alistair Maclean]

rumbs, this is going to be difficult to answer with all the unstructured indents in the google mashup butsee below:

Some bloke wrote:
> It is sad there isn't more emphasis on this as American
> kids are lagging behind European and Asian kids in math
> and sciences.

That's probably as a result, in part, of certain religious meddling in your schools (see Kansas and Texas especially).

> You might as well abnegate all responsibility for your
> children and just put them in school until they are 16.
> (The Victorians did something pretty close to this in
> England and ended up losing an Empire that took hundreds of
> years to build - perhaps it isn't fair to blame the
> boarding school system, which also produced some very fine
> people

I think the loss of the empire can more directly be laid at the door of fighting two expensive world wars and finally being impoverished by the lend-lease indebtitude. Our colonies would have seen the fact of their rescueing GB from defeat as a sign that the British colonial umbrella was no longer fit for purpose and that they need no longer be party to a one-sided agreement.

> but it can be argued that without the nurture of a family
> at an early age, and forcing harsh discipline onto young
> children, with a compelling pressure to conform to an
> expected norm, the end result may have been a less than
> sympathetic Colonial power which was doomed to fail.) By
> the Twentieth century there was a backswing against the
> Victorian concept of things "British" (even in Britain) and
> the de-construction of the Class and Privilege system
> began.

That sounds like the end of the Great War being the driving force behind societal change which would see working-class chaps no longer prepared to doff their caps to the knobs. Nothing to do with Victoria or boarding-schools.

> During 30 years in Europe (much of it in the UK and right
> through the Thatcher years) I saw the process taking place.
> Gradually more and more managers were being appointed on
> merit and not on the tie they wore or the Club their father
> belonged to.

And now they are resurgent with the old-boys network populating the government. I did not notice Thatcher's Britain kicking out the toffs in favour of the meritocracy but I did see a new class of talentless scum rise to the surface.

> I saw some of the "chinless wonders" and "upper class
> twits" being removed and was glad of it. I wouldn't claim
> that modern Britain is a classless society,

We've revamped the class system and now have 7 new classes; see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

to test which class you belong to. Warning: if you know any lorry drivers (as I do) you will drop two social classes!

> but it is much
> less so than it was 50 years ago, and at least Class is no > longer a barrier to people improving their station.

Except in politics where you need to be very public school.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 04:53:12 UTC+1, Charles Hottel wrote:
> I attended the School of Engineering at the University of
> Michigan for two years and paid one of the highest out of
> state tuition's in the U.S. The teaching there was the
> worst of any college that I have attended. There were
> classes taught by graduate students whose English and
> communication skills were terrible.

Been there too. A Chilean who pronounced lay-er as ly-er. Very confusing in Oceanography.

One class in Computer Programming was taught by a professor in Computing and Law who could not program and knew no Fortran, even though that was the language to be taught!

[Pete Dashwood]

The problem with this is the generalization. Even in America there HAVE to
be SOME good public schools...

Education cannot be allowed to become just about money.

As for not getting shut down, I imagine there is a legal requirement for a
school to service a certain area?

I don't know about the US, but here we have a system of school inspections
with school Inspectors who check at least once a year that proper standards
are being maintained.in public schools.

Pete.

[Pete Dashwood]

Because you actually care about it, maybe?

Dunno, but it works for me. I very often surprise people by doing things
they expect me to charge them for, for free. It isn't because I am a
generous altruistic Saint (Well, OK, that too... a little bit :-)) but
because I care about computer stuff and I hate to see people failing at it.

I have been pressed to add Testimonials to the new PRIMA Web Site (normally
I don't think they mean much, especially if they have been solicited; these
ones haven't) and there is one case where a company actually asked us to
charge them for the solution I devised. We didn't.

If you get to a point in any field of endeavour, Education, Computing, or
playing Tiddly Winks, where you are ONLY doing it for money, then you have
sentenced yourself to a tired, unsatisfying, cynical life.

Pete.

[Pete Dashwood]

The skill required to teach something is not quite the same as the skill
required to actually do it, hence the old saying: "Those who can, do, those
who can't, teach." Certainly, it is more desirable if the person teaching
you say, survival skills, has actually spent many years in the wilderness
surviving, but it isn't entirely essential. The essence of teaching is
motivation and if you can get people fired up to find out, they will in
effect, teach themselves.

I once had to teach a course in negotiation and conflict resolution, which I
didn't really know much about. (Like most people I figured "street smarts"
would be enough; nobody thinks they are not a good negotiator...) By the
time it finished all of us knew far more about it than when we started, and
I was so moved by what I had learned that I went on to do formal study in it
and get certified. Surprisingly, good negotiation is NOT about ripping off
the other guy, but I'll leave you to do your own research if it interests
you.

Pete.

[Pete Dashwood]

I take no issue with anything you said, Alistair, and I agree that the
History of the decline of the British Empire is complex and a result of many
factors. All I was saying is that Education was probably a contributing one
because of the kind of people that particular system produced, generally.
They were the children of privilege and they looked down on anyone who
wasn't.

I note you agree that class is no longer a barrier to people improving
themselves "except in Politics".

Do you have any idea how many current British MPs did NOT attend a British
Public School?

Pete.

[Pete Dashwood]

I'd certainly agree that if the population is educated, that makes life in
it a lot easier, but it still doesn't answer the question...

Pete.
--

[Pete Dashwood]

Father (catchingh son masturbating): "If you keep doing that, you'll go
blind."

Kid:"OK, can I do it 'til I have to wear glasses?"

[Charles Hottel]

"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message

news:avesnt...@mid.individual.net...

A major problem with the private college approach is simply the cost. I
attended Johns Hopkins University fot 5 years. At the start the cost was
$500 for a 3 hour cost and at the end it was $1500. If I wanted to go there
today I could no longer afford it.

[Charles Hottel]

"SkippyPB" <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message

news:pil4p8pbk1hcgjlfv...@4ax.com...

At Johns Hopkins I took a PDP-11 assembler class only they no longer had a
PDP-11 computer so we could not do any hands on testing. I did not like
that approach. as you couls not tell if your programs really worked.

Actually that was the exception at JHU as all my other classes were very
practical. We had lots of class projects but I did not have to write a
dissertation. I was never on the main campus as I took all my classes at
The JHU Applied Physics lab. Most of the instructors had Phds but some did
not. All of them were very experienced in practical matters of their
subject. I liked that better than the pure theoretical approach.

[Arnold Trembley]

On 5/14/2013 6:47 PM, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> (snip)

>
> The problem with this is the generalization. Even in America there HAVE to
> be SOME good public schools...

Yes, there are lots of good, free, public schools in the USA, but the
only way you can get into them is to choose parents who can afford to
live in those school districts.

>
> Education cannot be allowed to become just about money.
>
> As for not getting shut down, I imagine there is a legal requirement for a
> school to service a certain area?

There is generally a legal requirement to attend school until a certain
age, usually 16. Public schools in the USA are usually financed by
local property taxes, and the school district boundaries more or less
correspond to municipal or county boundaries. If you want to send your
children to a private school or parochial school you are free to do so,
but you must pay private school tuition and still pay property taxes to
the local school district, even if you don't use it.

If your local school district is bad, the alternatives are usually too
expensive.

>
> I don't know about the US, but here we have a system of school inspections
> with school Inspectors who check at least once a year that proper standards
> are being maintained.in public schools.
>
> Pete.
>

In the USA it's called accreditation. In the Saint Louis area, where I
live, there are some very good school districts and some that are so bad
they have lost their accreditation. But the students in those districts
cannot transfer to another school system. The only competing options
are private schools, home schooling, or becoming a resident of a
different school district.

Reforming the bad school districts has been tried many times, but with
very limited success.




--
http://www.arnoldtrembley.com/

[Alistair Maclean]

On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 01:07:12 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:

> Alistair Maclean wrote:
> > One class in Computer Programming was taught by a professor in
> Computing and Law who could not program and knew no Fortran, even
> though that was the language to be taught!

PECD wrote:
> The skill required to teach something is not quite
> the same as the skill required to actually do it,
> hence the old saying: "Those who can, do, those who
> can't, teach."

The original phrase was "Those who can do, those who can't criticise". But enough about that.

> The essence of teaching is motivation and if you can
> get people fired up to find out, they will in effect,
> teach themselves.

The students on the Fortran course were severely demotivated when we realised that the professor (UK professor not US professor; I believe they are not the same level) did not have the requisite knowledge to teach. Neither did the PhD student who substituted for him but at least the PhD student knew enough about programming and algorithms to point us in the right directions.

[Alistair Maclean]

On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 01:17:25 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:

> All I was saying is that Education was probably a
> contributing one because of the kind of people that
> particular system produced, generally. They were the
> children of privilege and they looked down on anyone who
> wasn't.

They probably still do.

> I note you agree that class is no longer a barrier to
> people improving themselves "except in Politics". Do you
> have any idea how many current British MPs did NOT attend
> a British Public School?

No, but the current cabinet has been heavily criticised for being Old Etonian and unrepresentative of the electorate by the newspapers.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <Yp-dnUfpJMOglQ7M...@earthlink.com>,

And the major problem with the public school approach is people who
are not attending and getting nothing out of it are forced to pay
the bill.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <avg2l2...@mid.individual.net>,

Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <avaupc...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 2. Is Education a right or a privilege?
>>
>> Education is similar to health. As much as it does anybody good to
>> live with sick folks it does them good to live with uneducated ones.
>>
>I'd certainly agree that if the population is educated, that makes life in
>it a lot easier, but it still doesn't answer the question...

It answers the question quite nicely, Mr Dashwood, but perhaps a more
succinct reply would have been 'neither'.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <avhd6q...@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>And the major problem with the public school approach is people who
>are not attending and getting nothing out of it are forced to pay
>the bill.

Leaving aside the jaw-dropping nonsense presented by expecting those who
attend public schools from ages 5 - 16 might be 'forced to pay the bill'
the question remains: what benefits are there resulting from living in a
State where fewer people are educated?

DD