OT: What are our schools learning
HeyBub
J. Clarke
hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com says...
>
> Pic
> http://failblog.org/2010/10/05/epic-fail-photos-teacher-fail-3/
I'm reminded of a test question in grad school. I don't recall the
question or the answer, but I do recall that the technique that we were
shown in class gave an incorrect answer. I called the TA on it and he
wouldn't back down. I went by his office in an Armani suit with a
briefcase later and had a discussion with him in which he recognized the
error of his ways. Next class he told everybody that that question had
two answers that he would accept, the _right_ answer and the one that
the erroneous method he had taught yielded.
Bill
> Pic
> http://failblog.org/2010/10/05/epic-fail-photos-teacher-fail-3/
>
>
Ok, here is a variation: John could paint a wall in 3 hours and Tom
could paint the same wall in 4 hours. How long should it take them to
paint the wall together?
This is a standard College Algebra question--a type most of the students
find particularly difficult.
Bill
Ed Pawlowski
"Bill" <Bi...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:i907l...@news7.newsguy.com...
Not enough info. How much beer is involved?
Bill
Gosh, I thought you'd ask, "What if they only had one brush?"! : )
I think if I expressed one time as 3 hours and the other as 4 hours and
15 minutes, then the problem would be regarded as "totally unsolvable"! : )
Bill
Mike Marlow
Particularly difficult??? Come on Bill - that's too easy. It will take 3
hours, because Tom will realize that John can do it in three so, he'll sit
back and drink beer while John gets it done in the shortest time.
Sheese - that was easy...
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Bill
Okay, but no partial credit for the answer "7 hours" (after all, 3 and 4
"together" is 7, no?).
Bill
allen476
There isn't enough information. First we need to know which one the
supervisor is. Then we need to know if it is a union or non-union job.
Allen
Lew Hodgett
"Bill" wrote:
>
> Ok, here is a variation: John could paint a wall in 3 hours and Tom
> could paint the same wall in 4 hours. How long should it take them
> to
> paint the wall together?
>
> This is a standard College Algebra question--a type most of the
> students find particularly difficult.
Indeterminate.
Two independent variables.
One independent equation.
Solution.
One keg of beer and time to contemplate one's navel.
Lew
J. Clarke
sails...@verizon.net says...
Sorry, Lew, but it's not indeterminate.
You're given:
T(j) = time for John to paint the wall = 3 hours/wall
T(t) = time for Tom to paint the wall = 4 hours/wall
You want to find out T(jt) = time for both working together to paint the
wall
So work out the rate at which each paints:
R(j) = 1/T(j) = 1/3 wall/hr
R(t) = 1/T(t) = 1/4 wall/hr
R(jt) = R(j)+R(t) = 1/3 + 1/4 wall/hr = 7/12 wall/hr
T(jt) = 1/R(j,t) = 12/7 hours/wall.
Dave in Texas
"Lew Hodgett" <sails...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4cb4009c$0$23337$c3e8da3$a909...@news.astraweb.com...
That would require some weed.
Dave in Houston
Larry Jaques
wrote:
There's more than enough info there regarding the union possibility.
I.E., there is no union affiliation whatsoever. It takes union guys
more time than specified just to get to the site and unpack their
tools. Work wouldn't even have _started_ in under 4 hours.
--
Ask not what the world needs. Ask what makes you come
alive... then go do it. Because what the world needs
is people who have come alive. -- Howard Thurman
willshak
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
HeyBub
>
> Okay, but no partial credit for the answer "7 hours" (after all, 3
> and 4 "together" is 7, no?).
>
Come on! Seven is closer to the correct answer than "Purple."
That ought to be worth something!
Bill
Maybe it should be outsourced?
Bill
Bill
wall
>
> So work out the rate at which each paints:
>
> R(j) = 1/T(j) = 1/3 wall/hr
> R(t) = 1/T(t) = 1/4 wall/hr
> R(jt) = R(j)+R(t) = 1/3 + 1/4 wall/hr = 7/12 wall/hr
>
> T(jt) = 1/R(j,t) = 12/7 hours/wall.
>
^::star::
This is, of course, correct. The right strategy is to think in terms
of the "rate" walls-per-hour, and then solve for the numbers of hours
necessary to accomplish (i.e. paint) 1 wall. The unusual "units"
associated with the rate is all that makes it seem difficult--but it does!
Bill
Bill
> Bill wrote the following:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> Pic
>>> http://failblog.org/2010/10/05/epic-fail-photos-teacher-fail-3/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, here is a variation: John could paint a wall in 3 hours and Tom
>> could paint the same wall in 4 hours. How long should it take them to
>> paint the wall together?
>>
>> This is a standard College Algebra question--a type most of the
>> students find particularly difficult.
>>
> 1 hour 45 minutes?
That's within 3.6 minutes of the mathematically correct answer, 12/7
hours, so I'd call that correct--couldn't assign full credit without
seeing the "work" though.. : )
Bill (In Indianapolis, IN).
Lew Hodgett
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Sorry, Lew, but it's not indeterminate.
>
> You're given:
>
> T(j) = time for John to paint the wall = 3 hours/wall
> T(t) = time for Tom to paint the wall = 4 hours/wall
>
> You want to find out T(jt) = time for both working together to paint
> the
> wall
>
> So work out the rate at which each paints:
>
> R(j) = 1/T(j) = 1/3 wall/hr
> R(t) = 1/T(t) = 1/4 wall/hr
> R(jt) = R(j)+R(t) = 1/3 + 1/4 wall/hr = 7/12 wall/hr
>
> T(jt) = 1/R(j,t) = 12/7 hours/wall.
------------------------------------
Spent too much time contemplating one's navel and everything
associated with it before pursuing analysis portion.
Speeds up the "fuck it" factor late at night.
Lew
Hoosierpopi
> Pichttp://failblog.org/2010/10/05/epic-fail-photos-teacher-fail-3/
"OT: What are our schools learning "
Wait a second, just who is calling the kettle black?
Shouldn't that read "teaching?"
HeyBub
Mea culpa. You're right. It should have read: "What are our skools
teaching?"
Thanks for the correction.
Robatoy
I thought that was intentional...coming from you.
"We don't need no education."
Dave in Texas
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:5pGdncndCvRXhSrR...@earthlink.com...
You mean they ain't learnin' us much of nuthin ?
Dave in Houston
Leon
"Hoosierpopi" <gooeyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b542ded8-c08a-4ebb...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
No I believe he has it right, the schools are learning nothing and as a
result failing miserably with our kids.
Trying to stay up with the Jones' IMHO is most of the problem. The average
family is taking on too much and both parents have to work to keep afloat.
The baby sitter becomes the school but the parents don't want the schools to
provide any discipline. So instead of dealing with the child as they should
or turning them over to the parent and holding the parent responsible, they
have no one to go to. No hablan ingles.
HeyBub
>
> No I believe he has it right, the schools are learning nothing and as
> a result failing miserably with our kids.
>
> Trying to stay up with the Jones' IMHO is most of the problem. The
> average family is taking on too much and both parents have to work to
> keep afloat. The baby sitter becomes the school but the parents don't
> want the schools to provide any discipline. So instead of dealing
> with the child as they should or turning them over to the parent and
> holding the parent responsible, they have no one to go to. No hablan
> ingles.
Interesting. If the government can hold the parents liable for a child's
truancy, why can't they hold the parents culpable for the child's lack of
learning.
"Your kid gets at least "C"s or YOU go to jail!"
RicodJour
His is actually a special (as in education) case - intentional and
unintentional are the same for him.
R
Leon
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
No, there are going to be kids that fail, that is a fact of life and not all
of the kids have the aptitude to be financially successful. The biddest
advantage any one can give their child is more parent child time and to
insure that the child is not being a disruptive problem at school. If the
school has the backing of the parents the kids will naturally do better.
Dumbing down the system to make sure all kids get the same grades dumbs down
the country. Other countries don't dumb down the system to pass the kids
and third world countries are beginning to whip our asses.
J. Clarke
hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com says...
C is supposed to be average. On a proper grading curve 60 percent of
the class is supposed to get C or above, and 40 percent D or below.
So that's a _really_ good plan you have.
On the other hand if you got it implemented I suspect that when enough
people were jailed you would see the plug pulled on "public education".
Ed Pawlowski
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote
> Dumbing down the system to make sure all kids get the same grades dumbs
> down the country. Other countries don't dumb down the system to pass the
> kids and third world countries are beginning to whip our asses.
>
in learning.
J. Clarke
e...@snetnospam.net says...
I'm curious as to the manner in which "third world countries are
HeyBub
Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation released
their annual "Economic Freedom" rankings.
Since last year, Canada moved ahead of the U.S. (mainly on the weakness of
the U.S. economy rather than the strength of Canada). The United States DOES
remain slightly ahead of Chile.
http://www.heritage.org/index/
RicodJour
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > e...@snetnospam.net says...
>
> >> "Leon" <lcb11...@swbell.dotnet> wrote
> >>> Dumbing down the system to make sure all kids get the same grades
> >>> dumbs down the country. Other countries don't dumb down the system
> >>> to pass the kids and third world countries are beginning to whip
> >>> our asses.
>
> >> Yes, lets spend even more money. We'll show them. First in
> >> spending, tenth in learning.
>
> > I'm curious as to the manner in which "third world countries are
> > beginning to whip our asses".
>
> Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation released
> their annual "Economic Freedom" rankings.
>
> Since last year, Canada moved ahead of the U.S. (mainly on the weakness of
> the U.S. economy rather than the strength of Canada). The United States DOES
> remain slightly ahead of Chile.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/index/
Your ignorance is most entertaining. You would have done better to
have chosen a country other than Chile. I'm not saying you're dumb -
I'm typing it. :)~
R
RicodJour
> "Leon" <lcb11...@swbell.dotnet> wrote> Dumbing down the system to make sure all kids get the same grades dumbs
Total dollar (rupee?) amount is misleading. % of GDP is probably a
bit better, but that is also misleading.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp#
If you look where the US falls in that graph, we're right in there
with the other 'smart' countries.
"When a country values philosophy over plumbing, neither their
philosophy or plumbing will hold water."
I forget who said that, but there's a lot of truth to it.
R
J. Clarke
hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <tZOdnXjmG-cmgyTR...@giganews.com>,
> > e...@snetnospam.net says...
> >>
> >> "Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote
> >>> Dumbing down the system to make sure all kids get the same grades
> >>> dumbs down the country. Other countries don't dumb down the system
> >>> to pass the kids and third world countries are beginning to whip
> >>> our asses.
> >>>
> >> Yes, lets spend even more money. We'll show them. First in
> >> spending, tenth in learning.
> >
> > I'm curious as to the manner in which "third world countries are
> > beginning to whip our asses".
>
> Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation released
> their annual "Economic Freedom" rankings.
Whatever "economic freedom" might be.
> Since last year, Canada moved ahead of the U.S. (mainly on the weakness of
> the U.S. economy rather than the strength of Canada). The United States DOES
> remain slightly ahead of Chile.
Again, depending on what "economic freedom" might be.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/index/
Impressive. I'm sure that some other country beats the US in outhouses
per capita too. Now give us a measure that actually means something.
knuttle
The problem with our schools today is the parents. If the parents do
not create an environment that is conclusive to learning, the child will
not see school as important and will not learn.
The governments (federal,state and local) can double the spending for
education, but it will change nothing.
The one thing that the government schools have gotten right is that
every child has unique abilities and learn rates. HOWEVER it is not the
government that needs to monitor each child to see if they are at the
knowledge level for their age, it is the PARENTS. They see their child
on a one to one basis daily. They should be interacting with the child
to assess the depth of his knowledge of the subjects. They are suppose
to be learning in school. If they do not, the PARENTS should be the one
who are drilling the children to bring them up to the point they should
be.
Schools are not day care centers, but centers of learning. Without the
very active participation of the parents there is no hope for the
American education system.
Larry Blanchard
Couldn't find anything to support that, but we sure look bad compared to
other industrialized countries. See:
<http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/26/education.rankings.reut/
index.html>
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
J. Clarke
keith_...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> On 10/16/2010 9:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 11:40 pm, "Ed Pawlowski"<e...@snetnospam.net> wrote:
> >> "Leon"<lcb11...@swbell.dotnet> wrote> Dumbing down the system to make sure all kids get the same grades dumbs
> >>> down the country. Other countries don't dumb down the system to pass the
> >>> kids and third world countries are beginning to whip our asses.
> >>
> >> Yes, lets spend even more money. We'll show them. First in spending, tenth
> >> in learning.
> >
> > Total dollar (rupee?) amount is misleading. % of GDP is probably a
> > bit better, but that is also misleading.
> > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp#
> > If you look where the US falls in that graph, we're right in there
> > with the other 'smart' countries.
> >
> > "When a country values philosophy over plumbing, neither their
> > philosophy or plumbing will hold water."
> > I forget who said that, but there's a lot of truth to it.
> >
> > R
>
> The problem with our schools today is the parents. If the parents do
> not create an environment that is conclusive to learning, the child will
> not see school as important and will not learn.
No, the problem is that (a) the kids can tell that most teachers are
blithering idiots and (b) the schools are run like prisons, you _have_
to be there whether you want to or not.
> The governments (federal,state and local) can double the spending for
> education, but it will change nothing.
Until they replace the "them as can, do, them as can't, teach, them as
can't teach, administrate" model.
> The one thing that the government schools have gotten right is that
> every child has unique abilities and learn rates.
Where did they get that right? "No child left behind" doesn't recognize
this, it tries to force them all into the same mold.
> HOWEVER it is not the
> government that needs to monitor each child to see if they are at the
> knowledge level for their age, it is the PARENTS.
The PARENTS aren't the ones who are forcing the kids to go to these
worthless schools and waste 12 years of their lives listening to
blithering idiots blather.
> They see their child
> on a one to one basis daily. They should be interacting with the child
> to assess the depth of his knowledge of the subjects.
What is the parent's basis for such assessment? The parents went
through the same schools and got the same blithering blather and the
ones with any sense forgot most of it as soon as they had passed the
test.
> They are suppose
> to be learning in school. If they do not, the PARENTS should be the one
> who are drilling the children to bring them up to the point they should
> be.
Then give the parents the duty of educating their children and provide
some incentive for doing so rather than dragging their children kicking
and screaming into the clutches of the blithering idiots.
> Schools are not day care centers, but centers of learning.
ROF,L. You've never actually attended a public school in the US, have
you?
> Without the
> very active participation of the parents there is no hope for the
> American education system.
If the parents have to teach the kids then why have the schools?
CW
"knuttle" <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i9ckih$lgp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Without the
> very active participation of the parents there is no hope for the American
> education system.
>
>
Guess we're screwed.
Just Wondering
>
> The problem with our schools today is the parents. If the parents do not
> create an environment that is conclusive to learning, the child will not
> see school as important and will not learn.
>
on your part, or the result of a public school education that left you
thinking "conclusive" was the correct word in that context?
If a parent is the only one with the responsibility for educating a
child. you would have a point. That's what happens in home schooling,
and as a result home schooled children on average tend to do better on
standardized tests than their public schooled counterparts.
But if the parents, as most must, depend on the public school system,
the brunt of the problem lies in incompetent teachers, an entrenched
administrative bureaucracy, and in powerful teachers' unions that are
more about protectin their union members' jobs and salaries than in
educating the children. Just about any concerned parent could tell a
horror story about having to cope with those problems when their child
is assigned to a less than competent, concerned teacher.
> The governments (federal,state and local) can double the spending for education, but it will change nothing.
That at least is true, as can be shown by the lack of correlation
between the per-pupil spending in an area and the children's test scores.
Markem
wrote:
Hopefully some will figure a way to continue.
But if your a citizen of the world, you are gonna get screwed.
So grab a beer and some popcorn and watch show.
Cause if you are sitting upon your ass....
Mark
J. Clarke
Oh, I thought that you meant that they were "whipping our asses" in some
way other than paper measures of "education".
Larry Blanchard
> In article <i9cmsj$m7u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, lbl...@fastmail.fm says...
>>
>>
>> Couldn't find anything to support that, but we sure look bad compared
>> to other industrialized countries. See:
>>
>> <http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/26/education.rankings.reut/
>> index.html>
>
> Oh, I thought that you meant that they were "whipping our asses" in some
> way other than paper measures of "education".
Well, assuming we're still talking about industrialized countries, over
80% of people surveyed in western Europe accept the proofs of evolution
compared about 14% who are "sure" in the US. I'd say that's a little
more than a "paper measure" of the quality of education. Or would you
rather believe that Europeans are inherently more intelligent than us?
Of course, if you're one of the 30% of US residents who declare evolution
absolutely false (the other 56% are apparently undecided) don't even
bother answering - we have no basis for discussion.
J. Clarke
>
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:57:31 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > In article <i9cmsj$m7u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, lbl...@fastmail.fm says...
> >>
>
> >>
> >> Couldn't find anything to support that, but we sure look bad compared
> >> to other industrialized countries. See:
> >>
> >> <http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/26/education.rankings.reut/
> >> index.html>
> >
> > Oh, I thought that you meant that they were "whipping our asses" in some
> > way other than paper measures of "education".
>
> Well, assuming we're still talking about industrialized countries, over
> 80% of people surveyed in western Europe accept the proofs of evolution
> compared about 14% who are "sure" in the US. I'd say that's a little
> more than a "paper measure" of the quality of education. Or would you
> rather believe that Europeans are inherently more intelligent than us?
So how does belief or nonbelief in evolution affect the bottom line?
> Of course, if you're one of the 30% of US residents who declare evolution
> absolutely false (the other 56% are apparently undecided) don't even
> bother answering - we have no basis for discussion.
I don't see what the relevance is to the US "falling behind third world
countries". You seem to be focussed on opinions and other such bullshit
as measures of success.
Steve Turner
<snip>
Your computer's clock seems to be about a half-hour off-kilter. All your posts
are coming through "in the past".
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Steve
> ROF,L. You've never actually attended a public school in the US, have you?
One must ask, when did you last visit or have intimate contact with a
school or school system? Your blanket assessment of schools as prisons,
worthless, and full of blithering idiots does not match any I know
personally, though I will grant there are exceptions... and there is
probably a higher percentage of blithering idiots among administration.
Now, I _have_ known some blithering idiots who practiced home
schooling, but most of their offspring would have failed finding
education in public schools.
No, I don't think parents are, or should be responsible for the
item-by-item parts of an education. Parents _must_ provide a
"hospitable" atmosphere for their childrens' education; this begins by
recognizing the value of education and instilling that same recognition
in the student. Parents must support the school's discipline -- by
this, I mean not only following the rules of the school AND offering
respect to both teachers adn classmates, but the discipline of
following course work.
(I'm a fine one to talk here -- there probably wasn't a high school
math homework assignment I handed in on time...)
Really, the true measure of education is learning to think through a
problem and discover a solution, not to be able to recite the
multiplication tables.
"Them as can, do, etc." is generally credited to Mark Twain, who also
is credited with "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
There is a grain of truth in the first saying; it's no absolute, as the
second reveals.
If you must throw out an adage, why not, "Watch one, do one, teach
one," as a better way the learn?
sma...@stny.rr.com
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> >> HeyBub wrote:
> >>> Pic
> >>>http://failblog.org/2010/10/05/epic-fail-photos-teacher-fail-3/
>
> >> Ok, here is a variation: John could paint a wall in 3 hours and Tom
> >> could paint the same wall in 4 hours. How long should it take them to
> >> paint the wall together?
>
> >> This is a standard College Algebra question--a type most of the
> >> students find particularly difficult.
>
> >> Bill
>
> > Particularly difficult??? Come on Bill - that's too easy. It will take 3
> > hours, because Tom will realize that John can do it in three so, he'll sit
> > back and drink beer while John gets it done in the shortest time.
>
> > Sheese - that was easy...
>
> Okay, but no partial credit for the answer "7 hours" (after all, 3 and 4
> "together" is 7, no?).
>
> Bill
nah... thats for 2 walls - the answer is 3 1/2 hours!!!
just kidding
if I has to guess, i'd saw 1 5/7 hours
:)
shelly
Steve
> But if the parents, as most must, depend on the public school system,
> the brunt of the problem lies in incompetent teachers, an entrenched
> administrative bureaucracy, and in powerful teachers' unions that are
> more about protectin their union members' jobs and salaries than in
> educating the children. Just about any concerned parent could tell a
> horror story about having to cope with those problems when their child
> is assigned to a less than competent, concerned teacher.
The bad news gets the press, and there are bad teachers. Those few are
hardly indictative of the whole. In general, the tenured teacher is
there because of devotion to the task of teaching. I heard a statistic
this morning that "most" teachers leave the profession at about four
years on the job. The teacher who's been 30 years in the classroom is
more likely there because she/he _is_ effective, and rewarded by the
success of her/his students' future endeavors.
As a groups, the precentage of "concerned, competent" teachers is
likely to be higher than that of "concerned, competent" parents -- at
least in terms of the parent's ability as an educator (and not just in
school subjects).
Steve
> On the other hand if you got it implemented I suspect that when enough
> people were jailed you would see the plug pulled on "public education".
There are those who are already attempting to "pull the plug" on public
education... much like those who wanted to privatize Social Security
benefits by turning us all into stock market investors.
THAT would have worked out pretty well, wouldn't it?
J. Clarke
bbqb...@swtacobell.net.invalid says...
>
> On 10/16/2010 7:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Your computer's clock seems to be about a half-hour off-kilter. All your posts
> are coming through "in the past".
The camouflage is stuck on "London Police Box" too.
Doug Winterburn
Let me think...
Do I want to invest in the markets (which I did) and be able to retire
comfortably on the earnings of US and foreign corporations?
or
The much larger amount I and my employer "invested" in SS and Medicare
which are returning much less and placing up to $100 trillion of debt on
my children, grand-children and great-grand-children?
Not really a tough choice.
J. Clarke
k2desig...@indy.rr.com says...
>
> On 2010-10-16 16:01:24 -0400, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
>
> > But if the parents, as most must, depend on the public school system,
> > the brunt of the problem lies in incompetent teachers, an entrenched
> > administrative bureaucracy, and in powerful teachers' unions that are
> > more about protectin their union members' jobs and salaries than in
> > educating the children. Just about any concerned parent could tell a
> > horror story about having to cope with those problems when their child
> > is assigned to a less than competent, concerned teacher.
>
> The bad news gets the press, and there are bad teachers. Those few are
> hardly indictative of the whole. In general, the tenured teacher is
> there because of devotion to the task of teaching. I heard a statistic
> this morning that "most" teachers leave the profession at about four
> years on the job.
When someone offers them a real job.
> The teacher who's been 30 years in the classroom is
> more likely there because she/he _is_ effective, and rewarded by the
> success of her/his students' future endeavors.
Or couldn't get a better offer.
> As a groups, the precentage of "concerned, competent" teachers is
> likely to be higher than that of "concerned, competent" parents -- at
> least in terms of the parent's ability as an educator (and not just in
> school subjects).
On what basis do you make this contention?
J. Clarke
k2desig...@indy.rr.com says...
>
> On 2010-10-15 17:26:25 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> said:
>
> > On the other hand if you got it implemented I suspect that when enough
> > people were jailed you would see the plug pulled on "public education".
>
> There are those who are already attempting to "pull the plug" on public
> education...
Who would those be?
> much like those who wanted to privatize Social Security
> benefits by turning us all into stock market investors.
>
> THAT would have worked out pretty well, wouldn't it?
In the long term yes. And it beats the Hell out of the current system
where everything that social security takes in gets loaned to the
government and spent on the promise that the taxpayers will continue to
make the payments on the loan.
HeyBub
>
> Really, the true measure of education is learning to think through a
> problem and discover a solution, not to be able to recite the
> multiplication tables.
Actually, it's both. Here's an example. There's not enough light falling on
the surface of the earth to have ANY possibility of running this country off
of sunbeams. Those who mastered the multiplication tables in the third-grade
can easily determine this to be true; those who did not master these
fundamentals now run the government.
After my first year of law school, I was ranked 18th of 180 freshmen. I went
to my advisor and asked how this could be - I skipped a third of the
classes, didn't open a book until the week before finals, and so on, while
my classmates lived in the library and dreamed in Latin.
"What's your undergraduate background," he asked.
"Uh, I have a Master's in math," I replied.
"Oh, then, you won't have any trouble in law school. You see, the purpose of
law school is not to teach law - that changes every day! The purpose of law
school is to train you to think like a lawyer! Since you already know how to
think logically, deductively, objectively, you won't have any trouble."
"In general, we find that the students who come to us from math, the hard
sciences, and engineering make the best law students. Those who majored in
the soft sciences and business become the average law students. Those who
studied the fine arts, education, and the liberal arts like English or
History, well, they never really make it."
Bottom line: It's the memorization of the multiplication tables that led to
mastering math which in turn guaranteed success in higher endeavors. You
can't build a worthwhile structure on a feel-good foundation.
>
> If you must throw out an adage, why not, "Watch one, do one, teach
> one," as a better way the learn?
Which argues well for the one-room schoolhouse. The older kids teach the
younger ones and the lesson is further imprinted.
HeyBub
Uh, yeah. When I started working the DJIA was about 600. Today, it's over
10,000 (although not as high as it was in the Bush years when I retired).
Bill
> Really, the true measure of education is learning to think through a
> problem and discover a solution, not to be able to recite the
> multiplication tables.
I've liked the following quotation ever since I first read it years ago.
I share it with my students, up to the word "not", when appropriate.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895):
Perhaps the most valuable result of all education is the ability to make
yourself do the thing you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether
you like it or not; it is the first lesson that ought to be learned; and
however early a man's training begins, it is probably the last lesson
that he learns thoroughly.
Bill
Steve
>> The bad news gets the press, and there are bad teachers. Those few are
>> hardly indictative of the whole. In general, the tenured teacher is
>> there because of devotion to the task of teaching. I heard a statistic
>> this morning that "most" teachers leave the profession at about four
>> years on the job.
>
> When someone offers them a real job.
Bullshit.
>
>> The teacher who's been 30 years in the classroom is more likely there
>> because she/he _is_ effective, and rewarded by the success of her/his
>> students' future endeavors.
>
> Or couldn't get a better offer.
Also bullshit.
>
>> As a groups, the precentage of "concerned, competent" teachers is
>> likely to be higher than that of "concerned, competent" parents -- at
>> least in terms of the parent's ability as an educator (and not just in
>> school subjects).
>
> On what basis do you make this contention?
My wife's students' parents.
There is NO job more real or more important than teacher. This applies
more widely than just in the classroom. Unconcered, incompetent, and
just plain uninformed parents teach their children the same inverted
"values."
This also explains the success of "reality" TV, the modern equivelent
of "paying sixpence at the local madhouse to watch the lunatics howl at
the walls.".
Ed Pawlowski
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:b9bceca2-b183-4949...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 15, 11:40 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snetnospam.net> wrote:
>> "Leon" <lcb11...@swbell.dotnet> wrote> Dumbing down the system to make
>> sure all kids get the same grades dumbs
>> > down the country. Other countries don't dumb down the system to pass
>> > the
>> > kids and third world countries are beginning to whip our asses.
>>
>> Yes, lets spend even more money. We'll show them. First in spending,
>> tenth
>> in learning.
>
> Total dollar (rupee?) amount is misleading. % of GDP is probably a
> bit better, but that is also misleading.
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp#
> If you look where the US falls in that graph, we're right in there
> with the other 'smart' countries.
We're at 5.7% while Japan is 3.6%. Check out the scholastic standings.
http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-rankings-by-country/
Who gets the better band for the buck?
Steve
> Uh, yeah. When I started working the DJIA was about 600. Today, it's
> over 10,000 (although not as high as it was in the Bush years when I
> retired).
And that's EXACTLY the point -- if we'd privitized SS accounts in the
stock market during the Bush years, we'd have more retirees today
eating dog food, and it wouldn't be Alpo.
There was out-and-out fraud in the markets following financial
deregulation as poster-boy Bernie Madoff and the now-unrolling
foreclosure crisis amply demonstrate. Those buying housing beyond their
means were complicit, however those greedsters who not only enticed
them but filed phony paperwork enabling the loans did true evil. They
and their kind were lickin' their chops at the prospect of funneling
more dollars into derivitives and other such "solid" investments.
But you pays your money and takes your choice, since, ultimately,
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
I figure I'll be working -- or trying to find work -- until the day I
go toes up.
Ed Pawlowski
"Steve" <k2desig...@indy.rr.com> wrote
>
> There is NO job more real or more important than teacher. This applies
> more widely than just in the classroom. Unconcered, incompetent, and just
> plain uninformed parents teach their children the same inverted "values."
What is sad is that those same attributes apply to many teachers too.
Starting with my Civics teacher (in 1963) that taught us how to work in the
summer at a resort and collect unemployment the rest of the year. The best
way to dodge the draft was to go to school to become a teacher. Those draft
dodgers became teachers and are now the senior administrative staff.
We have a bad combination of poor parents, students and teachers. No one
wants to take responsibility for anything.
Having raised a couple of kids and grandkids, I've had to correct the papers
from too many teachers over the years. There are some great ones, but there
are too many poor ones in the batch.
RicodJour
Right, let's just clone you and be done with it, Einstein. Sheesh.
This is an example of your mental prowess...?
It takes all types to make a world, even the idjits that think that
their background/breeding/whatever is the only viable one. The world
needs artists and poets and philosophers. What this country doesn't
need is any more lawyers. The country is fucked up precisely because
there are too many lawyers that think the way you do, and too many of
them go in for politics.
R
Robatoy
> "Steve" <k2designNILS...@indy.rr.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > There is NO job more real or more important than teacher. This applies
> > more widely than just in the classroom. Unconcered, incompetent, and just
> > plain uninformed parents teach their children the same inverted "values."
>
> What is sad is that those same attributes apply to many teachers too.
> Starting with my Civics teacher (in 1963) that taught us how to work in the
> summer at a resort and collect unemployment the rest of the year. The best
> way to dodge the draft was to go to school to become a teacher. Those draft
There fixed it for you.
Puckdropper at dot
news:09GdndvE77NJ4SfR...@giganews.com:
*snip*
> We have a bad combination of poor parents, students and teachers. No
> one wants to take responsibility for anything.
Parents are essential to the process, and they have to know when to
interfere and when to back off. As people get older, they tend to forget
just what school is like (and how much of a drag it usually is). My
parents let us take care of our business, and only got involved when they
needed to.
Most students don't want to be at school anyway. They're herded like
sheep into classrooms to be bored for 45 minutes at a time. The
knowledge offered is usually very old and usually very repeated, and
there's never any revelation in its disclosure. The hunger for knowledge
is there, but it's never fed. I suspect many students are burned out of
boring learning by the time they reach Sophmore year.
Teachers often forget how to be students by the time they're teachers.
I've never been a teacher, but I've been a student. I can tell you this:
We don't want to be bored with the same old drivel you've taught for the
past 15 years. Sure, your lesson plan is done, and your tests are all
written*, but when was the last time you learned something related to
your field?
"The Office" should have much less power than it does at many schools.
The teachers should have final authority (with veto power from the
principal, of course) as to what students can do. When a kid finally
does get sent to the office, he should be in explaining what happened to
the principal and not sitting in a chair waiting for the "hour" to end.
* The last major update was in 1987, when the teacher switched from hand
written to typed tests. "Washignton" has been misspelled ever since.
*snip*
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
J. Clarke
The Marines get that through one's head in 13 weeks. The schools have
our kids for 12 years.
On the other hand, some things have to be taught by drill and practice.
Reading, writing, and basic arithmetic are fundamental tools--if you
can't do those then your ability to discover solutions is severely
handicapped.
Any course in which the majority of class time is spent with the teacher
standing up at the front of the room regurgitating crap that he or she
read out of a book should be automatically suspect--the kids can read
the book a lot faster than the teacher can recite it.
Larry Jaques
<e...@snetnospam.net> wrote:
>
>"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>news:b9bceca2-b183-4949...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 15, 11:40 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snetnospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Leon" <lcb11...@swbell.dotnet> wrote> Dumbing down the system to make
>>> sure all kids get the same grades dumbs
>>> > down the country. Other countries don't dumb down the system to pass
>>> > the
>>> > kids and third world countries are beginning to whip our asses.
>>>
>>> Yes, lets spend even more money. We'll show them. First in spending,
>>> tenth
>>> in learning.
>>
>> Total dollar (rupee?) amount is misleading. % of GDP is probably a
>> bit better, but that is also misleading.
>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp#
>> If you look where the US falls in that graph, we're right in there
>> with the other 'smart' countries.
Hey, the USA is right there next to Elbonia!
>We're at 5.7% while Japan is 3.6%. Check out the scholastic standings.
>http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-rankings-by-country/
>Who gets the better band for the buck?
Singapore's #1. I guess caning does help after all.
BTW, how much do "real online degrees" cost? <wink>
--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
A lot. State schools are teaching classes online, too. The tuition is the
same as those with a real classroom.
Bill
> Any course in which the majority of class time is spent with the teacher
> standing up at the front of the room regurgitating crap that he or she
> read out of a book should be automatically suspect--the kids can read
> the book a lot faster than the teacher can recite it.
>
Some of the college kids tell me it will be a lot faster if I just "show
them how to do it". I tell them at the beginning of the course that one
of my main goals is to make myself obsolete--so that don't need me
around when they get stuck.
There have been various academic swings over the years, but I think it's
fair to say that most educators are taking their mission seriously. I
think failure is more related to social issues than on teachers not
trying to teach.
Bill
Larry Blanchard
> Any course in which the majority of class time is spent with the teacher
> standing up at the front of the room regurgitating crap that he or she
> read out of a book should be automatically suspect--the kids can read
> the book a lot faster than the teacher can recite it.
Hey! We agree on something!
Larry Blanchard
> But you pays your money and takes your choice, since, ultimately, Social
> Security is a Ponzi scheme.
That's the least of the problems. *All* of our economy is a Ponzi scheme
depending on an ever growing population. Consider what a static
population would do to the demand for housing, transportation, and
durable goods.
J. Clarke
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Any course in which the majority of class time is spent with the teacher
> > standing up at the front of the room regurgitating crap that he or she
> > read out of a book should be automatically suspect--the kids can read
> > the book a lot faster than the teacher can recite it.
> >
>
> Some of the college kids tell me it will be a lot faster if I just "show
> them how to do it". I tell them at the beginning of the course that one
> of my main goals is to make myself obsolete--so that don't need me
> around when they get stuck.
Oh, you're one of those. If you don't see your job as showing the
students how to do whatever the students are supposed to end up knowing
how to do then why is anybody paying you to teach?
> There have been various academic swings over the years, but I think it's
> fair to say that most educators are taking their mission seriously. I
> think failure is more related to social issues than on teachers not
> trying to teach.
It's more related to the teachers not knowing the subject.
Bill
> In article<i9fdl...@news4.newsguy.com>, Bi...@NOSPAM.net says...
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Any course in which the majority of class time is spent with the teacher
>>> standing up at the front of the room regurgitating crap that he or she
>>> read out of a book should be automatically suspect--the kids can read
>>> the book a lot faster than the teacher can recite it.
>>>
>>
>> Some of the college kids tell me it will be a lot faster if I just "show
>> them how to do it". I tell them at the beginning of the course that one
>> of my main goals is to make myself obsolete--so that don't need me
>> around when they get stuck.
>
> Oh, you're one of those. If you don't see your job as showing the
> students how to do whatever the students are supposed to end up knowing
> how to do then why is anybody paying you to teach?
You're jumping to conclusions. I pointed the student to the resources
they needed to solve the problem (just 2 days ago). And the student's
response was, and I quote, "It would be faster if you just showed me".
Speed is not my main goal. What happens when the student has a more
difficult problem and really Needs To Know how to read? It's better that
the (college) student learn that he or she can solve problems on his or
her own, and to build up a little confidence and skill by practicing
doing so.
>
>
>> There have been various academic swings over the years, but I think it's
>> fair to say that most educators are taking their mission seriously. I
>> think failure is more related to social issues than on teachers not
>> trying to teach.
>
> It's more related to the teachers not knowing the subject.
I'm not sure we have much of that occurring at the college level.
Unfortunately, some students arrive so unprepared that their fate is
practically sealed before they get there. Those are the ones that will
make you sad.
Bill
>
>
J. Clarke
>
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:06:20 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
> > But you pays your money and takes your choice, since, ultimately, Social
> > Security is a Ponzi scheme.
>
> That's the least of the problems. *All* of our economy is a Ponzi scheme
> depending on an ever growing population. Consider what a static
> population would do to the demand for housing, transportation, and
> durable goods.
That's been true throughout history. The trouble is that success breeds
population decline--Japan's running into that now, the US would be
fairly soon if not for heavy immigration.
Bill
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article<i9fdl...@news4.newsguy.com>, Bi...@NOSPAM.net says...
>>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any course in which the majority of class time is spent with the
>>>> teacher
>>>> standing up at the front of the room regurgitating crap that he or she
>>>> read out of a book should be automatically suspect--the kids can read
>>>> the book a lot faster than the teacher can recite it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some of the college kids tell me it will be a lot faster if I just "show
>>> them how to do it". I tell them at the beginning of the course that one
>>> of my main goals is to make myself obsolete--so that don't need me
>>> around when they get stuck.
>>
>> Oh, you're one of those. If you don't see your job as showing the
>> students how to do whatever the students are supposed to end up knowing
>> how to do then why is anybody paying you to teach?
>
> You're jumping to conclusions. I pointed the student to the resources
> they needed to solve the problem (just 2 days ago). And the student's
> response was, and I quote, "It would be faster if you just showed me".
> Speed is not my main goal. What happens when the student has a more
> difficult problem and really Needs To Know how to read? It's better that
> the (college) student learn that he or she can solve problems on his or
> her own, and to build up a little confidence and skill by practicing
> doing so.
And I might add, *especially* for a computer science major taking a 3rd
or 4th class in the discipline!
Bill
J. Clarke
Who said anything about "the college level"? I've never seen any
assertion anywhere that US colleges are substandard. it's the K-12
schools that are crap.
HeyBub
>
> Right, let's just clone you and be done with it, Einstein. Sheesh.
> This is an example of your mental prowess...?
>
> It takes all types to make a world, even the idjits that think that
> their background/breeding/whatever is the only viable one. The world
> needs artists and poets and philosophers. What this country doesn't
> need is any more lawyers. The country is fucked up precisely because
> there are too many lawyers that think the way you do, and too many of
> them go in for politics.
>
You see, even you exhibit fuzzy thinking (perhaps had you studied the
multiplication tables more...). I'm not a lawyer. Never was a lawyer. I DID
go to law school, but that is not the same thing.
Now I agree with you that it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.
This issue was presented to Maimonides in the 13th century.
He said (paraphrasing)
"Some have come to me and said: 'You hold that the Holy One, blessed be He,
created man so that man could form profound intellectual concepts in his
mind. Why is it, then, that the scholars are so few? Hardly one person in a
generation can form profound intellectual concepts in his mind.' To which I
answer thusly:
"It is true that there are a great many who cannot form profound
intellectual concepts in their mind. The Holy One, blessed be He, created
them for two other reasons. First, without them, the scholar would otherwise
have to master many skills. He would have to learn about sowing and reaping
and winnowing and grinding, plus baking and all the tools for these
endeavors just to have his daily bread. So a great number of persons were
created to serve the scholar.
"The second reason is a consequence of so few scholars. The Holy One created
so many who do not have the capacity for profound intellectual thoughts so
the scholar would not be left lonely."
I hope you can take comfort knowing that so many are part of the Divine
Plan.
HeyBub
>>
>> What is sad is that those same attributes apply to many teachers too.
>> Starting with my Civics teacher (in 1963) that taught us how to work
>> in the summer at a resort and collect unemployment the rest of the
>> year. The best way to dodge the draft was to go to school to become
>> a teacher. Those draft dodgers became vice presidents and
>> presidents<<<
>
> There fixed it for you.
Sly reference to George Bush. I tell ya, if the worst thing that can be said
about George Bush was that, in time of war, he joined the National Guard,
he's going to heaven.
Admittedly, Bush was a "C" student. We don't know his successor's college
average. Based on performance, I'd say Obama failed Lunch.
HeyBub
>
> Teachers often forget how to be students by the time they're teachers.
> I've never been a teacher, but I've been a student. I can tell you
> this: We don't want to be bored with the same old drivel you've
> taught for the past 15 years. Sure, your lesson plan is done, and
> your tests are all written*, but when was the last time you learned
> something related to your field?
>
Are you insane? What on earth has expertise in the field got to do with
public school teaching?
In my state, one can be certified to teach high school mathematics without
EVER having had a college course in calculus!
Years ago, I did some research and found the following were incompetent, by
law, to teach in the public schools of my state:
* All living Nobel Laureates
* Virtually all winners of literary prizes (Pulitzer, Hugo, Edgar, Caldecot,
Booker, etc.)
* All living winners of the Fields Medal
* Virtually all sitting federal judges
and so on.
The reason? They lacked the requisite education courses. Some could step in
if they promised to reduce the deficiency by a certain number of semester
hours per year, but still...
Does anyone doubt a retired Chemical Engineer could teach high school
chemistry off the top of his head or a retired Civil Engineer teach plane
geometry without cracking a book or an ex-RN teach biology?
Bah!
Robatoy
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> What is sad is that those same attributes apply to many teachers too.
> >> Starting with my Civics teacher (in 1963) that taught us how to work
> >> in the summer at a resort and collect unemployment the rest of the
> >> year. The best way to dodge the draft was to go to school to become
> >> a teacher. Those draft dodgers became vice presidents and
> >> presidents<<<
>
> > There fixed it for you.
>
> Sly reference to George Bush.
Only partially true. Cheney.
Steve
> Consider what a static population would do to the demand for housing,
> transportation, and durable goods.
What static population would mean is that who should be reproducing, aren't.
J. Clarke
k2desig...@indy.rr.com says...
And who would that be?
Puckdropper at dot
news:cq6dnfYG06rHDCbR...@earthlink.com:
> Puckdropper wrote:
>>
>> Teachers often forget how to be students by the time they're
>> teachers. I've never been a teacher, but I've been a student. I can
>> tell you this: We don't want to be bored with the same old drivel
>> you've taught for the past 15 years. Sure, your lesson plan is done,
>> and your tests are all written*, but when was the last time you
>> learned something related to your field?
>>
>
> Are you insane? What on earth has expertise in the field got to do
> with public school teaching?
"field" here refers to field of study or field of teaching. It's not
important to have great expertise in it, but it is essential to learn
something new every once in a while. Too many teachers seem to teach the
same thing over and over without either thinking about it or learning any
more about what they're teaching.
> In my state, one can be certified to teach high school mathematics
> without EVER having had a college course in calculus!
Sure, you don't need to know the next level to teach the current one. It
is essential, however, not to close your mind once you've gained the
ability to teach at the current level.
> Years ago, I did some research and found the following were
> incompetent, by law, to teach in the public schools of my state:
> * All living Nobel Laureates
> * Virtually all winners of literary prizes (Pulitzer, Hugo, Edgar,
> Caldecot, Booker, etc.)
> * All living winners of the Fields Medal
> * Virtually all sitting federal judges
>
> and so on.
>
> The reason? They lacked the requisite education courses. Some could
> step in if they promised to reduce the deficiency by a certain number
> of semester hours per year, but still...
Sometimes the law looks for solutions in the wrong places. Other times,
the people it excludes are just the people you want excluded. Just
because a fellow can tell a good story doesn't mean he's qualified to
explain the structure of a sentence or explain the symbolism in someone
else's.
> Does anyone doubt a retired Chemical Engineer could teach high school
> chemistry off the top of his head or a retired Civil Engineer teach
> plane geometry without cracking a book or an ex-RN teach biology?
>
> Bah!
>
I do doubt it. In teaching, presenting the information in a way that can
be easily understood is essential. Knowledge is only part of the
equation.
J. Clarke
Puckdropper says...
>
> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> news:cq6dnfYG06rHDCbR...@earthlink.com:
>
> > Puckdropper wrote:
> >>
> >> Teachers often forget how to be students by the time they're
> >> teachers. I've never been a teacher, but I've been a student. I can
> >> tell you this: We don't want to be bored with the same old drivel
> >> you've taught for the past 15 years. Sure, your lesson plan is done,
> >> and your tests are all written*, but when was the last time you
> >> learned something related to your field?
> >>
> >
> > Are you insane? What on earth has expertise in the field got to do
> > with public school teaching?
>
> "field" here refers to field of study or field of teaching. It's not
> important to have great expertise in it, but it is essential to learn
> something new every once in a while. Too many teachers seem to teach the
> same thing over and over without either thinking about it or learning any
> more about what they're teaching.
However they don't know anything about anything except teaching so they
don't really havy anything to teach.
> > In my state, one can be certified to teach high school mathematics
> > without EVER having had a college course in calculus!
>
> Sure, you don't need to know the next level to teach the current one.
According to the education theorists. If you don't know the next level
then you don't have a clue why you're teaching what you're teaching
other than that somebody told you to. And in math if you don't know
several levels above high school algebra you don't even know what math
_is_.
> It
> is essential, however, not to close your mind once you've gained the
> ability to teach at the current level.
>
> > Years ago, I did some research and found the following were
> > incompetent, by law, to teach in the public schools of my state:
> > * All living Nobel Laureates
> > * Virtually all winners of literary prizes (Pulitzer, Hugo, Edgar,
> > Caldecot, Booker, etc.)
> > * All living winners of the Fields Medal
> > * Virtually all sitting federal judges
> >
> > and so on.
> >
> > The reason? They lacked the requisite education courses. Some could
> > step in if they promised to reduce the deficiency by a certain number
> > of semester hours per year, but still...
>
> Sometimes the law looks for solutions in the wrong places. Other times,
> the people it excludes are just the people you want excluded. Just
> because a fellow can tell a good story doesn't mean he's qualified to
> explain the structure of a sentence or explain the symbolism in someone
> else's.
If he can write well enough to win a Pulitzer then he knows a Hell of a
lot more about the language that any high school English teacher I've
met.
> > Does anyone doubt a retired Chemical Engineer could teach high school
> > chemistry off the top of his head or a retired Civil Engineer teach
> > plane geometry without cracking a book or an ex-RN teach biology?
> >
> > Bah!
> >
>
> I do doubt it. In teaching, presenting the information in a way that can
> be easily understood is essential. Knowledge is only part of the
> equation.
If you don't have the knowledge then you can have all the fancy-Dan
teaching techniques in the world and YOU HAVE NOTHING TO TEACH.
And that's the problem. The damned teachers don't know diddly-squat
about anything except teaching.
Teachers should be require to work in the real world for pay two years
out of every five, in fields that utilize the subject that they teach..
If they can't get such jobs then they should have their teaching
credential revoked.
As it is teachers are a bunch of ignorant clods who have never done
anything in their lives except stand in front of a classroom and
regurgitate crap they read in a book.
Bill
>>> It's more related to the teachers not knowing the subject.
>>
>> I'm not sure we have much of that occurring at the college level.
>> Unfortunately, some students arrive so unprepared that their fate is
>> practically sealed before they get there. Those are the ones that will
>> make you sad.
>
> Who said anything about "the college level"? I've never seen any
> assertion anywhere that US colleges are substandard. it's the K-12
> schools that are crap.
>
Well, you wrote:
>> Oh, you're one of those. If you don't see your job as showing the
>> students how to do whatever the students are supposed to end up
>> knowing how to do then why is anybody paying you to teach?
Thought you were talking about me.
Bill
Larry Blanchard
>
> I don't see what the relevance is to the US "falling behind third world
> countries". You seem to be focussed on opinions and other such bullshit
> as measures of success.
OK, how about life expectancy. According to the CIA we're 49th. Behind
such countries as South Korea, Jordan, and Puerto Rico. See:
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook
rankorder/2102rank.html>
Or how about home ownership? One source places us at 12th - Slovenia is
3rd.
We are 1st, excepting some Arab oil countries, in per capita income. But
that can be misleading because it doesn't show true value for things like
food, clothing, and shelter that are grown, sewn, or built instead of
purchased.
But I still contend that level of education, rather than material
possessions, is the surest indicator of the current and future health of
a nation.
J. Clarke
>
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:05:16 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I don't see what the relevance is to the US "falling behind third world
> > countries". You seem to be focussed on opinions and other such bullshit
> > as measures of success.
>
> OK, how about life expectancy. According to the CIA we're 49th.
Can you provide a mechanism by which K-12 schooling affects life
expectancy?
> Behind
> such countries as South Korea, Jordan, and Puerto Rico. See:
>
> <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook
> rankorder/2102rank.html>
>
> Or how about home ownership? One source places us at 12th - Slovenia is
> 3rd.
Does home ownership correlate with quality of K-12 education?
> We are 1st, excepting some Arab oil countries, in per capita income. But
> that can be misleading because it doesn't show true value for things like
> food, clothing, and shelter that are grown, sewn, or built instead of
> purchased.
>
> But I still contend that level of education, rather than material
> possessions, is the surest indicator of the current and future health of
> a nation.
How do you define "level of education"? And do you have any data to
support your contention or is it just your opinion?
Larry Blanchard
He has a point. The people who worry about big problems usually make
better parents than those who don't. But it's the know nothings that
continue to breed when the good parents don't.
That's why voluntary population control won't work. If we're going to
control it some sort of compulsory scheme would be required. But first
we have to decide whether it *should* be controlled. There's arguments
on both sides.
Larry Blanchard
>> Does anyone doubt a retired Chemical Engineer could teach high school
>> chemistry off the top of his head or a retired Civil Engineer teach
>> plane geometry without cracking a book or an ex-RN teach biology?
>>
>> Bah!
>>
>>
> I do doubt it. In teaching, presenting the information in a way that
> can be easily understood is essential. Knowledge is only part of the
> equation.
The odds of someone who knows the field being able to convey that
knowledge to someone else is a lot greater than someone who doesn't know
the field.
The only problem I've seen, and I've been guilty of it when teaching
computer-oriented classes, is that the expert sometimes tends to assume
that the novice is aware of some basic concepts just because they're
simple to him. Took me a while to figure out what I was doing wrong.
Larry Blanchard
>> > I don't see what the relevance is to the US "falling behind third
>> > world countries". You seem to be focussed on opinions and other such
>> > bullshit as measures of success.
>>
>> OK, how about life expectancy. According to the CIA we're 49th.
>
> Can you provide a mechanism by which K-12 schooling affects life
> expectancy?
I thought we'd gotten off of schooling and were just discussing "falling
behind" in general. But if you want to get back to that, I'd say
teaching proper nutrition, the benefit of exercise, etc. in K-12 could
well affect life expectancy.
Lew Hodgett
The mind can absorb what the ass can endure.
First lesson I learned.
Lew
Josepi
"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.272589fdd...@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local...
Josepi
"Lew Hodgett" <sails...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4cbc887d$0$5799$c3e8da3$1cbc...@news.astraweb.com...
Josepi
LOL
"Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:i9hvpg$h6g$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
J. Clarke
>
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:03:02 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > In article <4cbb9b4f$0$14857$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > k2desig...@indy.rr.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2010-10-17 14:49:44 -0400, Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm>
> >> said:
> >>
> >> > Consider what a static population would do to the demand for housing,
> >> > transportation, and durable goods.
> >>
> >> What static population would mean is that who should be reproducing,
> >> aren't.
> >
> > And who would that be?
>
> He has a point. The people who worry about big problems usually make
> better parents than those who don't. But it's the know nothings that
> continue to breed when the good parents don't.
So how it is that the know-nothings breeding results in a static
population"?
> That's why voluntary population control won't work. If we're going to
> control it some sort of compulsory scheme would be required. But first
> we have to decide whether it *should* be controlled. There's arguments
> on both sides.
In his static population scenario it appears that "voluntary population
control" _is_ working. Seems to be the way it went in the real world in
Japan.
J. Clarke
So do you have evidence that K-12 in the US does not teach "proper
nutrition" and "the benefit of exercise" and that in those other
countries it does?
J. Clarke
sails...@verizon.net says...
>
> First rule of instruction:
>
> The mind can absorb what the ass can endure.
>
> First lesson I learned.
A fundamental principle.
Ed Pawlowski
>> I thought we'd gotten off of schooling and were just discussing "falling
>> behind" in general. But if you want to get back to that, I'd say
>> teaching proper nutrition, the benefit of exercise, etc. in K-12 could
>> well affect life expectancy.
>
> So do you have evidence that K-12 in the US does not teach "proper
> nutrition" and "the benefit of exercise" and that in those other
> countries it does?
>
>
It was almost unheard of when I was in school. In my 4 years of HS, we had
gym only one year, one period a week. I believe it is a requirement now.
Don't know about nutrition. We did not have sex ed either.
I have no idea what other countries teach, but in some third word countries,
they probably teach kids to eat anything they can to survive.
Steve
> If you don't have the knowledge then you can have all the fancy-Dan
> teaching techniques in the world and YOU HAVE NOTHING TO TEACH.
>
> And that's the problem. The damned teachers don't know diddly-squat
> about anything except teaching.
>
> Teachers should be require to work in the real world for pay two years
> out of every five, in fields that utilize the subject that they teach..
> If they can't get such jobs then they should have their teaching
> credential revoked.
>
> As it is teachers are a bunch of ignorant clods who have never done
> anything in their lives except stand in front of a classroom and
> regurgitate crap they read in a book.
Christ-a-mighty! May we assume you have surveryed all teachers in all
locations in reaching this astounding conclusion?
Or are you just blowing it out your ass?
J. Clarke
k2desig...@indy.rr.com says...
I have met very few teachers in K-12 for whom that was not the case.
Most of the ones for which it was not were WWII veterans.
Friend of mine with a PhD in education and 40 years as a teacher bemoans
that situation regularly. I find it amusing that when shown a shackle
he was unable to identify it.
> Or are you just blowing it out your ass?
Why is it so important to you to believe that teachers know anything
about anything other than the theory of teaching. Or are you one of
those poor deluded fools who thinks that because _his_ kids get good
grades the schools are doing a good job for them and that it's all those
_other_ schools that suck? Or perhaps you are a teacher and your ox is
being gored?
Bill
J. Clarke wrote
>> Any more silly questions?
>
> Yes. What relevance does this have for Fortran?
>>None at all, but it's fun to torment the "I program in machine code
>>because it gives me more control than assembler" crowd.
**What do ya want to say to someone who thinks it's fun to torment
people? Probably better to look the other direction and hope they find
religion.
Bill
Mr. Clarke,
You are confusing me. You criticize the group for not possessing the
knowledge to shorten a chain and yet you obviously do not know, because
you asked the question. Sounds like a very good case of self criticism
for a task that is rather simple. Did you expect the group to do your
measurements, determine the type and location of the attachment points
and pull the correct length out of our ass?
Steve
Is there a theme?
J. Clarke
>
> Someone wrote today in rec.crafts.metalworking:
>
> Mr. Clarke,
> You are confusing me. You criticize the group for not possessing the
> knowledge to shorten a chain and yet you obviously do not know, because
> you asked the question.
And yet another denizen of rec.metalworking shows his lack of reading
comprehension. SteveB asked the question, not me.
> Sounds like a very good case of self criticism
> for a task that is rather simple. Did you expect the group to do your
> measurements, determine the type and location of the attachment points
> and pull the correct length out of our ass?
Perhaps ONE of you FUCKING MORONS could have told him how to shorten the
chain instead of going off on a bunch of bullshit.
> Is there a theme?
Yes. The theme is that the participants in rec.metalworking are a bunch
of BLITHERING IDIOTS.