Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 You should visit a frat, I mean business school. 574011[/snapback] Right. Because everyone in business school comes from a wealthy background and never works hard. No generalization there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 -Not enough parents care about their child's education. The best part of the best post. I taught my kids how to read and write before they entered kindergarten. I didn't stop there. They'll do just fine in public schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Right. Because everyone in business school comes from a wealthy background and never works hard. No generalization there 574658[/snapback] It's obviously a generalization. But seriously, it seemed at my college that the business department was where all the frat dudes who knew they were supposed to go to college but didn't want to be there to do anything aside from partying ended up. Easy to get a job afterwards, not a whole lot of effort required. Of course there are smart people, go-getters, people who come from nothing who make something of themselves in business school and beyond. I'm just saying that proportionally, you're not going to find as many kids in the biology or physics department who are there because they guess it just seems like a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 It's obviously a generalization. But seriously, it seemed at my college that the business department was where all the frat dudes who knew they were supposed to go to college but didn't want to be there to do anything aside from partying ended up. Easy to get a job afterwards, not a whole lot of effort required. Of course there are smart people, go-getters, people who come from nothing who make something of themselves in business school and beyond. I'm just saying that proportionally, you're not going to find as many kids in the biology or physics department who are there because they guess it just seems like a good idea. 574788[/snapback] If you go to Wharton, I'll guarantee you're not seeing a whole lot of frat boys around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 If you go to Wharton, I'll guarantee you're not seeing a whole lot of frat boys around. 575122[/snapback] Wharton is tops, but check out the ranking of Dartmouth College Business School and then the rankings of alcohol use on it's campus. Joe, the rich frat boys are drinking like it's judgement day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 It's obviously a generalization. But seriously, it seemed at my college that the business department was where all the frat dudes who knew they were supposed to go to college but didn't want to be there to do anything aside from partying ended up. Easy to get a job afterwards, not a whole lot of effort required. Of course there are smart people, go-getters, people who come from nothing who make something of themselves in business school and beyond. I'm just saying that proportionally, you're not going to find as many kids in the biology or physics department who are there because they guess it just seems like a good idea. 574788[/snapback] tons of kids to life science majors just to get a B S C. university is for the most part a way to differentiate yourself from people who don't have degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 low income households are more likely to be filled with dumb slow ignorant people. it is not a politically correct thing to say, but most smart people find a way to not be low income and most dumb people are low income because they just aren't good enough to make more. tire factories need workers and mcdonalds needs people to mop the floor. attempting to meaningfully educate all these people together is insane. 573495[/snapback] Actually, you can strike the tire factory from that list. I caught the History Channel's segment "Modern Marvels, Tire Making". The industry today is a far cry from the dirty industry it was in the past... Quite amazing and very high tech. And they call liberals elitist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Actually, you can strike the tire factory from that list. I caught the History Channel's segment "Modern Marvels, Tire Making". The industry today is a far cry from the dirty industry it was in the past... Quite amazing and very high tech. And they call liberals elitist? 580083[/snapback] Let's not forget that nobody of any merit ever came from a low income family or ever did poorly in school. If you can identify who these kids are, based on what their parents do/earn and how well they perform on 1st grade tests we can avoid spending money on them and track them right to the factoy line or the fryolator - doing otherwise would be insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Let's not forget that nobody of any merit ever came from a low income family or ever did poorly in school. If you can identify who these kids are, based on what their parents do/earn and how well they perform on 1st grade tests we can avoid spending money on them and track them right to the factoy line or the fryolator - doing otherwise would be insane. 580535[/snapback] that's quite a strawman you've decided to argue against, tell me how it turns out. the piont i made was explaining how children in poor/low income house holds don't hear as many words in a day vs children in upper income houses. the reason for this is that there are greater numbers of less intelligent people in poor households than in wealthier households. this isn't to say that no one in a poor household is smart, but smarter people are more likely to be more successful and have a highe income than less intelligent people. thus over time smart poor people will leave the poor households and be counted amounst wealthier (than poor if not wealthy as an absolute measure) households. dull and stupid people have a tendency to drift towards poverty rather than wealth so you will have more dull and stupid people in poor households. any measure of exposure to stimulation for children in households with more dumb people will show less than in upper income houses. instead of intentionaly misunderstanding my posts or calling me elitist can anyone refute the substance of what i am saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 If you go to Wharton, I'll guarantee you're not seeing a whole lot of frat boys around. You also won't see a lot of white people at wharton....ok, maybe 50%. Wharton is tops, but check out the ranking of Dartmouth College Business School and then the rankings of alcohol use on it's campus.Joe, the rich frat boys are drinking like it's judgement day. Bill - Those dartmouth numbers are for undergrads, not grad students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 You also won't see a lot of white people at wharton....ok, maybe 50%. 582927[/snapback] 'Zackly. Kinda destroys the whole white entitlement myth, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I just finished watching his scathing report: "Stupid in America". He very adroitly pointed out WHY American schools are failing...the two-headed behemoth of too much government married to a corrupt union system. If I had my druthers, teachers unions would be locked out much like the NHL players were. When they're starving sufficiently, or being forced to work in the REAL WORLD for a while, these greedy ineffective unionized teachers will BEG to return to their cush jobs. Also, he made a highly effective argument for vouchers by pointing out the BELGIUM, perhaps one of the most socialized nations on Earth attaches their education dollars to the student, meaning that a parent has the choice of where to send their kids. Time to break the education associations and tear down the department of ed. We need a new way. I'll be damned if I send my daughter to a public school. 566445[/snapback] I'd cut summer vacation....get the kids away from the parents who think they can use TV and video games as a babysitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 that's quite a strawman you've decided to argue against, tell me how it turns out.the piont i made was explaining how children in poor/low income house holds don't hear as many words in a day vs children in upper income houses. the reason for this is that there are greater numbers of less intelligent people in poor households than in wealthier households. this isn't to say that no one in a poor household is smart, but smarter people are more likely to be more successful and have a highe income than less intelligent people. thus over time smart poor people will leave the poor households and be counted amounst wealthier (than poor if not wealthy as an absolute measure) households. dull and stupid people have a tendency to drift towards poverty rather than wealth so you will have more dull and stupid people in poor households. any measure of exposure to stimulation for children in households with more dumb people will show less than in upper income houses. instead of intentionaly misunderstanding my posts or calling me elitist can anyone refute the substance of what i am saying? 582280[/snapback] Your point is EXACTLY what I was arguing in the beginning of this thread - that much of what defines a good student has to do with their home life rather than their school. What I object to is people saying they have bad schools/bad teachers because they have a higher percentage of kids who come from challenging circumstances and generally won't do as well than kids who go to "good schools with good teachers". Simply put, if you acknowledge that there is a difference in the quality of students you get due to outside factors like economic class, etc., you also have to accept that how well these students do on standardized tests, etc. is a very poor way to judge the quality of the school/teacher. I also object to people saying that "there are dumb kids in the schools that drag everybody down and we should segregate these kids out". There are bad kids and kids who will never go on to get a PhD in physics, but who makes the decsion about who is a "good" kid and who is a "bad" kid? When is that determination made - 1st grade? 5th grade? High school? Who out there is willing to say that their kid isn't very bright and/or doesn't hold much promise and deserves less funding than other kids? They demand MORE money for their kids and blame the school/teacher for being bad if their kids doesn't do well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 So what's the standard by which teachers will be judged? I hear all the time that teachers should be judged on merit - but how do you determine who's a good teacher and who's not? Most people say test scores of the kids, but that doesn't make much sense to me and can be harmful. 570708[/snapback] A weighted 360 degree rating would not be a bad idea. Teachers know who's a good teacher and who's not better than most. Parental and admin inputs are needed also. But a rating/performance feedback system is essential... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 A weighted 360 degree rating would not be a bad idea. Teachers know who's a good teacher and who's not better than most. Parental and admin inputs are needed also. But a rating/performance feedback system is essential... 584633[/snapback] This assumes that people are actually interested enough in how their kids are educated to sit down and make an objective judgement on the quality of teaching, based on what they see and hear from their kids. If your kid is a problem, chances are you're not going to care enough to take part in any review, and if you do, you're probably going to say the teacher is terrible (why else would your kid be a problem? Couldn't possibly be a reflection on you..) Everybody in every non-contract job I know gets a merit increase on what their boss thinks about their performance. The boss may ask others for input or have some formal methodology, but ultimately the boss makes the call. Why should teachers be any different? I don't get to review my mailman and recommend what sort of merit pay he gets. In any event, teachers are generally workers under a contract - like bus drivers, cops, etc. None of those jobs has a merit system in place. If you drive a bus your raise is according to your contract - it's the same for you as it is for the guy in the next bus - that's the nature of the contract. I don't know why everyone feels that we should all have a say in everything when it's a techer but not for any other civil service job. I'm OK with some sort of merit system, but let's not limit it only to teachers if we're going to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 It's good to see that some parents aren't taking the issue so quietly, and more illuminating is the source of the story. Has the NEA dam been breached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 It's good to see that some parents aren't taking the issue so quietly, and more illuminating is the source of the story. Has the NEA dam been breached? 586815[/snapback] Interesting GG. Not sure how things are in CA? This strikes me as impotant: Ladera Heights, an unincorporated community of about 8,000 people, has for decades belonged to the school district in adjacent Inglewood, a decidedly poorer, predominantly black and Latino city whose schools have struggled academically and financially. I know in Illinois, areas of a town that are unincorporated do not share the burden of tax... They pay substantially less in taxes for roads, schools, fire protection, library, etc... Maybe that is the problem with Inglewood? Seems the unincorporated part could play a larger part if they became incorporated. To me it seems they (Ladera Heights) wants the best of both worlds... Pay less taxes and send their kids to better schools. Again, I am not sure how the taxing rate works for CA and hinges on their unincorporated status. "Inglewood is fortunate to have an affluent neighborhood as part of that district, so it would be a step back to pull away," said Mr. Young, whose children attended the neighborhood elementary school. "With the resources we have in Ladera Heights, we can have the same as private schools or other types of schools." I want to know how much they are paying compared to the rest of the district. Again, FYI... I send my kids to private (Catholic) school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 There is only so much blame you can place at the foot of the teachers. Kids may spend a lot of the week in school (still, 8 hrs a day is not a majority of time) but they will spend more of their lives with their families, and those families need to provide preparation, encouragement, discipline, and care to their kids. If the kids don't get it at home, the teachers are left holding up a hugely unfair portion of the equation. 570674[/snapback] Excellent point...and I have to say reading through this thread there are so many good points being brought up, but I think there are a decent amount of parents out there who almost expect teachers to be parents as well...and then these parents, who are so damn full of themselves and too lazy to discipline their own kids...put the blame on the teachers. Discipline to do well in school comes from HOME more then anything else..and that IMO is a very, VERY big problem in the USA today...have you seen the way some of these kids act today? Even at a veyr young age...no respect whatsover for anything...no respect for authority at ALL...and when there is a lack of discipline at home...you bet that runs over into the classroom. Simply put, these are two big things that have to happen in order for the youth of today to improve on scores and become more intelligent: 1. Overall more involvement from parents in their kids's life...setting good examples etc. 2. Make the courses in school more demanding, challenge kids and stop labeling everything so quickly as a disorder when they cannot do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Let's not forget that nobody of any merit ever came from a low income family or ever did poorly in school.580535[/snapback] Of course, the same people who argue this also argue that Bush isn't fit to be president because he did poorly in school... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts