Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stubeeef, Sep 20, 2005.
Got this via email and laughed, then I was sad, cause it seemed true.
Painful to watch, but probably pretty accurate.
Teaching Math In 2050
An interplanetary Fermium trader sells a cubic mile of of the element for $100,000,000,000. Her cost to create it from Rutherfordium using her portable Static Grangmund Chamber is 4/5 of the price. What is her profit?
Now I know who to take with me if I decide to travel into the future.
Trick question. An alien race subjugates the human race in 2037 and forces us into a brave new society of communism. There is no profit in MML (alien race also bans use of Arabic numerals).
How would you factor in electron affinities and ionization energies in the Rutherfordium if it were to be created? This is something most people overlook.
And rightly so, in my opinion.
The chamber's photomitigant reflectors take care of that. That's why Dr. Grangmund won the Nobel prize in 2036 (a year before the Alpha Centurions took over).
Yea. People are pretty dumb. There is this one junior girl in my Algebra II Pre-AP class who does not know the formula for putting a line in slope-intercept form. We are going down folks, we are going down...*sigh*
I mean, that's shocking!
I don't mean to be alarmist, but it is scary how there is a large segment of the population that is math challenged and reading challenged (ya I have some of both). How can we as a nation compete in a world that has put a value on this knowledge?
invest more on education?
you mean like this?
I find the political statement worrying that was made by the way how the year 1990 and 2005 were added to the list... Not funny at all, at least in my opinion...
I think we need a push on education, and have always said so. I think that teachers (not principals or superintendants) are way under paid.
But throwing money at it won't solve it. We need to get to basics, have less administration on the classroom level, and decide that the basics are more important than anything else, we also need to assure that no child is left behind. Because a system that produces some good students and some uneducated ones, is of little worth in my opinion. As it is now, we teach to the test, instead of the system before where we were taught to free think. Now it is how to answer a question, or game the test.
Has anyone seen the avg test scores since the birth of the Dept of Education? They have been flat for decades, after rising for decades. More admin of the situation is not needed. More money for teacher salaries, and less administration is what I advocate.
Anonymous emails addressing important subjects raise a red flag for me. A link would be handy.
Alink to what? The crappy state of education in the US? Go outside and look around, it won't take long to see the results.
But since you insist on a link
pay the teachers well, invest in their (re)training, invest in infrastructures, hire support teachers, establish after school programs (not to be funded by the PTA), promote public school and disincentivate private ones (away with the vouchers crap), disincentivate home schooling, introduce strict standards to pass to the next grade, limit the power of local boards to introduce bizarre curricula.
And yes, it's going to cost a lot of money. It's called an investment.
edit: and prohibit the freakin' calculators until college!
That says it all.
That suggests that some attention needs to be paid to the public education system, if others are beating us at the same game, something should be done about ours.
Unless there is definitive evidence showing that a private education will somehow be better than what is offered publicly elsewhere.
The cost of a private education are resources that would most likely go into the economy. As it affects a majority who have less to spend on such things. It would also lead, potentially, to private direction of what is taught. Something to consider.
It's not an easily discussed topic, especially considering the framing in which this email and that link places it.
To be a fair discussion, arguments from both sides should be presented. I, for one, see many advantages in a well run public education system.
Emails from who knows where, no matter how good their thesis appears, need to stand up against opposing arguments in order to prevail, IMO.
Supply the best education, and the market will adjust accordingly through students demanding the avenues that will reward them the most. Education can adjust accordingly while still providing for those who wish to forge ahead in other subjects that may be less rewarding at the time, but are important overall.
Again, the email addresses a specific set of values that may not relate to all of the goals a good education system should meet. A good education means more than simply meeting the needs required by those who exist in the outsourcing market.
??? the only email in the thread is the initial joke on the decline of the education system in the US (math in particular). (and it's funny up to the 80s: the 90s political statement is unnecessary and the anti-hispanic bit just shouldn't be there, but that's a different story).
It's not a spot for private education.
I personally think that the excess of private education is one of the causes of the poor state of the education system and the depressing overall ignorance of a large fraction of americans, and it's certainly very divisive (along class and racial divides). Public education can work very well, as is shown in pretty much every other country in the world.
As far as the link about the sorry state of math teaching in this country, some of the curricula taugth are truly bizarre and highly ineffective
There where two points involved. More specifically, which is going to yield better results? A good public education system that meets the social and economic needs of the nation as a whole while not requiring the additional investment of individuals, beyond the taxes they pay. Or a private system, that is susceptible to becoming oriented on meeting certain needs at certain times, while not fulfilling the overall benefits of a system that can offer a variety all at the same time.
My bias is obvious. Even though, I feel that a wide reaching education should be constantly offered, with the ability to adapt to meeting increased demands in certain areas without affecting other areas. I think that is beyond a private system which would have a tendency to focus on one market need while needing time to readjust its resources to changing needs.
I feel that education is an area where it is better to offer every aspect of the knowledgeable curriculum. As inefficient as it may seem in some regards, it may be more efficient in others. The resources to adapt to changing tastes/market needs is already in place.
Aside from that, a good education system should offer all avenues of studies. I already feel that the majority of students are going to choose to study what is most economically viable for them. That does not mean that there is not a need for education in areas that is not purely economically based. I am not sure if a private system is able to provide for those whose interests are more socially based, as opposed to being more economically based.
There is a lot of good work done by people who choose career avenues that benefit society more than themselves, which in itself, benefits the economy.
If anything I would think the exact opposite.
Let me give you an example.
I am putting my 5 children through private school. All 5 of them score on any national exam such as PSAT and or SAT's in the top 5%. The cost of their education in private school is 2/5 the cost per student, where I live, for public education. Classroom sizes are around 18 students per teacher at their school vs 30 per teacher in public.
My tax dollars still go to pay for other kids in the public schools here and my kids are not a drain on the public school system. If anything they help the system by not being in it. Free money from my taxes, no expense from my kids.
it's not just the money. you care about the education of you kids, and you probably played a role in their been good students (directly and indirectly).
you would have been an asset for your public school and so would have been your kids.
their presence there would have increased the level of the school. You probably would have insisted for a better 'experience' and done what it was in your power to improve the school. the money you spent on tuition could have been used to hire new teachers (through tax-exempt donation to the school/PTA) to reduce class size.
the point being that in the long run a public school would certainly benefit from an influx of 'good' students and involved parents. Viceversa, if all good student don't go top public school because it's not that good, it will get worse.
and your kids would have probably done as good in the sat even if they were in public school