Maybe those stats could be changed by the one dropping out staying in school. It is not my job to force feed education to those that do not choose it. Free will is awesome.AussieReaper wrote:
You are missing the fact that 1 out of 4 kids dropping out before finishing high school is unacceptable and that the education standards in America will result in a less competitive market, both globally and on the local scale.lowing wrote:
You are missing the fact that there are already provisions and options in place for those who are serious about college.AussieReaper wrote:
imortal, it's about getting more people into college, your talking about 100% of people which is nonsensical.
You are missing the point. I am a manager of a food plant and have 45 people working for me right now. I would say 90% of them could get a much better job due to their intelligence and aptitude. I would also say they are at the job that they deserve. Every single one of the people here have shown that there are reasons they did not get a better education and find a better job. Most of them are just too lazy to better themselves and like the idea of the government taking care of them.AussieReaper wrote:
You are missing the fact that 1 out of 4 kids dropping out before finishing high school is unacceptable and that the education standards in America will result in a less competitive market, both globally and on the local scale.lowing wrote:
You are missing the fact that there are already provisions and options in place for those who are serious about college.AussieReaper wrote:
imortal, it's about getting more people into college, your talking about 100% of people which is nonsensical.
One of the biggest reasons I am against a socialized society is the people I work with. If I have to pay more taxes to help some of these lazy bums get a better education/house/health care they might as well rip my heart out now.
We need to fix people attitudes and instill some sense of responsibility into them.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
AussieReaper wrote:
imortal, it's about getting more people into college, your talking about 100% of people which is nonsensical.
I do not think addressing the 100% thing is nonsensical, since that is precisely what he is talking about. I will admit however, that he is not specifying 4 year colleges (although this is what the article was suggesting), so if you allow for trade schools and community colleges, it seems a bit less insurmountable.the article in the OP wrote:
In his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Barack Obama called for every American to pursue some form of education beyond high school.
I will say, however, that you should not impose the system you have in Australia for what is being intended, planned, discussed, or implimented here in the US. First, our nations governments act a bit differently. We have different population densities, land area, cultures, and focuses. THe fact that both our nations speak English (along with the UK) tend to fool us into thinking we share a common culture. While our nations may share a common cultural origin, we have diverged quite a bit. You have been arguing that the system you have in Australia works. Well, good for you guys, I am proud of you. That does not mean the same system will work here. The same argument applies to universal health care.
if they don't give a shit, let them drop outAussieReaper wrote:
You are missing the fact that 1 out of 4 kids dropping out before finishing high school is unacceptable and that the education standards in America will result in a less competitive market, both globally and on the local scale.lowing wrote:
You are missing the fact that there are already provisions and options in place for those who are serious about college.AussieReaper wrote:
imortal, it's about getting more people into college, your talking about 100% of people which is nonsensical.
force them to fix the highways or something
the student to teacher ratio shouldn't be super high because a bunch of deadbeats who don't give a shit are taking up classroom space that could be afforded to someone who actually has initiative to achieve something in his life
Some people are not meant for college. I understand wanting to give those a chance who wouldn't necessarily be able to go to college the means, but if there is no will or aptitude then the degree is not worth the paper its printed on.
I maybe cynical in thinking this, but this is just pandering to college-aged voters...its the same that Bush did with the prescription-aid package for the elderly.
I maybe cynical in thinking this, but this is just pandering to college-aged voters...its the same that Bush did with the prescription-aid package for the elderly.
Last edited by Harmor (2009-03-02 20:55:21)
Ehhh Aussie I really doubt 1 in 4 Americans are drop outs... Probably in South Central LA, but not on a national level.
Do we really need gas station attendants, waiters and janitors to have a college education?
Cybargs wrote:
Ehhh Aussie I really doubt 1 in 4 Americans are drop outs... Probably in South Central LA, but not on a national level.
I am also sceptical of the numbers, but just going on the article itself...OP article wrote:
Millions of Americans struggle even to complete high school, with one in four dropping out.
And this isn't going to make lazy students get into college and leech of the system. It might make the lazy finish high school yes, but you still need grades to get into college.
A higher success rate making it into college due to better schooling is worth it, right?
I'm really shocked that you all think this means bus drivers will need to be college graduates. You really have no idea what your talking about.
No, we know what we are talking about. Our government.
Looking at how the no child left behind has worked out, I am very leary of any government involvement in education.
Looking at how the no child left behind has worked out, I am very leary of any government involvement in education.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Perhaps you got something out of the article I did not. Perhaps you did not understand as well as you imagine.AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Ehhh Aussie I really doubt 1 in 4 Americans are drop outs... Probably in South Central LA, but not on a national level.I am also sceptical of the numbers, but just going on the article itself...OP article wrote:
Millions of Americans struggle even to complete high school, with one in four dropping out.
And this isn't going to make lazy students get into college and leech of the system. It might make the lazy finish high school yes, but you still need grades to get into college.
A higher success rate making it into college due to better schooling is worth it, right?
I'm really shocked that you all think this means bus drivers will need to be college graduates. You really have no idea what your talking about.
A higher success rate making it to college means nothing of the sort. Being a high school graduate does not mean you can read. There is a reason that the average college graduate reads at an 8th grade reading level. A piece of paper does not grant ability.
Mabe not, but it makes everyone feel better about themselves, and that's all college is anyway.imortal wrote:
Perhaps you got something out of the article I did not. Perhaps you did not understand as well as you imagine.AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Ehhh Aussie I really doubt 1 in 4 Americans are drop outs... Probably in South Central LA, but not on a national level.I am also sceptical of the numbers, but just going on the article itself...OP article wrote:
Millions of Americans struggle even to complete high school, with one in four dropping out.
And this isn't going to make lazy students get into college and leech of the system. It might make the lazy finish high school yes, but you still need grades to get into college.
A higher success rate making it into college due to better schooling is worth it, right?
I'm really shocked that you all think this means bus drivers will need to be college graduates. You really have no idea what your talking about.
A higher success rate making it to college means nothing of the sort. Being a high school graduate does not mean you can read. There is a reason that the average college graduate reads at an 8th grade reading level. A piece of paper does not grant ability.
We already do:Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Do we really need gas station attendants, waiters and janitors to have a college education?
Because in lowing's eyes, everyone is responsible for their own actions, even as a kid!lowing wrote:
Maybe those stats could be changed by the one dropping out staying in school. It is not my job to force feed education to those that do not choose it. Free will is awesome.AussieReaper wrote:
You are missing the fact that 1 out of 4 kids dropping out before finishing high school is unacceptable and that the education standards in America will result in a less competitive market, both globally and on the local scale.lowing wrote:
You are missing the fact that there are already provisions and options in place for those who are serious about college.
Get real. It's the parents' job to send their kids to school...
Last edited by Spark (2009-03-02 21:50:31)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lulzHarmor wrote:
We already do:Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Do we really need gas station attendants, waiters and janitors to have a college education?
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1869/liberalarts.jpg
You want to treat all kids equal in school? Is it not true that some kids/people are better suited for learning than others? Why hold the high performers back.Spark wrote:
Because in lowing's eyes, everyone is responsible for their own actions, even as a kid!
Get real. EDIT: It's the parents' job to send their kids to school...
EDIT: What's your point?
Last edited by LividBovine (2009-03-02 21:52:24)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Some kids are better at things than other kids. I think we need to bring some of the old-school European tradeskills back into our school. Not everyone is going to college, but you can make a living as a craftsman in a skilled trade.
I'm not talking about vocational classes, I'm talking about real-world skills taught early thoughout high school.
I'm not talking about vocational classes, I'm talking about real-world skills taught early thoughout high school.
Obama can do all this no problem. All he has to do is raise taxes, and we'll all miraculously be able to pay them.
Oh I get it, your scared that colleges brain wash you to become Liberals.
It all makes sense now.
It all makes sense now.
My point is lowing is trying to blame the kids for being failures and insinuating that they, therefore, don't deserve our attention (despite not being legally independent...)LividBovine wrote:
You want to treat all kids equal in school? Is it not true that some kids/people are better suited for learning than others? Why hold the high performers back.Spark wrote:
Because in lowing's eyes, everyone is responsible for their own actions, even as a kid!
Get real. EDIT: It's the parents' job to send their kids to school...
EDIT: What's your point?
As for your own points:
Generally speaking, yes. All kids should be treated with the same courtesy and respect, as well as be treated with the same expectations and responsibilities. Now, I know your point is that the top performers should be given extra attention, but this doesn't work. In my experience the top performers don't need extra attention, they are more capable of working independently (which is the key).You want to treat all kids equal in school?
And does that mean we write them off, aged 15? It is very true, but I don't see the justification for the point you're making.Is it not true that some kids/people are better suited for learning than others?
Which I'm guessing is:
None of the high performers I know (and I know many, possibly including myself) would regard themselves as having been ever held back by a lack of teacher attention. Why should a maths teacher, for example, hold an extra lesson for the top performers teaching them things they already understand? Not productive or worthwile IMO.Why hold the high performers back.
Mind you, different country. I've never been in an American school so I don't know how things work there.
---
Define what you mean by 'real-world skills'. If you mean skills as in actual employable skills, then you're better off (GENERALLY SPEAKING) just sticking to the regular subjects as they are better tailored to providing skills used in the tertiary i.e. services sector, which is the big part of the economy.Harmor wrote:
I'm not talking about vocational classes, I'm talking about real-world skills taught early thoughout high school.
Last edited by Spark (2009-03-02 23:03:50)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Spark wrote:
As for your own points:
Yes they should be able to work independently. But this is also limiting the potential of those kids is it not? Shouldn't the higher achievers be challenged more if they are capable?Generally speaking, yes. All kids should be treated with the same courtesy and respect, as well as be treated with the same expectations and responsibilities. Now, I know your point is that the top performers should be given extra attention, but this doesn't work. In my experience the top performers don't need extra attention, they are more capable of working independently (which is the key).You want to treat all kids equal in school?
Never said write them off, but I did mean to not invest so much time and money into them.And does that mean we write them off, aged 15? It is very true, but I don't see the justification for the point you're making.Is it not true that some kids/people are better suited for learning than others?
It is not a matter of teaching them something they already know, well actually it is. This program that we have makes the teachers teach down to the lowest level, thereby teaching the higher achievers stuff they already know. They are actually using the smarter/harder working kids to subsidise the under-performing kids. Sounds like socialism in the classroom.None of the high performers I know (and I know many, possibly including myself) would regard themselves as having been ever held back by a lack of teacher attention. Why should a maths teacher, for example, hold an extra lesson for the top performers teaching them things they already understand? Not productive or worthwile IMO.Why hold the high performers back.
I will give you some background on my feelings about the US school system, at least the elementary as I have 2 kids there right now. I also have a Father-in-law that is a 7th grade teacher and a mother-in-law that is a 3rd grade teacher.
The policy of no child left behind is a good principle for sure, but the failure of it is attributed to the application more than anything. The policies are driving the teachers to "teach the test". This has a lot to do with funding and the quality of the kids coming through the school.
The funding is not necessarily lacking, but not being spent wisely. Both my in-laws are approaching 30 years in teaching, they both want to be retired 5 years ago. The schools will not buy out their contracts and let them retire early. Why is this a problem? They both make way over twice as much as a new teacher would doing the same job. The school would actually save money by buying out their contracts. This is just one example of many.
The other issue is the kids. There is a severe lack of discipline in today's kids, generally speaking of course. They are also generally less prepared when they enter school. The teachers are having to spend more time dealing with problem children and the kids that are behind. They have to get the kids up to speed so they don't lose funding for under-performing on the tests. It is no longer a average score that drives the results, it is the lower scores that drive the results.
Of course you can now see the shift has to be towards the kids that either don't care or are behind due to their parents. There is a definite degradation in the quality of education the high performers and average students are receiving in my children's and my in-laws schools. Yes my kids are high performers. My 8 year old reads at a 7th grade level, and my ten year old reads above a 12th grade level. This means I am slightly biased of course.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Lol wat?imortal wrote:
Being a high school graduate does not mean you can read.
watThere is a reason that the average college graduate reads at an 8th grade reading level.
It should record your ability somewhat.A piece of paper does not grant ability.
The states got anything like Selective high schools?LividBovine wrote:
Yes they should be able to work independently. But this is also limiting the potential of those kids is it not? Shouldn't the higher achievers be challenged more if they are capable?
Uhhhhhhhh Spark, we are talking about college here, are you honestly going to argue that the people who choose to go to college or not are not supposed to be responsible enough to make that choice?Spark wrote:
Because in lowing's eyes, everyone is responsible for their own actions, even as a kid!lowing wrote:
Maybe those stats could be changed by the one dropping out staying in school. It is not my job to force feed education to those that do not choose it. Free will is awesome.AussieReaper wrote:
You are missing the fact that 1 out of 4 kids dropping out before finishing high school is unacceptable and that the education standards in America will result in a less competitive market, both globally and on the local scale.
Get real. It's the parents' job to send their kids to school...
Also, I hate to break it to you, but yeah, you are responsible for your own actions. Who else do you suggest would be? Oh wait let me guess, GOVT.!!!
Nope not at all, I am willing to have govt. money available for those that need help to improve their lives in the form of grants and interest free or small interest loan Wait a second, we already do. So what more is it yo want me to do? Shove their heads in the water and force them to drink or drown in education. Sorry, that is on them not me. I have my own life and family to worry about. If you are disgusted, try pointing that disgust at the kids, or the kids parents, or probably both.Spark wrote:
[b]My point is lowing is trying to blame the kids for being failures and insinuating that they, therefore, don't deserve our attention (despite not being legally independent...)LividBovine wrote:
You want to treat all kids equal in school? Is it not true that some kids/people are better suited for learning than others? Why hold the high performers back.Spark wrote:
Because in lowing's eyes, everyone is responsible for their own actions, even as a kid!
Get real. EDIT: It's the parents' job to send their kids to school...
EDIT: What's your point?
I really do not give a shit who is to blame for other kids failures, I am not on this earth to play mother hen to other peoples kids. I have my own to take care of and over see their education until they are old enough to decide if they want college or not. So no, rotten ass, disrespectful high school drop outs do not deserve my attention.
Not exactly. We are able to enrole our kids in other schools of our choosing, but it is not very practicle most of the time. Some areas have pretty decent private or charter schools, but the private ones are more money and not neccesarily better. Best bet here is to raise our kids well and teach them the extra stuff ourselves.DrunkFace wrote:
The states got anything like Selective high schools?
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
And just how is that any different than the US, other than we just pay back the loan in installments instead of in higher taxes (essentially the same thing)?AussieReaper wrote:
Well, I've drawn a lot of criticism, so let me explain how University for all in Australia works.
You go to uni, after getting accepted to whatever degree you have applied for, based on achieving good grades in high school. Without them you won't get accepted.
If you don't have the average $800 per course, and remember you do 4 courses per semester, 2 semesters a year and usually 3 years of study, you are looking around the $30,000 mark typically.
To pay for this, you go on whats known as HECS. Simply means the govt. will loan you the money, interest free, which goes towards your courses and your courses only. Once you leave uni, finished your degree or pull out, whatever income you make is then taxed a higher amount which goes straight into your HECs debt. When it's payed off that extra tax is dropped. That tax is based on your income rates. The individual who made the loan pays it back.
How is that not reasonable? University degrees based on merit rather than bank balance? Which the individual pays back when they land a job. And you have the option to pay it off sooner if you have a job, and if you choose to you can pay it all up front.
Oh, and here the govt makes money on the interest.
Of course, if your family has a high income, you don't qualify for the loans...but you may qualify for academic or sports scholarships. And if you're really low-income, you get grants...free money from the govt to attend college.
So...our system is better and more fair than yours.
You suck. We win.
Next topic.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular