Slashdot Mirror
Environmental Chemicals Are Feminizing Boys
pickens writes "Denmark has unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, sunscreen lotion, and moisturizing cream. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminizing male children all over the developed world. Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes. 'The amounts that two-year-olds absorb from the [preservatives] parabens propylparaben and butylparaben can constitute a risk for oestrogen-like disruptions of the endocrine system,' says the report. The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising. 'Both the public and wildlife are inadequately protected from harm, as regulation is based on looking at exposure to each substance in isolation, and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not,' says Gwynne Lyons, director of Chem Trust."
All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy.
"The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising."
And how are these chemicals affecting animal population ratios?
For the last time, they aren't dolls, they're action figures!!
Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle. Nothing to do with that at all. It's the chemicals!
GIMME A BREAK.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
More cute gender-bending emo boys is a good thing.
I assume they mean the Netherlands, since the Rotterdam Erasmus University is in the Netherlands.
When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
I don't understand how hormones will dictate that you will enjoy dolls and tea sets and cross dress. Aren't all those things... cultural...?
Given that this is good news for feminism, I don't see anything being done to correct this.
And oh yeah, I submitted the same story few week back.
Proportion of females is rising. This is good news.
Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren. Again, fellow Slashdotters, this is good news.
commander taco
Chem Trust's website has some PDF files, but none of them are 326 pages, as mentioned in the Telegraph article. http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/Press_and_Media.php
One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be. If there's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.
To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing, a Dutch study found 20% of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment. In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent. Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation...
We now have an explanation for the "Metrosexual" trend...
"Nature bats last..."
While it's easy to laugh at the "positive" aspects of being one of very few men -- it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50% (or even 10%) men are needed to carry on the species.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
FTFA:
I skimmed over the article really fast and the only thing I was thinking about was lesbians.
I'm going to be just fine I think.
This plot sounds awfully familiar. Are they taking their research from Tim Burton's "Batman" movie?
One of the main reasons that we participate in cultural activities is to fit in with the group. If chemical-induced hormones made boys more likely to associate/relate with girls then they would be more likely to participate in girl activities - however culture defines them.
That said, it does seem like a bit of a leap to me - too many factors to control for to get meaningful results. I'd be more convinced by separate studies that showed that exposure to certain chemicals increased certain hormone levels, and people with those hormone levels were more likely to have feminine behavior than to jump straight between the two like the summary implies.
Is that Elton John?
they want to completely deregulate all businesses, shut down the EPA, and get rid of every environmental law ever created. they make fun of green peace and anyone who doesn't eat mercury for breakfast is a 'goddamn treehugging long hair libtard'.
but in truth, it is Conservative, Christian Republicans who are responsible for the proliferation of transvestite and transexual porn sites, that keep mucking up my google image searches. The entire academic and social movement to legitimize the transgendered and even to create multiple genders 'in between' male and female owes it's rising popularity to the Republican War on Hippies.
Isn't it Ironic, don't you think?
Wow, I think you are a little too accepting of other peoples' opinion. Stop taking sensitivity classes before you turn into a ball of all-accepting happiness please.
In short, yes.
Denmark has _no_ rednecks/chavs/illiterate underclass. Quite frankly it's amazing, and is mostly a result of huge investment in education after the second world war.
Wait...2 year olds don't have sperm, at least that is what I remember from health class. If it drives down their sperm count, does that mean their testicle will implode?
"I love my dead gay son"
Can I bum a sig?
More women mean they'll have to lower their standards and accept any old shit we care to do thanks to the laws of supply and demand. I foresee a generation coming up where women will be back in the kitchen where they belong. :P
Provides requested citation
It's important to note that the Danes are not genetically more gifted than the rest of us. The idiotic English chavs and the Danes were the same people a few tens of generations ago. The things that make us stupid are cultural anti-intellectualism and childhood malnutrition, not some inborn deficit that applies to whole swaths of people.
If we're heading for an idiocracy, it's not because idiots breed more. Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else, on the whole. Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.
You forgot the two-faced backstabbing, the bald-faced lies, etc. Women are evil to each other in their younger years.
Not being any sort of expert on human behaviour, I can only hazard a guess that this behaviour stems from the instinct that other women are potential opponents when they seek their ideal mate.
Regardless of that I personally support a change of behaviour to predominantly "feminine".
Ezekiel 23:20
There is no reason for this post to be moderated to "-1 Troll". It's a perfectly reasonable thought.
This article does not make sense.
Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc. External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.
Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story, and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.
However, I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm, which could be a reason for the decline of male births. The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females, and is however far too low to account for this change.
What opinion? The first AC was clearly making a statement of fact. A blatantly false statement of fact. More emo bullshit is never needed by anyone anywhere.
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls. ... In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year.
Would it have killed them to say what the observed rate is? Here's my analysis.
Google says:
United Kingdom — Birth Rate: 10.65 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Population, United Kingdom 61,399,118 - 2008
My calculator tells me that's 10.65 * 61,399,118 / 1000 = 653900.6067.
With 106 M:100 F ratio, we expect 106/206 * 653900 = 336473 males/year.
336473 / 653900 = 51.46% expected (106:100)
(336473 - 2000) / 653900 = 51.15% observed (about 104.7:100)
If we assume they're being honest when using the word thousands, then the observed rate in Britain is less than 104.7 boys for every 100 girls.
[Disclaimer: I'm not the same AC as the parent.]
It's appalling but understandable when you consider that most teachers are government employees...
Money is the root of all evil?
With all the girly men out there, that just leaves more women for the real men out there.. *Salutes the morning wood* I'm glad to be an american. Now all eurobabes line up for you 100% USDA Beef!
Way back on August 4, 1961.
If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine. The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters, rather than have the choice made for us (indeed, forcing choices upon others is, according to your lists, a masculine thing, and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create).
Besides, I like to think self-reliance, strength and competition are positive qualities. Many of the most famous artists were guys, so I'm not sure 'art' should be considered a 'feminine element', nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness' should be on that list of yours.
Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you didn't just pull those lists out of you ass, then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society, and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50% of your citizens is ethical.
Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else
Because stupid people don't pass on their genes?
Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
He is not suggesting that boys evolved to play with guns. He is suggesting that boys evolved with a disposition to pursue - amongst other things - adventurous endeavours, seek out excitement and to dominate others (call it leadership if you like). Messing around with guns is part of that. Playing with dollies is not.
It is a sweeping generalisation. Obviously some people do not fit the stereotype, and also obviously, chemicals can change the balance.
There was a time when if a country was attacked, that country would invade the attackers country, kill all opposition, and subjugate the population to ensure they could never attack again. Those days have gone. With the chemical changes affecting the population of the west, what they do instead, is sort of invade, but also trying not to hurt anybody. When the country being invade complains, the west gets sad and questions its purpose in life. They talk themselves out of the invasion before it has really begun and eventually withdraw their troops for fear that some of them might get hurt... ready for the whole process to start over again.
Damn, where are my mod points when I really have a use for them?
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Denmark would suggest that's not relevant.
Guess all we bible thumping luddites in Amish country can still get it up, thank you very much.
This is my sig.
It's a perfectly ridiculous thought. Many of the listed 'masculine' qualities aren't masculine, and almost all of the 'feminine' qualities aren't feminine either. And this idea some people (seemingly including the OP) have that the world would be all sunshine and happiness and everyone would shit rainbows if we put women in charge is just delusional.
Cool.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
which protested that US exports "could be impacted".
Have you seen the US trade deficit lately? The man was trying to save some jobs.
But, with that said, I think plastic should be banned.
This is my sig.
They are government employees in Danmark, too. In fact I'd imagine a higher proportion of them are, based on grandparent's point about investment on education - just who do you think did that?
But then again, that's not compatible with libertarian/conservative/far right agenda, so you ignored it and posted pointless propaganda for your pet ideology instead. Just as pretty much everyone else who has strong opinions - left or right - on these matters - or any matter, really - does. That's an unfortunate human trait, and one we really have to get rid of if we're to advance as a species.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The only reason why I know this whole industry even exists is because a friend of mine will regularly spend between 800 and 1500 EUR on products made by an organic cosmetics company. They sell sell ridicolously overpriced products to people who are willing to pay for them. I don't remember the name of the company, except that it was based in the UK.
I remembered this whole thing because she sent me a study made into the effects of parabens (found in most cosmetics), but when I looked up the author, she was employed by the very same company that makes these organic creams. I even went on pubmeb to look for further studies but I couldn't find any that even looked into the topic. (I did find some that did studies on rats though.)
I'm not saying that Chem Trust actually has any links to the whole organic industry, but it was the first thing that struck my mind as i read this: they finally made it into the open.
You do have to wonder if the widening gap between rural and city male voting behavior might actually be attributable to exposure to these sorts of chemicals, in all seriousness.
This is my sig.
blah blah, and more polar bears exhibit hermaphroditic features, and there's a higher percentage of Florida alligators that are female, and girls are hitting puberty earlier these days, and, and, an
Well, I would think that, when you people are ignoring that animals in nature are all becoming genders, 10 year old girls are getting pregnant, that, you might look up from your Wii and say, "hey, you know, the whole planet is fucked up, and we might well, actually try to FIX IT." Sometimes when there is a fire, you have to yell more than once.
Just a thought.
This is my sig.
Damn mama's boy...turn in your man card now...if you ever had one that is.
First episode (AFAIR), Captain Jack Harkness, tasting the estrogen in the rain - and cursing this bloody planet for its mismanagement of chemical waste.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
so, Mr. or Mrs. AC, who is going to protect the crops from wild pigs ?
When the boys were marching on Champs Elisees on their way to impale the boys marching on Unter den Linden on bayonets, there were a lot of girls cheering them on ... my bet was they went marching because they knew that was their only hope of getting laid (when they came back just before Christmas), not because they liked to run in the mud, to be shot at with high caliber bullets, and to bash heads.
Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.
The fundamental flaw of education is:
1) it treats all children the same. You should learn this, because you are 7 years old. Nothing else matters. You could be a grand master in chess, but you're not allowed to write cursive yet! You have been reading since you were 3? Well, forget it, you're going to learn it all over again!
2) No child left behind. We're treating everyone the same, and that treatment will be the one required for the dumbest. The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!
This will be interesting in how it plays out with the excess number of males in China because of the 'one child policy'. If the gender transition occurs in China because of chemical pollution, and becomes more accepted, it could stave off world war three. If it doesn't, the larger number of available females in other countries could encourage emigration or war. Hopefully the pollution gets stopped before any of these longer term effects have a chance.
These reports come out every few years (re: DDT, et al.), and while they're not strictly incorrect, they tend to look at a very incomplete picture of what is going on. To be perfectly blunt, there's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys, and don't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general.
Anyhow, if you take a look at the steroidgenesis diagram, you'll notice that testosterone is a precursor of oestrogen by way of aromatase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steroidogenesis.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase
Now, for those people who remember their organic chemistry and stoichiometry, rates of conversion reactions are increased with catalysts, and decreased with modulators. So, while aromatase will increase the rate at which testosterone converts into estrogen, an aromatase inhibitor will decrease conversion of testosterone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase_Inhibitor
And it turns out that Aromatase Inhibitors are naturally occurring:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JGN-4TWSRR1-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1093611464&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2bb4c9b03794595de88508b47078c134
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research_collections/pritzker_lab/pritzker/people/people_images/stilbocarpapolaris.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research_collections/pritzker_lab/pritzker/people/alumni_mitchell.html&usg=__Xc_RyM3WV_KmlfwEp0KCwul_DAk=&h=137&w=200&sz=9&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=jlXt6kpeBMYsJM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBrassaiopsis%2Bglomerulata%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
And there's a growing list of known aromatase inhibitors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemestane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrozole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letrozole
So, simply put... what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls? Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys? Or does it go both ways? Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general?
Lastly, I'd also bring up the question whether feminization of boys is primarily caused by environmental chemicals, or if it's driven be completely different factors, such as 1) a cultural response to civil rights access for women, 2) decreased opportunities for war caused by nuclear detante, or 3) need for peaceful co-existance due to worldwide population increases a
Let's imagine a parameter f that describes the feminization of society. We'll arbitrarily assign f = 0.1 for the Mongol Hordes, and f = 0.9 for, say, modern France. At any point, there is a value of f that's determined by not only the chemical environment, but also by cultural factors, population density, whether there's a war on, whether the culture is a patriarchy, and even heredity. You have a choice made for you regardless of whether you like it or not. Who's to say that your culture's f is the optimal one?
My idea (which I admit I don't have any hard evidence for) is that societies with a higher f are more suited for modern urbanized, sedentary civilization, and that we have a far lower need for masculine behavior than our ancestors did when life was nasty, brutish, and short. In fact, I believe that stereotypically masculine is in fact maladaptive in today's societies.
Also, you can't deny that among male artists, the prevalence of homosexuality is far higher than it is among the general population. That's not a homophobic view, but a factual one. (And as a fan of Tchaikovsky, it's a difference I appreciate.)
> Now all eurobabes line up for you 100% USDA Beef!
Eeey! What happened to your foreskin?!
When you publicize the harm something can do, you also need to publicize the benefits compared to the next-best option.
[The numbers below are for illustration only and don't reflect any real numbers - i.e. they are totally made up]
"Oh noze, we must ban this or that chemical because 0.1% of our boys will grow up effeminate or be born with female parts" is alarming. But a statement saying "while these chemicals have their downsides, they save an estimated 20 lives a year" provides some context, and can shift the debate from "OMG ban them immediately" to "let's fund research into a better way to save those same 20 lives."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Although this book is focused on how xenobiotics affect fertility, the topic of feminization is discussed in passing.
I love how this book was published back in '97, and now, more than a decade later, we still keep pumping endocrine disruptors into the environment and in consumer products. Ha-ha.
As for masculinized females, go look up "guevedoche"...
IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this. Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist. And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching? Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.
How about every American comedy since the 1990's?
"Programming is life, the rest is mere details"
Whereas these are more associated with feminine elements, these come to mind:
IMHO, the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology.
What a load of shit! This reads like the default characteristics for a female RPG character. Go back to playing WoW asshole!
Oh but we do. We call them first and second generation immigrants.
I guess this finally explains all of those awful bands like Fallout Boy and My Chemical Romance.
This is fantastic news, the less masculinity and testosterone in the world the better! Hope this trend continues to the point where one day, a half million years from now, males don't exist at all and are no longer needed :P
But feminism aside, I think this is more of a good thing then a bad thing, for anybody. Less testosterone going through boys means likely less aggression and violence, more kindness and nurturing. This doesn't hurt anybody. Just some egos maybe, and most people's egos could use a little downsizing now and then.
Yes, these attributes are stereotypes.
But stereotypes don't appear in a vacuum. They're useful heuristics for dealing with a complex world, and always contain some truth. Being open-minded consists of admitting the possibility that in specific instances, our stereotypes may be wrong. It doesn't require us to abandon them altogether.
Unionized government employees...
..don't panic
The fundamental flaw of education is:
1) it treats all children the same. You should learn this, because you are 7 years old. Nothing else matters. You could be a grand master in chess, but you're not allowed to write cursive yet! You have been reading since you were 3? Well, forget it, you're going to learn it all over again!
2) No child left behind. We're treating everyone the same, and that treatment will be the one required for the dumbest. The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!
Really? And this is the case everywhere? Guess I'll have to go and have a serious talk with the teacher I had at age 7 for daring to put me apart with a proper book because I was ahead 2 years of the rest of the class when it came to reading(switch from 1 country to another).
Perhaps these are fatal flaws of US education?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else
Because stupid people don't pass on their genes?
Because traits that are inherited can still be affected by environmental conditions? Because most traits are anyway a combination of genetic and environmental factors?
In other words, stupid people may or may not be stupid due to their genes, and their children's intelligence will not be determined solely by the genes that they inherit from their parents.
> The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!
The smart ones.
Your argument doesn't agree with reality. We do in fact have magnet schools, gifted and talented programs, and special education. We need more of them, and more tracking in general, I agree. But that's beside the point.
Tracking doesn't matter for ordinary kids in the middle of the bell curve. We're failing them too, moreso than ever. You're going to have to find another explanation for the failures of our school system and the hollowing-out of our culture. Insufficient tracking simply can't explain what we're seeing.
So, instead of encouraging research to develop newer. safer products (which would obviously have a market if the unsafe stuff is banned), it's better to have his oil buddies just keep manufacturing the same old crap.
So, what happens when an offshore competitor develops a replacement? Domestic production craters, and you end up with no jobs AND more imports.
There's a reason we don't allow asbestos (as another example of an unsafe product) to be used in schools, etc., and the ban drove innovation and created new economic opportunities. Your way of thinking, we'd have more cancers.
Seeing as Queer eye for the straight guy has disappeared, we have nothing to be afraid of. I personally think the "feminizing" of guys, aka metrosexualism (sic), is purely a result of the demand for more hygenic and "beautiful" men by women. What girl doesn't love the way gay guys look? Sure, women like the masculine looking guy too but usually that includes waxed chest hair, symmetrically shaved stubble, etc.
Quoting David Chappelle, ""If men could have sex with a woman in a cardboard box, we wouldn't buy a house...."
Anyway, back to topic: we should be ok as long as more women drink/eat hormone laden milk and beef. Do a google on the topic, or go here for a sample (poor one, albeit): http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx
We'll have super feminine women and sorta effeminate men. We'll be back at square one!
And I thought I was getting man boobs from eating too much. :)
Could it be that people that use allot of items containing these substances also have a more feminine culture they pass on to their children? As far as 106 girls for each 100 buys being born, could it be connected to a changing lifestyle in some way, like women choosing to get pregnant later because of careers? Could it be that having plenty of food tweaks our fertility to produce more women and less men, and vice versa? I have no clue, just suggesting... (:
From here
Cows pumped up with hormones to produce milk all year round is seemingly also doing damage. Men receive a lot of oestrogen via milk produced in this fashion, nothing the dairy industry wants anyone to know about, of course.
It's not the fault of social scientists, really, that their error bars are huge. Unlike physics, social sciences (and medicine, and psychology) are constrained by quaint ideas like informed consent and humanitarian compassion, and these restrictions are enforced by hard-nosed institutional review boards who need to approve every experiment. Social scientists (and doctors, and psychologists) are talented people, but they're forced to make do with milquetoast studies and the exceedingly rare "natural experiment". Some of the most informative studies in the area, in fact, would be off-limits today.
It's easy to decry the social sciences as fuzzy, but could you do better under the same constraints? We should commend social scientists for at least trying.
Private school teachers are paid even less, but then they're not expected to deal with violent kids, and most of the children either actually want to be there, or their parents force them to want to be there.
If we started a voucher system and private schools had to accept public-school-quality students, they'd suck just as bad.
i suspect its been this way since hormones got discovered.
ever since, there have a been something of a divide between chemists and psychologists, as each want to be the authority on the behavior of man.
thing is tho that the body is a feedback loop, with more chemicals produced depending on all sorts of input, resulting in new output that again produce inputs. The results of this loop is then stored in dna, dna that gets passed on and mixed with other dna.
the big trick is that non-chemical input can result in changes in chemical production, just as well as chemical input can have an effect on existing ones. That's why mood altering drugs, placebo and conversations may all work.
all in all it becomes different tools to do the same job...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
The debate of nature vs. nurture on intelligence is far from settled, but it seems quite logical to assume that genetics *must* have some influence on intelligence, otherwise dogs and apes and all other animals would be as smart as we are.
You seem to have fallen in a similar logical trap which creationists use when they claim that genetic evolution cannot cause species differentiation. You claim that genetics cannot explain differences among animals of one species, they claim genetics cannot explain differences between species.
Let's face it, genetics does cause a difference. For instance women of Jewish European ancestry are more likely to have breast cancer, the gene that causes this has been isolated. By knowing of this susceptibility, people can take the needed precautions to detect the disease sooner and improve the chances of treatment.
I think this taboo about acknowledging possible genetic causes for differences in intelligence is doing much more harm than good. If we had a better knowledge of what causes better or worse intelligence, we could create a treatment for disorders that afflict the disadvantaged. It helps no one to blame it solely on the educational system.
Anyhow, it's ironical that you make this argument here, where the archetypal slashdotter is a virgin geek that hacks computers in his mom's basement while the football players get all the girls...
I see that you have a strong opinion about people with strong opinions, and are posting pointless propaganda for your pet ideology.
(Oh, and :)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'd also like to add #3: Parents taking little to no interest in their child's education, and expecting the schools to assume that role in its entirety, and intervening only to tell of the teacher who took away their little angel's cell phone because they were texting during class. I dunno about you, but my parents were very proactively involved in my education. They taught me reading, writing, and 'rithmetic before I set foot in kindergarten, and they never stopped assisting and requiring accountability. They encouraged me to think critically and ask questions. If I didn't know, they encouraged me to look it up - and then asked me what I learned after I did. They bought me stuff at yard sales to take apart and I had to identify the basic components inside. If I got in trouble with a teacher and my parents found out about it (and since my parents worked in the school I went to, that was inevitable), the other half would come when I got home, and it wouldn't be pretty. I survived the wooden spoon, I survived learning to eat a balanced diet, I survived homework, and I survived not watching TV until I was 5 or 6.
If we're heading for an idiocracy, it's not because idiots breed more. Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else, on the whole.
That's a nice PC theory that's completely unsupported by evidence. One problem with it: children of idiots are already behind before entering school. Which leads to two possibilities: idiots make shitty parents (quite likely), and intelligence is hereditary (also likely).
I realize people really don't want to believe that ability is inherited, but there's no reason that the same brain structures that lead to having greater skill at critical reasoning abilities wouldn't be passed genetically.
You seem to be labouring under the illusion that women are not in charge.
"The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World"
"Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children."
"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man,".
If that weren't enough women select the suitability of the their men for breeding potential whilst men select for a role in the hay.
Women remake the entire human population every three generations.
The idea that "we" have any input as to whether women are in charge is just delusional. "We are left to our petty intrigues, conspiracies, and wet dreams of control, seemingly oblivious to the rules of the game.
And as you observe, the world is not all sunshine, happiness and......
Just like boys, women construct and enforce a social hierarchy. But where little Tommy is the alpha male because he's bigger and not afraid to bloody some noses to maintain his position, little Janey is alpha female because she's better at manipulation and not afraid to spread some rumours to maintain hers.
Isn't the solution more obvious -- in developed societies, boys and girls won't be killed or beaten for doing things that don't fit the traditional gender roles. (Yes, I'm quite aware that the US still has plenty of bigots who would beat or kill transmen and transwomen.)
Sure, there may be chemicals damaging sperm production and the like, but it seems like a lot of this could be explained by more open minds.
I don't know which strategy angers me more. I know all the reasons why dishonest and intimidating people get ahead, but I wish it were possible construct a society in which we were rewarded for being sincere, forthright, and honest. Unfortunately, we have all the wrong incentives.
Women are narcissistic monsters who would destroy the world and the planet in only 1 month when their collective PMS cycles synchronize.
Chemical Estrogens, xenoestrogens, can also cause an array of female diseases such as PMS, endometriosis, cramps, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cysts, magnesium deficiency (chocolate craving [chocolate contains magnesium]), Vitamin B deficiency (neuropathy, restlesslegsyndrome), decreased thyroid receptor sensitivity (hypothyroidism with normal thryoid hormone levels) with ensuing weight gain and hair loss.
Read about it here:
http://www.goodbyepms.com/xeno.htm
It is standard procedure to give cattle synthetic estrogen to increase rate of growth, increase fat marbling, and increase water retention (meat more tender). Cattle are routinely given PMS.
First let me preface this rant by saying that the article is mistaking precocious puberty (I think) for brain sex and generally just a lot of rabble-rousing and nonsense. Brain sex (along with sexual orientation) is established in the womb, not when you're a two-year old toddler. Absolute rubbish. Even if we're talking about feminization, there seem to be 3 separate things the article is completely jumbled about: brain sex, primary sex (genitals), and secondary sexual characteristics (e.g. sperm count, gynecomastia, facial hair, voice box resonance). The article also completely ignores that all 3 of those things can sometimes naturally be a mixture of male and female. Shit happens. I also thought that the article was talking about sperm count in toddlers, but maybe I just need to get some coffee already.
That being said, does anyone know if girls could possibly be affected by this as well? Are rates of female to male transsexualism dropping while male to female transsexualism rising?
Moreover, does anyone care? Instead it appears we're so concerned about boys displaying feminine traits as though being feminine is some kind of sickness. It seems we probably wouldn't even care if girls were becoming more masculine, since masculinity is *good* and femininity is *bad* (but a condition of being a weaker female, so we'll allow it in females).
Granted, being a male to female transsexual does suck, and if there's something causing it we should take time to understand what's happening and how to prevent it. However, if humans at large are causing male to female transsexualism, then doesn't society owe it to male to female transsexuals to help them integrate as women, e.g. by improving their access to hormone replacement and forcing insurance companies to cover genital surgery?
Oh, I forgot, femininity is what's wrong here, not the fact that they're normal women psychologically who just happened to be male for some reason. We must destroy the disease of femininity!
*sigh*. Maybe the most telling thing will be when this post gets modded into oblivion.
If the articles are true, does anyone have an answer for a male affected by the problem? We sure as hell don't know how to change brain sex. Does that mean we'll just keep calling them fags and perverts and sick in the head and parading them on Jerry Springer and electrocuting them? Will we at least give these transgendered males a chance at having a little self-worth? I'm looking at feminists like Janice Raymond as much as I'm looking at Jerry Springer here.
Of course I'm talking about it as though transsexualism is something completely new, caused by these chemicals. Humanity has had female to male and male to female transsexualism long before it even knew what a petrochemical was. For some reason though we view the female to male transsexual as ascention, a natural course of moving from weakness to strength whereas the male to female transsexual is a deception, a shameful mockery.
I guess that's pretty clever actually. How do you get a conservative on board to get serious about the environment? Play on his misogyny. Why else would he care about something feminine like "mother earth" unless the environment might prevent him from having a strong son.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
> Let's imagine a parameter f that describes the feminization of society. We'll arbitrarily assign f = 0.1 for the Mongol Hordes, and f = 0.9 for, say, modern France. At any point, there is a value of f that's determined by not only the chemical environment, but also by cultural factors, population density, whether there's a war on, whether the culture is a patriarchy, and even heredity. You have a choice made for you regardless of whether you like it or not. Who's to say that your culture's f is the optimal one?
What does that even mean, an optimal f? How do you measure when a culture is 'optimal'?
> My idea (which I admit I don't have any hard evidence for) is that societies with a higher f are more suited for modern urbanized, sedentary civilization, and that we have a far lower need for masculine behavior than our ancestors did when life was nasty, brutish, and short. In fact, I believe that stereotypically masculine is in fact maladaptive in today's societies.
Please try to define this stereotypically masculine behavior. If you are the same AC as the OP, please show why none of the things on the 'masculine elements list' are worth preserving, and why we should eleminate these things rather than attempt to channel them into something constructive.
> Also, you can't deny that among male artists, the prevalence of homosexuality is far higher than it is among the general population. That's not a homophobic view, but a factual one. (And as a fan of Tchaikovsky, it's a difference I appreciate.)
It is funny that you mention this, one other poster mentioned that gay men might be more masculine than 'normal' men ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444124&cid=30105294 , the post itself does not provide any arguments to defend this statement, but some of the replies do), if this is true then gay artists may very well support the hypothesis that art is a masculine quality rather than undermine it.
TFA mentions that the ratio of newborn boys to girls is decreasing. That's the bigger picture.
When I was a child of seven, my public librarian talked to me a bit, and gave me an adult card with a note to personnel that I was authorised to use the adult reading room, the music stacks, microfiche and all other facilities.
In high school, my swim team had to meet at the civic center pool about 1 PM to fit its schedule. Local people made the decision to move all of us to an 11 AM lunch, a decision that didn't need to be ratified by the superintendent of schools - in fact, it took only the team coach asking an assistant principal to set it up with the cafeteria staff, and they served 12 people an hour early to make it happen.
High school fencing was a club, (even though our club beat several college teams). We picked a schedule when the gym was empty, and had a couple of keys to it, which were carried at one point or another by just about everyone on the team, with no problems.
This was all 35 years or more ago. It seems totally absurd now to say practically every responsible adult I knew as a child bent 'the rules', knew which way to bend them, and it all worked pretty damned well, but that was the way of things.
Who is John Cabal?
Wait... so... agriculture? I mean, I don't know how many farm boys are going to agree with you.
And... negotiation? I don't know how many business men are going to agree with you.
And... art? I don't think many male musicians will agree with you.
And... trade? I don't think the whole male part of the economy will agree with you.
And... subtlety? I don't think any male diplomat, spy, marketer, etc. will agree with you.
Seriously, that is completely ridiculous. You realize a lot of the top art buyers are rich, competitive men? Buddha was a man? Margaret Thatcher was a woman? Boys have more of a reputation for playing with nature than girls do?
It's easy and convenient to blame the parents. And who knows? You might be right.
But it's irrelevant. We can't compel parents to be better parents. Schools must take up the slack, for better or for worse. How do you intend to remedy the situation? As the old saying goes, you're cursing the dark without lighting a candle.
Er, how is this insightful? It seems to encourage leaving slower learners behind at the first opportunity -- a good way to build up a chav contingent.
Additionally, the only way this encourages intellectualism by literally placing children in higher classes than their peers -- a good way to foster classism.
Furthermore, it's expensive.
If you have a good solution propose it, and do not make up a non-existent solution without actually describing it.
Denmark has _no_ rednecks/chavs/illiterate underclass. Quite frankly it's amazing, and is mostly a result of huge investment in education after the second world war.
Maybe not as a direct, de facto, class in society - no...
But don't forget that we do have a lot of people who still fall in those categories.
And these people tend to come from the lowest classes as far as I have experienced.
Not every Dane is well educated although almost everyone has the opportunity.
This article almost comes across as being written by some kind of homophobe. Sure, avoid chemicals that are really dangerous, and while were are at it they want to "fix" the problem of feminine males. Wake up! The traditional male roles are slowly becoming obsolete and the male form is slowly becoming socially undesirable. (Ya know, according to the all mighty TV if you are born male you might as well go ahead and fill out a sex offender registration form because because your are sure to be a rapist, pedafile, pervert, or something)
It sounds like they want to blame this "problem" on some magic chemical that they can make go away, lest find themselves in a world surrounded by Ranma Satome-alikes.
Let's call them Final Fantasy.
Everyone think they and their kids are so special. If we only provided them with private tutoring, they'd be the next Einsteins, eh.
Uniform education for K-12 gets East Asian kids to whip our kids' (and everyone else') butt.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
They say there's nothing more evil than a teenage girl.
I suspect there's a good case for arguing that we have constructed a society in which we are rewarded for being sincere, forthright and honest. It's not perfect, but the prospects of an honest, ethical person in modern society are likely a good deal better than they would be for such a person in either previous human societies or nature in general.
After all, little girls aren't backstabbing manipulators because they want to be successful in modern society, they're that way because it was a winning strategy in prehistory that is, to some extent at least, encoded in their genes. The fact that you get angry about that behaviour instead of finding it commendable suggests that society is having a moderating influence on our nastier instincts.
www.dimitrithelover.com/toronto_real_men_august_2009.html
that environmental factors could lead to children who don't follow their societies' cultural expectations with respect to gender (e.g. girls play with dolls, boys don't).
If this were true in the more general case of cultural expectations being defied, it might lead to more individuals like RMS. He seems to defy cultural expectations in a number of ways.
Everyone knows that girls are inferior and for boys to be made like girls is the worst thing in the world. Girls should be happy to be made more like boys. I believe Madonna has a song about this.
That makes sense what is down wind of siliconvalley. I thought it was all just marijuana that was feminizing boys.
That was back when exercising discretion wasn't a one-way ticket to being sued.
In the future today's geeks will score higher on the Chuck Norris scale by comparison to younger non-geek males.
I specifically made it reason number three on the list, because I do comepletely agree with the GP's first two points. As I said before, both of my parents are teachers, so I hear exactly what they're going through to try to convince parents that they need to take a part in their child's education as well.
I'ma flip the question on you a bit and ask you to clarify your statement, which says that "we can't compel parents to be better parents", but then implies that it's possible to compel schools to do a better job.
I'll be honest and say that I really don't know what the solution is, because I don't want to be a parent before I am in a place to become one. When I finally do become a parent, I want to be an active part of that child's life. I don't think it's a good idea to start legislating good parenting, nor do I think that some kind of "parenting license" is the answer. Maybe I am cursing the dark instead of lighting a candle here, but perhaps that's because I simply can't relate to a parent who has a child and then lets Nickelodeon and Disney Channel raise him/her. I can't relate to a childhood where I was told, "No, that behavior isn't acceptable". And I certainly can't relate to a childhood where abuse is present.
You've caught me, sir/madam. I don't know the answer. But do you truly believe that having a school say "$BEHAVIOR isn't acceptable" is going to work when at home, "Do whatever you want" is the standard to follow?
No, what is appalling is that the UK's state schools and now through Universities, courtesy of Ms Shirly Williams, so dumbed down in persuit of a cultural experiment that able children do not lean enough enough, quickly enough and the average child vegetates.
Most, but not all Teachers have willingly gone along with this and some, and all Teacher Unions have persistently lied to the public.
Schools and Universities should teach each child to the best of their ability, as quickly as possible both vocational and if possible academic skills.
They are not for left wing cultural change, nor to massage the Governments employment statistics, BUT that is what they have been used for for over 50 years.
Politicians and Educationalists, aided and abetted by a few arrogant Industrialists, have all but decimated British scholarship, especially in Mathematics and the Hard Sciences while Polish economic migrants do the manual work. A disaster which will be very hard to correct since there are very few real Teachers any more.
The Quality is poor across the board. To teach something, you need to know how to do it first, then how to teach. The idea of a professional teacher is absurd, and leads to the lunacy you can see every day in the Rue Faidherbe in Boulogne, kids who can't even order coffee and cake in French, and teachers who are no better. Here the kids are bi-lingual in German and French and many speak Italian or English too. The Math/Science teachers have degrees in those subjects, no just a B.Ed.
As a result kids get educated and the Teachers are respected.
First off, that long ScienceDirect URL... there's a reason why the DOI was invented. :P http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytol.2008.10.009
Now people... realize that plants are really damned good stinkers when it comes to chemical warfare. Anybody who was surprised by that aromatase-inhibitor producing plant, go look up the case of the Australian sheep infertility and clover.
As for stuff suspected of feminizing males... I'm sure people here know that a certain well-known foodstuff has a good amount of phytoestrogens? Maybe soybeans should be studied carefully too?
Being PC has nothing to do with it. I agree with many non-PC positions. (For example, I'm a big fan of nuclear power.)
How is that inconsistent with the hypothesis that intelligence deficits in the underclass are the result of cultural factors (parents who don't read to their children) and childhood malnutrition (cheetos are NOT good for a three year old)?
You seem to think that cultural factors and heritability are equally likely, but I don't see the argument for the latter. The cultural theory better explains the facts, with fewer assumptions and less special pleading.
"You forgot the two-faced backstabbing, the bald-faced lies, etc."
Even worse, they nag. It even wears down my tinfoil helmet.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Impossible. If you get down to it, life indeed is about busting each others' heads to survive/get ahead.
Besides, what we consider "fair" is pretty damn arbitrary and gives "unfair" advantage to those who are more smart/hard-working/strong.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
That also explains why Crapple's fanbase is nothing more than fudgepacking, twinkie sucking faggots.
Sure they do. Just the same as clever ones. The trouble is that stupid behavior doesn't necessarily imply stupid genes.
If a computer system behaves in a stupid manner, you don't immediately think "that must be a hardware error". The first place to look is the software. Similarly, if a person behaves in stupid manner, that doesn't imply the fault is in the brain. If otherwise bright kids get trained to act in a stupid way, then their avenues for expressing that intelligence are going to be somewhat limited.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Dear god, you're right! It's all so clear now! The Iwomenati are behind everything!
really? fine linens & moisturizing cream are feminizing our young men? they had to do research to figure that out? really?
Depends on which neck of the woods you live in.
Living in ultraliberal Massachusetts, a lot of time and energy goes into figuring out how to get the most education out a buck. Recently my local school system implemented "flexible tracking", in which kids are frequently tested and reassigned to different tracks on a subject by subject basis throughout the course of the day. If you tested ahead on a specific math skill you might be grouped with students needing drill on that subject in one period, then grouped with other students doing a challenge project in reading in the next. After the next test, you might be ahead of the average in the next math skill to be covered.
We were doing education reform years before most of the rest of the country. The promotion of education was written into our constitution by John Adams. As a result, our state rankings in things like literacy, math and science are consistently either first in the country or for practical purposes statistically tied with first. We have a relatively high per capita spending on students, but not anywhere near the highest. We have a relatively low student to teacher ratio, but not anywhere near the lowest. We also have a lot of poor urban school districts with all the problems they bring.
What we have is a lot of people who *care* about education, who think it's worth doing something about. It's easy to lose track of that, but when I travel to other parts of the country with lousy rankings, what I find is that people would like to bellyache about how bad the schools are, how incompetent the teachers are or how useless the administration is, but don't actually plan to *do* anything about these things. Politicians rail against the schools, and promise to institute "tough" standards (as if "tough" were a substitute for "intelligent"), but they don't have a plan to do anything with the data they get from the testing other than to close as many public schools as they can. Now I'm not against private education or charter schools, but the theme seems consistent. People don't can't be bothered to pay attention to the details. They don't want to be burdened thinking about it.
If you want an explanation for the "failures of our school system", I'll give it to you: times have changed, and the schools haven't kept up. We aren't competing with a war ravaged Europe and a world full of ignorant, impoverished countries. We're competing with modern Europe; with an India that has a middle class as large as our entire population; with China whose government has consciously played our relationship in a mercantilist zero-sum game, using favorable exchange rates and low wages to achieve economic power over us. Now tell me what we need to do to education to bring back the glory days of the 1950s, and you'll have redefined education reform for this century.
As for the "hollowing out" of our culture, I don't see it, although when I took my kids to the opera the other night, nobody was dressed in white tie. What we've had is not a "hollowing out" of our culture, but twin processes of democratizing high culture and the growth of commercial, popular culture. People spend a lot more time being entertained then they did in the 1930s or even the 1960s.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The other thing I haven't seen mentioned the results of all that birth control entering the environment- either flushed direct or peed out. We look for tiny amounts of stuff coming from plastics, then ignore the massive doses coming from BC pills.
I didnt' RTFA, but:
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.
Ummm, since we no longer do that, and pregnancy is a one-to-many male to female relationship, maybe nature is going to make 100 males and 150 females? Or 200?? A guy could hope....
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Only men have to compete for mates, women, the baby makers, don't need to fight just to get the chance at mating, only for quality of mate.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
This is very true, however more and more gifted programs are being offered at public schools. These are mostly a joke/gimmick in grade school, but high school magnet schools are actually quite good. There's a lot of political angst surrounding magnet schools but overall my under-informed observation is that they're getting better.
girls
Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.
An industry that is known not to pay well will generally only attract people that love it and want to do it. Imagine an education system where the workers are there just for the money.
The Lifetime Network (http://www.mylifetime.com/). Every man is a cheating bastard, every woman a victim of his boorish ways. After watching it for a few minutes with the missus, I start to question my masculinity. Thank God for that Chuck Norris poster behind the TV.
There is a strong genetic basis to this, and that's why eugenics tends not to work, among other things. Yes the nut doesn't fall far from the tree, and that's why tall parents have tall kids, but over time these traits revert back to the mean, and so you will see average/short kids being born to tall parents (mailman genes excluded, but this helps too).
..........FULL STOP.
I'm posting anonymously so my wife doesn't beat my ass...
Real man are... ... not socialist pussies. We don't need your wimpy healthcare. We will set our own broken bones -- they way a cave man would do it. ... not pets. Hold your own goddamn purse and stop fucking talking while I'm trying to work. ... like to fuck, fight, and drink. And fuck. No exceptions. ... wonder why there is no cure for the period.
Cure the Period.
Because most every culture mandates that children be raised by their parents, regardless of their competency in the role, nature versus nurture (genes, versus environment) is almost a moot argument. Fools do produce and raise more children, and have a higher chance of raising them to be fools be it due to bad genes or an ignorant upbringing in spite of good genes.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Apples to oranges, mi amigo. You are talking about two entirely different cultures with different values and different standards. Also, I would say that the focus of their education is rote memorization and blind obedience without the critical thinking of problem solving. I met plenty of these kids in college and while they were great at memorizing the material, they were fairly bad at using the material to solve problems that were not given in the book. Obviously, this is only my experience, YMMV.
I am not saying that we have a great system. I am only saying that they have their own set of problems.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Then why do we pay anyone at all? There's nothing wrong with a talented person wanting to be paid well for his work, and nothing wrong with his choosing a career that maximizes his revenue. If that career isn't the best one for society, it's our fault, not his.
Yes, but if the stupidity is cultural and not hereditary, then at least the damage isn't cumulative across generations, and by improving education, we can mitigate the damage.
This explains Tokyo Hotel band members I believe.
"more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes."
The toy/game/clothing preferences of children are culturally, not biologically, driven. Corolation != Causation.
The english are part invader dane/dutch, but mostly native celtic. Recent genetic assays show this.
The "anglos" did not completely displace the natives.
wiki info : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles#England
Agreed, crappy summary. Why give the "normal" rate in exact numbers and then NOT give the "new" rate? Why does slashdot let such bad summaries get through - are the editors afraid of doing any editing?
I'm no biologist but what gender you are determined what chromosome you get. Any amount of synthetic estogren won't change your gender at any age, born yet or not.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
1) it treats all children the same. You should learn this, because you are 7 years old. Nothing else matters. You could be a grand master in chess, but you're not allowed to write cursive yet! You have been reading since you were 3? Well, forget it, you're going to learn it all over again!
It's pretty much the same all over the US, and it has been true for at least 40 years. The child who is permitted to skip a grade, or gets into a "gifted" program is a rare creature indeed. I spent most of twelve years bored out of my skull, and two of my three sons did the same. (we won't discuss the third - he's a special case) I didn't know my wife when we were in school, but she and her sisters say the same.
I've seen no public schools in America that actually push kids to perform, then rewards them for doing so.
There are MILLIONS of students in this country who can read a textbook, discuss it for a week or two, then take the "semester finals". I was one.
The public education system in America is broken, because the entire system is geared to serve people with high-average to low-average intelligence and learning skills. This is just great for the "average" - but it hinders both the genius AND the idiot. Neither is going to learn in the manner dictated by all those averages.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You are exactly right. I am an example of this, I'm sure that a lot of slashdotters have similar experiences. When I was in second grade, a teacher identified my potential and I was tested for my school's gifted program. I did very well in the gifted program, but in regular classes I was barely passing. I didn't see the point in doing the same math problem 50 different ways once I learned how to do it. My grades suffered because I refused to do pointless busy work. I finished out my public education barely passing. I went to college when I was 18 and the bad habits that I had acquired in high school lead to my failing out.
A few years later, after working a couple of jobs that I hated I went back to community college. My grades were much better. I began to get As and Bs. After a few years at community college, I had two A.S. Degrees and went to a university. Two years there and I had a B.S. degree and I was on the Dean's list.
That "Don't ready ahead until every one else is done." bullshit that they practice in public schools nearly destroyed my passion for learning. Schooling used to be about education for the sake of education. Now it's about turning out fodder for the machines of commerce. I hope to be able to afford to send my children to private school, but if I can't I do plan to supplement their "education" at home. Because there are some things that they don't teach in school anymore. Can you believe that they don't teach civics here anymore? Children are no longer taught what citizenship is, what it means, why it's important or what rights and responsibilities come along with it. It's so bad that I'd almost think that they're dumbing down future generations on purpose.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I taught high school for five years, and that was what I saw. Because all kids were tracked according to age rather than ability, you had a wide range of ability in every class. As a teacher, you've got a few choices:
1) Teach to the middle. Too hard for the dumb kids, to easy for the smart kids, but most kids get something out of it.
2) Teach too easy or two hard.
3) Try to teach to each kid's needs.
#3 is the one everyone would like to do. But it's ridiculously hard to do. I had kids in a class who were taking geometry and had algebra under their belt, and kids who couldn't multiply even with a calculator. Kids who didn't really understand what decimal places were all about. If I stop to give them instruction in the basic things that they need to learn the material I'm actually supposed to be teaching, I get questioned as to why I'm not teaching it. If your lessons are different for every kid, suddenly you need to prove that they're fair and appropriate for every kid. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit when you fail Johnny but pass Timmy, and they were learning different material.
My most successful classes were ones filled with homogeneous populations of kids. When they were all at about the same level, I could teach a lot of material very quickly. Treating all kids the same is a terrible failing in the US today. It's not the only one, but it's one of the leading causes of our issues.
As secondary cause is that teachers are given a tough job, but not the freedom to do it as it needs to be done. If I taught all the kids in my classes how to actually do science, they would have all failed the government-mandated science test. Why? Because it doesn't test whether or not you can do science, it tests whether or not you're motivated to remember facts about science that you have been exposed to and then scribble in a bubble.
What's the motivation for kids to do that? There isn't any. My master's thesis was on that very topic. Their test scores don't get sent to their parents, don't go on transcripts, and most of the time, don't even go back to their teachers. Yet those scores determine how well a school is functioning, from a government standpoint.
There are a lot of things broken about the US educational system. The top issue is that teachers can't just teach what kids need to learn. We have to jump through all these ridiculous hoops, and prove that we're poor teachers, because that what the test requires.
A good science teacher is not one who teaches kids to be masters at filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper with the wrote memory of facts. Fix the current methods of assessing teaching, and you're getting much closer to solving the root of the problem.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
> reality. We do in fact have magnet schools, gifted and talented programs,
I'm guessing you don't actually have kids in school.
We are in one of the highest rated school districts in the country (USA) and our third grade "gifted program" consists of ONE HOUR a week of gifted instruction. We pulled our kids and are home schooling now.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Am I the only one who thinks this is probably a really good thing for society in the long run?
-- sudo.ca
The choice of one's occupation can either aggravate or mitigate environmental feminization. A lot of you in technology fields are exposed to much more feminizing chemicals than someone in a more rural occupation.
For example, I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
Yes, there are magnet schools and gifted programs, all carefully "de-fanged" so they do as much as possible without actually changing anything. I know that when I was in school, what it meant is that for one hour a day you could do something more interesting, then back to picking the shape that doesn't belong.
As for the "ordinary kids" in the middle of the bell curve, I submit that due to "no child left behind", they too get held back and learn that school is boring because the class has to wait for the low end of the curve to catch up. The difference is that they are more apt to simply develop an anti-intellectual attitude since to them school=learning, school=boring, boring=bad, so learning=bad. 5 and 6 year olds don't go into school with that attitude. For them, the ability to know the answer to those zillions of "why?s" they ask is exciting.
Part of the problem is authoritarianism in school. Schools set themselves up as a major authority figure and they want you to learn, so when the kids reach the age of rebellion, the school and anything it wants (or purports to want) gets a big target painted on it. The smaller classes are, the less strict discipline needs to be in order to maintain effectiveness.
I certainly don't mean just let the kids run around lawlessly, but certainly not the current zero tolerance (zero thought) policies in place now. If there's no effective difference in the treatment of what amounts to minor symbolic acts of rebellion and much more serious behavior, they also become the same thing in the kids' minds.
Try looking at their diets first. Phytoestrogen content in flaxseed meal and soy products are much more likely to blame.
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/04malehealth.htm
Flaxseed meal has THREE TIMES as much phytoestrogen as soy, and is MUCH more biologically available (being far more digestible than soy).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
2) No child left behind. We're treating everyone the same, and that treatment will be the one required for the dumbest. The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!
The only way to make sure no child is left behind is to hold everyone else back.
The fundamental flaw of your argument is assuming that education has to be that way.
With more money invested in education research and in educators themselves, better teaching methods and philosophies are likely to emerge. It would be rare, I think, to find a field where people don't agree on this, and yet in teaching it's often assumed that the teachers will be there "because of the children", or somesuch.
Teaching is a job which fulfills an important function in society. Teachers work for society, and are paid by society. Often (IMHO) society is at best a shitty boss, asking more than they can possibly know while giving scant resources, and then complaining about the result.
Pay your teachers well, and pay well the people who select those teachers so correct hiring choices are made. Have colleges fund education professors and education research. Fund adult education and promote communal responsibility and conversation, to help parents raise their children as well as possible. Then bitch to me about education.
m!
Umm... since we are being sexist and all anyway, what part buying a $15,000 furnature set every 2 years on a $30,000 a year constitutes thoughtfulness?
So you've never visited Christiania, eh?
This is not a flaw of the education but rather a direct result of politicians meddling with things they know nothing about for the purpose of personal gain. Everyone knows education is the big ticket item that is close to the hearts of a largest contingent of voters (parents). We have idiots who want to use education as their "publicity stunt." Basically, they push a poorly designed law because they have the power to do so and then use that to gloat at then next election how they've done something profound for "the nation." What they fail to do, however, is support such a law with adequate funding. It is simple folks, if you want a person do more things, eventually they'll have so much on their plate that everything they do will have to end-up being half-baked. This is not because they are poor teachers but rather because they are overstretched by the growing pile of new laws while their funding is being continually cut (thus making hiring of new staff who could help in the process of coping with this virtually impossible). So, what actually happens as a result of this kind of behavior is that there is a growing pile of poorly designed rules/regulations/laws that educators then have to deal with, that they do not have time to do anything other than stupidly designed tests, including recognizing advanced children and giving them a chance to truly shine.
So, if you think this is a problem (I certainly do), I would say go to your local congressman and/or representative and tell them to put their dollars where their mouths are and to back off from education agenda with stupid laws without consulting those who are actually supposed to enact those laws. Did you know that in US annual education budget is one twentieth of the military budget and one third of government operations, making it basically the smallest piece of the pie? (see following chart -- yes, it's that little tiny, barely visible chunk). Now ask yourself how many kids are enrolled in education every year vs. how many soldiers/personnel we have in military...
David Brin's Transparent Society (which I have not read, just seen mentioned on Slashdot before) is perhaps a good thought experiment in that area: if there were no secret social interactions, would people be honest? Not having privacy strikes me as horrible, but perhaps it would be worth it.
While money is a poor motivator, lack of it can be a very strong de-motivator. The converse to your argument is "Do the people who would make the best teachers decide to do something else instead? Are they not teachers because they are sufficiently flexible to do something else that is much better remunerated and are economically pressured to do so?"
Back before women's lib, many of the brightest women went into the teaching profession, to the benefit of society, but they now (thankfully for them) have many more opportunities. Smart people will do what motivates them, but don't underestimate the need to make enough money to raise and support a family. If you don't pay teachers enough compared to their alternatives, eventually even the ones who love it will be forced to do something else. It's pretty well required by the rational actor assumption in economics, and you don't really want heavily irrational people teaching your kids. 25 years ago in high school, I had a stats prof who loved teaching but once pointed out he could make a lot more in industry and was torn. This was at one of the best public schools in the province at the time.
The flip side, one which some schools are rapidly approaching, is to imagine an educational system where teachers are paid so much less than other work with comparable educational investment that the only ones willing to teach are those who have failed/would fail at alternatives. "Those who can't, teach" made real. Clearly the answer is somewhere between the two extremes.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
While I wouldn't mind seeing teachers paid more, that hasn't been the main problem, IMHO, for some time. In this market (Atlanta) good teachers take a pay cut to go work in the better private schools. The attraction is clear... they have a more supportive environment, creativity is encouraged, parents tend to be more engaged/supportive, students tend to be more motivated (not to mention in many of these schools tested in at minimum levels), etc.
I agree that age-based instruction is a major flaw we have in today's system. But I've also increasingly come to believe that the biggest flaw in the U.S. K-12 system is the political basis. I'm just not sure anymore that locally elected school boards are the best way to run a district or bring about positive change. I've interacted with some pretty frightening school board members across the country who really have little to no related skills or education to qualify them for the role. They just won a local popularity contest.
The best / most successful districts I have encountered, the School Board hires a really good Superintendent and then mostly backs off. A great SI who is well educated, professionally minded, motivational with business sense makes a huge difference. That position, IMHO, should definitely be paid more.
Come play Moral Decay!
I wouldn't say that it is on purpose so much as public school has become a business. BIG business. Schools are run with the goal of getting the biggest piece possible of the very large amount of money allocated to "education".
1) it treats all children the same...
Oh no, not this dead horse again...
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2463
quoth above:
Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles. This turns out to be an urban legend not supported by any acceptable evidence. It could backfire because students need to correct and compensate for their shortcomings, not avoid them. The authors cite a satirical story from The Onion about nasal learners demanding an odor-based curriculum.
(founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
Considering that a lot of literature for parents is focused on encouraging more nurturing in boys, I find the idea that they would base research on how boys play as "feminization" as completely ridiculous.
Let me know when they find out something about physical changes. Blaming the results of parenting on chemicals is ridiculous.
I note you said "effeminate" males. However, biologically, they're "underviriziled". One cannot feminized males, because males are virilized away from women.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Give him a break, he's been through the US edumacation system. He doesn't even know that anywhere else exists.
It's a perfectly ridiculous thought. Many of the listed 'masculine' qualities aren't masculine, and almost all of the 'feminine' qualities aren't feminine either. And this idea some people (seemingly including the OP) have that the world would be all sunshine and happiness and everyone would shit rainbows if we put women in charge is just delusional.
If women were in charge of the world, diplomatic relationships would never be better....
However, there would be way more covert disruption of other governments...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
All aboard the class action lawsuit express!
Face it, you're just hoping to improve your odds.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
I fail to see how it the schools responsibility to become the parent when the actual parent has failed. The schools task is to educate children about reading, writing, mathematics, history, etc, not to raise a respectful child. If you make the punishment for a childs misbehavior or poor performance have a direct impact on the parent and their life, it can be effective. How would you feel if you were given a fine for your child skipping school or misbehaving? It would probably make you more involved in your childs life because it directly impacts your life. A parents job is to parents a raise a respectful member of society. A schools job is to teach.
when there is a fire you have to do more than yell, if you want to put it out. Blowing hot air on a fire will not put it out.
A more interesting question is whether the long term consequences of this, given the pronounced gender bias in our politics, will prompt republicans to return to the hyper-green philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt or simply go extinct.
Fix the current methods of assessing teaching, and you're getting much closer to solving the root of the problem.
Well that's a hard problem. How exactly do you assess teaching properly? A standardized test is not perfect, but it's better than nothing. Especially tests like the exit exam in California.......everyone should know basic math by the time they graduate from High School. So what would be the best way to assess teaching? Remember it has to be cost effective.
Qxe4
Right there with you and the "bored to death" bit. While the other kids got Winnie the Pooh read to them my mom read Asimov (she thought kids books were too dumbed down) and by 5 I was reading my ass off thanks to an excellent collection of horror and Sci/Fi books that came with the reading/sound effects records(remember those? They should really bring those back) so what did my school do?
Can you say detention boys and girls? I think you can. I was there for reprogramming the computers (old BASIC, quite easy) to tell students they were morons, for sleeping in class ( I did my work on Monday and was done for the week) or there because I pissed off the math teacher who was sure I had to be cheating because I could do my math in my head. Finally getting sent there on the first day of HS (moron coach said "anybody who don't want to run 20 laps can get out of my sight!" so I split) I found out how things REALLY worked.
So I'm sitting in there enjoying a nice Sci/Fi book when I get called to the front by the football coach who was running detention that day. He was sure that I had to be looking at a porno mag because HS kids don't actually read books like "Best Sc/Fi writers of the 70s" for fun (I did). When he found out not only could I actually read it but discuss it with authority I got to find out why schools were so stupid. You see, I got taken out of class and drug before all my teachers who were instructed by the coach that "you give this kid an A and he isn't coming to your class any more". I got to spend my 4 years of HS in my OWN CLASSROOM teaching jocks how to spell "flower" and Stood", I swear to God they spelled them FLOR and STUUD, and giving them just enough ability to cheat their way through the player eligibility tests.
That is when I learned a cold hard lesson-schools are NOT for educating youth. They are for taking the average and making them into good little drones, and making damned sure Ricky gets to throw those 40 yard bombs straight into the numbers. Most of the teachers have gotten so jaded and so burnt that just as long as they don't have to deal with fights in class they are happy. I'll never forget the look of horror when I told my college math teacher that not only had I never taken algebra but had never actually stepped into a HS math class and graduated with honors. When I said my story a girl in the back popped up "You too? I did the same job at MY HS!". We looked at each other and I said "Go Lions?" she said "Go Panthers!". That is why after seeing the same BS we yanked my boys out of school at 5th grade. One is reading Grey's Anatomy and after he takes the GED has already lined up college to become a doctor, and the other hasn't decided yet whether to be a 2D artist or go into CAD. It is sad but public schools, at least here where I am at, are just for teaching the average how to count change and fill out 1040s, nothing more.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This story has also been covered before by a CBC documentary.
In October 1999 Steve Jackson Games published GURPS Y2K which included an article named "Plastics Ate My Baby's WHAT" about the effects of phthalates. That was 10 years ago!
How is it possible that these things are known for such a long time and nobody cares?
Actually, and I'll probably get a lot of hate for saying it, but I think a lot of it can be traced back to the right wing Jebus freaks and their "no birth control or sex ed evar!" stance. When I graduated HS a good 15-25% of the females were knocked up, and by 24 I don't think there was a single female able to give birth that hadn't. Nearly all were either unmarried or had gotten divorced, and of course the "father didn't bother" so the woman has to go out and earn the bread AND raise the child, and frankly most simply aren't capable of doing both. Then add drugs into the mix, because after having a shitty day and looking at her shitty life no shit she wants to get high and forget, and there you go.
Now you have a whole nation of single parent households, most of which really aren't capable of much more than barely keeping their heads above water in dead end jobs, well what do you expect? We really need to be pushing sex ed and easy access to condoms so we don't have so many overworked single parent households, and maybe add counseling before marriage to make sure they are mature enough to take that step. Otherwise the schools are more and more gonna be filling in the role as parent, simply because there aren't any parents at home.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
'Round these parts, beef apparently gets butchered....
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
Private school teachers are paid even less, but then they're not expected to deal with violent kids, and most of the children either actually want to be there, or their parents force them to want to be there.
If we started a voucher system and private schools had to accept public-school-quality students, they'd suck just as bad.
I've got a family member and a substantial number of friends just entering the teaching profession, and they all agree with this strongly. Why is this modded troll? In fact, I thought this was common knowledge, that private schools refuse to deal with the troublesome, disabled, and malnourished, and so don't face most of the problems which plague public schools.
You watch. Some evangelical group will start citing tis study.
The primary and most powerful source of feminizing chemicals in our water is the vast quantities dumped into our water supply in the urine of women on the birth control pill. Anyone who considers feminizing chemicals a real problem (instead of using it as an excuse to go after industry) would be seeking, first and foremost, to ban the birth control pill.
How is it possible that these things are known for such a long time and nobody cares?
That, my friend, is one of the biggest questions in all of history.
Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
Y'know, this reminds me of something. Chemicals in food and water that begin sterilizing the male population, among other things...
Oh yeah, ancient Rome.
Heh. I've probably got a decade or more on you. No audio books for me. I vaguely remember those little spinning things, pull a string, and it meowed or whatever. I'm not sure they were out when I was that age, or my youngest brother got it when it was new.
I WISH my parents had read something like Asimov to me!! I'm jealous now!! I didn't discover Asimov and company until 5th or 6th grade. Maybe even later - 5th grade is when I discovered Tolkein.
Those authors and others deserve all the credit for my staying in school. Without them to destract me from the mind numbing idiocy of the system, I'd have dropped out around 9th grade. With them, I actually got some education during school hours. Joe Average only saw a book meant for entertainment. To me, the Sci-Fi greats suggested things to study - "what is light speed", "why can't you exceed the speed of light?", "What is a black hole?" "What is a tachyon?" and thousands more. Grandma bought me an Encylopeadia Brittanica, so save on trips to the library! ;^)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Yeah, in my country (France), they just make the smart ones skip a year and the ones who can't keep up (usually those who overall over the entire year scored less than 10 out of 20) repeat the year. By the time we reach graduation the vast majority of people have repeated a grade at least once, even I, who skipped the first grade. It works quite well like this.
You just got troll'd!
People don't can't be bothered to pay attention to the details.
I see...
Bolloxs - we just raised a generation or two of girly Emo boys. Who where told they where unique and special and they can have eveything they want with no talent or effort.
Partly because My generation and the previous ones where too selfish - The cars the holidays etc and partl because theres no role for 'macho' in our society today.
My father was the editor for the local paper when i was a kid. I would come running into the living room with an interesting story i had read in a science mag or similar. Show him how cool it was.. he would then sit there critically analyze it and then pay out the flaws in the article for 1 or 2 minutes and then tell me to go read up on it. He was a cynical old bastard but he taught me something, would have been a good slashdotter!
My favorite times at high school where when we were asked to critically analyze information, such as book reviews or in chemistry (I remember comparing whether PVC or polyethylene would make a better car battery case), or physics experiments where you actually didn't know what the result was suppose to be. It is such a wonderful thing to find the solution to the problem yourself, and i believe it is an important part of any childhood.
So why not allow class swaps more often? If Jonny can't multiply let him go to a lesser class, and let Timmy move to a more appropriate class. Yes you wind up sabotaging Jonny sometimes in Self-Esteem, but its better to let him work at something he's more capable of than make him feel dumb that he's not operating with the class and then fails, and then becomes the high school buffoon. Not everyone needs to go to college, but everyone should get an education that they can enjoy.
Common Sense
This is simply not true for all regions in the US. In my school, if you tested for an IQ of 135+ you were immediately separated and placed into a group of "gifted" kids. You were then taught in small groups of 3-6 kids and granted an IEP (individualized education plan). The pace of your education accelerated depending on the completion of goals set by all your teachers, your parents and your gifted advisor. Also, you can cater your education to a particular interest. In middle school I loved computer programming, so my math curriculum was expressed in programming problems. Your argument states that gifted education essentially does not exist. This is NOT true and it is NOT a fair assessment of our education system to neglect it.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
This is ridiculous. Go live in an IEP state. Most IEP's are legally binding by all public schools. If you live in an IEP state you can adjust the amount of hours spent on gifted education. I spent most of my education in a gifted curriculum, with the exception of history courses. You should demand an IEP review and get those hours adjusted. Also, just because your kid is home schooled now does NOT mean you should neglect his IEP. Please keep up with it, it has done a world of good for me in highschool and in college. My IEP even transferred between states.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
No, you're just subject to whatever's the opposite of misogyny. Have no fear, it's just a consequence of the overly successful second wave feminism, and it's still politically correct to treat men like they're submen (or subwomen if that makes more sense).
You just got troll'd!
This is not news. I did a report on the effect of dioxins on human children in my high school Civics class... in 1996.
I didn't know feminism was a chemical compound
When I said my story a girl in the back popped up "You too? I did the same job at MY HS!". We looked at each other and I said "Go Lions?" she said "Go Panthers!". That is why after seeing the same BS we yanked my boys out of school at 5th grade.
So you married her and now have two boys? :)
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
OMG U R TEH AWSUM.
Notice how I got modded flamebait for daring to say that kids shouldn't learn about sex from bad porn? I actually was lucky in that my mom was a nurse and gave me the whole slideshow bit, but you know what the kids at school with me thought? "You can't get a girl pregnant if she is a virgin" If she stands on her head after sex she can't get pregnant"(WTF?) and my favorite "if she points a 12oz(never found out why it HAD to be 12oz, but it was a rule) can of Coke(not Pepsi or Dr Pepper, it HAD to be coke) at her pussy and shakes it up at lets it spray her pussy she won't get pregnant".
Now that ain't bullshit, that is what I heard out of the mouths of the kids I went to school with. Is it any wonder they all ended up pregnant? Contraception isn't something you just magically "know" and all the parents I've talked to refuse to believe their little Billy or Suzy would even THINK such dirty thoughts until they show up with an STD or knocked up. So what would YOU do about it? The parents sure as hell aren't gonna teach them squat, if they were we would have so many knocked up teens and early 20s. Yeah they may be "spoiled" but spoiled + stupid about how sex works is a BAD combination. Just ask the class of HS cheerleaders at my HS when I graduated. Out of the entire bunch there was ONE that wasn't a single mom by 20. ONE. And I got the feeling talking to her that she just don't swing that way.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
OT, but: Is being "politically correct" such a stigma nowadays that you have to defend yourself to the accusation by declaring that you adhere to a "non-PC" viewpoint in an entirely unrelated matter?
enough said.
"Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals."
We certainly have some problems with education in the USA. Funding and salaries are not among them, however. Indeed, in the most of the richest states in the US, there seems to be almost an inverse relationship between per-pupil funding, and SAT scores. When you compare the states on this price/performance scale, all of the top ten states are in the deep south, or the mountain west states. And while no one is getting rich teaching public schools, the meme of the starving teacher is largely a myth, at least in most states. The American Federation of Teachers' own stats show that the average K-12 salary in the US is $47,602.
Now, I have no idea what's involved with teacher training and education in Europe. But I do know that most American teachers have degrees in education, a field that attracts the very bottom of the barrel in each college class. I'm firmly onboard the movement to eliminate the education major for junior high and high school teaching, and to require that teachers have a degree in their field. Football coaches shouldn't be teaching geography or math unless they have a degree in it. The current system produces cogs in a machine that aren't very well educated themselves, let alone well equipped to educate anyone else. There are driven, outstanding teachers, but there are more cogs just going through the system for thirty years until they draw retirement. I don't know how easy it is to fire a bad teacher in Europe, but in the US it's damn near impossible if misconduct isn't involved.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Minor nitpick: the fault most probably IS in the brain, but it is not caused (solely) by genes - in a similar way that the stupid software on a computer is stored on it.
"everyone should know basic math by the time they graduate from High School"
I went to a decent state Primary School in England in the 70s. At age seven or eight we all made up times-table cards, going up to 12x12, which we carried around with us everywhere. We were constantly tested on those cards. By the time we were nine or ten, *everybody* knew their times tables off by heart. Long multiplication and division were drummed into us by age ten. The primary school maths syllabus finished giving us a fair grasp of fractions: we could simplify, add, subtract, and multiply fractions by the end of it. Not just the smart kids; virtually the whole class. I honestly don't understand why this level of achievement can't be universal.
they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing
What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.
You can still help with the child rearing without being a total wuss puss. I change diapers if my wife is busy, and help with laundry, and have taken to fixing dinner sometimes (which my wife really appreciates). But families still need fathers to be men, not androgynous daddy mommies. The need for males isn't just a cultural construction, it's also a biological need... see This is your brain without Dad. There are benefits to having masculine fathers at home far beyond simple cultural norms.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So children raised in a more natural environment with less exposure to these things (pretty easy to do) will be more fertile (as well as not getting cancer as much according to other studies) resulting in a shift in the future population towards people who care about their health, vacate the cities and lead a more natural lifestyle eating organic foods (not necessarily Certified Big 'O' Organic but real organic). Darwinism in action.
since when has a female ever produced art?
Oh but we do. We call them first and second generation immigrants.
No we do not.
But people with your attitude usually come from the lower class layers - so you prove everyones point nicely.
How the fuck can you be so arrogant and uninformed?
Just because people have a different background than your own it doesn't mean they all fall under one class.
Snæversynede spasser.
That was the hidden point I was making. The dirty secret of education is that you can't assess teachers. You can either do a poor job cheaply, or you can do a fantastic job for a lot of money. What this turns into is no real assessment. Most schools have an administrator sit in on one class each year to see how the teacher teaches. This is ridiculous on its face, as one class on one day has no real bearing on overall performance. It doesn't show that the students are learning anything. Additionally, administrators don't have teaching certifications most of the time, and may have no teaching background.
You can try to indirectly do it by assessing students, but that's fraught with issues. If I had a solution, I'd be very rich now.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Minor nitpick accepted. The problem is not necessarily in the "hardware" of the brain, in which case.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
So he makes a point about pay grade due to the fact that they're government employees, and you go off on a libertarian/conservative/far right rant? Since when are government employees highly paid? Sounds like you're the one going off on a propaganda tirade.
Can you please elaborate on this?
In what ways do people from Christiania remind you of anything like rednecks or chavs?
Your generalization covers the people living there as well - in what fucking possible way do they remind you of anything chav or rednecked?
Try more like 14% to education in fiscal 2009 and 13% to defense. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php#usgs302a
You fail to lump total spending together, because, you know, the states pay nearly all of the education expenses. For instance, here in MN, K-12 gets ~25% of the state budget.
You can massage numbers many ways, and only using the federal spending on education tells a very different story from how much is actually spent when you factor in state, local, and federal money.
OSX pwns.
All the same, there ought to be a minimum standard that every non-retarded student should be able to make. It is not unreasonable to expect kids to be able to do arithmetic by the time they reach 6th grade. If they can't, then someone has dropped the ball somewhere. And unfortunately, people have dropped the ball for many students. So we ought to test for at least a minimum competency, a minimum amount of knowledge, even though it will not necessarily show that one teacher is better than another (for many reasons), it will be able to show that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
Qxe4
Granted, there were no cell phones when I was in school. However if / when I told on the teacher for disciplining me for misbehaviour on my part, I would get a smack from my parents. Teachers would have to do something pretty horrible to incur a parental confrontation.
So, simply put... what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls? Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys? Or does it go both ways? Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general?
The number of plastics used in modern life has increased at an accelerating rate over the last few decades. The number of naturally occurring chemicals contacted (with increased city dwelling and "sterilised" food production) has been rapidly declining over the same period. The effect of natural volumes of "environmental chemicals" is overall decreasing whilst that of petrochemical derivatives is (or at least has been) increasing at a huge rate.
To pick one, what's your proposed pathway for worldwide chemical feminisation based on nuclear detante?
The links you give discuss Araliaceae (the Ivy Family) and genus of the same, the Google one doesn't mention aromatase (?!). How many of the population contact plastics based aromatase inhibitors vs. those of the araliaceae family of plants? It looks from the ScienceDirect link that the contact needs to be in the presence of hexane- or ethyl-acetance too.
From the Telegraph article:
"Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals."
Do you know how many of the population have been in contact with phthalates? Everyone who has used a plastic packaged squeezable bottle of some sort in the last 80 years.
"The authors of a 2008 study "observed that reported use of infant lotion, infant powder, and infant shampoo were associated with increased infant urine concentrations of [phthalate metabolites], and this association is strongest in younger infants." (Wikipedia)
But hey, perhaps that ivy everyone is mixing with ethyl-ethanoate and feeding to their babies is doing lots of damage too.
Since when are government employees highly paid?
In many European countries teachers are highly paid whether they are government employees or not. In Germany, for instance, being a high school teacher, is nearly as well remunerated as being an ordinary doctor or lawyer. Moreover the fierce competition to become a teacher restricts this career path to elite graduates. Quite to opposite from most anglophone countries.
It would appear that one of the defining points of human evolution was where we as a species may have gained bipedalism, better use of our hands, a need to be relatively more clever, the monogamous pair bond and possibly even language.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/ardi-oldest-human-skeleto_n_306033.html
This suggests in effect that the moment our species ancestors diverged from the other apes and chimpanzees was when, through circumstances and mating preferences, it became the case that the dominant alpha males of the tribes were no longer the individuals within our species that got to breed.
One could argue then that having excessively male characteristics is a throwback.
Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.
They are in New Jersey, and it has killed our economy and is driving us into bankruptcy as we try to pay for it. Our urban public schools charge two to three times as much per pupil as a British boarding school would.
My turn for a troll/flamebait mod. My parents told me about sex. And I learned that it was a good thing in a proper context, but has very negative consequences in others. I was told about condoms and the pill and all that other stuff (by them), but I was taught that the best form of contraception is KEEPING YOUR PANTS UP!
Everyone pointed and laughed at Sarah Palin and her abstinence-education-works attitude when it came to light that her daughter was pregnant (and a few people here have sigs as such). But the thing is that her daughter didn't listen, and thus is carrying a child because of it. If a couple where the guy and the girl both decide that a condom need not be worn and a pill need not be taken, will that make "safe sex ed" just as invalid? Regardless of the message as to how to avoid pregnancy and STD's, if teens/tweens don't heed the warning, it doesn't matter what that message was.
Yes, given the option between unprotected sex and protected sex, I would rather people grab a condom. But I think that the stigma of being a virgin after graduating college is a pretty sad state of society. Personally, I'm proud of being a virgin because while I can lose my virginity tomorrow if I wanted to, it's something that the entire cheerleading squad you're referring to can't get back ever. And one day, I will get to walk down the aisle and tell my future wife that I've been waiting $NUM_YEARS for her. That's a day that I look forward to, and I'd be incredibly sorry if I had to look her in the eye and say, "you're number five" or whatever that number might be. "Safe Sex" might be fun, but I'm old school and am holding out for the best.
Likewise, you fail to combine preexisting loans that have to be paid out for past wars/military missions. I hope you'll agree diverting from the main point quickly becomes a statistical crapshoot. How much is unemployment worth to you, or outsourcing for that matter, both of which are arguably directly related to education? I agree with you that statistics can be easily massaged to fit anyone's needs. Like like Benjamin Disraeli/Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics :-)
Yet, the truth is while state schools do get sponsored through state budget, that support is quickly dwindling which in turn has resulted in prohibitively expensive higher education, which then in turn has limited a number of people who can get a decent education. It's a vicious circle in which everyone is getting frustrated. You are right in that state universities for instance get a good chunk of money. Yet, whereas they may have been funded 60-80% in the 90s, now a good chunk of them are below 30%, and it keeps getting worse. Look for instance at Virginia Tech (VA). It has had over $60 million in cuts from state funding just in last 3 years alone all the while cost of living/infrastructure maintenance kept going up...
"99% of teachers gove the other 1% a bad name"
While the quote is normally applied to lawyers, it fits the subspecies of teacher I spent my childhood and adolescence under.
Within my district, they didn't have an accelerated placement program outside of the college credit courses for liberal arts brown-nosers. It was either mainstream or Special Education. It taught me about money and the things people will do to get it. No money in an accelerated program for someone who is entirely incompatible with the cookie-cutter, look-up table, bombardment cramming approach that looks good on Standardized Tests, but won't put food on the student's plate in the future this schooling is supposed to be preparing them for. Plenty of money, however, in having another Retard who isn't retarded and doesn't require the added attention the money is there to pay for.
The effect they wanted was for the chains that bound me to make me submit and fall in line.
I was too strong for that and became stronger. What they got was a captive who entered an evolution loop requiring ever tighter chains to maintain the illusion of control--all on borrowed time.
I got my diploma, the chains that bound me broke and my exhaust plume burnt the ever-loving shit out of my captors as they tried in vain to escape.
Actually, it was more like a criticality incident and I was a new Demon Core being fooled with by trained monkeys.
I had my faith in humanity annihilated. This was dangerous. I viewed humans as organized Carbon and water to be ruined the moment they posed a threat to me. You reap what you sow. I turned their secrets against them and used them for fuel in return for their greed. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every action against myself or those whom I hold dear, my hammer will strike with the combined fury of injustices remembered.
Here's hoping I left enough damage in my wake to evoke sharing of lessons learned from the elder Teacher's Lounge monkeys I shocked. If my child is treated with the same level of disrespect, the hammer will fall once again. I welcome it.
I will carry this grudge until the four years this cost me has been returned to me.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Those fundamental educational flaws have been around for a long time. The only time enriched classes were funded in the US was during the Cold War, when we wanted to get top the Moon first. We succeeded, so the enriched classes went away shortly thereafter.
You just can't have too many educated people around, they might figure out what's really going on...
Currently, I'm teaching a class of about 34 undergrads. It's a (very) low level undergrad math course, with quite a few Mass. students (although quite a few other NY/CT/NJ students and other various flatlanders). Given a basic equation for relative error (which has three quantities: error = (cost - optimal cost)/optimal cost) and given two of the three quantities as known values, a large majority of the class was incapable of solving for the third (unkown) quantity, which requires nothing more than basic high school algebra. If these kids are representative of the Mass. school system, and Mass. is consistently one of the top math/science states in the country, I'm pretty sure we're heading straight for idiocracy at a much faster rate than we originally anticipated...
Someone doesn't understand evolution. The line above shows they imagine that nature tries to make things come out well, whereas in fact nature doesn't care if things come out well because nature isn't a person. What really happens is that the most efficient way to pass on your genes is to make equal parental investment in boys and girls. Genes that do this get passed on, genes that don't die out, so the ones we see around us are the ones that do. I'm a little surprised the ratio is as big as 106:100, though.
Well, I hope the class you are teaching is not statistics.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Except a business, "big" or not, is run with the goal of getting profits. Who profits from a school getting a bigger chunk of the budget pie? Schools wanting money isn't evil, it's what they need to educate students.
And that's what the NCLB act was supposed to do. Witness the ability of political bureaucracy to solve problems.
All the problems are solvable - the issue is that there are too many non-education people trying to make education decisions, and too little money to do what needs to be done. Combine that with the public "it worked for me, so why doesn't the same stuff fork for my kids" attitude, and you get the current mess.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Because most every culture mandates that children be raised by their parents, regardless of their competency in the role, nature versus nurture (genes, versus environment) is almost a moot argument. Fools do produce and raise more children, and have a higher chance of raising them to be fools be it due to bad genes or an ignorant upbringing in spite of good genes.
Citation needed on the "fools produce more children". Watching Idiocricy does not count as research, is there really any scientific study that says stupid people have more kids, or more importantly, that kids of "fools" end up as "fools" themselves.
My grade school had a rifle range on the top floor, we learned marksmanship, cleaning, etc... We brought our own rifles (.22 caliber only) to school on the school bus and one of the teachers who thought learning proper firearms safety taught the class.
Nobody ever got hurt or was fearful of being hurt, though a lot of us learned to cook rabbit.
Damn I feel old...
Schools wanting ENOUGH money to educate students is not evil. Schools willing to sacrifice the well being of students to increase profits IS evil.
Wha? This is NEWZ? This theory has been around for more than 10 years.
Here's a report that the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) put out last year.
.
- aqk
F U
In New York IEPs are only available to students with a disability. They are NOT available to gifted students.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
If you are interested here is a list of IEP states for gifted education. I consider my IEP a crucial part of my gifted education, I can't imagine gifted education without it...good luck =)
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
This is probably the most succinct description of the worst problem plaguing education today.
Have you considered writing an op-ed? More people need visibility to your writing! Especially administrators and senators/representatives/etc.
Most radar operators had children who were girls. Most antena engineers agree that there is some genetic effect associated with widespread use of mobile phones that is likely to cause more girls than boys being born. I don't have time to look up the relevant evidence, posting such a bold claim - but it is comments and I hope someone can confirm or deny this who has more time. :-)
easy or too hard
with the rote memory of fact
I'm assuming you weren't an English teacher.
P.S. As an interesting coincidence, the captcha I was given was "instruct".
I for one welcome the increasing numbers of our feminine overlords.
Also, obligatory smbc comic
The problem is in the poorer neighborhoods they DON'T KNOW jack shit. All they teach is "don't do it" which frankly is about as effective as "say no to drugs". Notice how drugs are a billion dollar business? Notice how nearly every damned commercial is "take a pill and all is good"? Notice how every other commercial is hot babes selling sex? See a connection?
I'm ALL FOR teaching them not to do it, but there damned sure better be enough education there that they can make an informed choice if they decide to do it anyway. "Just say no" didn't work for drugs, which has a hell of a lot more visible side effects than getting laid. And if they are so uneducated they think hanging a girl upside down or giving her a crotch full of Coke will stop pregnancy? Well then you got some trouble there pal.
Teach them about STDs, and unwanted pregnancies, all the horror stories you want if you think it will get them to stop. But we have been doing the "just say no" bullshit for 20+ years now and without real education to go with it...well it is about as worthless as those "this is your brains on drugs" commercials. You know what my stoner buds would say when they saw that commercial? "That's not your brains, that's breakfast...now I'm hungry. Let's go get some food!" yeah, that was helpful.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You don't seem to think that a statistically significant number of parents being Harvard, MIT, or other top-end college graduates seems to have any effect on your education system, or their children's education?
I think this seems to be a more likely reason than your state government's education system.
a scientific reason for EMO
What? That's not the commonly accepted understanding of the process.
And to what extent can higher salaries for teachers counter our societal anti-intellectualism?
The fault lies not with the teachers, but with the parents. Most folks, even "educated" ones, are not particularly intellectual. My father barely graduated from high school, but has always been a "thinker". I learned from him to appreciate "thinking" and eventually figured out that an education supplements my ability to think. Unfortunately, it seems most Americans have learned to replace critical thought with education, instead of supplement it.
I can officially blame my homosexuality on rubber boots and hand lotion??
Good people go to bed earlier.
Not sure what you consider Evil, but as a male I remember spending my younger years beating other males up, or being beaten up.
Great upbringing, but now look at you - justifying yourself on Slashdot! What went wrong? ;o)
yes and ... the fact that promiscuity is way more prevalent in the UK - the land of the CHAVS - what can I say, *some* people are at it 24/7 and they know they can sponge of the wellfare system for generations to come.
Its Denmark. I live here and I see the males completely emasculated - sorry guys but it’s the truth. It’s a feminist society.
For details read:
http://www.rense.com/general79/brave.htm
http://www.city-data.com/forum/world/398666-denmark-sucks-happiest-nation-my-ass.html
I'll join your flamebait; it's going around AGAIN. During the bush administration we got such misguided nonsense as being required to include abstinence-only education. A friend of mine has a kid in high school and he was subjected to this, in which they told him that condoms are no more effective than the rhythm method, and other such lies. Kids are being mandatorily lied to and yes, teen pregnancy is on the rise again. Ditto for STDs. The religious reich is blaming the increase on societal acceptance of teen pregnancy, but the truth is that schools are being required to allow religious wackos to lie to our children on class time.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'd also like to add #3: Parents taking little to no interest in their child's education,
Part of this is economics. In the days when a family could live off of one person's salary, parents had time and energy to spend with kids at home. With wages stagnant for years now, lower-class parents have to work longer hours, and are exhausted when they're at home. They're not neglecting their children's education out of laziness, they're doing it out of necessity. Those parents who can work two jobs AND teach their children are heroes, not the norm.
So #4: the economy sucks.
I've had PhDs in Education tell me the same thing. Something to consider once I have a bit more free time.
However, the major issue is that they all know what the problems are. But we've mired education in so many layers of bureaucracy that nobody has the power to change anything. The local school board is more powerful than the state, but the state determines funding. To get a policy change, you need to check federal law, state law, get approval from the school board, and then get the administrators to implement it correctly. That is, if you can get the funding to do it. Of course, I've left out unions, PTAs, etc. There are far too many players now for anyone to get anything done.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Environment plays a far greater role than heredity. The slashdot meme of "Losing the Darwin game" is, like most of these jokes, lame. Very little mental retardation is due to genetic defects. Most are from the mother drinknking and smoking during pregnancy, or non-genetic medical complications such as the umbilical cord getting wrapped around the baby's neck when born; that happened to my oldest daughter.
When I was a kid there was a family down the street with two retarded kids, born to an alcoholic mother who stayed drunk the whole time she was pregnant. It was an incredibly sad sight.
Then there is accident, especially when the kid's learning to walk. Or parental neglect/abuse, such as shaken baby syndrome.
Almost no retardation is hereditary.
Free Martian Whores!
I taught high school for five years... 2) Teach too easy or two hard.
Now I know why these kids can't read or spell. I'm sorry, but you appear to be the problem. I can't believe that you woud only teach to two kids and leave the rest hanging, so you must have meant "too."
Free Martian Whores!
I can't believe that you woud
DOH!
Free Martian Whores!
I'd also like to add #3: Parents taking little to no interest in their child's education, and expecting the schools to assume that role in its entirety
It was my experience both as a kid in school and as a parent that the schools do anything and everything they can to prevent the parent from doing anthing whatever, except fund raising.
When I was in school they had the "new math". It was impossible for my parents to help me with math, especially long division, because it wasn't how they were taught. They since went back to the old math. To this day I have trouble doing long division by hand, I'm sure thankful we have calculators and computers now. I got around my lack of ability to do long division by hand in high school by using a slide rule. They realized the stupidity of the new math when the kids of my generation couldn't numerate and went back to the old math, so I couldn't help MY kids with their math.
When my kids were in school I did everything I could to help them be educated, and was treated by the teachers pretty much as an interloper. I'd beg them to send notes home telling me what they were having problems with so I could help in those areas, and the teachers would always promise but never deliver. One daughter kept saying she had no homework, and I never got a phone call or note or anything. The next parent teacher conference we discussed it and she promised to call, but didn't. Not once.
Don't blame the parents, educators don't WANT them in the loop.
Free Martian Whores!
I don't want to be a parent before I am in a place to become one.
I was the same as you -- I wanted to wait until I could afford to be a parent, but guess what? You never can. I wound up realizing that, and was 33 before I became a dad. You think it's hard to get up at 3:00 AM to feed the baby at age 20, try it when you're over 30! I'm 57 and still not a grandparent. If there's one thing about my life I'd change, it would be waiting.
Free Martian Whores!
And :?
What are you trying to say?
, is there really any scientific study that says stupid people have more kids, or more importantly, that kids of "fools" end up as "fools" themselves.
Exhibit A: The southeastern United States (Colloquially referred to as "The South")
They're dirty, unruly, sell drugs, live in shanties, etc.
Girls love pink.
At least nowadays they do.
But pink was the colour for young boys. Flamboyant and expensive colours like pink were boy colours.
Maybe when you're a child, you have no language so you read faces more. And how many of us can REALLY school our faces to lie?
And now I am a successful author. Check out my new book "Famous Underwater Sword Fights" It should be filed under Dewey Decimal class 704 of your local library.
Class sizes, class sizes, class sizes. Smaller classes mean the ability to teach actual same-level students with individual focused instruction. It's been my mantra for years, and I suspect you wouldn't disagree...
Regarding those tests, btw, don't blame the test authors -- blame the ridiculous standards-creating bodies that would rather find out if the student "Recognizes key factors influencing the geological development of the Great Lakes region" rather than "has a basic understanding of the scientific method." I'd rather write the latter, but I'm far too often called on to write the former. Multiple-choice tests--particularly ones with less than six or seven choices--are far, far better at testing snippets of trivia than they are at testing procedural skills. Even if the students were motivated to care, or if the fox weren't guarding the henhouse (in terms of the school board being the ones who commission and approve the tests, and frequently exert pressure on test-writers to make sure all kids can pass)...
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Tracking is a two-edged sword. If tracking isn't reviewed, frequently, you risk taking a bright student who had a bad day on test day, and shuffling her into a class that's far below her abilities, for the rest of middle and high school.
What you really need are small classes with tightly focused goals, so that teachers can address all kids equally and really push them to do the best they can.
Of course, what you really really need is a society that will provide jobs requiring high-skill education, rather than an educational system that (at the political level) is mainly intended to babysit most kids, and let the ones who are intended to get ahead in the world go through private schools and magnet schools and otherwise avoid the holding pen...
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
NCLB has a nice "feel good" ring to it, but it rings hollow when you think about it what it means.
If no child can be "left behind", then an entire group can only move forward as quickly as the slowest and the dumbest member. Why don't we have "Every Child Moving Forward" or something? Just as anecodotal evidence of how stupid this policy is, I know a teacher that works in a city that was the target of the "Refugee Resettlement" program. She and her colleagues now have to deal with kids who are basically illiterate in English language and writing. But, NO CHILD can be left behind, so you can easily guess where/how she spends 95% of her time.
We should ACCEPT and ENCOURAGE the idea of leaving kids "behind". If a kid can't do 6th grade math, then it's highly unlikely he/she will be able to get "caught up" and suddenly be able to do math in higher grades. Passing someone into the next grade when they can't master their current studies only compounds and worsens the problem.
Consider yourself very lucky, growing up in rural PA my gifted education was 2 class periods a week in elementary school plus after school time once a week during Odyssey of the Mind season.
In 7th our allotted time was twice a week during study hall with a teacher who had other things to do, we rarely saw the gifted coordinator. In 8th enrichment time was me in the comp lab by myself (which paid off in the long run), band & chorus had co-opted every one else.
By 9th grade I had given up caring about school, I stopped doing homework and got by with a B average on test scores and participation points. If my parents hadn't started Home Schooling me I doubt I would have learned anything after that point.
This is the mid 90's, and we had 1 gifted teacher for the district (7 schools).
Intentions are great but budgets rule education. The district I work for now still has 1 gifted teacher for 6 schools, she works hard, she's smart, she does well..... but budgets rule education.
{ PA is an GIEP state }
I can't mod you up but I can give you 5 of these:
I wish I had mod points....
I wish I had mod points....
I wish I had mod points....
I wish I had mod points....
I wish I had mod points....
If that happened today, your librarian would be arrested ;^)
Yeah, I know my mind is in the gutter ;^)
> The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!
The smart ones.
The ones who made it through with their sanity mostly intact.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
>
> This is ridiculous. Go live in an IEP state. Most IEP's are legally binding by all public schools. If you
> live in an IEP state you can adjust the amount of hours spent on gifted education.
>
Would that it were so: I live in Rhode Island, and plenty of kids have IEPs. Not one of them is for being G&T, however.
Our town public school does what it can, but the motto "Teaching for all" should be amended to conclude, "...up to a point." There's just *nothing* extra in the curriculum for smarter kids except perhaps different spelling words. The requirements to serve all the students with IEPs means that the teachers are run ragged just trying to make sure that haven't broached anyone's Rights. (Except, I would argue, the kids whose extra ability goes undiscovered and undeveloped.)
1) it treats all children the same. You should learn this, because you are 7 years old. Nothing else matters. You could be a grand master in chess, but you're not allowed to write cursive yet! You have been reading since you were 3? Well, forget it, you're going to learn it all over again!
At least back in my day (I'm 31), this wasn't the case. There were different classes for different performance levels. Maybe it wasn't as fine-grained as you are intending to say, though.
Does this have to be a bad thing? Why not have China double dip those toys in the highest level of hormone laden chemicals they have and send the lot of them to Middle East courtesy of America. Those men could use some gentling. Watch what happens when they try putting on full black Burkas and walking around in 110 degree heat. Seriously, some estrogen might calm that hornets nest down.
Yeah, cultural responses to civil rights are definitely to blame for decreased penis size and physical deformities right?
> Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.
Ironically, this immediately suggests the problem is crappy teachers, and that, by offering more money, we could attract more competent teachers, who are, presumably, currently lured off by higher pay in other arenas.
Fair enough. But that in turn requires scrapping teachers' unions precisely so you can unload the dead weight and keep churning, looking for better teachers. You would also have much more brutal tests before prospects could even get their foot in the door for consideration.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Oh, and the rioting. That's definitely chav-like.
I for one would like to read your master's thesis.
Meh - it was for an Education MaE, and thus it sucked. Nothing like the hard science I'm doing now. However, the summary:
105 out of 110 surveys were completed, with 98 being internally consistent and free from obvious vandalism. About 75% of students didn't try on standardized tests, because they realized they didn't count, and nobody would ever see the scores. About 25% tried, because they did their best on everything. 72% reported that their parents' didn't care about the NCLB required tests, and 85% reported that their teachers didn't really care about them either. 48% were motivated enough to leave negative comments about standardized testing.
When almost 50% of students are willing to write extra after a 2-day test, you know there is a problem. The feedback I got was venomous. Kids do NOT like the NCLB required tests. They realize that nobody really sees their score, and nobody cares. Thus, they, by and large, don't try.
I've got a Master's thesis that shows that the NCLB testing we do is a load of crap, and the kids don't care about it. The response? "Business as usual." And that's the reason I've bailed on education for a career.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
You know, when reading your (upmodded, in main article view) post, apparently praising the education system / mindset that was present in the past, I realised something.
It were...people from around your generation that participated in the changes for "worse". How did that happen?...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Humor: fail. Literal interpretation: pass, barely, but still fail.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'd like to add the ironic #4: Parents taking an interest in their child's education that have no perspective. In lower socio-economic areas uneducated/welfare parents decide to "do the right thing" and become heavily involved in their child's education. Unfortunately this invariable devolves into arguing with the teachers because they failed their son for not doing any of the work, or learning the material. Parents that never learned to succeed* often have a terribly warped view of how and why children should be rewarded in education. Their involvement in their child's education usually causes more trouble than good.
*Success isn't necessarily measured in monetary value.
Are you saying Denmark government employees are the same as United State goverment employees?
I have no problem investing in my own future. I put my self through college. Took me 6 years and working 60 hour weeks at a lumberyard in the summers. It took me being an Resident Advisor for 2 of those 6 years. It took scrubbing dishes at the cafe for book money and free dinners before doing homework. What I object to is investing in people who don't care.
I will send my kids to public school if things don't get too much worse, but you can damn well bet they better care about their own education. They better care enough to confront any trouble makers and slap that shit down. They had better care enough to take all the AP they can. They better care enough to put themselves through college, because I'm not going to do it for them. It would be good money after bad, and would be better spend on my own retirement if they simply didn't give a shit. But being my kids, I bet they give a shit. If they don't, I'm not going to force them or help them until they decide to help themselves. So tell me why other people's kids should be treated to more help on my dollar than I will give my own?
Money is the root of all evil?
Coincidentally, "haha" means "mother" in Japanese.
This means more girls to choose from, guys! Too bad it only affects the following generations (unless you're into those wrong things).
I am not devoid of humor.
My daughter is in 4th grade, doing 5th grade math and reading 8th grade books. Of course, she's in one of the best public schools in California and has a great teacher. None of my teachers did that sort of thing for me, and that was long before No Child Left Behind. Part of the difference is that her school makes effective use of technology to help take some of the burden of giving each child work appropriate to their ability off of the teacher.
My point is, if all children in a class are being treated the same it's because of laziness in the teacher, not because of national or state level education policies.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.