The premise is reasonable -- the implementation, of course, has plenty of room to be suspect.
The thing is the examples of poor pronunciation that lead to language coaching given in the artical are not specifically one accent. The say that "da" for "the", "anuder" for another and "leeves here" for "lives here" were all causes of a teacher being written up. While the third one is a Spanish speaker's mispronunciation, the other two are generally the result of lazy pronunciation. I was sent to speech therapy class in elementary school for similar pronunciation reasons. As a result, I am incapable of speaking English with anything other than my native accent (which is the accent that TV announcers are taught, with a few minor regional variations, but less so than most from my region). However, while I am unable to speak English with a Spanish accent (or any other accent), when I speak Spanish, my accent is similar to that of a native Spanish speaker (every native Spanish speaker thinks I learned Spanish in some other Spanish speaking region than where they are native to).
Of course when teaching post secondary, it is not important as the language skills are solidified.
Actually, phoneme "solidification" occurs at about puberty. So, unless you're in high school at a particularly young age, then it should matter equally as much in High School, as it does in post-secondary.
You present evidence that learning proper pronunciation in high school is important. You use that to say that teaching with proper pronunciation should be as important in high school as in post-secondary in response to someone who said that the teacher's accent is not as important as in earlier education.
If someone gets a job right out of high school and works for the average wage for someone with a high school diploma of their age and experience for their whole life, they will end up with $1 million more at age 65 than someone who gets a bachelors degree and works at the average wage for someone of their age and experience (education is part of experience).
No, that is experience.
Back in the 1970s people were upset with how much money was involved in politics and how much power that gave to corporations, so they backed campaign finance reform. Then in the 1980s, people saw that there was even more money involved in politics and that corporations had gotten more powerful, so they backed campaign finance reform. Rinse and repeat in the 90s and the 00s. This was not the only type of regulation that was passed in order to "reign in the power of big corporations." You would think that maybe people would start to see a pattern, as you give the government more authority to regulate, corporations wield more and more power. Maybe it is time to try a different approach.
Large corporations are nigh-immune to that kind of thing, they've explicitly set themselves up that way.
With the aid and assistance of the government. Giving the government more power is how we got corporations with this much power and now people want to give the government even more power?
No, I did not say that was what I wanted. What I was pointing out is that I have the choice of not doing business with a corporation. without having to go live in a shithole. I do not have the choice of not doing business with a government. As you pointed out, if I do not like the practices of most governments, my choice is to go live somewhere like Somalia. On the other hand, if I don't like the practices of Comcast, I can choose not to do business with them and stay right here.
Only when compared to other Universities and Colleges. When compared to the income of the people who are the "customers" (the students), it is damned expensive.
I replied to someone who said they would rather have government censoring the Internet than corporations because they thought they had more say with the government. The fact is that if you do not like the way that corporations choose to manage the Internet, you can choose not to do business with them. This might mean giving up the Internet, but it is a choice. Corporations very much want you to do business with them. If enough people choose not to use the Internet because of the way the corporation manages it, the corporation will change its behavior. I cannot choose not to do business with any government.
If I leave the country, I will have to do business with whatever government holds sway wherever I go. I can choose to not do business with either Comcast or AT&T, or any other company. I cannot choose to not do business with any government.
Really, so, the Fairness Doctrine never existed and was never enforced so as to marginalize those opinions that the political powers found inconvenient?
I have the choice of not doing business with AT&T or Comcast if I do not like their practices. I do not have the choice of not doing business with the government if I do not like their practices.
Government regulations are the reason there are monopolies. Those local and regional monopolies exist because the government mandated them into existence. What makes you think that the government that created those monopolies is going to act to limit them?
Net Neutrality supporters want to be able to access whatever they want, unhindered by CORPORATE interests.
Yes, but what they are going to get is what the government bureaucrats decide is acceptable. So instead of Corporate interests determining what content you can access, you are going to have POLITICAL interests deciding what content you can, and cannot, access.
The thing is that the state school is required by law to offer a lower tuition to in-state students (sometimes the amount of in-state tuition is set by law), then they get a flat dollar amount of money from the public purse. The number of in-state students has zero affect on the amount of dollars the school gets from the state.
I'm sorry, but unless the tuition for in state students in Wisconsin is much lower than elsewhere in the country, the one thing it cannot be called is "cheap".
You are absolutely correct. There are many reasons to question the wisdom and justice of current state employee (including state university) pension plans, but the way that issue is addressed in the summary is completely off base.
well, there was a reason the U.S. started the public school system in the first place...
Yes, it was to indoctrinate young people into the secular, statist religion of progressives rather than leaving them to develop their own beliefs based on what their parents taught them and experience.
There is actually a fourth reason why the cost to get a post-secondary degree is going up so rapidly. That is that no one fails to get a college degree solely because of cost. If you want a college degree bad enough, there is almost certainly a way to find the money to pay for it.
a 30-something with...half a decade of professional experience and nearly two decades of non-professional experience
A 30-something with 25 years of experience?
At no point does he say that there is no overlap between those two types of experience. If he is currently 35 and started programming for stuff that interested him and nobody paid him to do at 15 and has continued doing so to this day, that would be two decades of non-professional experience. In addition, if he started working as a programmer somewhere at 30 and is continuing to do so, that would be 5 years of professional experience. There are other IT related things he could have done rather than programming that would work out the same way.
Someone did a study a couple of years back where they compared life time earnings and potential savings at retirement between someone with no more than a high school diploma and someone with a college degree. Based on getting an average salary of someone with that background throughout one's life, the high school only person would have $1 million more at 65 than the person with a bachelor's degree.
Your reply seems to think that the poster was saying that no one needed a college education. His point was that it is possible to make it without one. He, at no point, said that no one should get a college degree.
At best, your reply has nothing to do with what he was saying in his post. More likely, it is people like him who are most likely to recapture the America that you are afraid is lost forever. If you look at post war America, most of it was built by people without post-secondary education.
Slashdot Mirror
The premise is reasonable -- the implementation, of course, has plenty of room to be suspect.
The thing is the examples of poor pronunciation that lead to language coaching given in the artical are not specifically one accent. The say that "da" for "the", "anuder" for another and "leeves here" for "lives here" were all causes of a teacher being written up. While the third one is a Spanish speaker's mispronunciation, the other two are generally the result of lazy pronunciation. I was sent to speech therapy class in elementary school for similar pronunciation reasons. As a result, I am incapable of speaking English with anything other than my native accent (which is the accent that TV announcers are taught, with a few minor regional variations, but less so than most from my region). However, while I am unable to speak English with a Spanish accent (or any other accent), when I speak Spanish, my accent is similar to that of a native Spanish speaker (every native Spanish speaker thinks I learned Spanish in some other Spanish speaking region than where they are native to).
Of course when teaching post secondary, it is not important as the language skills are solidified. Actually, phoneme "solidification" occurs at about puberty. So, unless you're in high school at a particularly young age, then it should matter equally as much in High School, as it does in post-secondary.
You present evidence that learning proper pronunciation in high school is important. You use that to say that teaching with proper pronunciation should be as important in high school as in post-secondary in response to someone who said that the teacher's accent is not as important as in earlier education.
If someone gets a job right out of high school and works for the average wage for someone with a high school diploma of their age and experience for their whole life, they will end up with $1 million more at age 65 than someone who gets a bachelors degree and works at the average wage for someone of their age and experience (education is part of experience).
No, that is experience.
Back in the 1970s people were upset with how much money was involved in politics and how much power that gave to corporations, so they backed campaign finance reform. Then in the 1980s, people saw that there was even more money involved in politics and that corporations had gotten more powerful, so they backed campaign finance reform. Rinse and repeat in the 90s and the 00s. This was not the only type of regulation that was passed in order to "reign in the power of big corporations." You would think that maybe people would start to see a pattern, as you give the government more authority to regulate, corporations wield more and more power. Maybe it is time to try a different approach.
Large corporations are nigh-immune to that kind of thing, they've explicitly set themselves up that way.
With the aid and assistance of the government. Giving the government more power is how we got corporations with this much power and now people want to give the government even more power?
No, I did not say that was what I wanted. What I was pointing out is that I have the choice of not doing business with a corporation. without having to go live in a shithole. I do not have the choice of not doing business with a government. As you pointed out, if I do not like the practices of most governments, my choice is to go live somewhere like Somalia. On the other hand, if I don't like the practices of Comcast, I can choose not to do business with them and stay right here.
Only when compared to other Universities and Colleges. When compared to the income of the people who are the "customers" (the students), it is damned expensive.
It happens, in response to another corporation complaining.
I replied to someone who said they would rather have government censoring the Internet than corporations because they thought they had more say with the government. The fact is that if you do not like the way that corporations choose to manage the Internet, you can choose not to do business with them. This might mean giving up the Internet, but it is a choice. Corporations very much want you to do business with them. If enough people choose not to use the Internet because of the way the corporation manages it, the corporation will change its behavior. I cannot choose not to do business with any government.
If I leave the country, I will have to do business with whatever government holds sway wherever I go. I can choose to not do business with either Comcast or AT&T, or any other company. I cannot choose to not do business with any government.
No, the government acts to favor certain companies at the expense of others, not to limit companies.
Where I will have to do business with that government.
For now.
Really, so, the Fairness Doctrine never existed and was never enforced so as to marginalize those opinions that the political powers found inconvenient?
I have the choice of not doing business with AT&T or Comcast if I do not like their practices. I do not have the choice of not doing business with the government if I do not like their practices.
Government regulations are the reason there are monopolies. Those local and regional monopolies exist because the government mandated them into existence. What makes you think that the government that created those monopolies is going to act to limit them?
Net Neutrality supporters want to be able to access whatever they want, unhindered by CORPORATE interests.
Yes, but what they are going to get is what the government bureaucrats decide is acceptable. So instead of Corporate interests determining what content you can access, you are going to have POLITICAL interests deciding what content you can, and cannot, access.
The thing is that the state school is required by law to offer a lower tuition to in-state students (sometimes the amount of in-state tuition is set by law), then they get a flat dollar amount of money from the public purse. The number of in-state students has zero affect on the amount of dollars the school gets from the state.
I'm sorry, but unless the tuition for in state students in Wisconsin is much lower than elsewhere in the country, the one thing it cannot be called is "cheap".
You are absolutely correct. There are many reasons to question the wisdom and justice of current state employee (including state university) pension plans, but the way that issue is addressed in the summary is completely off base.
well, there was a reason the U.S. started the public school system in the first place...
Yes, it was to indoctrinate young people into the secular, statist religion of progressives rather than leaving them to develop their own beliefs based on what their parents taught them and experience.
There is actually a fourth reason why the cost to get a post-secondary degree is going up so rapidly. That is that no one fails to get a college degree solely because of cost. If you want a college degree bad enough, there is almost certainly a way to find the money to pay for it.
a 30-something with...half a decade of professional experience and nearly two decades of non-professional experience A 30-something with 25 years of experience?
At no point does he say that there is no overlap between those two types of experience. If he is currently 35 and started programming for stuff that interested him and nobody paid him to do at 15 and has continued doing so to this day, that would be two decades of non-professional experience. In addition, if he started working as a programmer somewhere at 30 and is continuing to do so, that would be 5 years of professional experience. There are other IT related things he could have done rather than programming that would work out the same way.
Someone did a study a couple of years back where they compared life time earnings and potential savings at retirement between someone with no more than a high school diploma and someone with a college degree. Based on getting an average salary of someone with that background throughout one's life, the high school only person would have $1 million more at 65 than the person with a bachelor's degree.
Your reply seems to think that the poster was saying that no one needed a college education. His point was that it is possible to make it without one. He, at no point, said that no one should get a college degree.
At best, your reply has nothing to do with what he was saying in his post. More likely, it is people like him who are most likely to recapture the America that you are afraid is lost forever. If you look at post war America, most of it was built by people without post-secondary education.