Thank goodness for the ACLU. Seriously, if a 2 billion dollar corporation decided to sue my ass, and I had a case, but could not defend it, I am fairly sure that the ACLU or some other organization would be more than willing to help out.
Your last paragraph explains the situation perfectly. One of the students in the salle was explaining that his school had recently instituted a policy banning colored shoe laces, as they were seen as a gang sign, and had lead to violence. The goal of the dress code, in this situation, was to keep the students safe. I, personally, feel that this particular example is a bit dodgy, but it has been supported by the Supreme Court. Safety, in this case trumps free speech. Other cases involving dress basically devolve to the students right to an environment conducive to learning trumps free expression, and the fact that clothing, in and of itself, is not considered expression. General dress codes include things like no dangling chains (they are seen as gang symbols, and pose a safety risk, as they can get caught on things, or be used as weapons), no suggestive images or suggestive clothing (it is a distraction to other students, and, quite frankly, not appropriate at school), no hats inside (the undersides of hat rims are a great place to hid answer keys, the teacher cannot see a student's eyes, which is quite important), &c. It is not a question of making the kids "well-dressed", but a question of creating an environment that is conducive to learning. It is no different than a large corporation insisting that you not wear torn blue jeans and a t-shirt to work.
At this point, the homeschooled kid broke in with "The school can't do that, it is unconstitutional." I spent several minutes explaining to him that, according to the Supreme Court, it was okay. Several other people also pointed out that he was wrong. He refused to accept that he could be wrong, and stormed off. Further more, in this situation, I was not his teacher (which is what you imply when you state "I would expect any teacher to take any student... seriously", but an adult peer. When I am at work, I teach. When I am fencing, I am not teaching, and will not act like a teacher. I refuse to wear that hat 24/7.
In your example, we are talking about intellectually mature individuals that ask questions in a search for knowledge. In my example, we are talking about an intellectually imature person who, for whatever reason, needed to be right.
I think that the latter case is far more common among home schooled students than publically schooled students. In general, home schooled students are given a homogeneous mix of opinions, and are not forced to deal with people that might disagree. When someone disagrees with them, they really don't know how to handle it.
That being said, by the second year of college, I think that most people are going to be in more or less the same place. The students that, by virtue of innate talent or better upbringing, had a better start, will succede, both socially and academically.
Submissiveness is not actually what you want. An understanding of how to be obedient, is.:-)
I think that overall, we agree. However, I would state that obedience is a form of submissiveness.
You missed the other half of the sentence, i.e. "they do not have the same experience." In your sig, you claim to be a rocket scientist. Under the assumption that this is true, would my opinions have any validity if I started telling you fuel mixtures, or nozzle design or whatever it is that you do? No. I know nothing about rocket science, and would not have a leg to stand on.
In the same way, many homeschooled kids will offer opinions on things that they know nothing about, and expect adults to take them seriously. This is not appropriate behavior, and will tend to make you unpopular and unemployable in the real world. It is generally a bad idea to contradict someone who has greater knowledge (not always a bad idea, everyone makes mistakes, and no one is perfect -- but you have to learn to pick your battles).
It is a single anecdote, so yes, not typical of other students. I have seen the same behaviour expressed, though, to a lesser degree in the other kids. I agree that this kid's storming off was unique to him. I also agree entirely with you assesment of why home schoolers tend to be more argumentative.
On the other hand, there is a great difference between speaking your mind to the exclusion of all other opinions, and simple boldness. Also, I disagree that public schools teach kids to keep their heads down. Yes, kids are taught not to disrupt classes (the point being that disruptive students slow everyone down), but they are encouraged by even a half-way decent teacher to express their ideas, and defend them. And even if public schools teach people to be submisive, there is a place for that in society. One should be submisive to superiors if one wants to keep a job. Yes, boldness is a good thing in many contexts, but so is submissiveness. Kids should learn both.
Let me speak to the other perspective. I work at an elementary school as a computer instructor. The job does not require a certification (though I am working on mine at the moment), but does require that I (a) work with the kids and (b) help the teachers with tech support. Yes, many of the teachers don't understand what a login screen is, or why it is useful. But most of them are willing to listen to an explaination, and try to learn what it means. Remember, most of these folk did not grow up with computers. They are a new fangled technology, and they are not all that easy to learn. It feels easy to us, because we grew up with them, but computers are not friendly, they are not intuitive, and they are not easy to use without a fair amount of training. The problem with that is there are few districts that have actually thought anything through. Computers are great! We must have computers in the classroom! Buy computers! Oh... now what?
As a side note, I feel that the computers are nearly useless for the younger kids (say K-3). After that, the fourth and fifth graders get a kick out of taking the things apart, and learning what the bits and bobbles are. By the time I have them in sixth grade, they know what a word processor is (not just Word -- we work with a few others, as well), they know what the internet is, they know what spreadsheet is, and they can troubleshoot hardware. Furthermore, they know how to get access to information using a computer.
A computer should not (in my opinion) be used to replace a teacher (that is where most districts seem to fall down). A computer is a tool, and should be used as such. Students should learn to use them as tools (I have to write a paper on x -- I can use the internet to find information, I can use the digital card catalog to find books in the library, I can use the computer to type and print out a paper, and I can use the computer to present that information to others).
On the other hand, many of the homeschooled kids that I work with (I teach at a public elementary school, and fence with a bunch of home schooled kids) tend to act as though they were adults. No, they are certainly not shy, but they also do not have the same experience, yet feel that their opinion should be considered valid. One of these kids tried to explain to me that school districts cannot have any kind of dress code, because it violates the first amendment of the Constitution. When I told him that several Supreme Court decisions contradicted his statement, he flew off into a rage. I would not say that he handled the situation like an adult, nor was his interaction terribly mature. However, I think that it is typical of the home schooled kids that I work with -- they are nearly constantly getting the same kind of reinforcement and feedback from the same small group of people.
These kids have been brought up to believe that they are (1) better than other kids and (2) the center of the universe (as they are generally the center of their parents' universes). I am not saying that all homeschooled kids are like that (my gf was homeschooled until high school, and she turned out alright), but in my sample of about 15 kids (a small sample, admittedly), all but one or two have varrying degrees of a similar kind of social ineptitude.
On the other hand, I do not think that it is fair to compare the performance of homeschoolers with publicly schooled children. It is a self selecting group that has a lot going for it. First, the parents must have the time to invest. I work at a school where most families have either a single parent, or where both parents work to makes ends meet. These parents don't have the time to homeschool. Second, the parents that choose to homeschool their kids, on average, have greater education than most parents. Most homeschooling parents have at least a Bachelors degree, if not a higher degree.
We combine higher academic acheivement with time to invest (this implies a two parent household where one parent is able to stay home through the day while the other works, though there are other arrangements that could work, too). These are things that are also correlated with high academic performance in public schools.
So, I will not debate that homeschooled kids do not outperform publicly schooled kids. This is settled. However, I do not think that homeschooling is the root cause of greater performance. I see it as greater parental investment in their children's education. A publicly schooled child with parents that stay up at night to help with homework has at least as good a chance as a homeschooled kid, with the bonus of added socialization.
Gods, I wish they would let me do that here (or at least turn a blind eye). I run a computer lab for 400+ elementary school students, running Win98 boxen. I install OpenOffice, and three weeks later, IT comes in and takes it away. So I install it again. Rinse, Repeat.
Yes, it is possible to get locks. How many people actually use them? How many college students take that much responsibility? As a parent, you can bitch and moan as much as you like about how important the lock is, and your kid will use it or not, depending upon their own preferences and priorities. I just don't trust college students (especially first years) with expensive and portable equipment.
In my family, I am the computer person. Perhaps I am that 10th guy out of 10, but I have recommended time and time again that members of my family get Macs. Five years ago, I told my mother to get a Mac. She is a freelance technical illustrator, and takes jobs when she wants to (my father, a dean, brings home most of the bacon). I told her that she should probably get a Mac. Photoshop runs fine, there is email and web support (duh), and it would be her machine (my younger brother would not bother with it, because it would not play most of the games that he likes to play). Against my advice, she bought a Dell. Inside of a year, my brother had installed a shit-load of crap, and the machine stopped working. After several hundred dollars of tech support, it was reformatted, and XP was installed. This has happened three times now.
Then, my sister went off to college. Again, I recommended a Mac (an iMac in this case, one of the G4 dome things). She needed a machine to write papers and check her email. Against my advice, she got a Dell, and expected me to trouble shoot it when it didn't work.
Then, when my sister left the country, she needed a laptop. I recommended an iBook. She got a Dell. Her desktop machine devolved to my brother, who promptly killed it with spyware.
Last year, my mother finally decided to try and replace the XP box. Her plan was to have a secure box for checking her email, &c., and a non-networked box for work. She once again paid to have the XP box reformatted, and I recommend that she get a Mac Mini or iMac for email -- cheap, easy to use, unlikely to get pwned. Instead, she let herself get talked into a Linux box. Now, I have no objection to Linux, and ran it for several years. I didn't like it for my purposes -- it didn't 'just work' -- but I have no generalized beef against it. It is fine for people who know what they are doing. My mother does not. She hates the box, and never uses it.
Now, my brother is off to college. Because of his propensity to install a lot of shit, I have once again recommended a Mac (either an iMac, or a low end G5 tower -- possibly a beefed up Mac Mini). If he needs to game, he has a PS2, and in reality, he should be working. He is living off campus, so LAN games should not be a concern. We shall see what the family decides...
On the other hand, laptops are smaller, more portable, and easier to just walk off with. If you have one, you have to make sure that you always keep it with you, or that your dorm is always locked. The former can be a pain, as no one goes out drinking with their lappy, and the latter can be difficult as well -- roommates don't always follow the rules. That is not to say that a laptop is a bad idea, only that for every positive aspect of having a laptop, there is a coresponding negative aspect.
Indeed... I lived in Siberia for a semester in High School. The sun rose at about 10:00 am, and set at about 1:00 pm. And this was a month after the solstice. I feel your pain, and am glad to be away from that aspect of living in Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank goodness for the ACLU. Seriously, if a 2 billion dollar corporation decided to sue my ass, and I had a case, but could not defend it, I am fairly sure that the ACLU or some other organization would be more than willing to help out.
Grumble... I once again fail at humor...
The hell? Step 7 should have been "???"... then "PROFIT!!" at step 8. You must be new here.
And now we seem to agree completely.
Your last paragraph explains the situation perfectly. One of the students in the salle was explaining that his school had recently instituted a policy banning colored shoe laces, as they were seen as a gang sign, and had lead to violence. The goal of the dress code, in this situation, was to keep the students safe. I, personally, feel that this particular example is a bit dodgy, but it has been supported by the Supreme Court. Safety, in this case trumps free speech. Other cases involving dress basically devolve to the students right to an environment conducive to learning trumps free expression, and the fact that clothing, in and of itself, is not considered expression. General dress codes include things like no dangling chains (they are seen as gang symbols, and pose a safety risk, as they can get caught on things, or be used as weapons), no suggestive images or suggestive clothing (it is a distraction to other students, and, quite frankly, not appropriate at school), no hats inside (the undersides of hat rims are a great place to hid answer keys, the teacher cannot see a student's eyes, which is quite important), &c. It is not a question of making the kids "well-dressed", but a question of creating an environment that is conducive to learning. It is no different than a large corporation insisting that you not wear torn blue jeans and a t-shirt to work.
... seriously", but an adult peer. When I am at work, I teach. When I am fencing, I am not teaching, and will not act like a teacher. I refuse to wear that hat 24/7.
At this point, the homeschooled kid broke in with "The school can't do that, it is unconstitutional." I spent several minutes explaining to him that, according to the Supreme Court, it was okay. Several other people also pointed out that he was wrong. He refused to accept that he could be wrong, and stormed off. Further more, in this situation, I was not his teacher (which is what you imply when you state "I would expect any teacher to take any student
In your example, we are talking about intellectually mature individuals that ask questions in a search for knowledge. In my example, we are talking about an intellectually imature person who, for whatever reason, needed to be right.
I think that the latter case is far more common among home schooled students than publically schooled students. In general, home schooled students are given a homogeneous mix of opinions, and are not forced to deal with people that might disagree. When someone disagrees with them, they really don't know how to handle it.
That being said, by the second year of college, I think that most people are going to be in more or less the same place. The students that, by virtue of innate talent or better upbringing, had a better start, will succede, both socially and academically.
Submissiveness is not actually what you want. An understanding of how to be obedient, is. :-)
I think that overall, we agree. However, I would state that obedience is a form of submissiveness.
You missed the other half of the sentence, i.e. "they do not have the same experience." In your sig, you claim to be a rocket scientist. Under the assumption that this is true, would my opinions have any validity if I started telling you fuel mixtures, or nozzle design or whatever it is that you do? No. I know nothing about rocket science, and would not have a leg to stand on.
In the same way, many homeschooled kids will offer opinions on things that they know nothing about, and expect adults to take them seriously. This is not appropriate behavior, and will tend to make you unpopular and unemployable in the real world. It is generally a bad idea to contradict someone who has greater knowledge (not always a bad idea, everyone makes mistakes, and no one is perfect -- but you have to learn to pick your battles).
It is a single anecdote, so yes, not typical of other students. I have seen the same behaviour expressed, though, to a lesser degree in the other kids. I agree that this kid's storming off was unique to him. I also agree entirely with you assesment of why home schoolers tend to be more argumentative.
On the other hand, there is a great difference between speaking your mind to the exclusion of all other opinions, and simple boldness. Also, I disagree that public schools teach kids to keep their heads down. Yes, kids are taught not to disrupt classes (the point being that disruptive students slow everyone down), but they are encouraged by even a half-way decent teacher to express their ideas, and defend them. And even if public schools teach people to be submisive, there is a place for that in society. One should be submisive to superiors if one wants to keep a job. Yes, boldness is a good thing in many contexts, but so is submissiveness. Kids should learn both.
Nearly 100. All of the teachers love it, and the kids get a kick out of tabbed browsing.
Let me speak to the other perspective. I work at an elementary school as a computer instructor. The job does not require a certification (though I am working on mine at the moment), but does require that I (a) work with the kids and (b) help the teachers with tech support. Yes, many of the teachers don't understand what a login screen is, or why it is useful. But most of them are willing to listen to an explaination, and try to learn what it means. Remember, most of these folk did not grow up with computers. They are a new fangled technology, and they are not all that easy to learn. It feels easy to us, because we grew up with them, but computers are not friendly, they are not intuitive, and they are not easy to use without a fair amount of training. The problem with that is there are few districts that have actually thought anything through. Computers are great! We must have computers in the classroom! Buy computers! Oh... now what?
As a side note, I feel that the computers are nearly useless for the younger kids (say K-3). After that, the fourth and fifth graders get a kick out of taking the things apart, and learning what the bits and bobbles are. By the time I have them in sixth grade, they know what a word processor is (not just Word -- we work with a few others, as well), they know what the internet is, they know what spreadsheet is, and they can troubleshoot hardware. Furthermore, they know how to get access to information using a computer.
A computer should not (in my opinion) be used to replace a teacher (that is where most districts seem to fall down). A computer is a tool, and should be used as such. Students should learn to use them as tools (I have to write a paper on x -- I can use the internet to find information, I can use the digital card catalog to find books in the library, I can use the computer to type and print out a paper, and I can use the computer to present that information to others).
On the other hand, many of the homeschooled kids that I work with (I teach at a public elementary school, and fence with a bunch of home schooled kids) tend to act as though they were adults. No, they are certainly not shy, but they also do not have the same experience, yet feel that their opinion should be considered valid. One of these kids tried to explain to me that school districts cannot have any kind of dress code, because it violates the first amendment of the Constitution. When I told him that several Supreme Court decisions contradicted his statement, he flew off into a rage. I would not say that he handled the situation like an adult, nor was his interaction terribly mature. However, I think that it is typical of the home schooled kids that I work with -- they are nearly constantly getting the same kind of reinforcement and feedback from the same small group of people.
These kids have been brought up to believe that they are (1) better than other kids and (2) the center of the universe (as they are generally the center of their parents' universes). I am not saying that all homeschooled kids are like that (my gf was homeschooled until high school, and she turned out alright), but in my sample of about 15 kids (a small sample, admittedly), all but one or two have varrying degrees of a similar kind of social ineptitude.
On the other hand, I do not think that it is fair to compare the performance of homeschoolers with publicly schooled children. It is a self selecting group that has a lot going for it. First, the parents must have the time to invest. I work at a school where most families have either a single parent, or where both parents work to makes ends meet. These parents don't have the time to homeschool. Second, the parents that choose to homeschool their kids, on average, have greater education than most parents. Most homeschooling parents have at least a Bachelors degree, if not a higher degree.
We combine higher academic acheivement with time to invest (this implies a two parent household where one parent is able to stay home through the day while the other works, though there are other arrangements that could work, too). These are things that are also correlated with high academic performance in public schools.
So, I will not debate that homeschooled kids do not outperform publicly schooled kids. This is settled. However, I do not think that homeschooling is the root cause of greater performance. I see it as greater parental investment in their children's education. A publicly schooled child with parents that stay up at night to help with homework has at least as good a chance as a homeschooled kid, with the bonus of added socialization.
Ah. That makes sense. By the time Crusade came out, I had no cable, and was not able to see any of it.
Did anyone else notice the Kestrel from Ambrosia Software's Escape Velocity in the background in the trailer? No? Oh, well.
Again, they are noise canceling. I like to hear the engine.
That was more or less the point of my post, only stated in a more humerous fasion (or at least, that was the intention).
Um... glide ratios? The only time I ever see a Cessna fall like a ton of bricks is with 40 degrees of flaps.
David Clarke's Forever! At least, if you don't want noise cancelation. It is easier to execute a proper loop or roll when you can hear the engine. ^_^
What's wrong with flying in stall conditions? I mean, other than the stall horn on a Cessna 172? Cause that thing annoys the hell out of me.
Palshife, eh? DIE REBEL SCUM!
...
"Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."
Yes. Yes it is... that was the point, stupid lameness filter... ruin my delivery.
Gah! Get it off!
Under standard... damn. I am human, I do make typographical errors. So much for that theory. ^_^
Gods, I wish they would let me do that here (or at least turn a blind eye). I run a computer lab for 400+ elementary school students, running Win98 boxen. I install OpenOffice, and three weeks later, IT comes in and takes it away. So I install it again. Rinse, Repeat.
Yes, it is possible to get locks. How many people actually use them? How many college students take that much responsibility? As a parent, you can bitch and moan as much as you like about how important the lock is, and your kid will use it or not, depending upon their own preferences and priorities. I just don't trust college students (especially first years) with expensive and portable equipment.
In my family, I am the computer person. Perhaps I am that 10th guy out of 10, but I have recommended time and time again that members of my family get Macs. Five years ago, I told my mother to get a Mac. She is a freelance technical illustrator, and takes jobs when she wants to (my father, a dean, brings home most of the bacon). I told her that she should probably get a Mac. Photoshop runs fine, there is email and web support (duh), and it would be her machine (my younger brother would not bother with it, because it would not play most of the games that he likes to play). Against my advice, she bought a Dell. Inside of a year, my brother had installed a shit-load of crap, and the machine stopped working. After several hundred dollars of tech support, it was reformatted, and XP was installed. This has happened three times now.
Then, my sister went off to college. Again, I recommended a Mac (an iMac in this case, one of the G4 dome things). She needed a machine to write papers and check her email. Against my advice, she got a Dell, and expected me to trouble shoot it when it didn't work.
Then, when my sister left the country, she needed a laptop. I recommended an iBook. She got a Dell. Her desktop machine devolved to my brother, who promptly killed it with spyware.
Last year, my mother finally decided to try and replace the XP box. Her plan was to have a secure box for checking her email, &c., and a non-networked box for work. She once again paid to have the XP box reformatted, and I recommend that she get a Mac Mini or iMac for email -- cheap, easy to use, unlikely to get pwned. Instead, she let herself get talked into a Linux box. Now, I have no objection to Linux, and ran it for several years. I didn't like it for my purposes -- it didn't 'just work' -- but I have no generalized beef against it. It is fine for people who know what they are doing. My mother does not. She hates the box, and never uses it.
Now, my brother is off to college. Because of his propensity to install a lot of shit, I have once again recommended a Mac (either an iMac, or a low end G5 tower -- possibly a beefed up Mac Mini). If he needs to game, he has a PS2, and in reality, he should be working. He is living off campus, so LAN games should not be a concern. We shall see what the family decides...
On the other hand, laptops are smaller, more portable, and easier to just walk off with. If you have one, you have to make sure that you always keep it with you, or that your dorm is always locked. The former can be a pain, as no one goes out drinking with their lappy, and the latter can be difficult as well -- roommates don't always follow the rules. That is not to say that a laptop is a bad idea, only that for every positive aspect of having a laptop, there is a coresponding negative aspect.
Indeed... I lived in Siberia for a semester in High School. The sun rose at about 10:00 am, and set at about 1:00 pm. And this was a month after the solstice. I feel your pain, and am glad to be away from that aspect of living in Russia.