What about the far left side? I'm 5'9", 107lbs. My BMI is somewhere around 15.5. If you looked at me through a BMI chart, and not through my lifestyle, you'd think I was anorexic or seriously ill.
Now, I know I'm hardly a weight-lifting goddess, but I'm healthy. I can maintain a decent activity level. Even at my fittest and most muscular (running 20+ miles a week, cross country racing, weight training and swimming on the side) I was only 120lbs or so. According to the BMI calculators I need to be somewhere in the area of 140lbs to be "healthy"... uh, what? I have a smaller bone structure than some. My wrist measurements can prove that - I can't even wear most adult watches without taking links out of them. My personal goal is to hit 120 again and maintain that muscle mass... if I get higher through the exercises I'm doing, I'll be surprised. Never will I use BMI as an indicator of how healthy I am.
Fact is, BMI only works for the "average" people on the bell curve. I'd go so far as to say it's pretty out-of-whack if you're more than one standard deviation away from the mean, which means it only works for 68% of the population. That's an awfully shaky standard to base your lifestyle or dietary goals on.
I am one of those people who gets cranky as hell when I don't get fed. I'm also very thin and "graze" instead of eating big meals (probably the only reason I didn't put on weight in college when my calories started coming in the form of Ramen and dining-hall chicken nuggets). So I get hungry relatively often (every few hours), eat something small (apple, banana chips, carrot sticks, granola bar), and do 2-3 bigger meals for breakfast and lunch/dinner. I can't say that plan will work for everyone but I have heard some success stories using grazing as a way to avoid the ravenous hunger that people often feel when changing their diet. Healthy snack foods are easy to come by, if you have a few extra dollars for fruit and nuts each week.
But we're not talking about readership, we're talking about sales figures. Readership is impossible to track anyway, since not all purchased books are read, and not all books read are purchased (case in point: libraries!). Libraries would underestimate total readership while bumping sales numbers because they buy multiple copies to serve a consumer group which otherwise would not have bought the book.
I wonder if the publishers take into account the libraries that are buying 3+ copies of "popular" books (Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, the Stephanie Plum mysteries...) to meet initial demand. The ALAestimates over 100k libraries in the US, although it doesn't give numbers as to how many of those are specialized. Assume half are in universities or otherwise disinclined to buy popular fiction, and that's still 150k copies of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone bought and sitting on a shelf somewhere, and no real indication of the number of people who read them. I wouldn't be surprised if (an admittedly small) part of the inflation appearing in publisher numbers is because of the library phenomenon.
Then again, they could just be trying to look good.
You make a good point. Still, better one change at a time than many, and drinking less pop has been the single dietary change I've always held onto when other ones have failed, so I hope that my experience holds true for others. Naturally, it's anecdotal... either way, good luck, OP!
It still has sweetener and despite a lower calorie count it will not help you lose weight. I am one of the people who can actually taste the aspartame in diet drinks so I have high incentive to stay away from them anyway, but tbqh I can't see how anyone honestly believes the insinuations that just because you're taking in fewer calories in a cup of diet soda means you'll suddenly drop the pounds. You're still taking in sweeteners and you're still replacing part of your (limited, if you're on a diet) caloric intake with liquids that will neither keep you full nor improve your nutrient balance. I have never seen a single person, nor heard a single anecdote from anyone who lost weight by switching from Pepsi to Diet Pepsi. If you aren't going to drink soda, don't drink diet soda either. Cutting the sweetener out of your diet entirely will do much more for you than cutting it by whatever small percentage the diet sodas contain in relation to their heavier cousins.
As I suggested above, drop sugary drinks entirely. Fruit juice and other 'healthy' sweet drinks are ok - everything in moderation, of course. Focus on water, though, and your body will thank you for it with clearer skin as well as weight loss.
You don't need to DRASTICALLY change anything. One thing I have found in a decade of trying to change various things is that diving into the deep end unprepared inevitably causes failure. There are few people who can drop into any situation and magically conform to it (and stick to it) while the rest of the world sits back and watches. You either get your buddies to dive in with you, for motivation, or you do it slowly by yourself.
The biggest change I would suggest is to quit drinking pop/soda/flavored water, along with getting up and moving around every once in a while (or using your breaks for light exercise). Drop iced tea, unless you make it yourself. Drop juice. Drink water. When you want flavor, add some lemon or make tea with a small amount of sugar. You can get fruit teas or mint teas that are perfectly drinkable without sweetening and are fine iced as well. Even some lighter green teas aren't as bitter and will be tolerable with low sugar content. Doing this is infinitely better for you than many other dietary changes, is easier to start and will have an immediate effect on your health. Buy a water bottle, find a way to carry it everywhere, make a mental note to remember it for a few weeks and it will be come habit. And while dropping sugar from your drinks seems like a tiny step, it's impressive how many calories are added to your diet via liquids. I can also guarantee you'll find that in a few weeks, sugary drinks will taste too sweet and you won't crave them often, which may also decrease your craving for sugary foods. If dropping sugary liquids and getting more active doesn't make a dent, see your doctor to figure out a stricter diet/exercise plan.
I understand the basic concept, although I'll freely admit I'm not an economist and could not tell you the opportunity cost of my own actions, let alone those of a highly educated scientist who might spend his time doing any number of good things for the world. I don't see what opportunity cost has to do with my preference for scientists solving problems instead of being hired to piddle around at burger king.
Why? The gov't already has you on file with the IRS and the Social Security Office or else you wouldn't be getting a paycheck (or paying taxes). Although I know the gov't is a big fan of creating new and unusually named Departments to handle each new bit of administrative work, it would make sense to put any new divisions under the auspices of the SS office, since universal healthcare would be a matter of social welfare. So all you'd need is your SSN, ideally. Of course they'll probably require extensive medical checks, etc eventually which they will also store, but for now, a number we already have should suffice.
Mathematicians don't produce anything but numbers anyway - the difference is in the application of those numbers to various projects. I'd rather have a mathematician working on the next Space Shuttle than one working on my burgers. Scientists... well, when was the last really GOOD, useful study done on solving the world's problems, and not just describing how many people are going hungry today?
So theoretically I could start a business and insist that all payment be through trade/barter. If I did so I'd still have to pay income tax on my traded furs and bottle caps, though... what a tax form nightmare!
Nice pun. I'm not advocating use of hand sanitizer every time you touch a post-it from your co-workers, but washing one's hands even with clean water and no soap can remove some of the bacteria that cause illness. Even a healthy immune system can use the help of washing your hands before you eat. I'm all for having a good immune system and in fact I think mine's doing pretty well, aside from the sinus issues. I've played in dirt, gone swimming in "dirty" lakes and creeks, spent several summers at a camp where they had pit toilets and lots of snot-nosed kids, and generally had a great time getting dirty for most of my life, with my parents' blessing (as long as I didn't track mud into the house). But there are some things that you just can't build up an immunity to (like the common cold) and that's where hand-washing comes in. And while I'm not terribly concerned about contracting H1N1 and dying, I'd still rather avoid the week of misery and lost pay, because if I thought I had the flu or anything else highly contagious I'd definitely stay home out of concern for the kids I work with.
It's not the colonoscopies they're looking for, it's the "I have the sniffles again this week and I NEED an antibiotic, doc! Don't worry, my insurance will cover it!"
I'm not even sure most places will accept gold coins as legal tender; not that they're not legal, but the cashiers and managers have rarely seen one and will become suspicious if someone tries to pay for their loaf of bread with a couple of Sacajawea dollars, let alone higher denomination coins. (I know; I've tried.) I imagine having an entire company's worth of employees come into your store and attempt to buy snacks with $20 gold coins would be enough to warrant a call to the authorities by a nervous manager.
That being the case it would stand to reason that the person would attempt to sell the coins or trade them for paper dollars at the bank. It does not stand to reason that having been told they don't need to pay income tax on the coins, they would file their taxes that year and tell the IRS about any extra money they made off the transfer, at least assuming they're smart enough to figure out why the IRS doesn't need to know.
Correlation (number of guns compared to number of gun deaths) does not equal causation.
Nowhere in that article did I see a mention of the fact that the states listed as having high gun death rates are also states with high poverty rates, high racial tension, etc which also correlate neatly to gun crimes. Nowhere in that article did I see a mention of the OTHER side of the coin, either - that many areas with more gun owners have lower crime rates than the national average. See Kennesaw, Georgia as one example... whereas its oft-cited opponent Morton Grove is a suburb of Chicago where the crime rates look like this.
So according to my own correlations, crime rates are clearly higher in areas where gun ownership is restricted. And clearly, those people who carry guns must all know how to use them, and have practiced with them, etc. I too can argue without any real facts about the personalities and abilities of gun owners and the probable results of guns on a plane... but the flu virus is not a gun and can't be stopped with one so why the hell is this post even relevant?
I'm sorry I'd rather risk infecting a few people with a minor cough instead of going without water next week because the bill's due and today's hours on my paycheck are what I was counting on to pay it.
If I'm sick I do my best to reduce my symptoms and keep myself away from direct contact with clients, so that I'm NOT going into someone's home (I am a social worker) coughing and sneezing all over myself or their kids. But I don't get free vacation days with which to recover, so forgive me if I find your selfishness just as ignoble as mine. If I have to make the choice between going to work with a cough so that I can pay my bills, and staying home to "get better" (which often doesn't happen in a day anyway) and giving up income that could have provided me with a better cough suppressant or paid my electric bill so I stay warm... screw my co-workers, I'm going to work. Anyone who works with people knows that the best way to avoid sickness is to wash your hands, keep them away from your face at all times and simply avoid people showing signs of illness to the best of your ability to do so. If they come to your desk and cough on you, I find it perfectly acceptable to lodge a complaint about hygiene with the boss, but sending them home when they may need to work to keep themselves fed is thoughtlessly cruel.
I'm pretty sure you never tried asking them "So who do I make this check out to?".
I got these calls on my cell phone as well. What always got me was how it was the 2nd notice, when I had yet to get a first one, and the one time I answered the phone they asked me about the make and model of my car. I totaled the last car registered to me in 2005. Nice job, guys!
"I do things I don't want to do because I get paid or receive some other kind of compensation. That's the way the world works in real life. Everything else I do because it's pleasurable. If it ain't fun, I ain't doing it unless there's something in it for me. Life's too short to volunteer for misery."
You do things you want because you also receive compensation - pleasure - from those things. There's always something in it for you - whether or not it's a tangible something. The catch is that some things will never provide pleasure for some people and so extrinsic motivation (pay) steps in as a way to entice us. Motivation is necessary, I agree. But I think a good teacher should be able to provide said motivation to the students in tandem with parental involvement, and without leaning on some idiot program. I'm a social worker and have an extensive education background. I've spent more than 14 hours on a plane with people who have worked in education, in schools, and in homes, and I know how broken the system is... but handing money to students who test well isn't anything more than a band-aid on a missing limb.
"As the father of two kids, I can tell you from experience that that is not what kids do naturally. What kids do naturally is be self-centered, hedonistic, selfish little beings. True, they will explore the world around them - while satisfying their self-centered, hedonistic, selfish instincts."
We are all selfish beings. You state yourself that you do nothing unless you get something in return. This is basic human psychology and self-preservation and should not negate the fact that learning is also one of the main functions of childhood - learning serves a preservative function for the child by allowing him or her to care for themselves and to contribute to society so that they don't starve or get kicked out. Normally developing children imitate first, then develop independent play that begins to mirror the adult world in order to explore their own possible functions in that world. Imaginative play is the base form of learning from which stem social skills, self awareness and awareness of others which allow children to function in society. Even animals play to learn, for similar reasons. Children naturally pick up facts and habits from the world around them without needing to sit on their asses in a classroom, but only if they're interesting or seemingly useful.
What you seem to be missing here is the fact that if the schools aren't teaching what a child sees as interesting or useful, they are either approaching the material the wrong way or they are failing to make the connections with the outside world that a child needs in order to maintain interest. You're also missing a very important lesson that kids NEED - how to grit your teeth and do it anyway because sometimes life doesn't ask for volunteers, it shoves piles of shit at you and you either shovel yourself out or suffocate, and no one is going to pay you for it either way. Money is a great motivator in our society but it won't help the child learn how to sit down, shut up and do it anyway, learn patience and time management along the way, and be proud of themselves at the end because they are now able to tackle things they don't particularly like way ahead of their peers and still have time for their favorite video game while their friends are struggling to stop procrastinating. Just because your growth has been stunted by the "What's in it for me?" bug doesn't mean all of us want our children growing up to think that the world will repay them for everything they do. World ain't fair and that's not how it works. Otherwise, I'd be paid a hell of a lot more for what I've done so far.
There are still subjects that will require more motivation than the pleasure of discovery, yes... but why not lean on parents instead of schools to provide it first? A parent is the child's first connection to the world and should be the one to show the child why school is valuable and useful... now, that's obviously helped
Read "Teach Like Your Hair's on Fire" (Rafe Esquith, actual teacher in LA) and then tell me teachers can't make a difference with tactics other than paying for grades. Motivating students is great, but as soon as you remove the extrinsic motivation you end up with a lot of kids who have no intrinsic motivation to do anything they're not paid for. No volunteering, no helping out around the community, no smiling at people on the street. They work because they're paid, not because they have any desire to contribute to society in a positive manner or because they take any pleasure or pride in their work. And that, quite frankly, is an outcome I'd pay to avoid. Mr. Esquith uses a monetary rewards system but he does so in a much larger context of learning which provides students with a total economic experience so that when they do start getting paid actual money for actual jobs, they know how to spend it wisely.
Yes, it is difficult. Yes, it takes a lot of ingenuity, a lot of hard work, sacrifice, dedication and a person who can deal with all the BS the administrative crowd is throwing at them plus get the parents on board. It also takes a teacher who is either willing to work for a pittance, or a good enough salary to keep a good teacher from throwing in the towel and moving to a profession that pays someone what they're actually worth. Maybe if we brought better teachers on board FIRST, we wouldn't have to resort to such drastic measures to positively motivate kids to do what kids ought to be doing naturally - exploring the world around them.
Ah, but improving the pay of a single teacher can not only improve the teacher's motivation to work, it can affect an entire class of pupils and all subsequent classes whereas paying each pupil individually only improves that single student and as soon as you quit paying they quit playing. Compare giving a teacher a $500 bonus every month they meet teaching standards (which granted is as stupid as paying for test scores, but we'll keep it all on the same level) with paying a class of 30 kids for meeting a standardized test score, then multiply by the number of standardized tests generally given in one year. The teacher's pay raise will save you money in the long run and might provide incentives for better teachers to stick around.
Either find a reason for learning whatever it is, find extrinsic motivation (get someone to pay you, get a scholarship, get your parents on your ass) or coast through, ace the final, forget most of it in a week and move on. Guess which one happens most often. Now guess which one should happen most often. Apparently providing good reasons for some of your "education" is beyond most teachers... what does this say about what we're teaching?
Slashdot Mirror
What about the far left side? I'm 5'9", 107lbs. My BMI is somewhere around 15.5. If you looked at me through a BMI chart, and not through my lifestyle, you'd think I was anorexic or seriously ill.
Now, I know I'm hardly a weight-lifting goddess, but I'm healthy. I can maintain a decent activity level. Even at my fittest and most muscular (running 20+ miles a week, cross country racing, weight training and swimming on the side) I was only 120lbs or so. According to the BMI calculators I need to be somewhere in the area of 140lbs to be "healthy"... uh, what? I have a smaller bone structure than some. My wrist measurements can prove that - I can't even wear most adult watches without taking links out of them. My personal goal is to hit 120 again and maintain that muscle mass... if I get higher through the exercises I'm doing, I'll be surprised. Never will I use BMI as an indicator of how healthy I am.
Fact is, BMI only works for the "average" people on the bell curve. I'd go so far as to say it's pretty out-of-whack if you're more than one standard deviation away from the mean, which means it only works for 68% of the population. That's an awfully shaky standard to base your lifestyle or dietary goals on.
I am one of those people who gets cranky as hell when I don't get fed. I'm also very thin and "graze" instead of eating big meals (probably the only reason I didn't put on weight in college when my calories started coming in the form of Ramen and dining-hall chicken nuggets). So I get hungry relatively often (every few hours), eat something small (apple, banana chips, carrot sticks, granola bar), and do 2-3 bigger meals for breakfast and lunch/dinner. I can't say that plan will work for everyone but I have heard some success stories using grazing as a way to avoid the ravenous hunger that people often feel when changing their diet. Healthy snack foods are easy to come by, if you have a few extra dollars for fruit and nuts each week.
But we're not talking about readership, we're talking about sales figures. Readership is impossible to track anyway, since not all purchased books are read, and not all books read are purchased (case in point: libraries!). Libraries would underestimate total readership while bumping sales numbers because they buy multiple copies to serve a consumer group which otherwise would not have bought the book.
I wonder if the publishers take into account the libraries that are buying 3+ copies of "popular" books (Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, the Stephanie Plum mysteries...) to meet initial demand. The ALAestimates over 100k libraries in the US, although it doesn't give numbers as to how many of those are specialized. Assume half are in universities or otherwise disinclined to buy popular fiction, and that's still 150k copies of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone bought and sitting on a shelf somewhere, and no real indication of the number of people who read them. I wouldn't be surprised if (an admittedly small) part of the inflation appearing in publisher numbers is because of the library phenomenon.
Then again, they could just be trying to look good.
You make a good point. Still, better one change at a time than many, and drinking less pop has been the single dietary change I've always held onto when other ones have failed, so I hope that my experience holds true for others. Naturally, it's anecdotal... either way, good luck, OP!
Fuck Diet Soda.
It still has sweetener and despite a lower calorie count it will not help you lose weight. I am one of the people who can actually taste the aspartame in diet drinks so I have high incentive to stay away from them anyway, but tbqh I can't see how anyone honestly believes the insinuations that just because you're taking in fewer calories in a cup of diet soda means you'll suddenly drop the pounds. You're still taking in sweeteners and you're still replacing part of your (limited, if you're on a diet) caloric intake with liquids that will neither keep you full nor improve your nutrient balance. I have never seen a single person, nor heard a single anecdote from anyone who lost weight by switching from Pepsi to Diet Pepsi. If you aren't going to drink soda, don't drink diet soda either. Cutting the sweetener out of your diet entirely will do much more for you than cutting it by whatever small percentage the diet sodas contain in relation to their heavier cousins.
As I suggested above, drop sugary drinks entirely. Fruit juice and other 'healthy' sweet drinks are ok - everything in moderation, of course. Focus on water, though, and your body will thank you for it with clearer skin as well as weight loss.
when you wake up drink two glasses of cold water that alone will boost you metabolism by up to 30%
Yeah, it'll also add 10 minutes of exercise during your drive when you have to launch yourself out of the car to relieve your bladder!
You don't need to DRASTICALLY change anything. One thing I have found in a decade of trying to change various things is that diving into the deep end unprepared inevitably causes failure. There are few people who can drop into any situation and magically conform to it (and stick to it) while the rest of the world sits back and watches. You either get your buddies to dive in with you, for motivation, or you do it slowly by yourself. The biggest change I would suggest is to quit drinking pop/soda/flavored water, along with getting up and moving around every once in a while (or using your breaks for light exercise). Drop iced tea, unless you make it yourself. Drop juice. Drink water. When you want flavor, add some lemon or make tea with a small amount of sugar. You can get fruit teas or mint teas that are perfectly drinkable without sweetening and are fine iced as well. Even some lighter green teas aren't as bitter and will be tolerable with low sugar content. Doing this is infinitely better for you than many other dietary changes, is easier to start and will have an immediate effect on your health. Buy a water bottle, find a way to carry it everywhere, make a mental note to remember it for a few weeks and it will be come habit. And while dropping sugar from your drinks seems like a tiny step, it's impressive how many calories are added to your diet via liquids. I can also guarantee you'll find that in a few weeks, sugary drinks will taste too sweet and you won't crave them often, which may also decrease your craving for sugary foods. If dropping sugary liquids and getting more active doesn't make a dent, see your doctor to figure out a stricter diet/exercise plan.
I understand the basic concept, although I'll freely admit I'm not an economist and could not tell you the opportunity cost of my own actions, let alone those of a highly educated scientist who might spend his time doing any number of good things for the world. I don't see what opportunity cost has to do with my preference for scientists solving problems instead of being hired to piddle around at burger king.
I abbreviated it that way for a reason ;)
Why? The gov't already has you on file with the IRS and the Social Security Office or else you wouldn't be getting a paycheck (or paying taxes). Although I know the gov't is a big fan of creating new and unusually named Departments to handle each new bit of administrative work, it would make sense to put any new divisions under the auspices of the SS office, since universal healthcare would be a matter of social welfare. So all you'd need is your SSN, ideally. Of course they'll probably require extensive medical checks, etc eventually which they will also store, but for now, a number we already have should suffice.
Mathematicians don't produce anything but numbers anyway - the difference is in the application of those numbers to various projects. I'd rather have a mathematician working on the next Space Shuttle than one working on my burgers. Scientists... well, when was the last really GOOD, useful study done on solving the world's problems, and not just describing how many people are going hungry today?
So theoretically I could start a business and insist that all payment be through trade/barter. If I did so I'd still have to pay income tax on my traded furs and bottle caps, though... what a tax form nightmare!
And doctors aren't supposed to prescribe whatever the patient wants.
Exactly.
Nice pun. I'm not advocating use of hand sanitizer every time you touch a post-it from your co-workers, but washing one's hands even with clean water and no soap can remove some of the bacteria that cause illness. Even a healthy immune system can use the help of washing your hands before you eat. I'm all for having a good immune system and in fact I think mine's doing pretty well, aside from the sinus issues. I've played in dirt, gone swimming in "dirty" lakes and creeks, spent several summers at a camp where they had pit toilets and lots of snot-nosed kids, and generally had a great time getting dirty for most of my life, with my parents' blessing (as long as I didn't track mud into the house). But there are some things that you just can't build up an immunity to (like the common cold) and that's where hand-washing comes in. And while I'm not terribly concerned about contracting H1N1 and dying, I'd still rather avoid the week of misery and lost pay, because if I thought I had the flu or anything else highly contagious I'd definitely stay home out of concern for the kids I work with.
It's not the colonoscopies they're looking for, it's the "I have the sniffles again this week and I NEED an antibiotic, doc! Don't worry, my insurance will cover it!"
I'm not even sure most places will accept gold coins as legal tender; not that they're not legal, but the cashiers and managers have rarely seen one and will become suspicious if someone tries to pay for their loaf of bread with a couple of Sacajawea dollars, let alone higher denomination coins. (I know; I've tried.) I imagine having an entire company's worth of employees come into your store and attempt to buy snacks with $20 gold coins would be enough to warrant a call to the authorities by a nervous manager.
That being the case it would stand to reason that the person would attempt to sell the coins or trade them for paper dollars at the bank. It does not stand to reason that having been told they don't need to pay income tax on the coins, they would file their taxes that year and tell the IRS about any extra money they made off the transfer, at least assuming they're smart enough to figure out why the IRS doesn't need to know.
Correlation (number of guns compared to number of gun deaths) does not equal causation.
Nowhere in that article did I see a mention of the fact that the states listed as having high gun death rates are also states with high poverty rates, high racial tension, etc which also correlate neatly to gun crimes. Nowhere in that article did I see a mention of the OTHER side of the coin, either - that many areas with more gun owners have lower crime rates than the national average. See Kennesaw, Georgia as one example... whereas its oft-cited opponent Morton Grove is a suburb of Chicago where the crime rates look like this.
So according to my own correlations, crime rates are clearly higher in areas where gun ownership is restricted. And clearly, those people who carry guns must all know how to use them, and have practiced with them, etc. I too can argue without any real facts about the personalities and abilities of gun owners and the probable results of guns on a plane... but the flu virus is not a gun and can't be stopped with one so why the hell is this post even relevant?
I'm sorry I'd rather risk infecting a few people with a minor cough instead of going without water next week because the bill's due and today's hours on my paycheck are what I was counting on to pay it.
If I'm sick I do my best to reduce my symptoms and keep myself away from direct contact with clients, so that I'm NOT going into someone's home (I am a social worker) coughing and sneezing all over myself or their kids. But I don't get free vacation days with which to recover, so forgive me if I find your selfishness just as ignoble as mine. If I have to make the choice between going to work with a cough so that I can pay my bills, and staying home to "get better" (which often doesn't happen in a day anyway) and giving up income that could have provided me with a better cough suppressant or paid my electric bill so I stay warm... screw my co-workers, I'm going to work. Anyone who works with people knows that the best way to avoid sickness is to wash your hands, keep them away from your face at all times and simply avoid people showing signs of illness to the best of your ability to do so. If they come to your desk and cough on you, I find it perfectly acceptable to lodge a complaint about hygiene with the boss, but sending them home when they may need to work to keep themselves fed is thoughtlessly cruel.
I'm pretty sure you never tried asking them "So who do I make this check out to?".
I got these calls on my cell phone as well. What always got me was how it was the 2nd notice, when I had yet to get a first one, and the one time I answered the phone they asked me about the make and model of my car. I totaled the last car registered to me in 2005. Nice job, guys!
If I had points, parent would be modded funny. This is an interesting resource... but it doesn't answer the real question: Coke, or Pepsi?
"I do things I don't want to do because I get paid or receive some other kind of compensation. That's the way the world works in real life. Everything else I do because it's pleasurable. If it ain't fun, I ain't doing it unless there's something in it for me. Life's too short to volunteer for misery."
You do things you want because you also receive compensation - pleasure - from those things. There's always something in it for you - whether or not it's a tangible something. The catch is that some things will never provide pleasure for some people and so extrinsic motivation (pay) steps in as a way to entice us. Motivation is necessary, I agree. But I think a good teacher should be able to provide said motivation to the students in tandem with parental involvement, and without leaning on some idiot program. I'm a social worker and have an extensive education background. I've spent more than 14 hours on a plane with people who have worked in education, in schools, and in homes, and I know how broken the system is... but handing money to students who test well isn't anything more than a band-aid on a missing limb.
"As the father of two kids, I can tell you from experience that that is not what kids do naturally. What kids do naturally is be self-centered, hedonistic, selfish little beings. True, they will explore the world around them - while satisfying their self-centered, hedonistic, selfish instincts." We are all selfish beings. You state yourself that you do nothing unless you get something in return. This is basic human psychology and self-preservation and should not negate the fact that learning is also one of the main functions of childhood - learning serves a preservative function for the child by allowing him or her to care for themselves and to contribute to society so that they don't starve or get kicked out. Normally developing children imitate first, then develop independent play that begins to mirror the adult world in order to explore their own possible functions in that world. Imaginative play is the base form of learning from which stem social skills, self awareness and awareness of others which allow children to function in society. Even animals play to learn, for similar reasons. Children naturally pick up facts and habits from the world around them without needing to sit on their asses in a classroom, but only if they're interesting or seemingly useful.
What you seem to be missing here is the fact that if the schools aren't teaching what a child sees as interesting or useful, they are either approaching the material the wrong way or they are failing to make the connections with the outside world that a child needs in order to maintain interest. You're also missing a very important lesson that kids NEED - how to grit your teeth and do it anyway because sometimes life doesn't ask for volunteers, it shoves piles of shit at you and you either shovel yourself out or suffocate, and no one is going to pay you for it either way. Money is a great motivator in our society but it won't help the child learn how to sit down, shut up and do it anyway, learn patience and time management along the way, and be proud of themselves at the end because they are now able to tackle things they don't particularly like way ahead of their peers and still have time for their favorite video game while their friends are struggling to stop procrastinating. Just because your growth has been stunted by the "What's in it for me?" bug doesn't mean all of us want our children growing up to think that the world will repay them for everything they do. World ain't fair and that's not how it works. Otherwise, I'd be paid a hell of a lot more for what I've done so far.
There are still subjects that will require more motivation than the pleasure of discovery, yes... but why not lean on parents instead of schools to provide it first? A parent is the child's first connection to the world and should be the one to show the child why school is valuable and useful... now, that's obviously helped
Read "Teach Like Your Hair's on Fire" (Rafe Esquith, actual teacher in LA) and then tell me teachers can't make a difference with tactics other than paying for grades. Motivating students is great, but as soon as you remove the extrinsic motivation you end up with a lot of kids who have no intrinsic motivation to do anything they're not paid for. No volunteering, no helping out around the community, no smiling at people on the street. They work because they're paid, not because they have any desire to contribute to society in a positive manner or because they take any pleasure or pride in their work. And that, quite frankly, is an outcome I'd pay to avoid. Mr. Esquith uses a monetary rewards system but he does so in a much larger context of learning which provides students with a total economic experience so that when they do start getting paid actual money for actual jobs, they know how to spend it wisely.
Yes, it is difficult. Yes, it takes a lot of ingenuity, a lot of hard work, sacrifice, dedication and a person who can deal with all the BS the administrative crowd is throwing at them plus get the parents on board. It also takes a teacher who is either willing to work for a pittance, or a good enough salary to keep a good teacher from throwing in the towel and moving to a profession that pays someone what they're actually worth. Maybe if we brought better teachers on board FIRST, we wouldn't have to resort to such drastic measures to positively motivate kids to do what kids ought to be doing naturally - exploring the world around them.
Ah, but improving the pay of a single teacher can not only improve the teacher's motivation to work, it can affect an entire class of pupils and all subsequent classes whereas paying each pupil individually only improves that single student and as soon as you quit paying they quit playing. Compare giving a teacher a $500 bonus every month they meet teaching standards (which granted is as stupid as paying for test scores, but we'll keep it all on the same level) with paying a class of 30 kids for meeting a standardized test score, then multiply by the number of standardized tests generally given in one year. The teacher's pay raise will save you money in the long run and might provide incentives for better teachers to stick around.
Either find a reason for learning whatever it is, find extrinsic motivation (get someone to pay you, get a scholarship, get your parents on your ass) or coast through, ace the final, forget most of it in a week and move on. Guess which one happens most often. Now guess which one should happen most often. Apparently providing good reasons for some of your "education" is beyond most teachers... what does this say about what we're teaching?