"I admit that if you have schools whose goal is to get students to pass standardized tests, rather than to understand science, then you don't need a science teacher who is current in the field, or even a science teacher. All you need is a proctor who can teach students to memorize textbooks and short answers, from workbooks published by Pearson or McGraw-Hill, based on 10-year-old material."
I suggest you try that. Get back to us when it fails miserably. And 10 year old curriculum is common. You don't need current curriculum to understand science. Facts change.
"The best high school science teacher is a Nobel laureate"
What data do you have to back that up? And since we are using anecdotes, my worst science teacher told me tales of working with really good scientists. Also, I don't think Linus Pauling would have been a great science teacher...
"Of course, if you do that, you'll have another Sputnik moment, when the U.S. is overtaken by the Europeans and Asians, who (in their best schools) do have a good science education."
First, we actually want to teach ALL of our students. Second, we already produce more scientists than we employ. There is no STEM crisis (unless you mean unemployment crisis in their field of training). Third, any Sputnik moment will be caused by those opposed to science running the government (centered largely around the Republican party at the moment, but not limited to it).
And do you understand the difference between chemistry and biology?
DNA, the human genome, evolution, etc. are taught in Biology.
Chemistry, not so much.
If you don't want your kid's science teacher to lack knowledge then I would suggest reducing their work load in other areas. Implementing cutting edge discoveries into the curriculum isn't exactly a priority to administrators or a requirement of the standards.
You really want to state that there is no correlation between what a school district spends per student and success? Then I propose that you take a school district of your choice and educate them with no money (that means no facilities, no transportation, no teachers, no curriculum, no materials, etc) and I'll take the Washington DC school district. They will go to class every day for their entire K-12 education. Then we'll compare outcomes.
But, as a rule, you can predict how students are doing on a broad scale by looking at the statistics of the communities that they live in. Wealthy areas have students that do well, poorer areas, less so. It takes a lot of money to fix that. Much more than most districts have available.
Now if we fixed the inequalities, then we would have to spend less on schools. But people don't like that form of redistribution. So we use the less effective method of schools.
And these reactors are in widespread operation where?
I'm really tired of the claims about Thorium reactors. Until they are running in general operation they are pretty close to imaginary. A lot like fusion....
When you hear that schools are having a difficult time getting teachers, that indicates that the school/district/state is an awful place to work.
It's not unusual for there to be five applicants for every science position. There could be 30 for an English position. It's even worse for primary education. The only place there might be a shortage is in Special Education.
Please explain how getting rid of due process and property rights will improve teaching? Why should teachers not be protected by the Constitution? That's what you are advocating when you "tenure" should be abolished.
You are aware that teachers are evaluated every year? That new and more rigorous evaluation systems are being implemented? That if they are not proficient (a pretty high bar) they can be removed?
If poor teachers are in the classroom then the administration and the school board (and hence the voters) are not doing their job.
It would help if you would understand what tenure is and what it is not in state funded primary and secondary schools. That does require some knowledge, however
If you are against "tenure" you oppose the following: the right to bargain, contracts, due process, and property rights.
It has little or nothing to do with: seniority, lifelong guaranteed employment, academic freedom.
Furthermore, the US is not very meritocratic. If you think it is, you are deeply ignorant. For one thing, I couldn't largely predict student achievement and success by looking at income.
Furthermore, if you consider the US education system better than Japan, what exactly is the problem with the current system?
I'm sorry but the statement that "nothing could be done" is a lie.
If the teachers were truly ineffective or incompetent, then you should have complained to the school's administrators and insisted that your students be removed. That is your right. If they refused, then you take the issue to the school board. If that doesn't work, you file a complaint with the state (and also against the teachers license if you actually have evidence).
If you failed to do that, it indicates to me that maybe the teachers really weren't that bad. Because if you did nothing despite knowing there was a problem, you are part of it. When you find ineffective teachers you also have ineffective administrators and schools boards. You can't have one without the other.
Chris Dixon is lying, an ignoramus, or quite possibly both. Which probably means the taxpayers are screwed.
I'd also guess that he is an engineer versus a geologist.
You don't generally remove casings from drilled wells after use, since they have probably been welded together. If it is a monitoring well like this one, you'd leave it in place in case you want to use it again. If you decommission it, you fill it with bentonite clay or cement and cut the top off to prevent groundwater contamination. Of course if someone had bothered to check the Washington Dept of Ecology's web site, they would have known this (where the information for the well would have been submitted).
If someone proposed this labeling scheme, I'd vote for it.
But it would be useful in many ways, take up a lot of room, and really embarrass too many people so I'm going to say no chance, ever. Heck, I'd like to see it get on the ballot so it could be opposed by both sides.... That would be fun to watch.
Do you really think that 68% of the population doesn't have a basic science education?
That is the percent of the population that does not accept evolution according to the survey. Only 32% accept evolution.
The major similarity between the concepts of God did it, God guided it, and I don't know is that those groups don't accept evolution. The difference is how much they oppose the obvious policy consequences.
That's odd, because every one of the incidents you listed (they are not accidents) was the employers fault. They may have also been the employees fault.
Here's the deal, if you have lazy employees, those who don't wear PPE, take shortcuts, etc., then what is the employer doing about it? If the answer is "nothing" or the equivalent, then the employer does not value safety. I've worked at places where those things will result in termination or significant discipline and where they won't. Guess which places care about safety?
Finally, if your workers are taking shortcuts, then that implies that your assumptions about workflow are wrong. You are making people work too fast. Or your PPE sucks. In any case, once again, the employer is at fault. The employee is making a rational choice: lack of performance will get me fired, safety violations won't.
No, it's the employers responsibility to hire and train employees. That includes safety awareness and procedures.
If employees are unsafe, that is a reflection on the company. If there are safety incidents, that is a reflection that the company does not value safety.
Actually, there is something wrong about teaching to the test. It is professional misconduct for a teacher. It also means that you have failed to teach the standards. A standardized test does not cover the entire standards. It can't in the time allotted.
Well, your example may not have been legal behavior either.
However, there is a very large distinction between cars being searched at a gate on the road outside the facility where you work and your personal bag being searched at your place of work. These distinctions matter.
Politicians want to get elected and stay in office. To do that they need votes. They go through a great deal of trouble to encourage some people to vote for them, others not to vote, and to prevent some from voting at all. Each candidate and party does this in different proportions.
If you aren't going to vote for them or for an opponent, why should they care about you or your opinions? Hell, one goal of some candidates and political parties is to get people like you not to vote at all.
Yeah, I don't have much respect for people who don't vote. If you don't like the choices, write a better one in. If enough people did this, it would be noticed and it would make a difference. Because at the present time, not voting is also choosing the status quo.
Or you create a lot of mini-Hanfords. Yes, that's hyperbolic but I wish people wouldn't say that reprocessing or something similar is the answer. There's a reason we don't do it. One reason is the cost. But it also produces more waste. Hopefully not as radioactive, but there is more waste.
And those new reactor designs? Still unproven. Why will they work better that the current versions? Note, I'm not asking why they should, I'm asking why they will.
There's a reason that nuclear plants are being phased out. Coal may be dirty, may be be more radioactive, but when something goes wrong you don't evacuate the region. It's all about risk.
You do realize that there are these things called roofs. They are everywhere. They are great places for solar installations.
I think Germany has also proved that you can generate a massive amount of energy from solar. Why waste the time with nuclear. If you want jobs, start with solar.
The real reason we are building NG and coal plants? They are much easier and cheaper to build than nuclear plants. They can be build smaller. They can be built quicker. People don't object if they have problems. These things aren't because of NIMBY or BANANA. It's primarily technical.
I've seen people kill power plants that weren't nuclear (biomass) based on health concerns, so nuclear isn't unique.
For instance, the nuclear waste repository was sited in Nevada for political reasons. It was not a good site otherwise. The best sites were excluded early on for political reasons.
Second, we use the reactors we use because they work and we are familiar with them. At least most of the time. Yes, there are other designs that might work better. In theory. But based on how well the current ones "work", I doubt it.
"It's true that the capital costs of nuclear power are high, but in all fairness a substantial part of those costs and the time required to build are caused by anti-nuclear pressure groups and other NIMBYs who drag the process out for decades in courts and through environmental review boards as a delaying tactic to discourage development by artificially running up the cost."
Citation needed.
For instance, please explain how the failure of WPPSS in the late 70's and early 80's was the result of this versus economic, technical, and competency factors. Ratepayers in the PNW are still paying for nuclear power they are not receiving to this day.
Then please explain how the new designs will escape this fate. After all, since there must be places which don't have this problem, these new designs must be operating successfully in large numbers. Where are these places?
In any case, it will still take decades for them to come on line in significant numbers at BEST (based on production estimates). And they would be replacing existing generating capacity in practice. They are not a useful solution when you can put solar on a roof of a structure within a few months.
Sure, it's not base load, but maybe we should be looking at a solution for that? We have decades, after all...
So banks knowingly made bad loans and it was the regulations fault? Regulations that were loosened over time, which is what I assume you meant by incentives.
Slashdot Mirror
"I admit that if you have schools whose goal is to get students to pass standardized tests, rather than to understand science, then you don't need a science teacher who is current in the field, or even a science teacher. All you need is a proctor who can teach students to memorize textbooks and short answers, from workbooks published by Pearson or McGraw-Hill, based on 10-year-old material."
I suggest you try that. Get back to us when it fails miserably. And 10 year old curriculum is common. You don't need current curriculum to understand science. Facts change.
"The best high school science teacher is a Nobel laureate"
What data do you have to back that up? And since we are using anecdotes, my worst science teacher told me tales of working with really good scientists. Also, I don't think Linus Pauling would have been a great science teacher...
"Of course, if you do that, you'll have another Sputnik moment, when the U.S. is overtaken by the Europeans and Asians, who (in their best schools) do have a good science education."
First, we actually want to teach ALL of our students. Second, we already produce more scientists than we employ. There is no STEM crisis (unless you mean unemployment crisis in their field of training). Third, any Sputnik moment will be caused by those opposed to science running the government (centered largely around the Republican party at the moment, but not limited to it).
And do you understand the difference between chemistry and biology?
DNA, the human genome, evolution, etc. are taught in Biology.
Chemistry, not so much.
If you don't want your kid's science teacher to lack knowledge then I would suggest reducing their work load in other areas. Implementing cutting edge discoveries into the curriculum isn't exactly a priority to administrators or a requirement of the standards.
You really want to state that there is no correlation between what a school district spends per student and success? Then I propose that you take a school district of your choice and educate them with no money (that means no facilities, no transportation, no teachers, no curriculum, no materials, etc) and I'll take the Washington DC school district. They will go to class every day for their entire K-12 education. Then we'll compare outcomes.
But, as a rule, you can predict how students are doing on a broad scale by looking at the statistics of the communities that they live in. Wealthy areas have students that do well, poorer areas, less so. It takes a lot of money to fix that. Much more than most districts have available.
Now if we fixed the inequalities, then we would have to spend less on schools. But people don't like that form of redistribution. So we use the less effective method of schools.
And these reactors are in widespread operation where?
I'm really tired of the claims about Thorium reactors. Until they are running in general operation they are pretty close to imaginary. A lot like fusion....
There is no teacher shortage.
When you hear that schools are having a difficult time getting teachers, that indicates that the school/district/state is an awful place to work.
It's not unusual for there to be five applicants for every science position. There could be 30 for an English position. It's even worse for primary education. The only place there might be a shortage is in Special Education.
Please explain how getting rid of due process and property rights will improve teaching? Why should teachers not be protected by the Constitution? That's what you are advocating when you "tenure" should be abolished.
You are aware that teachers are evaluated every year? That new and more rigorous evaluation systems are being implemented? That if they are not proficient (a pretty high bar) they can be removed?
If poor teachers are in the classroom then the administration and the school board (and hence the voters) are not doing their job.
It would help if you would understand what tenure is and what it is not in state funded primary and secondary schools. That does require some knowledge, however
If you are against "tenure" you oppose the following: the right to bargain, contracts, due process, and property rights.
It has little or nothing to do with: seniority, lifelong guaranteed employment, academic freedom.
Furthermore, the US is not very meritocratic. If you think it is, you are deeply ignorant. For one thing, I couldn't largely predict student achievement and success by looking at income.
Furthermore, if you consider the US education system better than Japan, what exactly is the problem with the current system?
I'm curious why no one ever mentions the school board. You know, the ones that negotiate and approve the contracts?
If these contracts are so bad, why exactly are these people given a pass?
You cannot have poor teachers without poor administrators and a poor school board.
I'm sorry but the statement that "nothing could be done" is a lie.
If the teachers were truly ineffective or incompetent, then you should have complained to the school's administrators and insisted that your students be removed. That is your right. If they refused, then you take the issue to the school board. If that doesn't work, you file a complaint with the state (and also against the teachers license if you actually have evidence).
If you failed to do that, it indicates to me that maybe the teachers really weren't that bad. Because if you did nothing despite knowing there was a problem, you are part of it. When you find ineffective teachers you also have ineffective administrators and schools boards. You can't have one without the other.
Chris Dixon is lying, an ignoramus, or quite possibly both. Which probably means the taxpayers are screwed.
I'd also guess that he is an engineer versus a geologist.
You don't generally remove casings from drilled wells after use, since they have probably been welded together. If it is a monitoring well like this one, you'd leave it in place in case you want to use it again. If you decommission it, you fill it with bentonite clay or cement and cut the top off to prevent groundwater contamination. Of course if someone had bothered to check the Washington Dept of Ecology's web site, they would have known this (where the information for the well would have been submitted).
If someone proposed this labeling scheme, I'd vote for it.
But it would be useful in many ways, take up a lot of room, and really embarrass too many people so I'm going to say no chance, ever. Heck, I'd like to see it get on the ballot so it could be opposed by both sides.... That would be fun to watch.
Do you really think that 68% of the population doesn't have a basic science education?
That is the percent of the population that does not accept evolution according to the survey. Only 32% accept evolution.
The major similarity between the concepts of God did it, God guided it, and I don't know is that those groups don't accept evolution. The difference is how much they oppose the obvious policy consequences.
That's odd, because every one of the incidents you listed (they are not accidents) was the employers fault. They may have also been the employees fault.
Here's the deal, if you have lazy employees, those who don't wear PPE, take shortcuts, etc., then what is the employer doing about it? If the answer is "nothing" or the equivalent, then the employer does not value safety. I've worked at places where those things will result in termination or significant discipline and where they won't. Guess which places care about safety?
Finally, if your workers are taking shortcuts, then that implies that your assumptions about workflow are wrong. You are making people work too fast. Or your PPE sucks. In any case, once again, the employer is at fault. The employee is making a rational choice: lack of performance will get me fired, safety violations won't.
No, it's the employers responsibility to hire and train employees. That includes safety awareness and procedures.
If employees are unsafe, that is a reflection on the company. If there are safety incidents, that is a reflection that the company does not value safety.
Actually, there is something wrong about teaching to the test. It is professional misconduct for a teacher. It also means that you have failed to teach the standards. A standardized test does not cover the entire standards. It can't in the time allotted.
You know what alternative medicine that works is called?
Medicine.
If it is alternative, then it isn't medicine.
And why do I (and others) prefer the $9.99 service and the $179 gadget? Perhaps because I know it sucks as much as the higher priced one?
There is often a reason to pay more and I often do. But many times there is no apparent reason to do so.
Well, your example may not have been legal behavior either.
However, there is a very large distinction between cars being searched at a gate on the road outside the facility where you work and your personal bag being searched at your place of work. These distinctions matter.
How is the statement wrong?
Politicians want to get elected and stay in office. To do that they need votes. They go through a great deal of trouble to encourage some people to vote for them, others not to vote, and to prevent some from voting at all. Each candidate and party does this in different proportions.
If you aren't going to vote for them or for an opponent, why should they care about you or your opinions? Hell, one goal of some candidates and political parties is to get people like you not to vote at all.
Yeah, I don't have much respect for people who don't vote. If you don't like the choices, write a better one in. If enough people did this, it would be noticed and it would make a difference. Because at the present time, not voting is also choosing the status quo.
Or you create a lot of mini-Hanfords. Yes, that's hyperbolic but I wish people wouldn't say that reprocessing or something similar is the answer. There's a reason we don't do it. One reason is the cost. But it also produces more waste. Hopefully not as radioactive, but there is more waste.
And those new reactor designs? Still unproven. Why will they work better that the current versions? Note, I'm not asking why they should, I'm asking why they will.
There's a reason that nuclear plants are being phased out. Coal may be dirty, may be be more radioactive, but when something goes wrong you don't evacuate the region. It's all about risk.
You do realize that there are these things called roofs. They are everywhere. They are great places for solar installations.
I think Germany has also proved that you can generate a massive amount of energy from solar. Why waste the time with nuclear. If you want jobs, start with solar.
The real reason we are building NG and coal plants? They are much easier and cheaper to build than nuclear plants. They can be build smaller. They can be built quicker. People don't object if they have problems. These things aren't because of NIMBY or BANANA. It's primarily technical.
I've seen people kill power plants that weren't nuclear (biomass) based on health concerns, so nuclear isn't unique.
Please point to the many breeder reactors that have been successfully operating (meeting the claims established for them) for decades.
If you have difficulty (and you will), that's why it's a hand wave.
Actually it's both technical and political.
For instance, the nuclear waste repository was sited in Nevada for political reasons. It was not a good site otherwise. The best sites were excluded early on for political reasons.
Second, we use the reactors we use because they work and we are familiar with them. At least most of the time. Yes, there are other designs that might work better. In theory. But based on how well the current ones "work", I doubt it.
"It's true that the capital costs of nuclear power are high, but in all fairness a substantial part of those costs and the time required to build are caused by anti-nuclear pressure groups and other NIMBYs who drag the process out for decades in courts and through environmental review boards as a delaying tactic to discourage development by artificially running up the cost."
Citation needed.
For instance, please explain how the failure of WPPSS in the late 70's and early 80's was the result of this versus economic, technical, and competency factors. Ratepayers in the PNW are still paying for nuclear power they are not receiving to this day.
Then please explain how the new designs will escape this fate. After all, since there must be places which don't have this problem, these new designs must be operating successfully in large numbers. Where are these places?
In any case, it will still take decades for them to come on line in significant numbers at BEST (based on production estimates). And they would be replacing existing generating capacity in practice. They are not a useful solution when you can put solar on a roof of a structure within a few months.
Sure, it's not base load, but maybe we should be looking at a solution for that? We have decades, after all...
So banks knowingly made bad loans and it was the regulations fault? Regulations that were loosened over time, which is what I assume you meant by incentives.
Sorry but that is a failure of logic.