"The public school unions must be broken and massively reformed. School is about teaching children, not about employment and ridiculously fat healh and retirement packages."
So South Carolina is a model of US education? They are not unionized. How about the other states that have very low unionization? Should we look to those excellent educational systems in Georgia and North Carolina?
Unions aren't a problem. Unless you are anti-worker.
"Concepts about methods of scientific testing can be taught in a couple of lessons. The basic concepts like postulating and testing theories, repeatability, precision vs. accuracy, double blind studies, etc. are not difficult, so to say there's not enough time to teach them is a just lame excuse."
So, teachers can teach high school students things that scientists working in the field don't understand in a few lessons? I don't think so. Sure, you can present an overview, but in order to really understand those things takes years.
I would hardly call conservative do-gooders. They love things like No Child Left Unscrewed (er, Behind). In any case, big government became involved at the parents insistence. Because it is easier to offload the problem on the government. Then you also have someone to blame.
But it also doesn't help that the same government has created policies that make it hard for parents to become involved. For the last 30 years it has been destroying the middle class. Of course, the parents have been helping at every step.
"Every time I hear teachers gripe about having to teach towards a standardized test, I think, "There goes another awful teacher.""
And you would be wrong much of the time. And I think it is because you (like most others) are ignorant of the realities of education. Many teachers do not have the freedom to set their curriculum. It is standardized, so if they deviate, they are at risk of punishment. This is a real thing in the world. It is not uncommon. The best teachers use their own materials but not all teachers are allowed.
"It bothers me that little Johnny can pass an algebra class, but can't solve 3x=15 on a standardized test. Passing a class means that the teacher vouches that you have learned something. The standardized tests are busting teachers who are vouching for students who haven't learned anything. And to make it worse, most students learn early on that there is really no way to fail so they can be lazy and coast along."
And how does failing a student motivate them? I work with algebra students that have problems. If they can't solve basic problems, it is often because they haven't learned math. That isn't a recent problem. That means many teachers failed to diagnose a problem and attempt to help them. In general, they feel stupid, which causes them to try even less. The threat of failure works for students who are afraid of failure. For those who think they are a failure, it's positive reinforcement.
Never make the assumption that what motivates you motivates others. The students I help may still fail their class and fail the tests. This means they will have to retake the class. And continue to take math until they pass the tests. And they don't like math. Yet this doesn't motivate them to learn math.
"What is concerning to me is that passing a standardized test has become a primary goal, which is not what it was intended for."
Of course that was the primary goal. That was the intention. If it wasn't the goal or the point, they would not implement them. Anyone who believes otherwise is pretty ignorant of how reality works. Once you implement a standard, that becomes the goal. Anything that the standard does not cover is no longer a goal.
"Have science and math ever really been lucrative careers in general? They have been good paths to other lucrative careers, such as engineering. But I never would have assumed that a PhD in science or math would easily land me a good job."
That is an excellent question. I think that there is the cultural and political assumption that science and math will lead to good careers. I don't know if that is correct. The problem is that many of these careers require a lot of time and education and specialization. If you want people to enter these fields, you need to have jobs for these people when they graduate, in the fields they studied. If you don't, there is a problem. I see a push for science and math but no real understanding of what jobs these people will do. Sort of like cargo cult education. If you get it, the benefits will follow.
"GIVE THEM HOMEWORK AND LET THEM FAIL. FFS, there's the real problem. Maybe failure will make them realize they have to work and even get the parents motivated too. Instead we make excuses and let these kids skate on through."
Great, someone who doesn't have a clue. Homework is not a panacea. In fact, it is mostly worthless for learning. Failing students mostly fails to motivate them. It generally reinforces the idea that they can't succeed and so why should they bother to try. If you have a student that doesn't want to fail, then they probably aren't a problem.
"Instead there is this new idea that you have to make it interesting, entertaining, inspiring, etc. Screw that, you're not a dancing clown and you're not a babysitter - give them the material, explain it a couple times on the board, and give them homework. If they can't pry themselves away from the TV or the PS3, THAT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM."
Actually, it is your problem as a teacher. There is a reason that people have been calling for teacher evaluations. It is precisely this attitude. If you don't care about the success of your students then you don't have the qualifications to be a teacher. Unfortunately, many teachers care but don't have the tools or willingness to change their teaching style. The teacher seems to fall into this category.
And he does have a point about equipment. Lab sciences need supplies. Supplies cost money. You can't teach them effectively without the supplies. Concepts get boring when they have no practical application.
The problem isn't that enough students aren't failing. The problem is that too many are.
I understand this point but does it really matter? If you took away the databases from Oracle, there wouldn't be a company. If you took away the processors from Intel, there wouldn't be a company. If you took away the trains and rail from CSX you wouldn't have a company. Plenty of respected companies depend on mature core products that cannot be replaced. That's how and why they are successful.
"News that they're taking tips from Cameron dashes that hope - Avatar did nothing interesting with the medium whatsoever (actually I found it counter productive, I couldn't focus on the lush animated world around them because of the way 3D forces me to focus on what the camera's looking at, the movie would have probably worked better in 2D)."
There would have been no point to the movie in 2D. The story is not original. In any case, you are free to watch it in 2D if you like. But seriously, Cameron actually used 3D. He filmed in 3D. He planned the movie in 3D. It wasn't a gimmick. It wasn't a conversion. If you are going to do a 3D movie, he certainly knows more than most if not all. The plot may suck but at least the 3D will be done well.
"Say what you want about the quality of the show, but if it was consistently downloaded by that many people, it had an audience. The problem was, it had an audience that couldn't be monetized."
That's a fancy way of saying that the show sucked. It had an audience that wasn't willing to pay to watch.
"You've got an organization that large, you're obligated to protect it."
Which is why management is ultimately responsible. They make the decisions. If they get credit for the positives then they get credit for the negatives. Don't want credit for the negatives? Then don't take credit for the positives. Companies with good management minimize the effect of bad employees. If you have a problem with bad employees, you don't have good management. That doesn't mean the employees are excused from their conduct or not prosecuted or the like.
"Our opponents have goals that are incompatible with ours, thus we are called opponents. Russia dreams of empire lost. China dreams of empire to come. Iran dreams of dominating the Middle East and restoring the glory of Persia as an atomic power. Meanwhile madmen in North Korea and Venezuela dream their mad dreams of power and glory. We have valid reasons to be working to thwart, slow and otherwise hinder those plans."
I believe the first step is to determine what is realistic. And then try not to fuck it up. And preventing a country from attaining nuclear weapons can only be done one of two ways: diplomacy (convincing them they don't want or need them) or war (occupation). Otherwise, once you know that nuclear weapons are possible, they are going to happen (see North Korea) eventually. Given that, perhaps we shouldn't then try to antagonize them so that when they do get them, they don't dislike like us for both irrational and rational reasons. And you certainly shouldn't provide them a reason to want them. Furthermore, in the case of Iran, you certainly shouldn't remove their primary obstacle to regional power (Iraq) and give them influence over them. That's pure stupidity. Especially after creating the Iranian problem in the first place (their dislike of us).
Looking at our history in the middle east, one could conclude that most of our actions have backfired. Given that history, perhaps extreme caution would be advised before getting involved in anything more than diplomacy. And even then....
It's not a civil rights violation. It is however a violation of labor laws, specifically the right to organize under the NLRB. Easier to prove in any case.
"Who could stop you from using it?! I'd say the fundamental concept of ownership (if you've got it, it's yours) applies more than some bizarre treaty that's never had any real significance."
Lawyers. And governments (lawyers and weapons). Unless you were planning to never return to Earth or near Earth orbit. And if you don't need to do that, then the lawyers and the governments (with lawyers and weapons) can also come to you. Sure, nobody may stop you from getting it and using it but they sure as heck can separate you from the profit.
"There are two ways for companies to return value to their shareholders, and both are equally valid."
No it isn't. One is actual money. The other is potential money. If you don't believe me, talk to people who own a house, especially those who are underwater in their mortgages. Just because someone says your house is worth something doesn't make it true into the future. In order to get value from one, I have to sell it.
If you are hit with income taxes in your home country, I think you shouldn't be double taxed. But otherwise, I would suggest you move to a locale where you can vote. Unfortunately that may not be the US.
"I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of giving the government 2/3rds of my paycheck."
It depends what I get for it. People are fixated on the amount of money that goes to the government rather than the value of the services they get in return. Of course when one of the parties that run the government is dedicated to destroying government, that value will be low by design. But apparently the people complaining the most are the ones creating the problem. I don't know why.
"None of us really pay for all the services we use. That's why we have trillions of dollars of debt and how we actually afford a large budget deficit. Our taxes don't actually pay for everything, and we use much of the taxes revenue to simply pay on the loans and their interest (ie. bonds, notes, etc.)"
That's the problem. We decided to use the credit card for services starting circa 1980. The problem is that eventually the debt service eventually overwhelms our ability to pay. And the longer we are not willing to pay upfront for it, the worse it gets.
One party is using it as a way to dismantle the social safety net. I don't have an issue with them trying but they are not willing to be honest about it. Because they know people would be happy to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund it.
"It's not helpful that government at the federal and state levels also limits supply of health care (professional licensing, regulation on who can do what, and the opening of new health care facilities) and opens health care providers to remarkable malpractice liability. End result is that patients consume too much and too expensive health care directly and indirectly (through malpractice and employer/government paid health benefits)."
And this is why libertarian arguments are bullshit in practice. You complain about government interference (regulation) but rely on it to protect the individual (limited liability). It's dishonest and hypocritical.
"But a much stronger point is that simply a lot of the regulations are too strict and act to restrict people that DO have enough training and expertise."
What is the evidence for this? The actual barrier to entry for medical services is pretty low. Especially for basic care. In my state chiropractors and naturopaths can do general care.
Re:Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
"Rereading my points as you posted them, it is clear that... they're not that clear. And that fault is solely mine."
While your points could have been clearer, they were understandable. It's just that some idiots don't want to understand them.
"I think that'd be more "climate" than "weather"."
It may be climate but he is being dishonest (and he certainly can't claim ignorance). You need a 30 year period to be sure of trends. Ten years is far too short.
"Once again, he was clearly a crazy person. This is not an issue of political climate, its a issue of a severely mentally deranged person existing in our society undetected long enough for a tragedy to occur."
You are wrong. We do not know his mental state. We do not know if he was mentally ill. And even if we did, it would not indicate a reason.
Mental illness does not cause murder. It is not any more significant than the fact that he was white, male or young. It was probably even less so. The political climate is much more likely. After all, why exactly did he chose this particular Congresswoman to attempt to assassinate?
Slashdot Mirror
"Maybe pharma and geology are the only exceptions."
Considering the massive layoffs and outsourcing in pharma, nope. And as a geologist, I can assure you, nope.
"The public school unions must be broken and massively reformed. School is about teaching children, not about employment and ridiculously fat healh and retirement packages."
So South Carolina is a model of US education? They are not unionized. How about the other states that have very low unionization? Should we look to those excellent educational systems in Georgia and North Carolina?
Unions aren't a problem. Unless you are anti-worker.
"Concepts about methods of scientific testing can be taught in a couple of lessons. The basic concepts like postulating and testing theories, repeatability, precision vs. accuracy, double blind studies, etc. are not difficult, so to say there's not enough time to teach them is a just lame excuse."
So, teachers can teach high school students things that scientists working in the field don't understand in a few lessons? I don't think so. Sure, you can present an overview, but in order to really understand those things takes years.
I would hardly call conservative do-gooders. They love things like No Child Left Unscrewed (er, Behind). In any case, big government became involved at the parents insistence. Because it is easier to offload the problem on the government. Then you also have someone to blame.
But it also doesn't help that the same government has created policies that make it hard for parents to become involved. For the last 30 years it has been destroying the middle class. Of course, the parents have been helping at every step.
"Every time I hear teachers gripe about having to teach towards a standardized test, I think, "There goes another awful teacher.""
And you would be wrong much of the time. And I think it is because you (like most others) are ignorant of the realities of education. Many teachers do not have the freedom to set their curriculum. It is standardized, so if they deviate, they are at risk of punishment. This is a real thing in the world. It is not uncommon. The best teachers use their own materials but not all teachers are allowed.
"It bothers me that little Johnny can pass an algebra class, but can't solve 3x=15 on a standardized test. Passing a class means that the teacher vouches that you have learned something. The standardized tests are busting teachers who are vouching for students who haven't learned anything. And to make it worse, most students learn early on that there is really no way to fail so they can be lazy and coast along."
And how does failing a student motivate them? I work with algebra students that have problems. If they can't solve basic problems, it is often because they haven't learned math. That isn't a recent problem. That means many teachers failed to diagnose a problem and attempt to help them. In general, they feel stupid, which causes them to try even less. The threat of failure works for students who are afraid of failure. For those who think they are a failure, it's positive reinforcement.
Never make the assumption that what motivates you motivates others. The students I help may still fail their class and fail the tests. This means they will have to retake the class. And continue to take math until they pass the tests. And they don't like math. Yet this doesn't motivate them to learn math.
"What is concerning to me is that passing a standardized test has become a primary goal, which is not what it was intended for."
Of course that was the primary goal. That was the intention. If it wasn't the goal or the point, they would not implement them. Anyone who believes otherwise is pretty ignorant of how reality works. Once you implement a standard, that becomes the goal. Anything that the standard does not cover is no longer a goal.
"Have science and math ever really been lucrative careers in general? They have been good paths to other lucrative careers, such as engineering. But I never would have assumed that a PhD in science or math would easily land me a good job."
That is an excellent question. I think that there is the cultural and political assumption that science and math will lead to good careers. I don't know if that is correct. The problem is that many of these careers require a lot of time and education and specialization. If you want people to enter these fields, you need to have jobs for these people when they graduate, in the fields they studied. If you don't, there is a problem. I see a push for science and math but no real understanding of what jobs these people will do. Sort of like cargo cult education. If you get it, the benefits will follow.
"GIVE THEM HOMEWORK AND LET THEM FAIL. FFS, there's the real problem. Maybe failure will make them realize they have to work and even get the parents motivated too. Instead we make excuses and let these kids skate on through."
Great, someone who doesn't have a clue. Homework is not a panacea. In fact, it is mostly worthless for learning. Failing students mostly fails to motivate them. It generally reinforces the idea that they can't succeed and so why should they bother to try. If you have a student that doesn't want to fail, then they probably aren't a problem.
"Instead there is this new idea that you have to make it interesting, entertaining, inspiring, etc. Screw that, you're not a dancing clown and you're not a babysitter - give them the material, explain it a couple times on the board, and give them homework. If they can't pry themselves away from the TV or the PS3, THAT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM."
Actually, it is your problem as a teacher. There is a reason that people have been calling for teacher evaluations. It is precisely this attitude. If you don't care about the success of your students then you don't have the qualifications to be a teacher. Unfortunately, many teachers care but don't have the tools or willingness to change their teaching style. The teacher seems to fall into this category.
And he does have a point about equipment. Lab sciences need supplies. Supplies cost money. You can't teach them effectively without the supplies. Concepts get boring when they have no practical application.
The problem isn't that enough students aren't failing. The problem is that too many are.
I understand this point but does it really matter? If you took away the databases from Oracle, there wouldn't be a company. If you took away the processors from Intel, there wouldn't be a company. If you took away the trains and rail from CSX you wouldn't have a company. Plenty of respected companies depend on mature core products that cannot be replaced. That's how and why they are successful.
"News that they're taking tips from Cameron dashes that hope - Avatar did nothing interesting with the medium whatsoever (actually I found it counter productive, I couldn't focus on the lush animated world around them because of the way 3D forces me to focus on what the camera's looking at, the movie would have probably worked better in 2D)."
There would have been no point to the movie in 2D. The story is not original. In any case, you are free to watch it in 2D if you like. But seriously, Cameron actually used 3D. He filmed in 3D. He planned the movie in 3D. It wasn't a gimmick. It wasn't a conversion. If you are going to do a 3D movie, he certainly knows more than most if not all. The plot may suck but at least the 3D will be done well.
"We blew all our money on hookers and coke and need another quick bit of cash?"
I certainly hope that was the reason. Otherwise, someone might have thought it was a good idea. Who wasn't on coke.
"Say what you want about the quality of the show, but if it was consistently downloaded by that many people, it had an audience. The problem was, it had an audience that couldn't be monetized."
That's a fancy way of saying that the show sucked. It had an audience that wasn't willing to pay to watch.
And it has a large advertising budget. Distribution matters.
"You've got an organization that large, you're obligated to protect it."
Which is why management is ultimately responsible. They make the decisions. If they get credit for the positives then they get credit for the negatives. Don't want credit for the negatives? Then don't take credit for the positives. Companies with good management minimize the effect of bad employees. If you have a problem with bad employees, you don't have good management. That doesn't mean the employees are excused from their conduct or not prosecuted or the like.
"Our opponents have goals that are incompatible with ours, thus we are called opponents. Russia dreams of empire lost. China dreams of empire to come. Iran dreams of dominating the Middle East and restoring the glory of Persia as an atomic power. Meanwhile madmen in North Korea and Venezuela dream their mad dreams of power and glory. We have valid reasons to be working to thwart, slow and otherwise hinder those plans."
I believe the first step is to determine what is realistic. And then try not to fuck it up. And preventing a country from attaining nuclear weapons can only be done one of two ways: diplomacy (convincing them they don't want or need them) or war (occupation). Otherwise, once you know that nuclear weapons are possible, they are going to happen (see North Korea) eventually. Given that, perhaps we shouldn't then try to antagonize them so that when they do get them, they don't dislike like us for both irrational and rational reasons. And you certainly shouldn't provide them a reason to want them. Furthermore, in the case of Iran, you certainly shouldn't remove their primary obstacle to regional power (Iraq) and give them influence over them. That's pure stupidity. Especially after creating the Iranian problem in the first place (their dislike of us).
Looking at our history in the middle east, one could conclude that most of our actions have backfired. Given that history, perhaps extreme caution would be advised before getting involved in anything more than diplomacy. And even then....
It's not a civil rights violation. It is however a violation of labor laws, specifically the right to organize under the NLRB. Easier to prove in any case.
"Who could stop you from using it?! I'd say the fundamental concept of ownership (if you've got it, it's yours) applies more than some bizarre treaty that's never had any real significance."
Lawyers. And governments (lawyers and weapons). Unless you were planning to never return to Earth or near Earth orbit. And if you don't need to do that, then the lawyers and the governments (with lawyers and weapons) can also come to you. Sure, nobody may stop you from getting it and using it but they sure as heck can separate you from the profit.
"There are two ways for companies to return value to their shareholders, and both are equally valid."
No it isn't. One is actual money. The other is potential money. If you don't believe me, talk to people who own a house, especially those who are underwater in their mortgages. Just because someone says your house is worth something doesn't make it true into the future. In order to get value from one, I have to sell it.
If you are hit with income taxes in your home country, I think you shouldn't be double taxed. But otherwise, I would suggest you move to a locale where you can vote. Unfortunately that may not be the US.
"I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of giving the government 2/3rds of my paycheck."
It depends what I get for it. People are fixated on the amount of money that goes to the government rather than the value of the services they get in return. Of course when one of the parties that run the government is dedicated to destroying government, that value will be low by design. But apparently the people complaining the most are the ones creating the problem. I don't know why.
"None of us really pay for all the services we use. That's why we have trillions of dollars of debt and how we actually afford a large budget deficit. Our taxes don't actually pay for everything, and we use much of the taxes revenue to simply pay on the loans and their interest (ie. bonds, notes, etc.)"
That's the problem. We decided to use the credit card for services starting circa 1980. The problem is that eventually the debt service eventually overwhelms our ability to pay. And the longer we are not willing to pay upfront for it, the worse it gets.
One party is using it as a way to dismantle the social safety net. I don't have an issue with them trying but they are not willing to be honest about it. Because they know people would be happy to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund it.
"It's not helpful that government at the federal and state levels also limits supply of health care (professional licensing, regulation on who can do what, and the opening of new health care facilities) and opens health care providers to remarkable malpractice liability. End result is that patients consume too much and too expensive health care directly and indirectly (through malpractice and employer/government paid health benefits)."
And this is why libertarian arguments are bullshit in practice. You complain about government interference (regulation) but rely on it to protect the individual (limited liability). It's dishonest and hypocritical.
"But a much stronger point is that simply a lot of the regulations are too strict and act to restrict people that DO have enough training and expertise."
What is the evidence for this? The actual barrier to entry for medical services is pretty low. Especially for basic care. In my state chiropractors and naturopaths can do general care.
"Rereading my points as you posted them, it is clear that... they're not that clear. And that fault is solely mine."
While your points could have been clearer, they were understandable. It's just that some idiots don't want to understand them.
"I think that'd be more "climate" than "weather"."
It may be climate but he is being dishonest (and he certainly can't claim ignorance). You need a 30 year period to be sure of trends. Ten years is far too short.
It's a PR stunt.
"Once again, he was clearly a crazy person. This is not an issue of political climate, its a issue of a severely mentally deranged person existing in our society undetected long enough for a tragedy to occur."
You are wrong. We do not know his mental state. We do not know if he was mentally ill. And even if we did, it would not indicate a reason.
Mental illness does not cause murder. It is not any more significant than the fact that he was white, male or young. It was probably even less so. The political climate is much more likely. After all, why exactly did he chose this particular Congresswoman to attempt to assassinate?