Oh you poor stunted soul. If you're so bright, then they should have introduced you to a marvelous but little known institution called the "public library". There one can get very advanced books, regardless of one's age.
We also ensure the average SAT score is below that of countries that limit who can take it to their top students.
First, you do know that SAT's are only used for admission to US schools, right?
Second, even if you were talking about international tests, your complaint that the US doesn't "limit who can take it to their top students" is a complaint that we don't fudge the statistics the way, for example, China does. If they only count Shanghai, then perhaps we should only count Massachusetts. Then we'll have magically improved our educational system, but ironically only in the opinion of those who know nothing about statistics.
Still no meaningful numbers to back up your assertion that "that's where the money is going". Obviously you can't "know the solution", because you haven't even shown that there's a problem.
Smart people need less help. They need stuff, freedom, encouragement, safety, engaging work, something to extend them. But they don't need the whole budget to do it, just support in the right areas.
Hear, hear! Teaching the smartest kids should cost no more than regular students.
Gifted students, particularly those who want to learn, don't need 1 on 1 attention, they can be more self sufficient
So they should cost no more, and arguable even less than regular students to educate. This "no money for gifted students" is a ploy to get more money.
they do need to be taught something different from the rest of the masses...
The masses? Are you trying for self parody?
How to continue to learn even though everything has always come easy. How to stand out in a crowd as being exceptional when they are exceptional.
Two things which work against each other. One of the biggest problems with very good students is that, as you observe, they become lazy. Telling them they're "oh so special" exacerbates that problem because it explains and rationalizes why they don't have to work so hard. Don't tell them they're "oh so special", which is no different that the other feel good crap you find in education these days, and put them in classes where they're held to very high standards. That will make them feel less special, since they're surrounded by equally good students, and teach them they actually have to work to compete.
Oops, you're going to hit a nerve with that. Many posters around here consider themselves "gifted" because they learned arithmetic a year earlier than the jocks.
+5 - someone who thinks instead of priding themselves on being smart.
Also overlooked is that gifted children should cost no more than average students to educate. Students who are actually gifted should be able to learn more on their own, rather than needing so much handholding. If they can't, then they're not truly gifted.
Do you have some *gasp* numbers to demonstrate that the "crazy amount of money" you claim is such a high percentage of education budgets that it impedes the ability to deal with gifted students, or are we just supposed to accept the assertions of a smart fellow like you?
So instead of doing the above program in the USA to help their own country, America's tech leaders want to use immigration? Yeah, i can see why you guys need those gifted Chinese.
You got the "actual agenda" question right. Unfortunately many others here didn't. They get a fail by falling for some of the most elementary propaganda tricks. A particularly effective one here is flattering people's egos. It's amazing how book smart people can be so gullible.
There's a limit to how much money can be gained from online advertising.
If that limit is anything like Google's limit, I'll happily take it. Basically they're an advertising company with a search engine service. I'm fine with that, as long as the ads are clearly ads, and don't take up half my computer's resources and open security holes (here's looking at you Flash). When I'm looking to buy something, I even find the ads useful. Advertising is fine - surreptitious tracking is another thing.
I'd say it's a wash, therefore I have no objection to the new format. A large yellow box that says "Ad" is not overly subtle.
Unlike what some of the people here apparently think, I've no objection to advertising per se. It's a way for companies to make money, and Google has never claimed to be anything other than a for-profit corporation. Their tracking games, and some of the other things they do are one thing, but clearly labelled advertising is fine. Do people here also object to printed ads in magazines and newspapers (yes, such things still exist)?
The only reason I sometimes suppress ads is because too many have resource intensive and insecure things like Flash, or heavens know how much buggy Javascript, or whatever. Ads per se seem reasonable. I'm even fine with click through ads.
Ideally kids should both understand math and be able to solve problems with it. However, one of the most important steps in understanding math is to use it so solve problems. Moreover, if I had to choose between someone who "understood" math but couldn't solve problems with it, and someone who was the other way around, I'd choose the latter.
I have some experience with this. When I went to school "new math" was supposed to make kids "understand" math, as though grade school students below Gauss' level could reason out math applications using a deductive approach from general principles. I'm good enough at math to have overcome this stupidity, but it made a mess out of a lot of kids early math education.
Argument is BS you cant move so easy just for the good of the children? With a mortgage and living in debt move? Trash argument.
I've known people to do it. In fact I've known people to move to a lower cost of living area and get better schools for theirs kid (e.g. CA to CO). While the "we don't pay more than $27.50/yr in state and local taxes" places almost always have bad schools, places with a high cost of living don't necessarily have great schools.
Make the Feds regulate the state jokers!
Tell the fed jokers not to interfere with my state. The cost of living around here is outrageous, but at least the schools are good. I don't want Sen. Cracker pushing down the federal standards so they can keep their $27.50/yr in state and local taxes and not have their kids look like idiots. Massachusetts by itself does very well against the vaunted Asian countries in international competitions, and yes the Mass. results include poor kids in Boston and whatnot. I don't want to jeopardize that by having Mississippi drag Mass. part way down to their level. Tell them to fix up their own act.
Don't act stupid there is another agenda behind this.
The agenda is a power grab by the federal government, despite public education being handled just fine by state and local governments since the earliest days of the Republic. Handled well in places that care anyway, and to hell with those that don't. It's also a power play by the likes of the Gates foundation, which seems intent on telling 300M+ people in 50 states what is the best way to educate their kids. Some states and localities are doing quite well without megalomaniac billionaires interfering in representative government.
Which of those factors adversely affecting state governments don't apply to te federal government? Moreover, if state X screws up, but state Y does a better job, people can point to X as screwed up and suggest they do things more like Y does. With a single federal standard that won't work. Sure you can do international comparisons, but they're far more difficult and less useful than state to state comparisons. Lastly, you can move to another state much more easily than you can move to another country.
While Europe has fewer tech startups than the US, a much larger percentage of the European economy is in small businesses. This "America is a nation of small businesses" is a complete myth - Europe is way ahead of us there.
On the downside, if a coalition of the NRA and the ACLU can't get anywhere, then we're well and truly fucked. I am curious about how many Americans were awake in history class. I was boiled in the Bill of Rights, and the reasoning and historical justification for it. If you're going to wave the flag, you really should know what it stands for.
Then push for an intelligent universal health care system, like the Commie Canucks have (instead of a hammer and sickle they put a moose and maple leaf on their flag). Getting employers out of health insurance is good for both large and small businesses, as well as people. About the only ones worse off are the insurance and drug companies.
BTW, despite the glorification of small business in the US, Europe actually has a larger percentage of its economy in small business. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't in part because health insurance isn't tied to employment.
more and more people are not putting their cell phones into the phone book so it at least requires an Internet connection
I've heard rumors that Internet connections aren't hard to get these days. It's also possible that telecom providers might have lists of their customers' phone numbers. Of course such companies would never share that information with the government.
The term "assault rifle" is not clearly defined, and hence they're not illegal. What is illegal is firearms with certain characteristics. After all you can massacre a lot of school kids with a rifle that has a 10 round magazine, but rifles with 7 round magazines are harmless.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh you poor stunted soul. If you're so bright, then they should have introduced you to a marvelous but little known institution called the "public library". There one can get very advanced books, regardless of one's age.
We also ensure the average SAT score is below that of countries that limit who can take it to their top students.
First, you do know that SAT's are only used for admission to US schools, right?
Second, even if you were talking about international tests, your complaint that the US doesn't "limit who can take it to their top students" is a complaint that we don't fudge the statistics the way, for example, China does. If they only count Shanghai, then perhaps we should only count Massachusetts. Then we'll have magically improved our educational system, but ironically only in the opinion of those who know nothing about statistics.
the United States is breeding itself into obsolecense
Eugenics - how very retro. Please say more about your "thesis".
Still no meaningful numbers to back up your assertion that "that's where the money is going". Obviously you can't "know the solution", because you haven't even shown that there's a problem.
Smart people need less help. They need stuff, freedom, encouragement, safety, engaging work, something to extend them. But they don't need the whole budget to do it, just support in the right areas.
Hear, hear! Teaching the smartest kids should cost no more than regular students.
Gifted students, particularly those who want to learn, don't need 1 on 1 attention, they can be more self sufficient
So they should cost no more, and arguable even less than regular students to educate. This "no money for gifted students" is a ploy to get more money.
they do need to be taught something different from the rest of the masses...
The masses? Are you trying for self parody?
How to continue to learn even though everything has always come easy. How to stand out in a crowd as being exceptional when they are exceptional.
Two things which work against each other. One of the biggest problems with very good students is that, as you observe, they become lazy. Telling them they're "oh so special" exacerbates that problem because it explains and rationalizes why they don't have to work so hard. Don't tell them they're "oh so special", which is no different that the other feel good crap you find in education these days, and put them in classes where they're held to very high standards. That will make them feel less special, since they're surrounded by equally good students, and teach them they actually have to work to compete.
Oops, you're going to hit a nerve with that. Many posters around here consider themselves "gifted" because they learned arithmetic a year earlier than the jocks.
+5 - someone who thinks instead of priding themselves on being smart.
Also overlooked is that gifted children should cost no more than average students to educate. Students who are actually gifted should be able to learn more on their own, rather than needing so much handholding. If they can't, then they're not truly gifted.
Much like it does in Finland, which has some of the highest scores on international tests.
Do you have some *gasp* numbers to demonstrate that the "crazy amount of money" you claim is such a high percentage of education budgets that it impedes the ability to deal with gifted students, or are we just supposed to accept the assertions of a smart fellow like you?
So instead of doing the above program in the USA to help their own country, America's tech leaders want to use immigration? Yeah, i can see why you guys need those gifted Chinese.
You got the "actual agenda" question right. Unfortunately many others here didn't. They get a fail by falling for some of the most elementary propaganda tricks. A particularly effective one here is flattering people's egos. It's amazing how book smart people can be so gullible.
There's a limit to how much money can be gained from online advertising.
If that limit is anything like Google's limit, I'll happily take it. Basically they're an advertising company with a search engine service. I'm fine with that, as long as the ads are clearly ads, and don't take up half my computer's resources and open security holes (here's looking at you Flash). When I'm looking to buy something, I even find the ads useful. Advertising is fine - surreptitious tracking is another thing.
I'd say it's a wash, therefore I have no objection to the new format. A large yellow box that says "Ad" is not overly subtle.
Unlike what some of the people here apparently think, I've no objection to advertising per se. It's a way for companies to make money, and Google has never claimed to be anything other than a for-profit corporation. Their tracking games, and some of the other things they do are one thing, but clearly labelled advertising is fine. Do people here also object to printed ads in magazines and newspapers (yes, such things still exist)?
The only reason I sometimes suppress ads is because too many have resource intensive and insecure things like Flash, or heavens know how much buggy Javascript, or whatever. Ads per se seem reasonable. I'm even fine with click through ads.
If you can't figure out 536/5 in your head, or at least a decent approximation, then you don't understand arithmetic, let alone math.
Ideally kids should both understand math and be able to solve problems with it. However, one of the most important steps in understanding math is to use it so solve problems. Moreover, if I had to choose between someone who "understood" math but couldn't solve problems with it, and someone who was the other way around, I'd choose the latter.
I have some experience with this. When I went to school "new math" was supposed to make kids "understand" math, as though grade school students below Gauss' level could reason out math applications using a deductive approach from general principles. I'm good enough at math to have overcome this stupidity, but it made a mess out of a lot of kids early math education.
Argument is BS you cant move so easy just for the good of the children? With a mortgage and living in debt move? Trash argument.
I've known people to do it. In fact I've known people to move to a lower cost of living area and get better schools for theirs kid (e.g. CA to CO). While the "we don't pay more than $27.50/yr in state and local taxes" places almost always have bad schools, places with a high cost of living don't necessarily have great schools.
Make the Feds regulate the state jokers!
Tell the fed jokers not to interfere with my state. The cost of living around here is outrageous, but at least the schools are good. I don't want Sen. Cracker pushing down the federal standards so they can keep their $27.50/yr in state and local taxes and not have their kids look like idiots. Massachusetts by itself does very well against the vaunted Asian countries in international competitions, and yes the Mass. results include poor kids in Boston and whatnot. I don't want to jeopardize that by having Mississippi drag Mass. part way down to their level. Tell them to fix up their own act.
Don't act stupid there is another agenda behind this.
The agenda is a power grab by the federal government, despite public education being handled just fine by state and local governments since the earliest days of the Republic. Handled well in places that care anyway, and to hell with those that don't. It's also a power play by the likes of the Gates foundation, which seems intent on telling 300M+ people in 50 states what is the best way to educate their kids. Some states and localities are doing quite well without megalomaniac billionaires interfering in representative government.
The focus is on making sure kids understand math, rather than being able to solve problems.
If you "understand" math, but can't solve problems with it, then you don't understand math, or at least not anything useful about it.
Which of those factors adversely affecting state governments don't apply to te federal government? Moreover, if state X screws up, but state Y does a better job, people can point to X as screwed up and suggest they do things more like Y does. With a single federal standard that won't work. Sure you can do international comparisons, but they're far more difficult and less useful than state to state comparisons. Lastly, you can move to another state much more easily than you can move to another country.
While Europe has fewer tech startups than the US, a much larger percentage of the European economy is in small businesses. This "America is a nation of small businesses" is a complete myth - Europe is way ahead of us there.
Excellent!
On the downside, if a coalition of the NRA and the ACLU can't get anywhere, then we're well and truly fucked. I am curious about how many Americans were awake in history class. I was boiled in the Bill of Rights, and the reasoning and historical justification for it. If you're going to wave the flag, you really should know what it stands for.
Then push for an intelligent universal health care system, like the Commie Canucks have (instead of a hammer and sickle they put a moose and maple leaf on their flag). Getting employers out of health insurance is good for both large and small businesses, as well as people. About the only ones worse off are the insurance and drug companies.
BTW, despite the glorification of small business in the US, Europe actually has a larger percentage of its economy in small business. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't in part because health insurance isn't tied to employment.
Which could easily be the same thing.
As a gun ambivalent Democrat, I'd like to thank the current president for doing so much to stop these abuses.
more and more people are not putting their cell phones into the phone book so it at least requires an Internet connection
I've heard rumors that Internet connections aren't hard to get these days. It's also possible that telecom providers might have lists of their customers' phone numbers. Of course such companies would never share that information with the government.
assault rifle (illegal to own)
The term "assault rifle" is not clearly defined, and hence they're not illegal. What is illegal is firearms with certain characteristics. After all you can massacre a lot of school kids with a rifle that has a 10 round magazine, but rifles with 7 round magazines are harmless.