Where else in the world - in what other nation - does the government teach people not to trust the government? The nation's founders didn't trust the government, so why should we?
Still, despite all its faults, despite the imperfections (is that an understatement?) in the school system, we still need it. State-run schools raised the literacy rate in this country remarkably since those early days when few could read, and those that could read the Bible and their shipping orders and little else.
Our need for public education has not yet passed, but I think the trend towards private education will continue to grow. Maybe one day we'll be completely independant of public schooling - or maybe they'll get their act together and upgrade the system (don't hold your breath):o)
By advocating uniforms, aren't you supporting the same attitudes and the same kind of educational enviroment that WAVE is?
No, not really, in my opinion. What WAVE encourages is for children to cause trouble for those who don't meet their personal standards - their clothing isn't cool enough, they don't do this that or the other right, so we'll get them in trouble just for spite.
Uniforms level the playing field a great deal, by requiring everyone to conform to an outside standard, out of their own control. I spent five years in school uniforms (ugly as hell, but all identical), and I'll tell you that it wasn't bad at all - in fact, I preferred it. Everyone was at the same level - some had different jewelry or shoes, but the differences were much more subtle. Everyone had a common starting ground (if you have nothing else in common, you can bitch about those stupid plaid skirts) and you couldn't harrass anyone about their clothing, because it was just like yours. It doesn't solve the world's problems, but it helps with a few on the personal interaction level.
If I recall correctly, that's been tried already, for this school year. I forget where, but it was on the news not too long ago that a court had ruled that they couldn't do that. Those vouchers were, again IIRC, for private schools. Now, if they were for public schools with different emphasis (pl?), that might be different. But, again, that's easier said than done, and is going to raise many problems, legal and otherwise, before something of that nature could be enacted.
I know from personal experience that a small, private school, with teachers who know every single person there, can be a wonderful place for those who need personal attention. But some students thrive in big schools and would be miserable with the increased demands that teachers can put on you if they know you well. So, theoretically, you could create a series of public schools - some small and some larger - so everyone's needs could be met.
I see two problems with this - one would be that it's going to cost tons of money, and require many more teachers than are currently in the system. Schools have enough trouble trying to find good teachers already. The second problem would be that it is still the parent who is deciding which school the child will attend, and it may suit the child no better than the current system. "Parents want what's best for their children" may be true, but their idea of what is best does not always make the child happy. How often, growing up, did we hear things like, "It's for your own good" even when it was making us miserable? It would be no less true with a system of vouchers than we see now - but it could certainly help *some* of those depressed, stressed, lonely kids.
I also know from personal experience that being in the wrong school, forced into a social situation, and perhaps regime of study, that you don't want or like, is a stressful situation, and, at least in my case, resulted in a bad case of depression, which I pulled out of when I changed schools. And mine was at the college level! I wasted two long, miserable years before I found my out - dropping out was *not* an option. If, during that time, someone had pointed me out to some "authority" as a possible source of trouble (I could count those who really knew me there on one hand), they'd probably not have found anything truly wrong with me, because I sure as heck would not have told them what was wrong!
That's another aspect of this whole issue that bothers me - if you're pulling these kids in, who talks to them to see if they have problems? Is it going to be someone they trust, or is it going to be some sort of authority figure? So much of the time we are unwilling to open up to those we don't know or trust. If called into the office of the school councilor, how many students are really going to let on that there is something wrong? The more you poke and prod, the more they will bottle up, or the better they will lie. It becomes just one more bit of stress in their lives, one more sign that the world is against them. To get anywhere, it would almost *have* to be someone they really trusted and looked up to, someone who would really listen to what they were saying, and respond to help them, showing that they truly care about the individual for the individual's sake. Anything less may just make the problem worse.
I don't know what a good solution to this problem would be - but it is certainly not having people rat each other out. As long as this country has been around - longer! - we've been systematically taught not to implicitly trust the government. I think that's a healthy attitude, one that has had a great impact on our history. Programs such as this go counter to that - what we don't need is a generation of youngsters who grow up thinking the government can solve all their problems!
I think people have to take into account that there are still a heck of a lot of high schools that don't teach any computer skills beyond typing, and only teach that so that teachers can collect neatly typed and printed papers instead of the hand-scrawled variety. I know for a fact that I graduated high school having taken a grand total of one, count them one, computer class, that teaching Appleworks on an Apple IIE. This was in 1997. Zero programming, zero computer concepts.
Every last thing that I know about computers I either taught myself or learned from friends. The only computer classes I have taken even at the college level have been for AutoCAD and MathCAD, for our engineering curriculum. If I did not have unrestricted access to a computer at home (as was the case with many of my friends) I would be as totally computer illiterate today as any of those women in the basic of basic classes.
Whether or not we are targetting women in particular, requiring computer courses at the high school level (or before!) will probably boost the interest of students, even females. At least they will know what they are getting into/missing out on.
Why this movement to *replace* PCs? Can you imagine graphics editing or programming or writing anything longer than a short note on a screen the size of, say, a paperback. Laptop keyboards are bad enough to try to use - fingers start cramping halfway through the second page. This is definitely a case of smaller not being better.
Voice recognition: could be fun. I like it, especially for educational uses (ie - taking notes). I'd be terrible trying to use it for dictation - I can't start at the beginning of a letter or note and just talk through it. I have to go back and edit every other sentence. It's faster and easier just to type it. Until you get an AI-type ala Star Trek or Babylon 5 to help out with that process, that's not likely to change. However, for brief notes to self or the like, or for general "navigation" processes, voice recognition would be great, and save the hands and arms much mouse-clicking and button-pushing. Still wouldn't replace my keyboard and monitor.
Does anyone remember that story about the guy who was showing off voice recognition software at a conference, and somebody reformatted his drive from the back row? Have they solved the issue of sound pickup? Can you pick up only my voice unless I choose otherwise?
This whole bit about being able to use a desktop-style machine as a storage unit and accessing it using cellular or broadband communication - Okay, so far as it goes. There's a great deal of concern by cellphone users over other people using their accounts without their knowledge or permission, or breaking into the cellular communications. Will that be less of a problem in the future? Or will we just breed the next generation of hackers? I can keep hackers out of my desktop by unplugging a phone line. With built-in cellular communications (or whatever the replacement is), integrating pagers, cellphones, internet access, and all, it would still be a comfort to have a machine that was separated from all that.
BTW, make sure I can turn off those cellphone and pager functions! I have no desire to be constantly find-able.
I love PCs, and while a hand-held, integrated device would be fun and useful, it will never become my *only* computer. I like the idea of being able to download and read books, but there's something about turning the pages that is a pleasurable part of the reading experience. I could never get as into a story reading it on a screen. There would be advantages though, like being able to resize the fonts and adjust things like color and contrast, or not losing my bookmarks when I drop the book. Of course, it might be a problem getting a computer to take as much abuse as my paperbacks do.
One more item of interest: disk drives. I have a floppy drive, a zip drive, and a CD-ROM drive. I could add a few more, no problem. I could add another hard drive, more memory, more cards, or replace or rearrange what I've got. Before such a small device can become as flexible as a desktop, you'll have to convince all the different manufacturers of disks to create a standard and stick to it. One type of disk. One type of input/output for external devices. There's just not room for much more. There are severe limitations to how much you can add to a PDA post-manufacture.
There are advantages to *adding* small, integrated devices, but they can never replace the security, ease of use, and comfortable use of a desktop PC. Just my opinion, of course, take it for what it's worth.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the sound of American distrust :o)
:o)
Where else in the world - in what other nation - does the government teach people not to trust the government? The nation's founders didn't trust the government, so why should we?
Still, despite all its faults, despite the imperfections (is that an understatement?) in the school system, we still need it. State-run schools raised the literacy rate in this country remarkably since those early days when few could read, and those that could read the Bible and their shipping orders and little else.
Our need for public education has not yet passed, but I think the trend towards private education will continue to grow. Maybe one day we'll be completely independant of public schooling - or maybe they'll get their act together and upgrade the system (don't hold your breath)
Morgance
No, not really, in my opinion. What WAVE encourages is for children to cause trouble for those who don't meet their personal standards - their clothing isn't cool enough, they don't do this that or the other right, so we'll get them in trouble just for spite.
Uniforms level the playing field a great deal, by requiring everyone to conform to an outside standard, out of their own control. I spent five years in school uniforms (ugly as hell, but all identical), and I'll tell you that it wasn't bad at all - in fact, I preferred it. Everyone was at the same level - some had different jewelry or shoes, but the differences were much more subtle. Everyone had a common starting ground (if you have nothing else in common, you can bitch about those stupid plaid skirts) and you couldn't harrass anyone about their clothing, because it was just like yours. It doesn't solve the world's problems, but it helps with a few on the personal interaction level.
Morgance
I know from personal experience that a small, private school, with teachers who know every single person there, can be a wonderful place for those who need personal attention. But some students thrive in big schools and would be miserable with the increased demands that teachers can put on you if they know you well. So, theoretically, you could create a series of public schools - some small and some larger - so everyone's needs could be met.
I see two problems with this - one would be that it's going to cost tons of money, and require many more teachers than are currently in the system. Schools have enough trouble trying to find good teachers already. The second problem would be that it is still the parent who is deciding which school the child will attend, and it may suit the child no better than the current system. "Parents want what's best for their children" may be true, but their idea of what is best does not always make the child happy. How often, growing up, did we hear things like, "It's for your own good" even when it was making us miserable? It would be no less true with a system of vouchers than we see now - but it could certainly help *some* of those depressed, stressed, lonely kids.
I also know from personal experience that being in the wrong school, forced into a social situation, and perhaps regime of study, that you don't want or like, is a stressful situation, and, at least in my case, resulted in a bad case of depression, which I pulled out of when I changed schools. And mine was at the college level! I wasted two long, miserable years before I found my out - dropping out was *not* an option. If, during that time, someone had pointed me out to some "authority" as a possible source of trouble (I could count those who really knew me there on one hand), they'd probably not have found anything truly wrong with me, because I sure as heck would not have told them what was wrong!
That's another aspect of this whole issue that bothers me - if you're pulling these kids in, who talks to them to see if they have problems? Is it going to be someone they trust, or is it going to be some sort of authority figure? So much of the time we are unwilling to open up to those we don't know or trust. If called into the office of the school councilor, how many students are really going to let on that there is something wrong? The more you poke and prod, the more they will bottle up, or the better they will lie. It becomes just one more bit of stress in their lives, one more sign that the world is against them. To get anywhere, it would almost *have* to be someone they really trusted and looked up to, someone who would really listen to what they were saying, and respond to help them, showing that they truly care about the individual for the individual's sake. Anything less may just make the problem worse.
I don't know what a good solution to this problem would be - but it is certainly not having people rat each other out. As long as this country has been around - longer! - we've been systematically taught not to implicitly trust the government. I think that's a healthy attitude, one that has had a great impact on our history. Programs such as this go counter to that - what we don't need is a generation of youngsters who grow up thinking the government can solve all their problems!
Just my opinions, of course.
Morgance
Every last thing that I know about computers I either taught myself or learned from friends. The only computer classes I have taken even at the college level have been for AutoCAD and MathCAD, for our engineering curriculum. If I did not have unrestricted access to a computer at home (as was the case with many of my friends) I would be as totally computer illiterate today as any of those women in the basic of basic classes.
Whether or not we are targetting women in particular, requiring computer courses at the high school level (or before!) will probably boost the interest of students, even females. At least they will know what they are getting into/missing out on.
Why this movement to *replace* PCs? Can you imagine graphics editing or programming or writing anything longer than a short note on a screen the size of, say, a paperback. Laptop keyboards are bad enough to try to use - fingers start cramping halfway through the second page. This is definitely a case of smaller not being better.
Voice recognition: could be fun. I like it, especially for educational uses (ie - taking notes). I'd be terrible trying to use it for dictation - I can't start at the beginning of a letter or note and just talk through it. I have to go back and edit every other sentence. It's faster and easier just to type it. Until you get an AI-type ala Star Trek or Babylon 5 to help out with that process, that's not likely to change. However, for brief notes to self or the like, or for general "navigation" processes, voice recognition would be great, and save the hands and arms much mouse-clicking and button-pushing. Still wouldn't replace my keyboard and monitor.
Does anyone remember that story about the guy who was showing off voice recognition software at a conference, and somebody reformatted his drive from the back row? Have they solved the issue of sound pickup? Can you pick up only my voice unless I choose otherwise?
This whole bit about being able to use a desktop-style machine as a storage unit and accessing it using cellular or broadband communication - Okay, so far as it goes. There's a great deal of concern by cellphone users over other people using their accounts without their knowledge or permission, or breaking into the cellular communications. Will that be less of a problem in the future? Or will we just breed the next generation of hackers? I can keep hackers out of my desktop by unplugging a phone line. With built-in cellular communications (or whatever the replacement is), integrating pagers, cellphones, internet access, and all, it would still be a comfort to have a machine that was separated from all that.
BTW, make sure I can turn off those cellphone and pager functions! I have no desire to be constantly find-able.
I love PCs, and while a hand-held, integrated device would be fun and useful, it will never become my *only* computer. I like the idea of being able to download and read books, but there's something about turning the pages that is a pleasurable part of the reading experience. I could never get as into a story reading it on a screen. There would be advantages though, like being able to resize the fonts and adjust things like color and contrast, or not losing my bookmarks when I drop the book. Of course, it might be a problem getting a computer to take as much abuse as my paperbacks do.
One more item of interest: disk drives. I have a floppy drive, a zip drive, and a CD-ROM drive. I could add a few more, no problem. I could add another hard drive, more memory, more cards, or replace or rearrange what I've got. Before such a small device can become as flexible as a desktop, you'll have to convince all the different manufacturers of disks to create a standard and stick to it. One type of disk. One type of input/output for external devices. There's just not room for much more. There are severe limitations to how much you can add to a PDA post-manufacture.
There are advantages to *adding* small, integrated devices, but they can never replace the security, ease of use, and comfortable use of a desktop PC. Just my opinion, of course, take it for what it's worth.
Morgance