"... and yet wonder why I say you are backtracking?"
Because I wasn't backtracking. That's why.
I am serious. I am done here. You are either trolling me or a complete dumbass. I don't really care which; I have no more time for this BS.
No worries, I've concluded the same thing about you; you can pick which one you are doing or are.
"Nobody expects infinite bandwidth... which was my original point..."
Bollocks. Until I made that clarification, I had never mentioned "unlimited bandwidth". In fact, I explicitly stated in the very beginning that is NOT what I was talking about, and it's right there, in your quote of my words:
There you go again, first calling my statement that ""Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our/. fill", and I quote: "Nosiness", make an ad-hominem attack and now you say you didn't mean completely unfettered; and yet wonder why I say you are backtracking?
It seems you agree with my original position but seem incapable of saying so. That's fine. Cheers.
"This is what I mean about backtracking when called on a point you make - you started out by saying it violates academic freedom to not give unfettered access and called for the ACLU to step in... I say it's not reasonable to expect unlimited, unfettered access, we go back and forth..."
How is that "backtracking"? I am adhering to my original statement. How does that constitute "backtracking"?
Let's see. I said:
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our/. fill"
To which you replied:
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
and proceeded to make a number of straw man arguments and launch ad-homenum attacks all the while saying "that's not what I said or meant" until you say:
Yes, I did state "Nobody expects infinite bandwidth."
which was my original point which you have now conveniently stated is yours as well. So it looks like we are in agreement with my original stance and the only real issue is what is reasonable.
So, yes, you have backtracked all the way to saying my original stance was yours as well.
Many universities do exactly that, so why should I expect otherwise? Of course I mean "unlimited and unfettered" only in comparison to other local ISPs... we have to be reasonable here. Nobody expects infinite bandwidth. So yes... I do expect that universities can supply bandwidth to their students in a manner comparable to other local ISPs. In fact, many of them do so via contracts with the local ISPs themselves.
This is what I mean about backtracking when called on a point you make - you started out by saying it violates academic freedom to not give unfettered access and called for the ACLU to step in... I say it's not reasonable to expect unlimited, unfettered access, we go back and forth and now you say:
Nobody expects infinite bandwidth. So yes... I do expect that universities can supply bandwidth to their students in a manner comparable to other local ISPs.
Which was my original point - Universities have the right to limit access to make best use of a resource for all a point you now seem to agree with; the only questions is what is a reasonable way to control the usage.
What about applying constructive criticism where it's of actual use?
...
I could make a full-time job out of whining about shitty products on/., that doesn't mean I should do it nor that anyone would enjoy it.
The problem is that even what is meant as constructive criticism, in a relevant forum, is often meet with knee jerk reaction rather than a calm discussion of why it might be a good idea and is it worth trying?
The real challenge for OSS is that it is often the results of individuals scratching their own itches, which is fine and it's great they share the scratching stick with others, but it but that fails to provide an overall direction that makes the software useful and valuable to a broader range of users; limiting its acceptance. Depending on your viewpoint, that is either irrelevant or a weakness of the OSS development process.
Get a cheap one that does what you want and use it for non-work stuff. If your employees is using tracking software, trying to bypass it is likely to end badly. With your own, you don't have to worry about what you do ith it. Sucks to carry 2 machines but it would be the option I'd chose.
Underpaid teachers are a myth. Teachers may not be in the 1%, but they are in the 50%. Teachers are in the top half of earners in the nation. Of course, that is if you count yearly salaries. If you look at hourly salaries, they push up into the top 25% of earners.
A search of starting salaries shows that the average college graduate makes $46K, vs a teacher's $36k to start. Comparing salaries to a median whose sample is not the same is useless. Graduation form college alone puts you in a better economic position, on average, so what i sinter sting is how salaries compare to others overtime.
Your car anecdote is a perfect example of poor reasoning that is being done when teacher salaries are discussed. We all know that the quality of a person's car has very little to their income. For the vast majority of people it has nothing to do with it. Take a drive through a poor neighborhood. You will find plenty of very nice cars. Take a look through a wealthy area where property lot sizes are more than an acre. You will find there are tons of beaters. The quality of a person's car has more to do with ego than income.
I have helped high school kids with math and physics, and usually wind up going back to basic principals so they understand what they are doing and then can solve problems.
They're not too busy running the school to help you with your tutoring?
In principle, principals make good tutors. In practice, I'd rather not have a spell checker.
One problem is that many public school districts aren't allowed to pay more for teachers with special skills. A starting math teacher has the same pay a gym teacher. It's been that way for a long time. In my opinion a qualified math or science teacher is worth more than a gym teacher.
Even worse, in some districts a gym teacher who is a coach makes more than a math teacher; if he is a winning football coach he can do quite well once booster money kicks in.
The real problem is the complete lack of qualified teacher's. A teacher needs to be a true master of all subjects so regardless of a text book the teachers should work with numbers like a mathematician. Bad text books can be overcome by excellent teaching and from what I remember my teachers were jokes. Don't blame the text books blame the unqualified teacher's.
My experience as a student and an adult who knows many teachers, is the cover the full spectrum - some really great, some that need to retire or move on, and most somewhere in between. They work in a profession where someone else defines what they must do, (the curriculum) how they will be assessed (students passing standardized tests), and students (and parents) who often are only interested in a grade, not actually learning the material. For this, they get paid a pretty low wage especially if they are actually good at math and science and have a degree to back that up.
In addition, as more opportunities opened up for women; many who would have only had teaching (or nursing) as viable career options rightfully went into other fields where their abilities would be recognized and rewarded far beyond what teaching offered; removing a large segment of potentially excellent teachers from the pool. Many of the good teachers I know would not let their kids go into teaching because they know what awaits them. There still are new teachers that do so because they really love teaching, unfortunately most become jaded and abandon the field for far more rewarding careers without the BS that accompanies actually trying to teach. Until we actually value teaching as a profession we'll get why we are willing to pay for; an dteh teachers will continue to be a convent scapegoat for everything that is wrong with our educational system.
Finally, when you have a potential presidential candidate from a major party calling our current president a "snob" because he dared suggest that getting some post-high school education is a good idea and needed to get the skills required for most good jobs, and deriding the idea the education is needed and should even be avoided because it's all about liberals brainwashing our youth, I fear for the future.
Anecdotal evidence: I know someone who spent 30+ years training auto mechanics. He once told me at the start of his career he could take a kid with some mechanical aptitude and turn them into a decent mechanic who could make a good living and career out of it. At the end of his career, he said even a high school eduction was not really enough - there was so much advanced math, electronic theory, and computer theory that unless you had a solid education in this areas you were lost. What started as a basic trade school evolved into essentially a technical school associate degree level education; the point the President was actually making about the need for post-high scull education.
My son's elementary school uses "Math Investigations" which is part of that "new math". You know, the type that believes that it isn't necessary to learn multiplication tables, or that your really only need to learn a few fractions: 1/2 1/3 1/4 and that is it. Oh yeah, and you shouldn't "stack" numbers while adding. He doesn't have a text book. He only brings home photocopied worksheets.
I complained to the teacher. They referred me to the principal who referred me to the district's elementary math education supervisor. Long story short, when schools say they want parents involved, they are lying. That is the last thing that they want. They want you to chaperone field trips. They want you to help fund raise. But when you want to actually input on the fundamentals of education, they shut you out. Even though you might have been a physics major and tutor, and brought peer reviewed research sponsored by the Department of Education pointing out that their particular math curricula has students score lower on standardized tests they imply that you don't know what you are talking about.
That's because you started at the wrong end of the equation when trying to solve the problem. Teachers are forced to teach from a schools defined curriculum, deviation from it results in problems for them, even if they are actually doing better at teaching. Bringing in a bunt of research is one no use because they can't change the system easily; even if many are in agreement with your points. I know teachers that constantly complain about why the district forces them to do and how it impacts real learning; but any complaints would at best fall on deaf ears or at worst result in retribution. For what they get paid that don't need to waste their time or suffer for trying to fix things.
You need to convince the school board, and bring enough other parents (voters) along to get attention. School Boards only fear losing an election; actually doing things to help educate their students is a secondary consideration at best. Even better, get some support and run for the school board.
products that make their lives easier and that come with free meals and gifts are the most successful
Why are companies allowed to get away with bribing teachers into choosing their textbook?
None of the teachers I know ever got a free pencil, let alone lunch, form a textbook company.
This article seems to be focused on K-12. So in the US at least, in many cases the money for those textbooks is public money. How is this any different than bribing an elected official to give your company a contract?
1. A key part of any good text is the flow - how do chapters interrelate and build on each other, i.e. what is the story line? That needs an editor in charge that makes and enforces decisions; something noticeably absent from most OS products.
2. The people with the most knowledge are often the worst to have explain a concept - things that are initiative and simple may be obscure and hard to understand for a student. Writing a good text book means actually explaining stuff in enough detail for the reader to understand, and putting in stuff you think everyone would know when in fact they don't.
Even with simple concepts there are often multiple ways to obtain the same solution - do you put them all in; if not how do you decide which ones to include?
At least with math, if you avoid any historical context you can avoid some of the challenges that history text books would have, for example, with political and social views and arguments thereover.
As someone whose published works have benefited from the collaboration with an outstanding editor, I feel for all the editors and writers out their that care about their craft. A writer creates a raw product, a good editor turns it into a work of art. When my editor was let go due to "financial constraints" I realized that the publication has begun the death spiral; and made sure my editor and I stayed in touch so I we could work together at some point in the future.
Its not like Math changes every year. The text book industry and publishers are just ripping students off every year. If they would just publish one edition of their text books, we wouldn't have this problem.
True, but there is no money in that. More to the point, you could use out of copyright texts for much of the basic high school curricula with some minor updates and have a decent textbook. That's why marketing and sales budgets are so high - you need to create a perception of need and thus demand to feed the system.
I have helped high school kids with math and physics, and usually wind up going back to basic principals so they understand what they are doing and then can solve problems. Even then, with an engineering degree I sometimes find some problems so confusing that I am not sure how to get the answer, and often find ones with the wrong answer. I shudder to think what kids do that don't have access to someone that actually understands basic math and physics.
1. Life of Fred
2. Singapore
3. If you're going to go the traditional route, at least get people who know the subject and teach them to teach, instead of putting people who don't know the subject in front of the kids. Then the textbooks would matter less anyway.
Good idea, but you'd actually have to pay them enough to want to take and keep the job. I've worked with school districts and many teachers, and when a starting teacher right out of school with a math / science degree can make 2x elsewhere - you do the math.
Or, as one teacher I know puts it - "You can tell the teachers whose spouse have real jobs by the cars they drive." Sad, but true.
It's not obligatory reference, but I think it sums it up very nicely: http://xkcd.com/803/. In one episode of myth busters they were making concrete airplanes. Adam made the strangest wing I've ever seen, but I think it could be inspired by such example like in this xkcd strip. And it didn't fly almost at all.
Oddly enough, for appropriate large vales of the definition of concrete, a concrete airplane is not out of the question (Love MythBusters, missed that episode alas so i can't comment on their conclusion); especially if you include one of my professors comments tab a brick can fly if it has a big enough engine. Seriously, the ASCE Student Chapters have held concrete canoe races of rears; with some pretty impressive canoes that were very strong and lightweight; even while meeting the classic concrete "paste and aggregate" definition.
I never answered because it was a straw-man argument that, I repeat: has nothing whatever to do with the statement I originally made. I don't owe you answers to questions that aren't even relevant to the point I made.
Since you insist on backtracking and then evading answering my point any further discussion relevant to what you said is, well, pointless.
But since you seem to insist that I answer the question, relative or not, answer me this first: why do you keep insisting that they are "limited resources", without any evidence or citations to back that up? It is actually nothing more than an unfounded assumption. The universities with which I am familiar have internet resources that can hardly be called "limited", in comparison to regular cable service in the area. Also, they definitely charge for the privilege, as part of the cost of room and board... NOT as part of the tuition.
Comparing their capacity to cable is relevant - do you really think any university network can withstand unlimited, unfettered use without degradation? As it degrades, people who are using it for real work suffer so others can torrent / watch videos / act. - activities that generally have nothing to do with academic uses.
If it's provided as a result of a room and board deal then it really has nothing to do with the academic mission of the university - that is governed by contract law and if you don't like their deal go elsewhere - it's as simple as that. So your whole "academic freedom" argument is moot.
So? Does that mean they owe him a good product or anything?
Company offers free product, of course in the hopes of attracting people.
People shrug and move on.
End of story.
Some people of course feel like they have a right to bitch and moan
True. Some people will complain no matter what.
However, the sentiment:
instead of simply moving on to greener pastures or actually getting involved in producing a product that they like (which in the case of Mozilla is an actual option). That doesn't mean these people aren't a pain in the rear.
is counterproductive. Yes, some are PITA and should be ignored. However, others have valid criticisms that can be used to build a better product; and to help it gain wider acceptance. As long as the sentiment is "it's free; so don't complain if it doesn't do / have what you want it to..." OSS will be relegated to small niches because it is free (and people can't afford alternatives) and viewed as not ready for real world use because it is simply an inferior copy of commercial products. As long as the perception remains that the OSS is primarily a group of zealots that don't take criticism well and believe free is the main selling point then it will be an uphill fight to gain widespread acceptance and use.
"...simply moving on... is just another way to say "forget about OSS ever gaining a reasonable foothold in the broader market."
I say this as someone who uses OSS and have encouraged others to do the same - especially for MS Office replacements - and would like to see OSS gain broader acceptance; but the signs are not encouraging.
There is no technical reason videos and games need Flash. And I don't like making system configuration decisions based on PHB reasoning.
True, but as long as Flash is being used as one of the most prevalent ways to deliver video and other content their is a practical reason for doing so. Sure, there are other ways to deliver the same content but until they become the norm Flash is here to stay.
"So you are in favor of censorship, as you would define it, as long as it's not you that is being "censored.;" or back to the point - can an institution reasonably restrict access to protect a resource for use by others as well?"
What? Where the hell did you get that, out of what I wrote? It sure as hell isn't anything I stated.
Further, you aren't getting "back to the point" at all... you're getting back to the straw-man argument you were trying to make, which had nothing to do with my point, at all. Which I already explained. Duh. Are you actually reading what I wrote?
Your point seems to be you want unfettered internet access and think it is due you simply because you pay tuition.
Every time I reply to you, you say "I didn't say that;" despite having done so earlier.
For example - you said the OP should contact the ACLU - when I respond that they would not buy the argument you make - you pint out they have taken cases involving students - I point out those are 1st Amendment issues and you say "I never said it was a 1st amendment issue despite your examples.
In short, it seems you have no argument at all for why unfettered access should be given other than "I want it."
This illustrates the fuzziness of your logic throughout this exchange. I neither stated that the 1st Amendment was involved in THIS case, or that academic freedom equated to a 1st Amendment issue, again in this case. YOU are the only one who suggested as much.
As I pointed out above, you brought in the aCLU, 1st amendment issues and then backtracked. In addition to backing down whenever I called you on your argument, you consistently fail to address the salient point:
Does a university have the right to control the use of limited resources to the broader university community can use them as needed? You never have answered that, despite my providing a number of examples which you dismiss as straw men since you seem to have no other response.
It's easy to avoid notice if you act like you know what you're doing, where you're going and that you belong where you are. Never stand still or look around.
Yup. One of the first things I learned when I was taking pictures form the old hands was "act like you belong there." I once did a race where I didn't have press credentials by noticing all the accredited press had a red armband. Bingo - some red tape and i was golden. Was allowed in everywhere, no questions asked.
Interesting you should say that, since I was directly addressing the issue of restricted access, which was what OP was about. But if you want real straw-man, we have this:
"Do you consider restricting access to certain volumes censorship? Should I have unfettered access to a rare book that is the only known copy?"
I did ask about censorship of books, but that's not a straw-man argument. Books and internet are both sources of valuable academic information. So there *IS* a direct comparison to be had.
But nobody (except you) said ANYTHING about "rare books". In fact if it's on the internet, I don't think the term "rare" even applies. So who's making the straw-man argument here? Hint: I don't think it was me.
So you are in favor of censorship, as you would define it, as long as it's not you that is being "censored.;" or back to the point - can an institution reasonably restrict access to protect a resource for use by others as well?
"As for the ACLU, they have sued non-university systems over filtering that blocked certain material, I can not recall or find a case where they sued a university because a student was not allowed unfettered access."
Out of context. I said ACLU has helped students with censored nets. Elsewhere, I stated that I would want unfettered access. But I did not put the two together and say ACLU would sue over unfettered access.
So you agree that unfettered access in not a civil liberty issue and simply something you would want. Fine, but we don't always get what we want. As a side note, the logical flow of your argument in response to my statements suggest you think the ACLU should act in such cases.
"As a side note, given the SCOTUS has allowed schools to control distribution of materials they may find that unfettered access is not a 1st amendment issue."
I did not claim that "academic freedom" was a 1st Amendment issue. It certainly can be in some instances, but I don't think I claimed that this was one of them.
You claimed it was censorship that restricted academic freedom - so if it's not a 1st amendment issue what possibly could it be? there is no unfettered right to access anything written into the Constitution, so it becomes simply a contractual agreement between you and the university; which can include any terms the university wants and you can either agree or not use the service.
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our/. fill"
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
Apparently, you are the sort of person who thinks University libraries should also be censored? How about U.S. mail going into and out of campus grounds? Should that be censored, too? The newspapers maybe?
Nice straw men and ad-hominem as a bonus. To bad they have nothing to do with the topic it hand. Do you consider restricting access to certain volumes censorship? Should I have unfettered access to a rare book that is the only known copy? Or that if I can't print a million copies of a flyer on the computer lab printers the university is censoring me? Or, should I be free to demand the university add in any books I may want in the library simply because they are available? You seem to think the university owes you unfettered access to everything, no matter the costs, or be guilty of censorship.
As for the ACLU, they have sued non-university systems over filtering that blocked certain material, I can not recall or find a case where they sued a university because a student was not allowed unfettered access. As a side note, given the SCOTUS has allowed schools to control distribution of materials they may find that unfettered access is not a 1st amendment issue.
Whoever is responsible, don't listen to all these wimps who just tell you to cave and pay for ANOTHER internet source when you're already paying for this one. Get hold of EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, and anybody else you can, and tell them your academic freedom is being repressed. Because it is true. But get some help. There are organizations out there who can not only help you find who is responsible, but put pressure on them to change the status quo.
Yea, that’s a great choice - pick a fight over an issue that isn't really the point - no one is restricting your academic freedom. you are free to voice your opinio, research what you want - just not on their network. I'd imagine the EFF / ACLU / etc. laughing about your argument - I don't get unfettered internet via uni so way - my academic freedom is being restricted.
I've been in that situation - and guess what - when you make a reasoned argument for why you need to do something they find a way to do it. Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our/. fill
Slashdot Mirror
"... and yet wonder why I say you are backtracking?"
Because I wasn't backtracking. That's why. I am serious. I am done here. You are either trolling me or a complete dumbass. I don't really care which; I have no more time for this BS.
No worries, I've concluded the same thing about you; you can pick which one you are doing or are.
Cheers...
"Nobody expects infinite bandwidth... which was my original point..."
Bollocks. Until I made that clarification, I had never mentioned "unlimited bandwidth". In fact, I explicitly stated in the very beginning that is NOT what I was talking about, and it's right there, in your quote of my words:
There you go again, first calling my statement that ""Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our /. fill", and I quote: "Nosiness", make an ad-hominem attack and now you say you didn't mean completely unfettered; and yet wonder why I say you are backtracking?
It seems you agree with my original position but seem incapable of saying so. That's fine. Cheers.
"This is what I mean about backtracking when called on a point you make - you started out by saying it violates academic freedom to not give unfettered access and called for the ACLU to step in ... I say it's not reasonable to expect unlimited, unfettered access, we go back and forth ..."
How is that "backtracking"? I am adhering to my original statement. How does that constitute "backtracking"?
Let's see. I said:
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our /. fill"
To which you replied:
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
and proceeded to make a number of straw man arguments and launch ad-homenum attacks all the while saying "that's not what I said or meant" until you say: Yes, I did state "Nobody expects infinite bandwidth."
which was my original point which you have now conveniently stated is yours as well. So it looks like we are in agreement with my original stance and the only real issue is what is reasonable.
So, yes, you have backtracked all the way to saying my original stance was yours as well.
Many universities do exactly that, so why should I expect otherwise? Of course I mean "unlimited and unfettered" only in comparison to other local ISPs... we have to be reasonable here. Nobody expects infinite bandwidth. So yes... I do expect that universities can supply bandwidth to their students in a manner comparable to other local ISPs. In fact, many of them do so via contracts with the local ISPs themselves.
This is what I mean about backtracking when called on a point you make - you started out by saying it violates academic freedom to not give unfettered access and called for the ACLU to step in ... I say it's not reasonable to expect unlimited, unfettered access, we go back and forth and now you say:
Nobody expects infinite bandwidth. So yes... I do expect that universities can supply bandwidth to their students in a manner comparable to other local ISPs.
Which was my original point - Universities have the right to limit access to make best use of a resource for all a point you now seem to agree with; the only questions is what is a reasonable way to control the usage.
What about applying constructive criticism where it's of actual use?
I could make a full-time job out of whining about shitty products on /., that doesn't mean I should do it nor that anyone would enjoy it.
The problem is that even what is meant as constructive criticism, in a relevant forum, is often meet with knee jerk reaction rather than a calm discussion of why it might be a good idea and is it worth trying?
The real challenge for OSS is that it is often the results of individuals scratching their own itches, which is fine and it's great they share the scratching stick with others, but it but that fails to provide an overall direction that makes the software useful and valuable to a broader range of users; limiting its acceptance. Depending on your viewpoint, that is either irrelevant or a weakness of the OSS development process.
Get a cheap one that does what you want and use it for non-work stuff. If your employees is using tracking software, trying to bypass it is likely to end badly. With your own, you don't have to worry about what you do ith it. Sucks to carry 2 machines but it would be the option I'd chose.
Underpaid teachers are a myth. Teachers may not be in the 1%, but they are in the 50%. Teachers are in the top half of earners in the nation. Of course, that is if you count yearly salaries. If you look at hourly salaries, they push up into the top 25% of earners.
A search of starting salaries shows that the average college graduate makes $46K, vs a teacher's $36k to start. Comparing salaries to a median whose sample is not the same is useless. Graduation form college alone puts you in a better economic position, on average, so what i sinter sting is how salaries compare to others overtime.
Your car anecdote is a perfect example of poor reasoning that is being done when teacher salaries are discussed. We all know that the quality of a person's car has very little to their income. For the vast majority of people it has nothing to do with it. Take a drive through a poor neighborhood. You will find plenty of very nice cars. Take a look through a wealthy area where property lot sizes are more than an acre. You will find there are tons of beaters. The quality of a person's car has more to do with ego than income.
Woosh...
I have helped high school kids with math and physics, and usually wind up going back to basic principals so they understand what they are doing and then can solve problems.
They're not too busy running the school to help you with your tutoring?
In principle, principals make good tutors. In practice, I'd rather not have a spell checker.
One problem is that many public school districts aren't allowed to pay more for teachers with special skills. A starting math teacher has the same pay a gym teacher. It's been that way for a long time. In my opinion a qualified math or science teacher is worth more than a gym teacher.
Even worse, in some districts a gym teacher who is a coach makes more than a math teacher; if he is a winning football coach he can do quite well once booster money kicks in.
The real problem is the complete lack of qualified teacher's. A teacher needs to be a true master of all subjects so regardless of a text book the teachers should work with numbers like a mathematician. Bad text books can be overcome by excellent teaching and from what I remember my teachers were jokes. Don't blame the text books blame the unqualified teacher's.
My experience as a student and an adult who knows many teachers, is the cover the full spectrum - some really great, some that need to retire or move on, and most somewhere in between. They work in a profession where someone else defines what they must do, (the curriculum) how they will be assessed (students passing standardized tests), and students (and parents) who often are only interested in a grade, not actually learning the material. For this, they get paid a pretty low wage especially if they are actually good at math and science and have a degree to back that up.
In addition, as more opportunities opened up for women; many who would have only had teaching (or nursing) as viable career options rightfully went into other fields where their abilities would be recognized and rewarded far beyond what teaching offered; removing a large segment of potentially excellent teachers from the pool. Many of the good teachers I know would not let their kids go into teaching because they know what awaits them. There still are new teachers that do so because they really love teaching, unfortunately most become jaded and abandon the field for far more rewarding careers without the BS that accompanies actually trying to teach. Until we actually value teaching as a profession we'll get why we are willing to pay for; an dteh teachers will continue to be a convent scapegoat for everything that is wrong with our educational system.
Finally, when you have a potential presidential candidate from a major party calling our current president a "snob" because he dared suggest that getting some post-high school education is a good idea and needed to get the skills required for most good jobs, and deriding the idea the education is needed and should even be avoided because it's all about liberals brainwashing our youth, I fear for the future.
Anecdotal evidence: I know someone who spent 30+ years training auto mechanics. He once told me at the start of his career he could take a kid with some mechanical aptitude and turn them into a decent mechanic who could make a good living and career out of it. At the end of his career, he said even a high school eduction was not really enough - there was so much advanced math, electronic theory, and computer theory that unless you had a solid education in this areas you were lost. What started as a basic trade school evolved into essentially a technical school associate degree level education; the point the President was actually making about the need for post-high scull education.
My son's elementary school uses "Math Investigations" which is part of that "new math". You know, the type that believes that it isn't necessary to learn multiplication tables, or that your really only need to learn a few fractions: 1/2 1/3 1/4 and that is it. Oh yeah, and you shouldn't "stack" numbers while adding. He doesn't have a text book. He only brings home photocopied worksheets.
I complained to the teacher. They referred me to the principal who referred me to the district's elementary math education supervisor. Long story short, when schools say they want parents involved, they are lying. That is the last thing that they want. They want you to chaperone field trips. They want you to help fund raise. But when you want to actually input on the fundamentals of education, they shut you out. Even though you might have been a physics major and tutor, and brought peer reviewed research sponsored by the Department of Education pointing out that their particular math curricula has students score lower on standardized tests they imply that you don't know what you are talking about.
That's because you started at the wrong end of the equation when trying to solve the problem. Teachers are forced to teach from a schools defined curriculum, deviation from it results in problems for them, even if they are actually doing better at teaching. Bringing in a bunt of research is one no use because they can't change the system easily; even if many are in agreement with your points. I know teachers that constantly complain about why the district forces them to do and how it impacts real learning; but any complaints would at best fall on deaf ears or at worst result in retribution. For what they get paid that don't need to waste their time or suffer for trying to fix things.
You need to convince the school board, and bring enough other parents (voters) along to get attention. School Boards only fear losing an election; actually doing things to help educate their students is a secondary consideration at best. Even better, get some support and run for the school board.
products that make their lives easier and that come with free meals and gifts are the most successful
Why are companies allowed to get away with bribing teachers into choosing their textbook?
None of the teachers I know ever got a free pencil, let alone lunch, form a textbook company.
This article seems to be focused on K-12. So in the US at least, in many cases the money for those textbooks is public money. How is this any different than bribing an elected official to give your company a contract?
It's called marketing.
1. A key part of any good text is the flow - how do chapters interrelate and build on each other, i.e. what is the story line? That needs an editor in charge that makes and enforces decisions; something noticeably absent from most OS products.
2. The people with the most knowledge are often the worst to have explain a concept - things that are initiative and simple may be obscure and hard to understand for a student. Writing a good text book means actually explaining stuff in enough detail for the reader to understand, and putting in stuff you think everyone would know when in fact they don't.
Even with simple concepts there are often multiple ways to obtain the same solution - do you put them all in; if not how do you decide which ones to include?
At least with math, if you avoid any historical context you can avoid some of the challenges that history text books would have, for example, with political and social views and arguments thereover.
As someone whose published works have benefited from the collaboration with an outstanding editor, I feel for all the editors and writers out their that care about their craft. A writer creates a raw product, a good editor turns it into a work of art. When my editor was let go due to "financial constraints" I realized that the publication has begun the death spiral; and made sure my editor and I stayed in touch so I we could work together at some point in the future.
Its not like Math changes every year. The text book industry and publishers are just ripping students off every year. If they would just publish one edition of their text books, we wouldn't have this problem.
True, but there is no money in that. More to the point, you could use out of copyright texts for much of the basic high school curricula with some minor updates and have a decent textbook. That's why marketing and sales budgets are so high - you need to create a perception of need and thus demand to feed the system.
I have helped high school kids with math and physics, and usually wind up going back to basic principals so they understand what they are doing and then can solve problems. Even then, with an engineering degree I sometimes find some problems so confusing that I am not sure how to get the answer, and often find ones with the wrong answer. I shudder to think what kids do that don't have access to someone that actually understands basic math and physics.
1. Life of Fred 2. Singapore 3. If you're going to go the traditional route, at least get people who know the subject and teach them to teach, instead of putting people who don't know the subject in front of the kids. Then the textbooks would matter less anyway.
Good idea, but you'd actually have to pay them enough to want to take and keep the job. I've worked with school districts and many teachers, and when a starting teacher right out of school with a math / science degree can make 2x elsewhere - you do the math.
Or, as one teacher I know puts it - "You can tell the teachers whose spouse have real jobs by the cars they drive." Sad, but true.
It's not obligatory reference, but I think it sums it up very nicely: http://xkcd.com/803/. In one episode of myth busters they were making concrete airplanes. Adam made the strangest wing I've ever seen, but I think it could be inspired by such example like in this xkcd strip. And it didn't fly almost at all.
Oddly enough, for appropriate large vales of the definition of concrete, a concrete airplane is not out of the question (Love MythBusters, missed that episode alas so i can't comment on their conclusion); especially if you include one of my professors comments tab a brick can fly if it has a big enough engine. Seriously, the ASCE Student Chapters have held concrete canoe races of rears; with some pretty impressive canoes that were very strong and lightweight; even while meeting the classic concrete "paste and aggregate" definition.
I never answered because it was a straw-man argument that, I repeat: has nothing whatever to do with the statement I originally made. I don't owe you answers to questions that aren't even relevant to the point I made.
Since you insist on backtracking and then evading answering my point any further discussion relevant to what you said is, well, pointless.
But since you seem to insist that I answer the question, relative or not, answer me this first: why do you keep insisting that they are "limited resources", without any evidence or citations to back that up? It is actually nothing more than an unfounded assumption. The universities with which I am familiar have internet resources that can hardly be called "limited", in comparison to regular cable service in the area. Also, they definitely charge for the privilege, as part of the cost of room and board... NOT as part of the tuition.
Comparing their capacity to cable is relevant - do you really think any university network can withstand unlimited, unfettered use without degradation? As it degrades, people who are using it for real work suffer so others can torrent / watch videos / act. - activities that generally have nothing to do with academic uses.
If it's provided as a result of a room and board deal then it really has nothing to do with the academic mission of the university - that is governed by contract law and if you don't like their deal go elsewhere - it's as simple as that. So your whole "academic freedom" argument is moot.
So? Does that mean they owe him a good product or anything?
Company offers free product, of course in the hopes of attracting people. People shrug and move on. End of story.
Some people of course feel like they have a right to bitch and moan
True. Some people will complain no matter what.
However, the sentiment:
instead of simply moving on to greener pastures or actually getting involved in producing a product that they like (which in the case of Mozilla is an actual option). That doesn't mean these people aren't a pain in the rear.
is counterproductive. Yes, some are PITA and should be ignored. However, others have valid criticisms that can be used to build a better product; and to help it gain wider acceptance. As long as the sentiment is "it's free; so don't complain if it doesn't do / have what you want it to ..." OSS will be relegated to small niches because it is free (and people can't afford alternatives) and viewed as not ready for real world use because it is simply an inferior copy of commercial products. As long as the perception remains that the OSS is primarily a group of zealots that don't take criticism well and believe free is the main selling point then it will be an uphill fight to gain widespread acceptance and use.
"...simply moving on... is just another way to say "forget about OSS ever gaining a reasonable foothold in the broader market."
I say this as someone who uses OSS and have encouraged others to do the same - especially for MS Office replacements - and would like to see OSS gain broader acceptance; but the signs are not encouraging.
There is no technical reason videos and games need Flash. And I don't like making system configuration decisions based on PHB reasoning.
True, but as long as Flash is being used as one of the most prevalent ways to deliver video and other content their is a practical reason for doing so. Sure, there are other ways to deliver the same content but until they become the norm Flash is here to stay.
"So you are in favor of censorship, as you would define it, as long as it's not you that is being "censored.;" or back to the point - can an institution reasonably restrict access to protect a resource for use by others as well?"
What? Where the hell did you get that, out of what I wrote? It sure as hell isn't anything I stated. Further, you aren't getting "back to the point" at all... you're getting back to the straw-man argument you were trying to make, which had nothing to do with my point, at all. Which I already explained. Duh. Are you actually reading what I wrote?
Your point seems to be you want unfettered internet access and think it is due you simply because you pay tuition.
Every time I reply to you, you say "I didn't say that;" despite having done so earlier.
For example - you said the OP should contact the ACLU - when I respond that they would not buy the argument you make - you pint out they have taken cases involving students - I point out those are 1st Amendment issues and you say "I never said it was a 1st amendment issue despite your examples.
In short, it seems you have no argument at all for why unfettered access should be given other than "I want it."
This illustrates the fuzziness of your logic throughout this exchange. I neither stated that the 1st Amendment was involved in THIS case, or that academic freedom equated to a 1st Amendment issue, again in this case. YOU are the only one who suggested as much.
As I pointed out above, you brought in the aCLU, 1st amendment issues and then backtracked. In addition to backing down whenever I called you on your argument, you consistently fail to address the salient point:
Does a university have the right to control the use of limited resources to the broader university community can use them as needed? You never have answered that, despite my providing a number of examples which you dismiss as straw men since you seem to have no other response.
It's easy to avoid notice if you act like you know what you're doing, where you're going and that you belong where you are. Never stand still or look around.
Yup. One of the first things I learned when I was taking pictures form the old hands was "act like you belong there." I once did a race where I didn't have press credentials by noticing all the accredited press had a red armband. Bingo - some red tape and i was golden. Was allowed in everywhere, no questions asked.
"Nice straw men and ad-hominem as a bonus."
Interesting you should say that, since I was directly addressing the issue of restricted access, which was what OP was about. But if you want real straw-man, we have this:
"Do you consider restricting access to certain volumes censorship? Should I have unfettered access to a rare book that is the only known copy?"
I did ask about censorship of books, but that's not a straw-man argument. Books and internet are both sources of valuable academic information. So there *IS* a direct comparison to be had. But nobody (except you) said ANYTHING about "rare books". In fact if it's on the internet, I don't think the term "rare" even applies. So who's making the straw-man argument here? Hint: I don't think it was me.
So you are in favor of censorship, as you would define it, as long as it's not you that is being "censored.;" or back to the point - can an institution reasonably restrict access to protect a resource for use by others as well?
"As for the ACLU, they have sued non-university systems over filtering that blocked certain material, I can not recall or find a case where they sued a university because a student was not allowed unfettered access."
Out of context. I said ACLU has helped students with censored nets. Elsewhere, I stated that I would want unfettered access. But I did not put the two together and say ACLU would sue over unfettered access.
So you agree that unfettered access in not a civil liberty issue and simply something you would want. Fine, but we don't always get what we want. As a side note, the logical flow of your argument in response to my statements suggest you think the ACLU should act in such cases.
"As a side note, given the SCOTUS has allowed schools to control distribution of materials they may find that unfettered access is not a 1st amendment issue."
I did not claim that "academic freedom" was a 1st Amendment issue. It certainly can be in some instances, but I don't think I claimed that this was one of them.
You claimed it was censorship that restricted academic freedom - so if it's not a 1st amendment issue what possibly could it be? there is no unfettered right to access anything written into the Constitution, so it becomes simply a contractual agreement between you and the university; which can include any terms the university wants and you can either agree or not use the service.
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our /. fill"
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get. Apparently, you are the sort of person who thinks University libraries should also be censored? How about U.S. mail going into and out of campus grounds? Should that be censored, too? The newspapers maybe?
Nice straw men and ad-hominem as a bonus. To bad they have nothing to do with the topic it hand. Do you consider restricting access to certain volumes censorship? Should I have unfettered access to a rare book that is the only known copy? Or that if I can't print a million copies of a flyer on the computer lab printers the university is censoring me? Or, should I be free to demand the university add in any books I may want in the library simply because they are available? You seem to think the university owes you unfettered access to everything, no matter the costs, or be guilty of censorship.
As for the ACLU, they have sued non-university systems over filtering that blocked certain material, I can not recall or find a case where they sued a university because a student was not allowed unfettered access. As a side note, given the SCOTUS has allowed schools to control distribution of materials they may find that unfettered access is not a 1st amendment issue.
Whoever is responsible, don't listen to all these wimps who just tell you to cave and pay for ANOTHER internet source when you're already paying for this one. Get hold of EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, and anybody else you can, and tell them your academic freedom is being repressed. Because it is true. But get some help. There are organizations out there who can not only help you find who is responsible, but put pressure on them to change the status quo.
Yea, that’s a great choice - pick a fight over an issue that isn't really the point - no one is restricting your academic freedom. you are free to voice your opinio, research what you want - just not on their network. I'd imagine the EFF / ACLU / etc. laughing about your argument - I don't get unfettered internet via uni so way - my academic freedom is being restricted.
I've been in that situation - and guess what - when you make a reasoned argument for why you need to do something they find a way to do it. Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our /. fill