Uhh... isn't the whole point of studying for a PhD because you want to remain in academia?
Yes, but the underlying issue is that PhDs tend to learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
The hyperfocus of many fields can be good for understanding the minutia of a subject, but it also tends to minimize the relevancy of their research or studies. This means there are fewer contributions to the body of knowledge that actually matter.
Private school would certainly better overall and is pretty much the best way in America for an education
This is one of the most pervasive misconceptions about American public education. Some of our public schools aren't doing well, but many are.
A lot of a school's success is predicated on its socio-economic setting and mobility rate. I will agree with you that private schools are better when you can show me a private school that has the same requirements that a public school does. We have to take everyone and kicking a student out is virtually impossible. Private schools often have very strict admittance processes and are certainly willing to kick a student out who isn't performing well. In addition, parents almost always pay for private schools, or at the very least apply for scholarships or grants for access. Therefore the kids at private school invariably have a quality that almost always results in better grades, involved parents. Their parents care about their child's education and are willing to pay for it. That's not true with a large portion of the public school population.
If you were to put my AP students in a suburban school with a relatively stable student population, I can guarantee you they are just as successful as those students at a private school. I'd go even further and say that if you took all of my students in all grades whose parents came to Open House, it would be a safe bet to say they would parallel any of our local private schools.
My brother-in-law has been a grip on many films and TV shows. He's spoken about product placement several times. I'm curious what I said, that made you automatically assume I was making this up. Maybe you are involved and can shed light on something I said that was incorrect, or perhaps you are just cynical.
I'm a judge at one of the major Canadian Science Fairs and we've been given direction that we can't criticize and only good comments are allowed. Some of the projects are absolute CRAP for the age level... thrown together overnight... judges should be able to say "Your project is CRAP... prepare for a job at Burger King"
I'm all for constructive criticism, but "prepare for a job at Burger King" is nothing but abuse.
I would say, "prepare for a job at Burger King" is nothing but hyperbole.
the teachers who helped me most were always the ones who picked me up where I was and helped me from there
You do realize you can do both of these things don't you? It IS important to tell a child when he or she doesn't do something well. That doesn't mean belittling them, but giving a kid a realistic response helps them.
When did we get to a point that a child's immediate happiness is more important than their long term growth? We should be honest with kids about the level of performance, and then help them develop from where they are.
I could think of a few ways to combat that, non-contextual ads, or corporate sponsors, but both of those would come with their own pitfalls too. Although corporate sponsors has worked to a certain degree for NPR, they might not be the right thing for Wikipedia.
Anyway, they made their goal with donations, so maybe the argument is moot.
So why don't they do an Opt In ad system? I use wikipedia a lot, and I'm willing to see ads on it. Unlike other sites, Wikipedia can make the ad section blatantly obvious, so to distinguish between ads and content. You'd still have advertisers falling over themselves to advertise there.
Allowing the users to enable ads would be a nice way to supplement my $30 donation.
when I'm trying to pay attention to the lecture, even someone's screensaver in the row ahead of me can be a major distraction.
Maybe we should spend some time teaching students how to filter? Sure students should be able to say when a peer's computer use is distracting them, but a screen saver is distracting you? Let's not get rid of laptops because some students are easily distracted.
but its rarely seen called out on a school curriculum.
There are a whole slew of problems like this one in school curricula, and they are voted in by school boards, which we elect. I would humbly, ask how many of you know who your school board representatives are? If you don't know, you aren't engaged enough.
By law, the school boards have public meetings on these issues where concerned citizens can voice their concerns. They also stand for election every couple of years.
Education is the most fundamental obligation we have to our society, and those who know better need to join the process.
I see your point, and generally I side with you. I've just noticed that we ARE making a lot of decisions that seem to confirm Bradbury's fears. In the novel, the government didn't strip our rights from us, we gave them away because ignorance is more comfortable. It is with that fear that I would qualify the OP's point. I agree they aren't morally wrong, but I would argue they might be ignorant. The road to freedom is upstream, and too often we allow ourselves to drift with the current. Some of us need to rail not against the system - systems are meant to seek the path of least resistance - but our peers who don't look up long enough to see what's happened to the world around them.
Now, I'll even point out from my own post that Dekker wrote in the 1500s, so we've been worried about the same problem for a long time, and I hope we will continue to worry about it. Worrying is what keeps the powers-to-be in check.
The captain continues by defending the moral aims of the ideal of censorship: "Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against." - Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451
This age thinks better of a gilded fool,>
Than of a threadbare saint in Wisdom's school. - Thomas Dekker
It isn't wrong for people to want that, but it isn't wrong for us to rail against the desire to simplify life to the point of letting someone else think for us. Fighting against apathy is tiring, but necessary.
Right. And then they would say, I'm not going to spend my money delivering to those people out in the country. The postal service has the responsibility to deliver to every region of the country. A private company doesn't have the same responsibility. We could make it a prerequisite for whoever wins the contract, but then they would raise the prices significantly.
As a school teacher, I try to get everyone to watch Ken Robinson's talk about schools killing creativity. This is something we desperately need to change. School boards make these decisions, and we elect them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the underlying issue is that PhDs tend to learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
The hyperfocus of many fields can be good for understanding the minutia of a subject, but it also tends to minimize the relevancy of their research or studies. This means there are fewer contributions to the body of knowledge that actually matter.
April Fools....
When people with no sense of humor show their true colors. As if reading these stories causes any kind of problem.
This is one of the most pervasive misconceptions about American public education. Some of our public schools aren't doing well, but many are.
A lot of a school's success is predicated on its socio-economic setting and mobility rate. I will agree with you that private schools are better when you can show me a private school that has the same requirements that a public school does. We have to take everyone and kicking a student out is virtually impossible. Private schools often have very strict admittance processes and are certainly willing to kick a student out who isn't performing well. In addition, parents almost always pay for private schools, or at the very least apply for scholarships or grants for access. Therefore the kids at private school invariably have a quality that almost always results in better grades, involved parents. Their parents care about their child's education and are willing to pay for it. That's not true with a large portion of the public school population.
If you were to put my AP students in a suburban school with a relatively stable student population, I can guarantee you they are just as successful as those students at a private school. I'd go even further and say that if you took all of my students in all grades whose parents came to Open House, it would be a safe bet to say they would parallel any of our local private schools.
My brother-in-law has been a grip on many films and TV shows. He's spoken about product placement several times. I'm curious what I said, that made you automatically assume I was making this up. Maybe you are involved and can shed light on something I said that was incorrect, or perhaps you are just cynical.
It's only covered if the company doesn't have an agreement with Apple. Why give them free advertising when they can get paid for it?
I would say, "prepare for a job at Burger King" is nothing but hyperbole.
You do realize you can do both of these things don't you? It IS important to tell a child when he or she doesn't do something well. That doesn't mean belittling them, but giving a kid a realistic response helps them.
When did we get to a point that a child's immediate happiness is more important than their long term growth? We should be honest with kids about the level of performance, and then help them develop from where they are.
Captain Beatty...is that you?
Good point.
I could think of a few ways to combat that, non-contextual ads, or corporate sponsors, but both of those would come with their own pitfalls too. Although corporate sponsors has worked to a certain degree for NPR, they might not be the right thing for Wikipedia.
Anyway, they made their goal with donations, so maybe the argument is moot.
So why don't they do an Opt In ad system? I use wikipedia a lot, and I'm willing to see ads on it. Unlike other sites, Wikipedia can make the ad section blatantly obvious, so to distinguish between ads and content. You'd still have advertisers falling over themselves to advertise there.
Allowing the users to enable ads would be a nice way to supplement my $30 donation.
You're funny.
Maybe we should spend some time teaching students how to filter? Sure students should be able to say when a peer's computer use is distracting them, but a screen saver is distracting you? Let's not get rid of laptops because some students are easily distracted.
Well you said grow crops without light, so I thought you had somehow made a breakthrough. No worries though.
Hang on, can you explain how growing crops without light is even possible? I admit I don't know much about the field, but how is it done?
They don't tend to be terrible, but people tend to talk about the terrible ones. Most are ok. Some are terrible, and some are great.
There are a whole slew of problems like this one in school curricula, and they are voted in by school boards, which we elect. I would humbly, ask how many of you know who your school board representatives are? If you don't know, you aren't engaged enough.
By law, the school boards have public meetings on these issues where concerned citizens can voice their concerns. They also stand for election every couple of years.
Education is the most fundamental obligation we have to our society, and those who know better need to join the process.
/soapbox
I see your point, and generally I side with you. I've just noticed that we ARE making a lot of decisions that seem to confirm Bradbury's fears. In the novel, the government didn't strip our rights from us, we gave them away because ignorance is more comfortable. It is with that fear that I would qualify the OP's point. I agree they aren't morally wrong, but I would argue they might be ignorant. The road to freedom is upstream, and too often we allow ourselves to drift with the current. Some of us need to rail not against the system - systems are meant to seek the path of least resistance - but our peers who don't look up long enough to see what's happened to the world around them.
Now, I'll even point out from my own post that Dekker wrote in the 1500s, so we've been worried about the same problem for a long time, and I hope we will continue to worry about it. Worrying is what keeps the powers-to-be in check.
Your pessimism certainly won't.
It isn't wrong for people to want that, but it isn't wrong for us to rail against the desire to simplify life to the point of letting someone else think for us. Fighting against apathy is tiring, but necessary.
Right. And then they would say, I'm not going to spend my money delivering to those people out in the country. The postal service has the responsibility to deliver to every region of the country. A private company doesn't have the same responsibility. We could make it a prerequisite for whoever wins the contract, but then they would raise the prices significantly.
It has been clearly documented that citing wikipedia can be dangerous.
As a school teacher, I try to get everyone to watch Ken Robinson's talk about schools killing creativity. This is something we desperately need to change. School boards make these decisions, and we elect them.
The reward is that we are all sitting around talking about Google Chrome OS, and the winner is...Google.
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real gigabytes...
Only had a gray backgrond for me on Chrome when I turned off images. Bad coding practice maybe, but that seems to be the issue.