namelesstavern.net

I know I'm on some shitlists of sorts with a few folks but if you check this story out and assume it is true, this is where I think "big government" can help to better the situation. There are many things IMO that should have nationwide standards, and leaving some of this up to the states is irresponsible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27336656/

It's a shame to know 1 in 4 kids drop out of high school, I would never have guessed a number that big, I would have guessed something like 1 in 10 at the worst .

academia isn't for everyone, and if someone discovers that for themselves early, and applies themself to a trade, I don't really see that dropout as a losing situation

I think it would be better to make schools compete for our children and for our tax dollars. It would also be great if good teachers were paid more than horrible ones.

KaiineTN wrote:I think it would be better to make schools compete for our children and for our tax dollars. It would also be great if good teachers were paid more than horrible ones.

inc fudging of grades

High school is more geared towards preparing children for standardized testing than it is for education.

It's pathetic and, quite frankly, it's appalling.

High school is a fucking joke now in comparison to what it used to be even 10-15 years ago. If you disagree, you're just not aware of how bad it is because you're so far removed from it.

The people graduating here are the same people who can't spell like an adult should be able to, read higher than 6th grade level, WRITE A FUCKING CHECK PROPERLY, perform long division mentally, etc. etc.

I get so fucking angry at the idea of someone taking FUNDAMENTAL MATH their senior year and still getting their diploma.(the same exact diploma as the rest of the entire country)

Dropout rates don't mean dick. Intelligent people are going to make something of themselves regardless of the toiletpaper handed to them or not.

Yeah? And who decides which children get to attend competition winners? Lottery? Richest first? No, treating public schools like private businesses opens up HUGE cans of worms.

As for teachers, yes, in theory paying better ones more is a great idea. How do you determine who is "better", though, in the real world? What criteria do you use? I've had teachers and professors I thought were great that other people couldn't stand, and visa versa. How do you rate them? There's no test you can administer that would be fair, and if you poll the students you run the risk of marking the "best" teachers as the ones who don't give a damn and hand out A's for zero work, rather than the ones who actually teach things and hold their students to standards. If there's no objective way to determine this, you're back to subjectivism again, with no greater chance it'll be any more fair than things are now.

So, sorry, you neglected to account for that rather tricky thing called "Reality"....

Now, as for Harrison's comment, I tend to agree that students need to reach SOME levels of standards before they get their diploma. It should NOT be a rubber stamp received for making it to 18 years old without breaking too many rules. What can be done, though, I have no idea. You honestly think that if they tried to actually hold kids back or fail them out for a year so they have to re-do that lots of Parents wouldn't sue the crap out of the school system, claiming *THEIR* kid couldn't possibly be that bad, and it must have been some vendetta from the teacher(s)?

-Arlos

That's the way it used to be. If you sucked fat dick, you weren't rewarded by being sent along to the next grade and given easier classes. That makes no fucking sense.

All that does is breed a crop of retards sent out blind.

Actually, I dunno when, if ever, it was like you think it was.

I graduated from high school 20 years ago, and I can't think of a single person that had to be held back a year or flunked out. Of course, I was part of the crowd that was always in the AP classes, so it IS possible I would've missed someone from the other end of the spectrum, but when I just looked back over my yearbooks from back then, I didn't see anyone who started out in our class that later on showed up in the photo listing of a later class, which I consider pretty good evidence.

So, I think you may have some incorrect info there, though maybe if you're thinking of schools back in the 1800s you may have a point, I have no idea.

-Arlos

we spent pretty much the whole 90 minutes of my rhetorical theory class today discussing modern education and No Child Left Behind

i brought up the idea that the school system is being buried under the weight of capitalism: taxpayers invest money and want to see a return on their investment. intelligence has always been and will always be quite difficult to quantify, but nevertheless the investors want to see RESULTS! so a standard is set, and education becomes less about helping students learn to think and more about getting them to meet or exceed the standard. schools then become so preoccupied with meeting the AYP (average yearly progress or something, i forgot what it stood for) and literally Leaving No Child Behind, that the quality of education the average student receives is eroded down to the minimum needed to meet the standard. and like i said, the standard tests are poor measures of actual intelligence, leading too morons unable too figure out they're own goddamn language.

of course, the truly inquisitive students always find a way to push themselves and learn to think on their own terms, developing into bona fide intelligence, but those who might've only needed one or two nudges in that direction won't get a chance.

with so much energy and resources being devoted to churning out uniform students able to pass preset standards, it begs the question-- who benefits? corporations! I argued that the very qualities that make a teenager a "good student" (accepting what is being taught without questioning, good attendance, meeting the standard) is nothing more than grooming, which will later translate into the grown adult being a "good employee" (accepting administrative decisions without questioning, producing as expected, towing the company line). put simply, public schools = employee drone hatcheries.

i don't know what mccain's plan is (or if he has one) but i know obama's plan is basically to just dump a load of money into the education system. while i do think there's nowhere better to funnel our tax dollars, i'm not sure that's the answer either. standardized testing is crushing creativity, demands are getting higher, parents are doing less and less, and teachers (footsoldiers) are feeling the heat. some kids even crack under all the weight (see: littleton, etc) and flip the fuck out.

better get this shit figured out or the future is gonna suck

Arlos wrote:Actually, I dunno when, if ever, it was like you think it was.

I graduated from high school 20 years ago, and I can't think of a single person that had to be held back a year or flunked out. Of course, I was part of the crowd that was always in the AP classes, so it IS possible I would've missed someone from the other end of the spectrum, but when I just looked back over my yearbooks from back then, I didn't see anyone who started out in our class that later on showed up in the photo listing of a later class, which I consider pretty good evidence.

So, I think you may have some incorrect info there, though maybe if you're thinking of schools back in the 1800s you may have a point, I have no idea.

-Arlos

Nope, even when I was going through they held back people with failing averages. They even held back people who failed English alone, as it was their primary focus. I am not basing this on assumptions. I know this as fact.

I don't know how they did it wherever you went, but this is how it WAS.

P.S. I loved the intentional grammatically flawed line at the end of a paragraph in your post Brin. I laughed quite hard lol

I know people who were held back and failed - several from my high school. I felt my education was pretty decent, and I enjoyed the teachers that I had. I also went to school at a smaller high school in rural Minnesota, so that might have something to do with it. It wasn't a ginormous high school from a metropolitan area with graduating classes of 400+.

The more resumes I get in to look over, the more of a joke it is getting to be. Id say I go through 2 or 3 a day on a slow one, from people that are welders, machinists, etc., up to accountants and that shit. Good workers are so fucking hard to find its absolutely ridiculous. Anymore, when I see someone with a college degree, i think less and less about it, because anyone with half of a brain can get one. College degrees are pretty much handed out in most programs. if you can go to class, get someone to write a few papers, and slide few a few tests, youve got one.

I personally go more toward work experience and references. Thats the only way to really get a god hold on how a man could work. And still half the time people will give them good references and they turn out to suck. I guess different people have a different definition of good to me. Thats why we have a 60 day probation period in which someone can be fired without cause. Just because someone shows a certificate from a 2 year votech welding school that says they passed it, doesnt mean they are any fucking good of an industrial welder.

Tikker said somethin I agree with a couple posts in. Personally, I think people should at least finish high school before moving to the job field, but everyones different. I have had a lot of really good mechanics and welders work for us that didnt finish high school and got paid good money while they worked for me, before moving to bigger industrial companies, keeping good workers is a pain in the ass. The problem is, a lot of these dropouts are completely worthless and dont do anything with their lives. But I have personally found a lot of really good guys in their fields that have applied themselves and become damn good at what they do. Too bad the rest of the country turns their nose up at them and thinks they are a joke if they dont have 12 degrees or something. People forget the 'blue collar' workers who have a big part in making the products they use everyday.

Anyways, academics is somewhat overrated sometimes. Its hilarious, I talk to friends of mine that are getting out of business school with their bach and mba and they really dont have any idea how a business ACTUALLY fucking runs. They are taught that textbook shit, and hardly a godamn bit of it applies to a real workplace with real problems. Its like a doctor...some of them just studied their asses off, passed the tests, and have no business being a fucking medical professional, but then some them are just medically minded and have a natural grasp on it, and those will be the ones working on me.

College used to be somewhere that rich people sent off their kids to learn about the world. Relatively few people went. Today, it seems to be commonly accepted that college is preparing people for the workforce, and most people go to college at one point or another, so of course, you're going to find tons of people that have college crap on their resume but still aren't worth a damn.

I wish I hadn't majored in liberal arts. I found out just how useless that is! In order to even get into a business program, I need to take another year's worth of classes. It seems that college has become more of a business that's all about making money, not so much about helping students to develop their skills or intelligence, or to become successful.

I do think college is quite over rated, though. I've taught myself many skills that I'm sure could be profitable if I continued to use them. Right now, I'm looking into creating and selling Flash games. That sure as hell doesn't require any special training or certification! You create a game, people bid on it, you get paid. They don't care about your credentials, they care about what you've created. Have I ever taken classes on programming? Nope. College math? Nope. Design, animation, art? Nope, not really. Can I create a valuable game? You better believe it. I wish there were more opportunities out there like that.

I think I'm destined to become one of three things: a bum, a freelancer, or an entrepreneur.

McCain supports vouchers. Here's a link to a page that lets you know more.

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_education.cfm

KaiineTN wrote:I wish I hadn't majored in liberal arts. I found out just how useless that is! In order to even get into a business program, I need to take another year's worth of classes. It seems that college has become more of a business that's all about making money, not so much about helping students to develop their skills or intelligence, or to become successful.

a liberal arts education is absolutely not worthless. it's just worthless for the kinds of things you think you want to do.

and if you don't think college helps students develop skills or intelligence, you took the wrong classes m8

I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to be the primary objective of most educational institutions these days. It has become secondary.

or, perhaps, you get out of them what you put into them. by which i mean: if you go to college to become better-prepared for a specific career, that's exactly what happens. or, if you go to college to learn to think, to explore concepts, to form your own opinions about the human condition, that's what you'll get.

to elaborate, i would argue that your opinion that colleges are geared toward making money and attempting to produce workers is skewed by your proclivity towards monetary ventures and investments. similarly, i would concede that my view on colleges as centers for students to develop exploratory inquiry skills (learning how to answer the question "why?") and have their creativities nurtured is biased by the parts of college i really enjoy.

and now, just to play devil's advocate-- okay, so you don't need any special training to make flash games, and you have taught yourself marketable skills. that's great, but what if you HAD attended an institution for those things? i'm not arguing that you'd be any better (or worse) off regarding those specific skills you've taught yourself, but i am certain you would've been given a wider and more robust perspective on them, i.e. some people use these skills for X, you are doing well but have you thought about Y, or try Z and see what that does for you. not to mention, institutional learning has more branches than self-instruction. for example, if you had never gone to game design school, you never would have learned how much of a knack you have for graphic design. if that's a bad example, it's because i know absolutely jack shit about game design hehe

I don't know why people go to college if they not in the science based degree.

That's what I want. At least a BA in science.

KaiineTN wrote:I think it would be better to make schools compete for our children and for our tax dollars. It would also be great if good teachers were paid more than horrible ones.

I really can't think of a worse idea then this. It would be pretty much streamline schools so that kids would only be good at completely subjective grading methods so schools would get more money.

On top of that schools that need more money and more attention would just get less of both because they have more problems.

brinstar wrote:i brought up the idea that the school system is being buried under the weight of capitalism: taxpayers invest money and want to see a return on their investment. intelligence has always been and will always be quite difficult to quantify, but nevertheless the investors want to see RESULTS! so a standard is set, and education becomes less about helping students learn to think and more about getting them to meet or exceed the standard. schools then become so preoccupied with meeting the AYP (average yearly progress or something, i forgot what it stood for) and literally Leaving No Child Behind, that the quality of education the average student receives is eroded down to the minimum needed to meet the standard. and like i said, the standard tests are poor measures of actual intelligence, leading too morons unable too figure out they're own goddamn language.

win~

Work experience trumps all. I work full time and go to school half time. By the time I'm 27 I'll have a MBA in computer science and 7 years of work experience. $$

Nothing scares the people who hire more than a green college student. Someone with 2 years of on the job experience is golden.

I have one guy that has his MBA in computer science, that frankly seems to be my least performing, least motivated guy. He will do what it takes but nothing more.

I had another more Sr. guy, had his BA (don't recall in what), but years of experience, I had to let him go because we're downsizing and he was very much like the guy above. Would do what it took but nothing more, was not very self motivated, etc.

I had one other guy that left for greener pastures that over my 9 years here, has been the only college educated guy (funny thing was he had is BA in finance, not IT) that actually did great work. I actually asked him to leave because I knew I could not offer him or get him to reach his potential. He's now working for VeriSign in their crypto-group.

Nearly all my other "good" workers, are not college educated, these are the guys that have "technology" in their veins and tend to have hobbies related to computers, gaming, etc. These guys are more driven then what I've had for "educated" folks.

At the end of the day, and this is my experience, the college educated people have statistically been less overall performing folks.

Personally, I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, and I realize this may not be new info for some, and I'm sure some folks will probably go "o that's why", but I've got about 18 months of "college" education at a community college. I am however highly motivated and tend to be an enabler, a doer. I taught at the University of Michigan, Dearborn for 2 years when NT 4.0 was all the buzz (no not as a "professor" LOL but as an instructor for CEU's). I now work as an IT manager with a staff of 9 (formerly it was a staff of 15), make really good money, etc.

Point being, and a recent post by Diek strangely reminded me of myself, it isn't so much college education that can make or break a person, it is however your drive and motivation to achieve.

Now back on track, what I think kids lack today is drive and motivation, I see a lot of people young and old, just do "enough" and feel somehow deserving of more. I really don't have any idea how to turn kids around today (I have with my own, but so few parents seem to instill these values in kids and IMO that is the heart of our problem).

The real kicker is, many companies today won't even look at you if you don't have a BA, IMO that is wrong and I've fought hard on this at my own place, to the extreme of forcing our VP of HR to bend the rules.

vonkaar wrote:

araby wrote: a BA in science.

I have an aptitude for both!

really though, it's quite sad that most of the managers, cooks and servers I've worked in restaurants with over the last five months have their degrees (some masters) and can't find work in their field. I'm sure there are a lot of factors to consider, but still...it's sad. so many students drop out around that time to pick a major and that's sad, too.