On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:06:08 GMT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
wrote:

>>Boo-hoo. Diplomas that mean anything are not to be
>>given for showing up, but for busting your ass.
>
>Diplomas have always been given merely for showing up.

Now that I will contest. High School diplomas when I went to school
were not given just for attendence. If a student was there every day,
but could not do the work to the teacher's satisfaction, they failed
and did not graduate. Student's dropped out, but they did not get
diplomas for attendence.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306250106120.22623-100000@lab.oregonvos.net>,
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Brian wrote:



>> Stuart Grey wrote:

>> > Joni Rathbun wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:



>> > >>Under the old way of doing things, the high school diploma meant
>> > >>something, and the high school drop outs took the lowest paying jobs.


>> > > Which days were those?

>> > About 50 years ago. :-)

>> Not even that long ago.
>> I'd say 20.



>> > > The h.s. diploma has almost always meant
>> > > nothing more than seat time and minimal, neighbor-based grades.

>> > Uh, no. I disagree because in the past, when there
>> > were 8th grade elementary schools, the graduates of
>> > those elementary schools were literate, could write,
>> > keep a check book, and do their taxes.

>Who was graduating from 8th grade? What percentage? How
>does that compare to the % that graduates today with the
>same skills? Without that information, you're just dreaming
>here.

The ones who graduate now do not have the same skills, and
definitely not the same understanding. The replacing of
history and geography by social studies, the emphasis on
rote, and other stuff like the life of an Egyptian peasant
4000 years ago instead of the development of civilization,
does not help.

And the ones who could only memorize and calculate were not
able to go on. This is as it should be; they have reached
a real dead end. Possibly the barrier could be broken, but
not by more of the same.

I believe that in the northern cities, and even in the
northern states, a majority graduated high school.

>My home state conducted a basic literacy test a few
>years ago. They tested math and reading literacy, the
>basics, reading a menu, balancing a checkbook, figuring
>out a bus schedule, etc. The least literate generation
>was my parents' generation (graduated in the 1940s).

Being able to do things by rote is not education, but
training. People should be educated, not trained.

...................

>I'm doing what I like doing. But some people do make
>choices based on money and ease of entry. A lot of kids
>here don't give a rip about a h.s. diploma because they
>don't need it to make a good living.

>And a lot of other kids don't give a rip because
>they've grown up in a country that clearly values
>football more than it values education.

And those who want to learn are unlikely to be able to
get an education in a classroom with the ones who want
to be of that type.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Joni Rathbun wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Brian wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joni Rathbun wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Under the old way of doing things, the high school diploma meant
>>>>>something, and the high school drop outs took the lowest paying jobs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which days were those?
>>>
>>>About 50 years ago. :-)
>>
>>Not even that long ago.
>>I'd say 20.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>The h.s. diploma has almost always meant
>>>>nothing more than seat time and minimal, neighbor-based grades.
>>>
>>>Uh, no. I disagree because in the past, when there
>>>were 8th grade elementary schools, the graduates of
>>>those elementary schools were literate, could write,
>>>keep a check book, and do their taxes.
>>
>
> Who was graduating from 8th grade? What percentage? How
> does that compare to the % that graduates today with the
> same skills? Without that information, you're just dreaming
> here.

In 1910, 24% of the people had less than 5 years
of elementary school. Only 14% had completed 4 years
of high school. In 1965, only 50% had completed 4
years of high school. (Which is where I get the
40-50 years ago, High school education was NOT the
norm.) In 1985, that rose to 84% finishing 4 years
of high school.

People are not better educated today than they were
in 1965.

> My home state conducted a basic literacy test a few
> years ago. They tested math and reading literacy, the
> basics, reading a menu, balancing a checkbook, figuring
> out a bus schedule, etc. The least literate generation
> was my parents' generation (graduated in the 1940s).

So, you're saying that since people who are in their
80s are not as good at reading and math as young
whippersnappers, that it is proof that the education
system is better than what it use to be.

And since people who graduated 100 years ago get
a big zip on the test, they must have been stone
age, I suppose.

:-)


>>>AT that time, completing high school, which was optional,
>>>made a person well read. Yes, it was some time ago, but
>>>some of us still remember or know people who lived through
>>>it.
>>>
>>>Yes, NOW it is fairly meaningless. Trying to include
>>>slower students slowed down education for everyone.
>>>Trying to be inclusive so everyone got the High
>>>School diploma made the High School diploma worthless.
>>
>
>>>>And drop-outs (there were lots and lots of them) were able to make
>>>>decent living for at least the first half of the last century.
>>>>Geze, even today all anyone has to do is go downtown here and get
>>>>a job waiting tables to make more money than I make with three
>>>>degrees.
>>>
>>>So who's smarter? If it is money that you want, go
>>>wait tables, or choose career orientated degrees!
>>
>
> I'm doing what I like doing. But some people do make
> choices based on money and ease of entry. A lot of kids
> here don't give a rip about a h.s. diploma because they
> don't need it to make a good living.
>
> And a lot of other kids don't give a rip because
> they've grown up in a country that clearly values
> football more than it values education.

So, what is it about the education system that
makes a bunch of big stinky thugs slapping each other
on the ass and running into each other like cattle
more appealing?


>>>Having went through school
>>
>
> Eek! Like chalk screeeeching on a chalkboard....

I'm sorry. Did I destroy your dream that you
were the only one to have gone through school?


>>>to get meaningful degrees,
>>>I don't go to either my B.S. or M.S. graduation ceremonies
>>>because there are so many people getting "Ultra-Summa-Maganum
>>>Cum Laude" in social science, English, liberal arts and
>>>the like. Ph.D.'s, no less. After they get out, the smart
>>>ones bus tables at the local Denny's.
>>
>
> Most of my friends who are unemployed have CS degrees or the likes.

Yes. Those of us who went through school recall
Econ 101, and how the law of supply and demand,
plus a time lag and changing market, can cause
this condition. There is also the "global economy"
that shipped a lot of the higher education jobs
overseas; in this case, India.


>>>>>The present way of doing things, the high school diploma means
>>>>>nothing. Everyone gets one for showing up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You might want to tell that to the kids here who showed up for
>>>>12 years but didn't get a diploma because they couldn't pass
>>>>the exit exam.
>>>
>>>Boo-hoo. Diplomas that mean anything are not to be
>>>given for showing up,
>>
>
> And as I pointed out above, they aren't being given out just
> for showing up.

They are now. Exit exams are being implemented via
the intrusive Bush policy, so it hasn't happened yet
that these HS diplomas are not just being given out
for showing up. As of now, they are. Next year, things
may change.


>>>but for busting your ass. A
>>>diploma is a certification by the school big wigs
>>
>
> Whigs. Unless, perhaps, you're talking about George Washington.
>
>
>>>that
>>>you know something; at least, that's what it should be.
>>>All it's good for is getting a job, and moving on to
>>>the next educational level in an organized educational
>>>institution.
>>>
>>>Here's the thing that most people don't think about:
>>>You can learn FAR more, far better, by studying on your
>>>own. Schools get in the way of education.
>>
>
> Some do. Some don't.

All learning is done by the individual. No one
can do it for you.


>>>>The diploma that means
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>something is the "college" degree. If you don't have a college
>>>>>degree, you get the lowest paying jobs.
>>>>
>
> What would happen if everyone had a college degree? Someone would
> still be getting the lowest paying jobs.

That is the thesis here. If everyone has the same credential,
then the credential doesn't mean anything and is worthless.


>>>>Interesting how all these things work tho. The absolute worst
>>>>teaching I ever encountered was at the college level. And I went
>>>>to a Top 20 school.
>>>
>>>I am not at all surprised. BTW, when you reach a
>>>top 20 school, you're suppose to know how to learn
>>>on your own and not need to be "taught". Once you
>>>realize that the prof is there to guide you, even
>>>examine you, but is not there to pour knowledge into
>>>your head by route, then you'll do better.
>>
>
> Someone should tell the profs that. Until I got to
> grad school, all they ever did was the lecture/regurgitate
> gig.

It is what you expected. It's what public school teaches
students to expect, and the opposite of what good home
schooling does.

> Only a couple of lit professors

English lit? :-O


>I had invited genuine
> original thought. The rest hoped to make us in their
> likeness. How disappointing it was. I had a better
> education in high school (with the exception of science
> which was almost identical to what I found in college
> and it was the pits).

No, they don't know how to teach. Yes, they
do expect that when you get to grad school,
you have a genuine interest in learning and
know how to learn.

The original idea was that once you obtain the
Ph.D., no one was going to teach you and you'd
continue to learn on your own, and they wanted
you to pick up on how to do that before you get
your Phud. Yes, this idea has been watered down
with the disgusting "post doc" concept.


>>>>>Is this better? Certainly not. In our rush to be compassionate
>>>>>we've screwed over the entire system. Now, to have a meaningful
>>>>>degree, you have to at least get an AA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Things haven't changed as much as you seem to think they have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Home schooling is far more effective and cost only a fraction of
>>>>>>>public schooling, which has become nothing but a liberal cesspool
>>>>>>>of indoctrination. We'd be better off if we just shut down the
>>>>>>>public schools and kept better libraries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Home schooling is great. There are also some logical reasons why
>>>>>>it's working well. The majority of home schooling mothers have a
>>>>>>BS or higher. The home school families have an average income
>>>>>>of $50k. They watch very little television. And the average size
>>>>>>of the home school "class" is 2.5.
>>>>>
>>>>>>But it is anything but cost effective when compared $ for $. For me to
>>>>>>effectively home school my two children it would cost us at least $60K.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you have to do is buy a few books and a few
>>>>>supplies. Buy some text books that cost a couple of hundred a year,
>>>>>that's all. I did it for far, far less than $30,000/year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I figured in the cost of my lost wages and benefits.
>>>
>>>LOL!
>>>
>>>First thing is to teach the kid how to learn. You guide
>>>them and tell them where to look, how to look. You don't
>>>sit there and read the textbooks to them like they do
>>>in public schools. Well, you do if you're teaching the
>>>really young ones how to read, but you never do that
>>>5 hours a day, anyway.
>>
>
> My daughter could read before she went to school. She didn't
> have to be taught to read.

Oh. Thanks for proving my point.

> And she's as skilled at locating
> and processing information as most adults on this forum.
> Your point? We didn't even bother with textbooks when we
> homeschooled.

Textbooks are great for SOME subjects, like math, foreign
language, and the sciences. Too many texts have been written with a
political agenda. I've seen programs that do well
that are nothing but reading non textbook but original
sources for these subjects. You don't learn about the
civil war from a text in these programs, you read something
like General Grants memoirs.

>>>Given weekends, and an hour or two per weekday, you can
>>>do a pretty good job home schooling while keeping to your
>>>regular job.
>>
>
> And you can do a hell of a job if you take some time to do it.
> I don't see teaching/learning as a sit down, passive, do it
> in a couple hours kind of thing. You can get that at school
> if you pick the right one. Why bother to homeschool for
> that? (yawn)

Hey, you want to teach your kid to jump up and down
and run around, and call that an education, fine.

But a great deal of learning involves sitting down
under a good reading light and putting your nose in
a book; maybe with pen and paper to take notes.

Heck, they teach you how to learn in JROTC.


> But that really has nothing to do with my point. You still
> have to factor in the value of the service.

The public schools have little value and cost a great
deal.

If I my tax money that went to schools, I could have done
a bang up job teaching my kids. As it was, I paid it and
I still did much better.

>>>>>And since you have two kids, probably of different ages, it really
>>>>>doesn't cost much more than one child, as the books become "hand-me-
>>>>>downs".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I could not find a curriculum that wasn't heavy on Christian religion,
>>>>>so I just looked at the required classes, and made my own. No big
>>>>>deal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That's $30K per student not counting anything I might like to spend on
>>>>>>resources, materials, field trips, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't need all that. The hardest part to come up with for
>>>>>home schooling is your own TIME.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I, a single parent can do it on a limited budget, anyone
>>>>>can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>See above. To compare value for value, the human factor has to be
>>>>figured in.
>>>>
>>>>Sort of like when the private school back home boasted about lower
>>>>tuition but got all of its bussing and special ed services and
>>>>testing for free from the public school system....
>>>
>>>That doesn't make sense. Your public schools charge
>>>tuition? The private schools have lower tuition than
>>>what?
>>
>
> People like to compare public school expenditures per student to private
> school tutions. That's what I'm talking about.

Ah! Good. So you're saying that because these private schools
are not slowed down with the slow witted, they can do a much
better job for far less money than public schools of today.

In short, those old dumb people who graduated in 1940 were
not so dumb at all, and there was a reason why the statistics
were the way they were.

Are we learning yet?


>>>>>>I wonder what would happen if public schools served mostly children
>>>>>>of the educated with $50K average incomes and no more than 3 students
>>>>>>per teacher....
>>>>>
>>>>>Shut them down and lower taxes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Won't happen. Babysitters like that are hard to come by in the
>>>>private sector.
>>>
>>>If that's all you want out of the public schools, then
>>>what's wrong with them?
>>
>
> Didn't say that's what I want, now did I?

Well, what do you want?

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>>Joni Rathbun wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Under the old way of doing things, the high school diploma meant
>>>>something, and the high school drop outs took the lowest paying jobs.
>>>
>>>Which days were those?
>>
>>About 50 years ago. :-)
>
>
> About 50 years ago, we had near zero immigration, except for the
> migrant braceros who took the true "lowest paying jobs".

First of all, Immigration is a legal process defined
in the United States Code. Immigration is not the
process of entering the country illegally to plunder
the wealth of the nation.

But yes, this flood of illegal aliens is a problem
for our educational system since the liberals who
run it are pathetic enough to try and incorporate
them into our educational system and spend the
taxpayer's money on them.


> About 50 years ago, we were much less automated, and there were MANY
> more unskilled jobs. Also, because labor costs were lower (with no
> benefits, and lower social security costs for most), some unskilled
> jobs were economically viable to hire someone for.

Yep. And we didn't send all our lower paying
jobs to foreign countries via NAFTA and WTO.


> These things aren't true now, and going without a high school diploma
> usually means that a person cannot be self-sufficient.

You have confused cause and effect, and then some!

1) A meaningless HS diploma isn't doing anyone any good.
Giving people a diploma who can't even read makes it useless
for people who want to know how educated a job candidate is.
It isn't a credential.

2) We don't have jobs for the slow witted because
we sent them to the slow wits overseas. I am all for
keeping the slow wit jobs HERE for American slow wits!


>>>The h.s. diploma has almost always meant
>>>nothing more than seat time and minimal, neighbor-based grades.
>>
>>Uh, no. I disagree because in the past, when there
>>were 8th grade elementary schools, the graduates of
>>those elementary schools were literate, could write,
>>keep a check book, and do their taxes.
>
>
> Not necessarily, and certainly not to the level of skill expected
> today.

No, they didn't teach computer programming in schools
40 years ago. This skill is obtained in college. Many
jobs are like that.

The solution is to even our our economy to fit our
demographics - that is, provide jobs at all levels
for the various levels of people. Giving out worthless
degrees because we fear that they won't be able to get
jobs without them is NOT the answer.


>>AT that time, completing high school, which was optional,
>>made a person well read.
>
>
> Nonsense. The textbooks that constituted high school reading level 50
> years ago are middle school level today. I have a small collection to
> prove it.

:-D I've seen the text books the Public schools wanted
to use to teach my kids. The certainly are... different!

If what you mean is that the texts of 50 years ago were
not filled with liberal PC crap, yes, I agree. You didn't
get to Marxism until you got to UC Berkeley. Now you get
a good dose of it in high school. That is far from being
what I call "well read".

>>Having went through school to get meaningful degrees,
>>I don't go to either my B.S. or M.S. graduation ceremonies
>>because there are so many people getting "Ultra-Summa-Maganum
>>Cum Laude" in social science, English, liberal arts and
>>the like. Ph.D.'s, no less.
>
> You don't think much of liberal arts and social science degrees, but
> 50 years ago a higher percentage of degrees were in those areas

In 1970, 0.9% of the degrees given where in liberal arts.

In 2000, this has more than tripled to 2.9%. The only
reason why social science degrees have fallen as a percentage
given is because there are many more other, equally worthless
options like "performing arts" (3.6% up to 4.7%) and
psychology.

No, I don't think much of these frivolous degrees. Most
of them have very bad grade inflation, and were created
during the 60s as a way of giving draft age men the college
exemption.

>>Boo-hoo. Diplomas that mean anything are not to be
>>given for showing up, but for busting your ass.
>
>
> Diplomas have always been given merely for showing up.

No. Again, in 1960, only about 40% of the people had
a high school diploma. It meant something.


>>diploma is a certification by the school big wigs that
>>you know something; at least, that's what it should be.
>
>
> If you look at the history of education law in this country, a diploma
> has NEVER meant more than the completion of so many credits in this or
> that required subjects. It is a jumping through hoops, not a
> demonstration of knowledge.

So I hear. And we have these organizations, called
'the greek system', which does nothing but find
ways to acquire all those credits while spending
the entire 4 years intoxicated.

Yes, I know. It is not how it should be, is it?


>>All it's good for is getting a job, and moving on to
>>the next educational level in an organized educational
>>institution.
>
>
> That is all it has ever been good for.
>
>
>>>I figured in the cost of my lost wages and benefits.
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>First thing is to teach the kid how to learn. You guide
>>them and tell them where to look, how to look. You don't
>>sit there and read the textbooks to them like they do
>>in public schools. Well, you do if you're teaching the
>>really young ones how to read, but you never do that
>>5 hours a day, anyway.
>>
>>Given weekends, and an hour or two per weekday, you can
>>do a pretty good job home schooling while keeping to your
>>regular job.
>
>
> Who supervises the kid when you aren't at home?

Oh, throw me in jail!

Nah, I had a baby sitter. Besides, both my kids
are in college now.

> In most states there
> are laws against leaving kids unsupervised until they are teenagers or
> so.

Yeah, well, I taught my kids how to behave and not act
like house apes.


> The schools, like it or not, provide a babysitting system as much as
> they provide an education, because most parents can't afford to do it
> on their own.

Baby-sitting costs a whole lot less, and is far
less annoying, than our public education system.


>>>See above. To compare value for value, the human factor has to be
>>>figured in.
>>>
>>>Sort of like when the private school back home boasted about lower
>>>tuition but got all of its bussing and special ed services and
>>>testing for free from the public school system....
>>
>>That doesn't make sense. Your public schools charge
>>tuition? The private schools have lower tuition than
>>what?
>
>
> You are comparing value for value. Usually in these newsgroups, that
> is a code phrase for comparing private school tuition (which doesn't
> cover more than a fraction of the costs) with public school "cost per
> student", and other measures of cost

Yes. The complaint was that the private schools, which don't
have to take the slow wits into high school, can produce far
better results for less money.

I didn't see how this was a rational argument for inclusion
of the slow wits, but there it is.


>>>>>I wonder what would happen if public schools served mostly children
>>>>>of the educated with $50K average incomes and no more than 3 students
>>>>>per teacher....
>>>>
>>>>Shut them down and lower taxes.
>>>
>>>Won't happen. Babysitters like that are hard to come by in the
>>>private sector.
>>
>>If that's all you want out of the public schools, then
>>what's wrong with them?
>
>
> That isn't ALL that people want of the public schools, but it part of
> the essential minimum.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:


> >>>Having went through school
> >>
> >
> > Eek! Like chalk screeeeching on a chalkboard....
>
> I'm sorry. Did I destroy your dream that you
> were the only one to have gone through school?

No. Most people who've gone through school would know
not to say, "Having went...." So I had no clue you
were one of them.


> >>>to get meaningful degrees,
> >>>I don't go to either my B.S. or M.S. graduation ceremonies
> >>>because there are so many people getting "Ultra-Summa-Maganum
> >>>Cum Laude" in social science, English, liberal arts and
> >>>the like. Ph.D.'s, no less. After they get out, the smart
> >>>ones bus tables at the local Denny's.
> >>
> >
> > Most of my friends who are unemployed have CS degrees or the likes.
>
> Yes. Those of us who went through school recall
> Econ 101, and how the law of supply and demand,
> plus a time lag and changing market, can cause
> this condition. There is also the "global economy"
> that shipped a lot of the higher education jobs
> overseas; in this case, India.
>

Arrogance does not become you. You are not a better
person for having avoided the liberal arts. Imagine
the world with only math and science majors (and one
begins to understand why some would prefer football
over education).


> >>>>>The present way of doing things, the high school diploma means
> >>>>>nothing. Everyone gets one for showing up.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You might want to tell that to the kids here who showed up for
> >>>>12 years but didn't get a diploma because they couldn't pass
> >>>>the exit exam.
> >>>
> >>>Boo-hoo. Diplomas that mean anything are not to be
> >>>given for showing up,
> >>
> >
> > And as I pointed out above, they aren't being given out just
> > for showing up.
>
> They are now. Exit exams are being implemented via
> the intrusive Bush policy,

NCLB does not yet require exit exams and it likely never will. But our
state has required them for 15 years. Some have required them since the
70s. 25 states or so require them now (before NCLB).

so it hasn't happened yet
> that these HS diplomas are not just being given out
> for showing up. As of now, they are. Next year, things
> may change.
>

What are you talking about?


>
> >>>but for busting your ass. A
> >>>diploma is a certification by the school big wigs
> >>
> >
> > Whigs. Unless, perhaps, you're talking about George Washington.
> >
> >
> >>>that
> >>>you know something; at least, that's what it should be.
> >>>All it's good for is getting a job, and moving on to
> >>>the next educational level in an organized educational
> >>>institution.
> >>>
> >>>Here's the thing that most people don't think about:
> >>>You can learn FAR more, far better, by studying on your
> >>>own. Schools get in the way of education.
> >>
> >
> > Some do. Some don't.
>
> All learning is done by the individual. No one
> can do it for you.
>
>
> >>>>The diploma that means
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>something is the "college" degree. If you don't have a college
> >>>>>degree, you get the lowest paying jobs.
> >>>>
> >
> > What would happen if everyone had a college degree? Someone would
> > still be getting the lowest paying jobs.
>
> That is the thesis here. If everyone has the same credential,
> then the credential doesn't mean anything and is worthless.
>
>
> >>>>Interesting how all these things work tho. The absolute worst
> >>>>teaching I ever encountered was at the college level. And I went
> >>>>to a Top 20 school.
> >>>
> >>>I am not at all surprised. BTW, when you reach a
> >>>top 20 school, you're suppose to know how to learn
> >>>on your own and not need to be "taught". Once you
> >>>realize that the prof is there to guide you, even
> >>>examine you, but is not there to pour knowledge into
> >>>your head by route, then you'll do better.
> >>
> >
> > Someone should tell the profs that. Until I got to
> > grad school, all they ever did was the lecture/regurgitate
> > gig.
>
> It is what you expected. It's what public school teaches
> students to expect, and the opposite of what good home
> schooling does.

I didn't expect it. Not in my wildest dreams did I expect it.
It's simply what I got.


> > Only a couple of lit professors
>
> English lit? :-O

Ever read a novel? Some are actually pretty good. I read more nonfiction
than fiction but I enjoy a good novel now and then.


> >I had invited genuine
> > original thought. The rest hoped to make us in their
> > likeness. How disappointing it was. I had a better
> > education in high school (with the exception of science
> > which was almost identical to what I found in college
> > and it was the pits).
>
> No, they don't know how to teach. Yes, they
> do expect that when you get to grad school,
> you have a genuine interest in learning and
> know how to learn.
>
> The original idea was that once you obtain the
> Ph.D., no one was going to teach you and you'd
> continue to learn on your own, and they wanted
> you to pick up on how to do that before you get
> your Phud. Yes, this idea has been watered down
> with the disgusting "post doc" concept.
>
>
> >>>>>Is this better? Certainly not. In our rush to be compassionate
> >>>>>we've screwed over the entire system. Now, to have a meaningful
> >>>>>degree, you have to at least get an AA.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Things haven't changed as much as you seem to think they have.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Home schooling is far more effective and cost only a fraction of
> >>>>>>>public schooling, which has become nothing but a liberal cesspool
> >>>>>>>of indoctrination. We'd be better off if we just shut down the
> >>>>>>>public schools and kept better libraries.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Home schooling is great. There are also some logical reasons why
> >>>>>>it's working well. The majority of home schooling mothers have a
> >>>>>>BS or higher. The home school families have an average income
> >>>>>>of $50k. They watch very little television. And the average size
> >>>>>>of the home school "class" is 2.5.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>But it is anything but cost effective when compared $ for $. For me to
> >>>>>>effectively home school my two children it would cost us at least $60K.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>All you have to do is buy a few books and a few
> >>>>>supplies. Buy some text books that cost a couple of hundred a year,
> >>>>>that's all. I did it for far, far less than $30,000/year.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I figured in the cost of my lost wages and benefits.
> >>>
> >>>LOL!
> >>>
> >>>First thing is to teach the kid how to learn. You guide
> >>>them and tell them where to look, how to look. You don't
> >>>sit there and read the textbooks to them like they do
> >>>in public schools. Well, you do if you're teaching the
> >>>really young ones how to read, but you never do that
> >>>5 hours a day, anyway.
> >>
> >
> > My daughter could read before she went to school. She didn't
> > have to be taught to read.
>
> Oh. Thanks for proving my point.
>
> > And she's as skilled at locating
> > and processing information as most adults on this forum.
> > Your point? We didn't even bother with textbooks when we
> > homeschooled.
>
> Textbooks are great for SOME subjects, like math, foreign
> language, and the sciences. Too many texts have been written with a
> political agenda. I've seen programs that do well
> that are nothing but reading non textbook but original
> sources for these subjects. You don't learn about the
> civil war from a text in these programs, you read something
> like General Grants memoirs.

Uhm, those are called primary sources. Some of our teachers
teach that way. You don't need a "program" to do it.

>
> >>>Given weekends, and an hour or two per weekday, you can
> >>>do a pretty good job home schooling while keeping to your
> >>>regular job.
> >>
> >
> > And you can do a hell of a job if you take some time to do it.
> > I don't see teaching/learning as a sit down, passive, do it
> > in a couple hours kind of thing. You can get that at school
> > if you pick the right one. Why bother to homeschool for
> > that? (yawn)
>
> Hey, you want to teach your kid to jump up and down
> and run around, and call that an education, fine.
>
> But a great deal of learning involves sitting down
> under a good reading light and putting your nose in
> a book; maybe with pen and paper to take notes.

If you stop there, it can be the least effective way to
learn some things. You didn't learn to do math by just reading the
book. You also worked the problems.

My daughter has identified plants in Yellowstone; followed
the Oregon Trail from Jefferson City to the Dalles and over the
Barlow Trail; and packed into the Grand Canyon. She read
the books too. The combination seemed to be powerful.

What I like about homeschooling is that time means nothing if
you so desire. And the world can be your textbook.

>
> > But that really has nothing to do with my point. You still
> > have to factor in the value of the service.
>
> The public schools have little value and cost a great
> deal.
>
> If I my tax money that went to schools, I could have done
> a bang up job teaching my kids. As it was, I paid it and
> I still did much better.
>
> >>>>>And since you have two kids, probably of different ages, it really
> >>>>>doesn't cost much more than one child, as the books become "hand-me-
> >>>>>downs".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I could not find a curriculum that wasn't heavy on Christian religion,
> >>>>>so I just looked at the required classes, and made my own. No big
> >>>>>deal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>That's $30K per student not counting anything I might like to spend on
> >>>>>>resources, materials, field trips, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You don't need all that. The hardest part to come up with for
> >>>>>home schooling is your own TIME.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If I, a single parent can do it on a limited budget, anyone
> >>>>>can.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>See above. To compare value for value, the human factor has to be
> >>>>figured in.
> >>>>
> >>>>Sort of like when the private school back home boasted about lower
> >>>>tuition but got all of its bussing and special ed services and
> >>>>testing for free from the public school system....
> >>>
> >>>That doesn't make sense. Your public schools charge
> >>>tuition? The private schools have lower tuition than
> >>>what?
> >>
> >
> > People like to compare public school expenditures per student to private
> > school tutions. That's what I'm talking about.
>
> Ah! Good. So you're saying that because these private schools
> are not slowed down with the slow witted, they can do a much
> better job for far less money than public schools of today.

No. As you apparently didn't notice, my example was of a private school
that took the slow witted.

Most private schools, however, especially nonreligious schools, cost
more than public schools. And testing results show us that
when you compare apples to apples, a good many private schools aren't
quite what you seem to think they are. You seem to depend a lot
on mythology.

>
> In short, those old dumb people who graduated in 1940 were
> not so dumb at all, and there was a reason why the statistics
> were the way they were.
>
> Are we learning yet?

Almost as much as you.

>
> >>>>>>I wonder what would happen if public schools served mostly children
> >>>>>>of the educated with $50K average incomes and no more than 3 students
> >>>>>>per teacher....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Shut them down and lower taxes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Won't happen. Babysitters like that are hard to come by in the
> >>>>private sector.
> >>>
> >>>If that's all you want out of the public schools, then
> >>>what's wrong with them?
> >>
> >
> > Didn't say that's what I want, now did I?
>
> Well, what do you want?

The truth.

"Stuart Grey" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:3EFA649B.8030400@example.net...
>
>
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Joni Rathbun wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>>>Under the old way of doing things, the high school diploma meant
> >>>>something, and the high school drop outs took the lowest paying jobs.
> >>>
> >>>Which days were those?
> >>
> >>About 50 years ago. :-)
> >
> >
> > About 50 years ago, we had near zero immigration, except for the
> > migrant braceros who took the true "lowest paying jobs".
>
> First of all, Immigration is a legal process defined
> in the United States Code. Immigration is not the
> process of entering the country illegally to plunder
> the wealth of the nation.
>
> But yes, this flood of illegal aliens is a problem
> for our educational system since the liberals who
> run it are pathetic enough to try and incorporate
> them into our educational system and spend the
> taxpayer's money on them.
>
>
> > About 50 years ago, we were much less automated, and there were MANY
> > more unskilled jobs. Also, because labor costs were lower (with no
> > benefits, and lower social security costs for most), some unskilled
> > jobs were economically viable to hire someone for.
>
> Yep. And we didn't send all our lower paying
> jobs to foreign countries via NAFTA and WTO.
>
>
> > These things aren't true now, and going without a high school diploma
> > usually means that a person cannot be self-sufficient.
>
> You have confused cause and effect, and then some!
>
> 1) A meaningless HS diploma isn't doing anyone any good.
> Giving people a diploma who can't even read makes it useless
> for people who want to know how educated a job candidate is.
> It isn't a credential.
>
> 2) We don't have jobs for the slow witted because
> we sent them to the slow wits overseas. I am all for
> keeping the slow wit jobs HERE for American slow wits!
>
>
> >>>The h.s. diploma has almost always meant
> >>>nothing more than seat time and minimal, neighbor-based grades.
> >>
> >>Uh, no. I disagree because in the past, when there
> >>were 8th grade elementary schools, the graduates of
> >>those elementary schools were literate, could write,
> >>keep a check book, and do their taxes.
> >
> >
> > Not necessarily, and certainly not to the level of skill expected
> > today.
>
> No, they didn't teach computer programming in schools
> 40 years ago. This skill is obtained in college. Many
> jobs are like that.
>
> The solution is to even our our economy to fit our
> demographics - that is, provide jobs at all levels
> for the various levels of people. Giving out worthless
> degrees because we fear that they won't be able to get
> jobs without them is NOT the answer.
>
>
> >>AT that time, completing high school, which was optional,
> >>made a person well read.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense. The textbooks that constituted high school reading level 50
> > years ago are middle school level today. I have a small collection to
> > prove it.
>
> :-D I've seen the text books the Public schools wanted
> to use to teach my kids. The certainly are... different!
>
> If what you mean is that the texts of 50 years ago were
> not filled with liberal PC crap, yes, I agree. You didn't
> get to Marxism until you got to UC Berkeley. Now you get
> a good dose of it in high school. That is far from being
> what I call "well read".
>
> >>Having went through school to get meaningful degrees,
> >>I don't go to either my B.S. or M.S. graduation ceremonies
> >>because there are so many people getting "Ultra-Summa-Maganum
> >>Cum Laude" in social science, English, liberal arts and
> >>the like. Ph.D.'s, no less.
> >
> > You don't think much of liberal arts and social science degrees, but
> > 50 years ago a higher percentage of degrees were in those areas
>
> In 1970, 0.9% of the degrees given where in liberal arts.
>
> In 2000, this has more than tripled to 2.9%. The only
> reason why social science degrees have fallen as a percentage
> given is because there are many more other, equally worthless
> options like "performing arts" (3.6% up to 4.7%) and
> psychology.
>

OOOH! You just really pushed my buttons!

Do you have a clue of the level of knowledge and instruction required of a
student to enter a performing arts program? Even visited a top level
conservatory or college school of music? We require more of our students
coming in from high school as far as demonstrated prior knowledge than just
about any other program, and we kick students out when they don't meet the
standards. A music program is essentially a trade program-you work very,
very hard to learn the knowledge needed to do one job very, very well.



> No, I don't think much of these frivolous degrees. Most
> of them have very bad grade inflation, and were created
> during the 60s as a way of giving draft age men the college
> exemption.

There is no grade inflation in most music classes. In fact, quite the
opposite. The curved % needed to get a passing grade in music theory level 1
when I took it was 87%-minimum score needed to get a C and stay in the
major. To get an A required a score of 95% or better. 50% of the student
population was weeded out each of the first 4 semesters, so that by the time
you got to semester 5, only those people who were actually likely to be able
to succeed in the field were still there. No remediation, no retakes, no
assistance to pass. You either made it, or you went into a lesser field.

The only degree program I have seen with similar rigor was engineering.


>
> >>Boo-hoo. Diplomas that mean anything are not to be
> >>given for showing up, but for busting your ass.

And, again, visit Curtis, Julliard, Eastman, Florida State, North Texas
State, University of Michigan, James Madison, or almost any college or
conservatory school of music and tell me those students aren't busting their
collective asses. During college, I averaged 10 hours a day in the music
building, either in class or in the practice room, and this was simply what
was expected. This didn't count courses outside the school of music or
homework. Classes which earn 1 credit hour and take 5 hours a week in class
are common.


> >
> >
> > Diplomas have always been given merely for showing up.
>
> No. Again, in 1960, only about 40% of the people had
> a high school diploma. It meant something.
>
>
> >>diploma is a certification by the school big wigs that
> >>you know something; at least, that's what it should be.
> >
> >
> > If you look at the history of education law in this country, a diploma
> > has NEVER meant more than the completion of so many credits in this or
> > that required subjects. It is a jumping through hoops, not a
> > demonstration of knowledge.
>
> So I hear. And we have these organizations, called
> 'the greek system', which does nothing but find
> ways to acquire all those credits while spending
> the entire 4 years intoxicated.
>
> Yes, I know. It is not how it should be, is it?
>
>
> >>All it's good for is getting a job, and moving on to
> >>the next educational level in an organized educational
> >>institution.
> >
> >
> > That is all it has ever been good for.
> >
> >
> >>>I figured in the cost of my lost wages and benefits.
> >>
> >>LOL!
> >>
> >>First thing is to teach the kid how to learn. You guide
> >>them and tell them where to look, how to look. You don't
> >>sit there and read the textbooks to them like they do
> >>in public schools. Well, you do if you're teaching the
> >>really young ones how to read, but you never do that
> >>5 hours a day, anyway.
> >>
> >>Given weekends, and an hour or two per weekday, you can
> >>do a pretty good job home schooling while keeping to your
> >>regular job.
> >
> >
> > Who supervises the kid when you aren't at home?
>
> Oh, throw me in jail!
>
> Nah, I had a baby sitter. Besides, both my kids
> are in college now.
>
> > In most states there
> > are laws against leaving kids unsupervised until they are teenagers or
> > so.
>
> Yeah, well, I taught my kids how to behave and not act
> like house apes.
>
>
> > The schools, like it or not, provide a babysitting system as much as
> > they provide an education, because most parents can't afford to do it
> > on their own.
>
> Baby-sitting costs a whole lot less, and is far
> less annoying, than our public education system.
>
>
> >>>See above. To compare value for value, the human factor has to be
> >>>figured in.
> >>>
> >>>Sort of like when the private school back home boasted about lower
> >>>tuition but got all of its bussing and special ed services and
> >>>testing for free from the public school system....
> >>
> >>That doesn't make sense. Your public schools charge
> >>tuition? The private schools have lower tuition than
> >>what?
> >
> >
> > You are comparing value for value. Usually in these newsgroups, that
> > is a code phrase for comparing private school tuition (which doesn't
> > cover more than a fraction of the costs) with public school "cost per
> > student", and other measures of cost
>
> Yes. The complaint was that the private schools, which don't
> have to take the slow wits into high school, can produce far
> better results for less money.
>
> I didn't see how this was a rational argument for inclusion
> of the slow wits, but there it is.
>
>
> >>>>>I wonder what would happen if public schools served mostly children
> >>>>>of the educated with $50K average incomes and no more than 3 students
> >>>>>per teacher....
> >>>>
> >>>>Shut them down and lower taxes.
> >>>
> >>>Won't happen. Babysitters like that are hard to come by in the
> >>>private sector.
> >>
> >>If that's all you want out of the public schools, then
> >>what's wrong with them?
> >
> >
> > That isn't ALL that people want of the public schools, but it part of
> > the essential minimum.
>
>
>
>

Joni Rathbun wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>Having went through school
>>>>
>>>Eek! Like chalk screeeeching on a chalkboard....
>>
>>I'm sorry. Did I destroy your dream that you
>>were the only one to have gone through school?
>
>
> No. Most people who've gone through school would know
> not to say, "Having went...." So I had no clue you
> were one of them.

Ah. You're one of those who substitutes
anal retentive grammar rules when substance
fails you.


>>>>>to get meaningful degrees,
>>>>>I don't go to either my B.S. or M.S. graduation ceremonies
>>>>>because there are so many people getting "Ultra-Summa-Maganum
>>>>>Cum Laude" in social science, English, liberal arts and
>>>>>the like. Ph.D.'s, no less. After they get out, the smart
>>>>>ones bus tables at the local Denny's.
>>>>
>>>Most of my friends who are unemployed have CS degrees or the likes.
>>
>>Yes. Those of us who went through school recall
>>Econ 101, and how the law of supply and demand,
>>plus a time lag and changing market, can cause
>>this condition. There is also the "global economy"
>>that shipped a lot of the higher education jobs
>>overseas; in this case, India.
>>
>
>
> Arrogance does not become you. You are not a better
> person for having avoided the liberal arts. Imagine
> the world with only math and science majors (and one
> begins to understand why some would prefer football
> over education).

I can tell you dislike the disciplines that require
rigorous, logical thought based on objective facts and
data.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:

>
>
> Joni Rathbun wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>Having went through school
> >>>>
> >>>Eek! Like chalk screeeeching on a chalkboard....
> >>
> >>I'm sorry. Did I destroy your dream that you
> >>were the only one to have gone through school?
> >
> >
> > No. Most people who've gone through school would know
> > not to say, "Having went...." So I had no clue you
> > were one of them.
>
> Ah. You're one of those who substitutes
> anal retentive grammar rules when substance
> fails you.

Nope. I rarely mention them. It's just that that one
was so... glaring. And amusing coming from someone who
holds himself up as a pargon of learning....

>
>
> >>>>>to get meaningful degrees,
> >>>>>I don't go to either my B.S. or M.S. graduation ceremonies
> >>>>>because there are so many people getting "Ultra-Summa-Maganum
> >>>>>Cum Laude" in social science, English, liberal arts and
> >>>>>the like. Ph.D.'s, no less. After they get out, the smart
> >>>>>ones bus tables at the local Denny's.
> >>>>
> >>>Most of my friends who are unemployed have CS degrees or the likes.
> >>
> >>Yes. Those of us who went through school recall
> >>Econ 101, and how the law of supply and demand,
> >>plus a time lag and changing market, can cause
> >>this condition. There is also the "global economy"
> >>that shipped a lot of the higher education jobs
> >>overseas; in this case, India.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Arrogance does not become you. You are not a better
> > person for having avoided the liberal arts. Imagine
> > the world with only math and science majors (and one
> > begins to understand why some would prefer football
> > over education).
>
> I can tell you dislike the disciplines that require
> rigorous, logical thought based on objective facts and
> data.


I can tell you haven't lent yourself to much in the way
of logical thought based on objective facts and data (which
you obviously haven't even examined) on the this topic.