bmags

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 07:54 PM) Gladwell's book sounds interesting. I'm not trying to criticize a liberal arts education. I had one and going that route was the best choice of my life. But we need to really encourage other options. I think the smart option is also a red herring--the people that have quit graduate school before their PhD (or take forever to get one) are often the smartest. Smart only gets you so far. We teach kids that they're smart, so the world is theirs and that is bulls***. You have to sacrifice and work hard. Smart in and of itself is worthless. I agree. I was surprised how poorly some of my friends who went to good public schools kirkwood missouri, and good private schools( Bennet (lisle?)) have done along side me in Missouri. These were kids who did well in high school. And it really does come down to effort. For as much as Waubonsie was s*** on when I was in naperville, I'm forever grateful that our administration gave us a curriculum that focused on writing and essays more than tests. It really set us up well. And considering how well my friends from high school are doing, I think its a testament to that education as well.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:09 PM) And to bmags, maybe stigmatized is too strong of a word. But if someone told you he was attending Harvard or CoD, would you initially have a higher opinion of one? We, collectively, place high value on baccalaureate institutions and minimize the valuable contributions of 2 year schools and tech schools. Okay, I agree, I was speaking more to the fact that I enjoy that American curriculum is very broad education. one thing I learned in a public policy course: Universities found that raising their tuition raised attendance. Higher tuition was seen as more prestigious. I quite agree with you, soxy, I think these US news college rankings are such a load of crap. Things like flat screen tvs come into effect. Its a reason that I previously have argued that to I don't believe there is a difference in education in most colleges, Despite the 20 grand difference in tuition, I don't think University of Wisconsin students got a 20,000 dollar better education than me. I didn't really care for the book but an interesting part to Malcom Gladwell's Outliers book was talking about being smart enough, and pointed to where the last 20 nobel prize winners for different categories, and pointed to all the different colleges, sure some Ivy league or MIT. But he explained how at some point people are just "smart enough" and the difference between 120 and 180 isn't that different in terms of how much success is to be obtained. Kind of a rah rah anyone can do it thing. SS2k5, http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm#Summary I may have mislead. The study took two sets of kids in k-3, one in a small, 12-1 maybe, ratio of T-S. The other were larger. The kids who had a smaller class size in that time of their life did better throughout the educational experience compared to the kids in the higher class sizes. Now I feel like our professor said that in a follow up study of class size in high schools there was not much difference in how they performed at that level. But I couldn't find it in that summary.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:06 PM) Sure, but how many people really need to rack up $80k in student loans to get an B.A. in art history? I don't know where you got the impression that I meant art history should be what was pushed. Our engineering educations at American universities are a more liberal education than in Europe with all the upper level electives and gen eds needed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:05 PM) Interesting. I wonder if that has a change in higher achieving school systems? I would be curious to see what types of school systems were in the study. If I remember correctly, I believe it was called the "STAR" program, done in Kansas I believe? I'll do a google search.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:00 PM) But liberal arts isn't for everyone. And by stigmatizing trade schools we're denying some people the kind of education they need. I like the European system because there are more choices for students--so they get an education that is useful and beneficial to them. Too many students in this country go to college although they are academically unprepared or intellectually subpar because they feel like they have no other options. Not everyone should go to college, and even fewer people will flourish in a liberal arts setting. I do think that there is beginning to be a much needed switch--for example Stout has made a rather nice transition to a tech school. I didn't get the impression that trade schools or community colleges were stigmatized when I was in high school. They were openly encouraged. A liberal arts education is important to our democracy, in my opinion.

So is David Iglesias now working on these convictions of terrorists? Ahh, this is great. edit: sure is http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...gitmo_cases.php

I read a study that lower teacher-student ratios are really just important in k-6 levels and not as important in high schools. I believe it was a study in Kansas. I, personally, like the American higher education system. I think it's good we keep such a liberal arts education instead of such specific "trade" schools like you would see in Germany.

For me, it won't be over until the mistakes are corrected.

It seems the true criticism of the selection of Warren for the invocation was that he is terrible at it. Who knew. And my objection was to his stance on the gay community. How naive!

Yeah. I think it's fair to say there were a small number of teams willing to pay a fair price in compared to last year for the top free agents this year. But it does not seem like these mid-level free agents will see the same type of demand. Much like how an expiring contract can be as attractive as a superstar in the NBA, it seems like young pitchers and hitters are going to get a shot this year.

I guess I'll give them credit for sticking to their allegiance.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:24 AM) It's a gray area to me. I laregly think it's up to the state and local goverments. I have a hard time with the "voucher" program, although I understand the intent. I do think that there should be a standardization by our national government but I don't think that national education funding should go back to the states based on a test score program... I have a serious problem with that because there's too many issues with that. I think that part of the budget should just get allocated back to the states based on the populations of said children. In that way, the NATIONAL money is equalized ($X/student). Fair? That depends on your view point. On a national level, I think it's fair. The state then distributes how it can. The biggest issue (and therefore problem) is population shifts, inner cities whose dynamics simply don't change or get worse. How do you take care of that? In that way, somehow, there has to be a revitalization of the areas - and that goes beyond education programs. The problems largely start at home and where these kids live. If you're in a disadvantaged area, you stay in a disadvantaged area. I don't really know how you take care of that... other then through some of the initiatives beyond education to get off of urban blight, if you will. Parents are the other hugely important role. If you have parents that screw just to pump out kids for the welfare money, that's obviously a huge problem too. And it happens in the more economically depressed areas in the country. Again, that transcends "education". What do we do about that? Education is more then children. It's about the whole population. Re-education is something that is sorely needed in this country. I guess I don't have a good answer. Me neither, I actually feel quite similar. I'm for more standardized education, but also realize how culturally delicate that is. We are such a big country, and so diverse. So I think there are specific things can be done nationally, along the lines of some of the things you said, but also know that there needs to be a lot of flexibility for schools to fit their students.

Deism also has a pretty strong influence in that era. Ben Franklin, for instance, liked the morality set by church, but didn't attend it for the majority of his life and tended to lean more towards deism than dogma.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:00 AM) Probably because Jon Garland isn't ready to settle for a year or two or give up on his dream of $13M a year. It's a 2 way street. Is there a pitcher that will sign that gives Garland a better clue what he is worth?

Yes.

Out of curiousity, kap, do you think that is an issue the fed gov't should be tackling.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 12:41 AM) I think this is really meant for nite and not you bmags but I would say a very small fraction of the voting population voted for Obama purely because he was black - say 2-3% at most. The remaining black people would have voted for any white Democrat and it makes no difference in this election cycle. But there is an equally uninteresting percentage of the population that may not have voted for him for reasons nothing to do with ideology. And nitetrain, considering how basic a level your arguments are, I wouldn't be surprised if you went back and asked those people "why", they came up with answers that surprised you.

But what if the kid that said he can go to college isn't expecting people to take his statement at face value. Maybe he realized the value of education from obama's life, that blacks really can climb in the world with an education. Maybe he believes Obama will help get more young people to college with his service deals. Again, it could just be that seeing a man like him in a position like that means, at that basic level, anyone can make something of themselves. Obama is better than Kennedy to relate to, his Ivy League education first began at a much less prestigious college. He isn't a Kennedy or a Bush or a Rockefeller or anything like that. So his success means things to people. And the insistence that people are stupid for thinking Obama can fix everything isn't really painting many people accurately. I think you are underestimating just how much it means to people to feel counted, thought of, represented, and there were a great many americans who did not feel that until now. And I'm talking about more than for racial reasons. Policy be-damned, that's why Obama can be successful in things that have nothing to do with policy.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 11:42 PM) You're right, but that's the problem. People vote for who they vote for, not because of their beliefs or morals, not because of their plan of action, but because of their skin color. Keep in mind, I'm not a caucasion male either. Those are the people I have a problem with. My hope is that people aren't dissapointed with Obama, and that they continue to interest themselves in government. Go out and vote for local laws and not expect guys like Obama to save their lives. I find your arguments very one dimensional. People just voted for Obama because he was black. But why? Why did they just vote for Obama for his skin color, and not for other black candidates who have run for president. Do people really expect Obama to save their lives? Or are they just celebrating what they finally is true representation in this government. Your statements only work at a very basic level, and ignore previous history, cultural contexts and really undermine the motives of the voters you are trying to profile. I'm sure they would love to paint you with a broad brush too.

What if you do? The voting population will be larger, the two major parties get out the votes are stronger than ever, technology has been working in favor of the political process, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this keeps up for presidential elections.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 10:53 PM) I'm relying on the government to hopefully vote into law, things that are necessary. They make ultimate decisions that I voted them into place hoping they fall in line with my decisions/wants/needs, but it does not always go this way. Basically, you vote into office, people who you think will make the country better off. You don't vote for the actual laws 100%, do you? There are personal decisions each of us can do, though, to all help our goal of having a greater country. I think there will be a return to community that has been a staple of the United States since it was a group of colonies. The things Tex and PA speak of so well.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 10:42 PM) I did not vote for Obama, or McCain, but I for one think its positive to have this many people actually interested in the government, the country, and the presidential office. The last time this many Americans decided to band together in somewhat unity it took a few airplanes killing innocent people to get the reaction. You know, frankly, being young, this is a big deal. This is a changing of the guard that matters. The country has been fighting McCarthy vs. Nixon for like 40 years, finally someone with no connection to the culture wars of the 60s, Vietnam, all that crap that got stuffed down our throats for the last many elections. And, a president's appearance and personality can move a nation as much as policy achievements. Look at how much f* up sh** A. Jackson did, and the country loved him. The president is the representative of the nation, people look up to him/her for guidance, culturally politically other lys. So Obamas ability to inspire and get people moving is his biggest asset. There are a number of things Obama can do without government, by just asking these many people who support him. It's hard to imagine the impact a role model like Obama could have for the black community. They haven't had many new leaders arise since the civil rights period of the 60s and 70s, and he breeds new hope and optimism, I mean, the son of that era's struggles essentially is what he represents. The first lady and daughters, could have tremendous cultural impacts. That's what he means to the casual supporter. For policy wonks like many of us in here, he means something different. Most that support him in here do so for more pragmatic reasons.

Wow, I can't believe this thread turned into something bashing Obama supporters for being rabid!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 09:12 PM) Newt's infidelity was one of his major downfalls. For Clinton, "it didn't matter". He was impeached?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 09:08 PM) Funny how he's judged so poorly for that and Clinton's episodes "didn't matter". What?