NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) My education at Oswego rocked. I was lucky to be taught by well-paid teachers that liked their jobs, had a ton of choices of AP classes, and really just got a good education. For a while I was not so convinced of that, because I went to college with some kids that went to top notch private schools who were head and shoulders above the rest of us. Districts that can afford to pay top salaries are going to be getting the best teachers. And god bless Teach for America, but the neediest kids are getting people with the least qualifications. And that sucks. Did you go to New Trier? Oswego had a similar ranking stuff. Remedial, regular, honors, AP. It was a good program. But it requires additional funding, so I think size alone isn't going to get you all the levels. McNair is actually a college program. You can nominate minority or first generation college students for additional mentoring scholarly opportunities. It's a cool opportunity. Agreed on teachers and salary, it will end up that way. But I actually like the Teach for America program in general - I think it might work better if those teachers were at higher level schools though (as you indicate). Yes, went to New Trier. My brother-in-law's wife (not sure what that makes her) teaches in the IB program in the Chicago Public Schools. Its a great opportunity to offer kids who are achievement-oriented, but it is highly confined by the restrictions of the funding grants. Programs like that need to allow teachers a lot more latitude.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) You're right. In 20 years we'll realize that the unfathomable instability in the middle east (because right now it's slightly fathomable) was triggered by his idea to start a war against a sovereign nation. The Iraq War was a colossal mistake, and one he should be judged harshly on. But instability in that region was just as high at times, and even higher on occasion, than it is now. That region was a powderkeg long before Bush further stoked the fire.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) Absolutely. I absolutely agree. Those students (that make it to college) are the worst as an instructor. They try hard, are clearly smart, but just can't do the work because they lack the foundation. That breaks my heart. There have been a couple of notable successes that I've seen. But those students require SO MUCH TIME. As an instructor it's drainign to teach 20 kids, but when one kid is in your office 3 hours a week struggling with the basics, it's just hard. I will say that I have a TON of faith in programs like the McNair Scholars and TRiO (I think that is what they are called), because they provide a ton of one on one with kids that have the intellectual ability but little else. But those programs are expensive. It's just hard. It's hard to watch as an instructor. You really feel those kids' frustration. AGH. With larger high schools, its getting more popular to divide classes up by difficulty level in some fashion. Things like the scholar program you mention, or the IB program, etc. My high school had 5 different levels that a class may be assigned to - level 1 for remedial and special, levels 2 and 3 for most students, level 4 for high achievers (relative), and level 5 for AP classes. I think that can work very well, if you have enough students for that to work. Smaller schools, particularly in rural areas, won't have that luxury.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) Yeah, they all look the same. It's sad. I didn't know that about Waubonsie. But, after teaching kids that went to the NYC public schools, well, I have a different perspective on suburban education. How so?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 12:58 PM) I agree. I was surprised how poorly some of my friends who went to good public schools (kirkwood missouri, 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. Benet Academy is a private school, and considered a high end one.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) There were Barack Obama air fresheners at the inauguration. Does Barack smell like pine trees?

Easy low hanging fruit for Obama that I hope he goes for - designate all current Wilderness Study Areas that met their qualifications as full Wilderness Areas. Big win with environmentalists, and those areas are already semi-restricted anyway so you aren't taking land out of use.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 12:14 PM) I know. I was just continuing on the point that too many people go to college just for the sake of going to college, not to study anything or learn skills for a career. That is definitely an issue. And in some high schools, JuCo is definitely looked at as a failure, though it shouldn't be. Most 18 year-olds don't have clue 1 what they really want to do for a living, and I think more students should go that route. But I know that at my high school, where something like 96% of students (in 1991) were going to a 4 year university after graduating, going to a community college was looked down upon.

I think a major X-factor to watch out for during the next 4 or 8 years is a major natural disaster. Katrina had a huge effect on Bush. Its been a long while since we've seen a major earthquake in the lower 48 and it seems that every passing day increases the chances. And hurricanes are only getting worse and more frequent. if Obama uses his smarts, he'll make sure that FEMA is given real leadership, that it is removed from DHS (where it never belonged), that it aligns well (or is even part of) the national and coast guard systems, and that it is in better shape then it is right now as an agency. Its one of those "can only hurt" things where you need to mitigate risk, or else you could potentially see your Presidency destroyed by something you have no way of preventing.

I could have sworn we just had a thread a few weeks back with the exact same topic, and the exact same original mis-description.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) Global Warming and Climate Change is another issue that I think he needs to look at and take a greater stand on, but I don't know if he'll do that if it's going to negatively effect the economy, which is probably the #1 issue right now. IMO this is one of the great fallacies pedaled by the conservative base, and unfortunately its believed by many. Going over to renewable energy sources will do wonders for the economy on all sorts of levels, and you don't even have to do things that will add taxes or fees or credits if you don't want to. Going over to reliance on alternative, renewable energies would: 1. Create tons of new jobs, and good paying jobs (high tech jobs), not just unskilled labor. 2. Dramatically reduce the ongoing cost of energy in this country (which effects everyone), once established.* 3. Reduce healthcare costs by reducing pollution. 4. Reduce some of the defense spending needs by establishing internal security and being able to walk away from certain regions of the world when things get messy. 5. Make US industry a leader in a technology which will then be sold to the rest of the world, generating income and helping correct trade imbalance. Note the * on #2, and keep in mind it is tied to #1. In the short run, there is a lot of cost associated with establishing new infrastructure, but the cost is exactly something that any stimulus money should be going to because of job creation. Basically, the idea that addressing climate change and fossil fuels is a complete no-brainer.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) Geithner says he wants to be more careful with the remaining 350 billion, and to actually pay attention to where it's going this time. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/21/news/geith...dex.htm?cnn=yes Novel idea.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 09:44 AM) I'm betting my life he doesnt live up to expectations. Depends entirely on whose expectations you are referring to.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) Standarization, by its very nature, robs teachers of many of their teaching methods. When you tell a teacher the most important thing is for the kids to learn XYZ, and if enough of them don't your school and school system will lose funds, it means that they pretty much will be pushed to only teach XYZ, because that is the only thing that matters to the people who put school policy into place locally. Failing schools are what gets superintendants fired, and school boards voted out. In the end, they force the teachers to concentrate only on the standards. I have seen it first hand. I tend to agree, especially at higher levels like high school. I really fear that over-standardization will cause not only the lethargic attitude towards learning you have mentioned, but it also removes critical and dynamic thinking from the equation. Kap used History as one example. I don't see standardization being of much use there. Think about what learning history means... a standardized test can see if you know who the 6th President was. But that fact in a vaccuum is almost irrelevant. What matters is, what did the 6th President DO, and what effect did that have on the nation?

Regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof, I can't believe people would actually equate santa claus with major religions in terms of personal values or faith.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 08:16 AM) Its actually very interesting, but we are seeing exactly what you are talking about in Indiana right now. They have taken away regular old property tax funding, the municipalities are instead sending money to the state, and they are re-allocating it back to the local areas based on a one student = $X formula. The most interesting part of it is that we in Michigan City have already seen the first big down fall of that, which is not all students require the same amount of funding to educate. MC has a very big special education population. These type of students cost more to educate because their needs are more intensive than your average C student who is going to cruise through HS without taking a difficult class. I really have a large problem with the nationalization of education in some respects, but totally understand it in others. My biggest problem, which I have seen first hand is it takes away the creativity of teachers in the classroom to be able to teach to the best of their abilities. On the other hand, with as much money as is being put into education, why shouldn't the federal government have some say in the final results, like they would any other governmental program? You are seeing the seeds of nationalization of education coming out of No Child Left Behind. I like most of the ideas (having some standards), but really hate the way it was implemented and executed. Study after study have said that after the home issues (socio-economic backround, parental education level and involvement etc) the next best thing that could be done for a kids education is to get student teacher levels around something like 15:1. With all of the unfunded mandates that exist for education now, many of the classrooms in our district are at double that ratio. We have hired so many administrators (part of that being horrible local management, another part, the need to meet federal and state laws) that we are literally taking teachers out of the classroom to become administrators. In my experience in running for school board and being involved in our local system pretty heavily wasn't any of the old stereotypes, it was that so many kids had no expectations of being able to do better than their parents did. They go into our school system, and they don't work, and they don't try, because in their minds, their destiny is fixed. I don't have experience in another school system, but I would be that City isn't the only place this happens. Convincing each child that their education really could change their life is the biggest downfall of our system right now. My original hope for NCLB was that it would force our educational system to work harder to reach those kids and wake them up to what the rest of their lives could be. Instead it has become trying to get these kids to be able to pass a test, and moving them along to the next grading levels, so that a teacher/school/school systems numbers don't look bad. What's the answer? That's the hard part. Having been very involved in seeing what Washington DC and Indianapolis policy does a specifc individual kid at Issac C Elston Middle School in Michigan City Indiana, makes you realize that it is nearly impossible for government to come up with a big policy that works for everyone. I think by and large the governmentalization of education has been a huge failure. I don't think it can be fixed on the federal level, and maybe not even on the state level from a policy standpoint. Funding is a different story. Their needs to be some recognition that the richest school districts don't deserve multiple amounts more money than our poorest districts. The simple formula of each kid equaling the same cost of educating is just dumb. Any formula needs to take into account poverty rates, community education levels, special education levels, and a few more things I am sure I am forgetting. I could keep going on, but I think I will stop rambling now. Great post. I think I might break these education-related posts to a seperate thread, this is a good discussion. One thing you hint at here, in regards to no allowance for teachers to teach their way, is that there are so many standardized tests that many teachers only teach to them. In some cases, there is little time left except for teaching to those exams, which means there is no time for critical thinking and discussion. Further, some of the grants out there (i.e. Gates Foundation) are a great idea poorly executed - they have requirements that are far too constricting in order to get the grant money. Not sure of what the answer there is, since clearly you need some sort of semi-standard tests to establish base levels of education.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 01:22 AM) It seems like the trainers at the gym I go to just make up exercises and routines. The new trend seems to be trying to combine two or three different lifts into one. I see people doing a dead lift and throwing in a calf press at the end of it. I see people doing curls, then turning the dumbell around when it's near their shoulder and turning it into a military press. WTF is that all about? Better than a trainer is a workout partner. That gives you the motivatinal factor while you work out, you can talk about results and techniques, and you are less likely to skip a day if you know someone is waiting for you. Though, I will say that if you are a true novice at weights, its good to have some time with someone to show you good technique. Its pretty easy to injure yourself if you are doing stuff wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 12:16 AM) Frankly, no. I viscerally despise that man. I am a Democrat because the Republicans nominated him in 2000. The man has screwed up virtually everything he touched. He has repeatedly broken the law. And proudly admits it. This man has moved this country literally as close to the brink of disaster as it has been since probably 1932. This man has the blood of thousands of people, probably hundreds of thousands of people, on his hands. This man ordered people tortured to death in our names. He has soured the face of America for an entire generation of the world's inhabitants. This man has been an utter disaster for this country and for this world, and the damage he has done will take years to overcome, if it is ever undone. And you know the worst part? If you listen to his press availabilities over the past month...he doesn't understand one bit how anyone could think he did a single thing wrong. He thinks his mistakes in New Orleans was not landing Air Force One there, not all of the other things screwed up beforehand. He thinks the reason people stopped liking him was because he picked the wrong time to push to destroy Social Security. He thinks the economic collapse and 9/11 were totally random events that had nothing to do with any specific government actions or policies. I really can't put in to words how glad I am to see him gone. I'd say that if Senator McCain had won. His Successor could make a wrong decision every time he had a choice to make over 8 years, and then only would tie 43 in how much damage he does. It is theoretically impossible to do a worse job. And not only that, he thinks it had nothing at all to do with him. Well, he was pretty awful. Worst since the depression, I'd agree. He made a lot of really bad decisions, and I too was flabbergasted that people voted for him again in 2004. I was embarrassed for my country after that election. That all said, your post is pretty over the top. What is theoretically impossible is for Bush not to have done SOME things right, and he did. We made a thread about it once, you may recall. I understand the anger, though. Bush 43 was a disaster as a President, he was stunningly ignorant for a person at his level, and many bad things happened as a direct or indirect result of his incompetence. So please return to your regularly scheduled venting.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) Obama has a lot more of the ridiculous suppoters than anybody I've ever seen. As a college student, I can tell you that at least my campus (and I'm sure MANY others) are full of them. Also, as you are a college student, how many other candidates have you seen? Is this not your first election as a voter?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) Obama has a lot more of the ridiculous suppoters than anybody I've ever seen. As a college student, I can tell you that at least my campus (and I'm sure MANY others) are full of them. I don't doubt that the percentage is higher among college students, who by nature will tend to be much more extreme in their support of all things they like.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 04:12 PM) I wasn't specifically referring to anybody, but you are welcome. One of Obama's biggest supporters is AtHomeBoy, and he's actually quite rational in terms of his expectations for Obama. It's a rarity among that group. Its really the other way around. Most people I see on here have pretty rational reasons why they voted the way they did, it seems.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) Perfectly said. I find Obama to be very likable, I'm going to give him a chance and see how he goes, I am going to hope he does well, and this country NEEDS him to do well. However, i can't get myself to get fully gung ho happy about Obama being President because the MSM as well as Obama's general supporters are so stupid, so obnoxious, and so expecting miracles, that it's just sickening and hard to stomach. I actually feel kind of bad for Obama, he is expected to be the 2nd coming of Christ by his die hard supporters, and even if he does what somebody like me would consider a fantastic job, I think a lot of his suppoters will be let down to a certain degree. Bolded is ridiculous. His ultra-rabid supporters are like that, of course. And I think we've all seen the reels of some of the ultra-conservative McCain/Palin supporters as well, who are similarly ignorant. To lump Obama's "general" supporters in like that is just completely innacurate. Obama is inspiring to many, like him or not. So naturally, he will create more of those gung-ho types than other candidates. Further, those qualities ALSO brought a lot of new voters to the polls. But to say that the wingers in his stable are representative of his supporters in general? Absurd.

QUOTE (Steff @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 03:32 PM) And two of his haters jump on their asses as usual. It's exactly as I wrote it. No positive contribution. It took two to tango in this case, Steff.

QUOTE (Steff @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Oh I'm reading it. BS agreed with Rock and they get their asses jumped on. Typical buster thread ruined. It's clear some here hate the POTUS and all he stands for and what he may or may not do. On the PH board folks would be told to stay out of threads they don't have a positive contribution for. The hypocrisy is stinker than a formula diaper. The Buster operates on a slightly different plane, as I am sure you are aware. If we tried to keep everything positive and shiny, we'd have about 6 posts in the entire forum.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 02:53 PM) I would have prefererd a Rev.Wright "God Damn America" speech. would have been hilarious. He was actually saying "God Ham America". He does love his bacon.