Don't they have a Ladies Division at the Sauna Championships?
Don't they have a Ladies Division at the Sauna Championships?
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
And the Flemish scores would be higher still if they had taught you people proper English spelling.
For a century and a half, Belgium has dumped its own proletariat, and the large import of cheap uneducated foreign labour, on the industrialised south. Then heavy industry in Europe dissapeared in the 1960s. Suddenly, like Sleeping Beauty, dormant, rural and quaint mediaeval Flanders emerged as Belgium's economic centre. The steelmills, coal mines, smokestacks of Wallonia's sillon industriel, once the proud symbols of the richest and most industrialised area on the continent - suddenly they became tombstones, massive tombstones adorning the landscape of a dead area.
The north of France, the British Midlands, the German Ruhr area, American cities such as Pittsburgh and Detroit, all these areas of former heavy industry, these too were left with great social problems, left with an impoverished population. But these were part of a larger country. Talent and new investment could move in, the poor could migrate internally, be spread out more. In Europe, these cities like Lille and Manchester and Essen have been reinvigorated. In America, they are abandoned, Detroit is simply left to die, slowly rotting away under the weight of the undereducated population that got left behind. In Belgium, uniquely, federalisation happened simultaneously with de-industrialisation. Suddenly Wallonia was trapped. A rundown industrial area was suddenly declared a nation, left to its own devices. Nobody wants it, neither Flanders nor France. Its ecomony is bankrupt, its population is a vast proletariat.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I'll stick my chin out here..
It is easy to suspect China of not-so-fair play. I myself trust the Chinese government about as far as I can throw a horse.
With that said however, I believe these results.
If we would take the Chinese immigrants in, say, the US I am fairly confident they would score better than the average american. This goes for any western nation by the way.
It's a cultural difference, in my opinion, and from what I have seen. Where people in the west get more and more into self-fulfillment, the people of the east rather strive for self-control.
The Chinese students get more support from home, and generally put more energy into learning.
So no, I do not see anything weird about these numbers. Only small shock I had was that Japan scored so low. Only top 5-10.
If this keeps up, one wonders how long we in the west will do the thinking while China does the menial labor.
Few are born with it, even fewer know what to do with it.
<a href="http://www.gifbin.com/982166"><img src="http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen kane clapping.gif" alt="funny animated gif"></a>
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
But Louis.It is just natural if you are timid of being naked. Such is the cultural oppression of the Western Barbarians that they are afraid of getting aroused being naked around grown men in hot and sweaty surroundings.With these days of photoshopped people on the covers of magazines. Maybe we Finnish should start importing Sauna therapy to our neighbours who live under tremendous pressure of their naked bodies?
Last edited by Kagemusha; 12-09-2010 at 19:53.
Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.
being fortunate enough to have lots of finnish friends locally, including some who have a sauna, i have every sympathy with those dudes.
sauna's are great fun, especially when beer is involved, and when there are edgy uni chicks who are determined to prove they have the stones to do it 'finnish' style!
it's nuts to the wind or nothing.
Last edited by Furunculus; 12-09-2010 at 23:13.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Originally Posted by FurunculusBecause it will make things better only for the very best. It will not drag up the lowest common denominator, it will exacerbate the already stark division in education and life chances that being middle or working class entails. The comprehensive system is precisely about minimising the effect of parentage, or at its best, spreading the positives around.Originally Posted by beskar
It is a simple truth (in Britain at least) that middle class parents tend to be a)aware of the need and methods as well as b)better equipped to get involved and work the system for their child's benefit. When middle class kids are concentrated, they therefore rise and rise -but leaving the greater majority of working class kids to (essentially) fester. Keeping a mix, i.e. as a comprehensive system should (that means without selective schools int he same catchment area), means the middle class parents militation will ensure the school does its best -and crucialy, not just for the middle class kids but also the working class kids too.
if you believe that comprehensive education has achieved its 'equality' of outcome precisely by dragging everything back to a lowest common denominator then anything that might improve the situation can only be a good thing.
at the very worst free schools will not make the net average of educational achievement worse in this country than they already are.
if they make things better then we can finally have a sensible conversation about the failure of the comprehensive system and utter moronic stupidity of closing high-achieving grammar schools.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
You discredit the comprehensive system for failing to provide top end results without acknowledging the wreck that selective schools make of children who do not enjoy the support and pressure of their parents. You state that nothing can be worse than the comprehensive system but you are blind to the absolute inequality and downright elitism of the system precedant to the comprehensive one.
The fundamental issue is who do you focus on, the worst off who can't help themselves, or the well off who can and will help themselves. There are equally good reasons for assisting either but ultimately any system that does not support and enable both is defficient.
The "free" schools initiative gives more power to middle class parents. If these schools maintain a body of children from mixed backgrounds, then they should provide decent education for all.
i don't care to retard the development of children of any variety by inhibiting access to quality education, regardless of where that education may come from.
the comprehensive system is a wreck, it would be very hard for a free school to do worse, ergo; i support free schools.
incidentally:
http://www.westlondonfreeschool.co.uk/
so tell me again, why do you hate freedom?The West London Free School will be a school with a classical curriculum, high standards of behaviour and a competitive atmosphere, but a non-selective intake.
Children with statements of Special Educational Needs
14. The West London Free School will admit any statemented pupil whose statement names the West London Free School and for whom the School has agreed to be named in the statement.
Over-subscription criteria
15. If there are more applicants than places, places will be offered in accordance with the following criteria in order of priority:
1. Children in public care (children looked after by a local authority under section 22 of the Children Act 1989).
2. Up to 12 children who have applied to be considered under the musical aptitude scheme.
3. After places have been filled under the first two criteria, 50% of any remaining places will be offered to those children who live nearest to the School, measured by the straight-line distance from the School gate to the child’s home. For 2011-2012 admissions, the distance criteria will be measured from the postcode of the Town Hall in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to the child’s home.
4. After places have been filled under the first three criteria, two-thirds of any remaining places will be offered to children living within a three-mile radius of the School. Where the number of applicants in this category exceeds the number of places, offers will be determined by random allocation.
5. After places have been filled under the first four criteria, any remaining places will be offered to children living within a radius of between three and five miles of the School. Where the number of applicants in this category exceeds the number of places, offers will be determined by random allocation.
6. After places have been filled under the first five criteria, any remaining places will be offered to children living beyond five miles from the School. Where the number of applicants in this category exceeds the number of places, offers will be determined by random allocation.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
As one BBC article pointed out recently, for some reason we still seem to have this Victorian notion that education is the key to all of societies ills. But the reality is, for most people, everything they learn beyond the age of 13/4 is pretty much useless. After that, everything you learn will almost certainly have no practical use when you enter the workforce, all your school qualifications do are show you are a generally somewhat competent person.
Screw all this nonsense debating how we can make schools stricter and what not, at the end of the day you don't need an academic environment from the age of 5 years old to show you how to flip burgers, or build a house, or fix a lightbulb, or design a building, or run a company. From the most basic to most advanced jobs, almost everything we learn at school is pointless.
Now is the time to start looking for more practical alternatives to the old "education, education, education".
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Everything we learn at school, in a classroom, beyond 13/14, is indeed useless. Put more people on useful apprenticeships, they don't need know Arthur Miller's foreshadowing techniques in Death of a Salesman, or how to calculate a tangent off a parabola (or something like that) in order to do whatever jobs they will most likely end up doing.
In fact, I would say our Victorian attitude to education is a very bourgeoisie take on things, that has only widened inequality. In effect, it leaves everyone without pushy parents or a brain for academics without any real skills to make a future with.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Well then, that is a more agreable position
But I feel I must point out a common misconception(don't know if it applies to you though):
People often talk about how the school is too "theoretical" and that it has to be more "practical" to accomodate "weak" students. "practical" is a bad term IMO, since it is usually connected with something dumb people need, along the lines of "well he's not that bright, but he can use his hands". What it actually is, however, is a recognition if the fact that different people learn in different ways, and that the obvious solution is different learning methods.
Therre are plenty of carpenters(I'd say most in fact) with a much higher understanding of geometry than I do, but who struggled to learn geometry in a classroom situation. Students with a need for a concrete visualization in order to learn are not "dumb" students; they just learn in a diffent way.
I am very much in favour of non-standard methods of teaching. In fact, I believe the "classic" way where a teacher stands at the front holding a lecture should be banned.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Indeed, I share your dislike of keeping doing things the same way just for the sake of it. I just don't see the benefit many peopel get from sitting in a classroom during the later years of school learning obscure things that they will never need to employ in their time at work.
Because of the current focus on traditional education, the kids that don't find that effective end up with no option but to drop out. And then no employers will want them, because the only qualifications are the ones you get from the traditional education system.
It just seems blindingly obvious to me that probably a majority of students get nothing from the latter years of their education. I think one of the reasons this issue hasn't been adressed is that politicians are afraid to do it, due to the positive connotations that the word education has. Hence soundbites like "education, education, education".
All very Victorian, all very bourgeoisie. And all not much use for most students today!
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
You got it wrong.
We do not, not, not teach the youths about Shakespeare or advances math because they need it. And yes indeed it is wasted on the majority. However, we do teach it to find those who can learn from it.
What do you prefer, to find the kids who belongs in the upper echelon, or to skip past them because their [insert number] other classmates will not get it anyway.
And as a side note, we teach them about the fine arts and advanced science in the hope that it will make them more contributional members of society. Better they know it and dont need it, than them needing it and not knowing it.
Get my point? Or at least one of them?
Few are born with it, even fewer know what to do with it.
My impression is that school doesn't really teach any advanced math, for some people it's really essential, for some it may seem advanced, but a maths professor usually calls it trivial. Of course that makes it more important to know. It's not just about giving them what they need to do a certain job, as Rhyfelwyr says, but also about making them able citizens which are ready to do a lot of things that go beyond a factory job. A large part of schooling is also about teaching critical thinking, at least it was on our school.
I don't really think understanding Shakespeare reveals the upper echelon elite superkids, in many cases the upper echelon elite superkids from space are revealed because they're doing really bad since they're bored.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
I think Shibumi might have a point here, in that some of the topics covered are not for the general benefit but to offer those who appreciate it a bit extra.
Prime example of such a topic would be Euclidean geometry in a particular Math subject which 14 (before the number dropped to 11) people took from about the 500 people total in a year (technical term is cohort, IIRC).
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
and................. that is not a good enough reason to disallow them.
particularly so when the comp system is a great cavernous rectum of failure.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Actually that is precisely what the current system does. Instead of focusing on the brighter kids, it wastes time and funds on kids who simply don't need to know about fine arts or advanced science (in fact, nobody needs to know about fine arts, they are leeches on society).
It tries to level the playing field, and in doing so makes it equally average for everyone. Bright kids can't fulfil their potential. Dumb kids can't even understand it.
But for some people it's got to be this way, all in the name of equality...
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
That was a lot of prejudice in a short statement, Rhy....
First off, the main problem with the "bright" kids is that they believe they are smarter than they actually are, if they use more time to think through the assigments they are given they will discover much more. Instead their focus is on finishing.
Secondly, what we know about a student is where he is now. There is absolutely no way of knowing where he will be in the future.
Let's say we have a scale that goes from 1 to 100, 100 representing an "enlightened mind", the goal we strive for. We can then assign our 12-year olds various values and put them on a scale from bad to good. One might be a 17, another might be a 21 and a smart one might be 29. But what does that matter? The goal is to get to 100, and they're all a long way from that target, that some of them is a couple of steps ahead will not matter in the long run. Also, how will you know whether it's the child who is "dumb" or the system that is wrong?
My teacher is an excellent example of this. He got a 2 in Norwegian in high school, which means that he was just above failing the subject. Now he just finished writing his 5th book. Why should the school give up on people like him? He has two masters degrees now, but I'm quite sure you would've classified him as "dumb" if you look at the low grades he got in high school.
That we are "catering to hopless students" and "ruining the bright ones" are among the biggest lies in the education system. I laugh every time I hear it, because I know for a fact that assigments are scaled according to the needs of advanced students. The people who spread this myth probably wasn't one of the bright students who got more difficult assignments, though their ego's make them believe that they're the next Einstein.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Bookmarks