Liberals did not destroy the American school system.

[Centurion1]

How backtrackingly arbatriary of you

You can choose from a few things

You can choose from many things, some of which offer more oppurtinity than the few things

The quality of the few things will suffer

At which point in these mammoth leaps of logic was your mind blown?

I cannot even understand what the hell your logic means. I cannot grasp whatever it is you are typing at me with such smugness.

And that 80% # is wrong to

Oh I'm sorry I wasn't informed all the numbers and statements you pull out of your butt also manufactures encyclopedia Britannica.

Like this juicy statement

50 years ago all of our female doctors, buinesswomen, or politicians would be teachers

I totally forgot how I read this in the most recent edition of Facts Strike says.

Also you overuse the term pedestrian. And you should avoid using terms like that when you use nothing but one line statements.

like

this

for

your

entire

post

[Strike For The South]

I was refering to the point Adrian was making and you take issue with, trying to illustrate it more clearly. I have failed :(

I was not making a "factual" numerical statement


I simply asked you to point out where you took issue with with what was said other than some convulted lack of respect.

You have yet to do that and instead have dodged the issue and resorted to personal attacks

Does this mean I win?

[Centurion1]

Sarcasm doesn't make a personal attack no longer a personal attack so my advice there would be don't be a hypocrite.

I made my point abundantly clear. Your refusal to acknowledge other viewpoints as existing let alone being valid is not my problem. If you want I can post it all over again so you can peruse it at your pleasure.

The point remains that a few brilliant apples do not make cancel out 4x as many rotten apples. Teachers on average are far more educated and smarter.

Do you also want a color by numbers to hammer the additional point home that intelligent people can be educators as well?

Is this statement really that confusing or difficult to grasp? Teachers are on average much smarter and better educated so adirans point was not needed and is moot. I am stating that I believe education has benefited from the nature of teachers now and that a few condi's or hillarys as you put it are not enough to cancel out all the ****** teachers back then.

My reasoning behind why I found the statement insulting and derogatory to teachers is that it assumes that an intelligent person with the ability to learn and study to become a rocket scientist (a stupid profession description btw) would never deign to lower themselves to the ranks of fellow educators.

My next predicted response for you will involve how I subconsciously hate brown people since that seems to be one of your favorite lines of reasoning.

[Strike For The South]

See doesn't it feel better when you flesh out an explanation?

[Adrian II]

What an offensive comment about teachers these days.

I suppose the truth is unpleasant sometimes. Levitt and Dubner state that in 1960 about 40 percent of female teachers scored in the top quintile (top one-fifth of total cohort) on IQ and other aptitude tests, with only eight percent in the bottom quintile, while twenty years on half as many were in the top quintile and more than twice as many in the bottom.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The New York Times, September 9, 2000

Why the Best Don't Teach

By Harold O. Levy

The quality of teachers has been declining for decades, and no one wants to talk about it. Principals know the truth and have to deal with it as best they can, but unions are reluctant to admit weaknesses in any of their members, colleges are loath to acknowledge the poor quality of their education programs, and administrators are afraid that confronting the problem will further erode confidence in public education.

And so we tolerate inadequate teacher education, noncompetitive pay, inflexible work rules and regulations denying bright people in other professions a chance to switch to teaching. That is why we not only need a renewed national commitment to teaching, but alternative teacher certification programs like the one we have adopted in New York City.

Which of our college-age students, today, are preparing for teaching? A 1997 report by the National Center for Education Statistics found that education majors were placed in remedial college courses at higher rates than their counterparts in the humanities and social sciences -- nearly twice as many education majors needed remedial English and math classes.

In New York City, a quarter of those teaching in the public schools earned their bachelor's degrees from institutions that ''Barron's Rankings of Colleges and Universities'' describes as ''less competitive or noncompetitive.''

Fully 31 percent of current New York City public school teachers who took the liberal arts and sciences test required for certification failed at least once, compared with only 4.7 percent in the rest of New York State. Admittedly, the problem is especially acute in New York, where low salaries, high living costs and a lack of recognition for extraordinary accomplishments scare many candidates away. But the story of declining teacher quality is consistent across the country.

So is an impending shortage of certified teachers. The Department of Education estimates a nationwide loss of 2.5 million teachers over the next decade as teachers born in the baby boom years reach retirement age. These are also the enduring teachers from an older era of higher quality.

Certification is a minimum standard and should be required of all teachers. But minimum standards should not be the goal. Our children need teachers with outstanding abilities and rigorous academic training. We need to find more powerful means to attract the most promising candidates to the teaching profession.

To recruit a higher caliber of college student into teaching, we must make it both more lucrative and more revered. To improve the quality of the preparation teachers get, we need stringent standards for entrance into teacher education, college classes geared to the real needs of schools, and increased rigor of certification exams in the content areas. We need improved models of teacher development that begin with undergraduate internships, continue with student teaching and culminate in apprenticeships with mentors and ongoing training.

We must also stop closing the door to would-be teachers who did not choose to take education courses in college. Alternative certification programs like New York's teaching fellowships admit bright people who may not have thought about teaching until it is too late in their undergraduate program to switch to education and mid-career changers who want to do something more meaningful with their lives.

Finally, on the local level we must have a stronger commitment to paying teachers a competitive wage. Teachers 22 to 28 years old earn an average of $7,894 less a year than their college-educated counterparts in other professions. The gap increases threefold by the time they are 44. Inevitably, teaching is not going to be as financially lucrative as some other careers, but it shouldn't mean taking a vow of poverty.

School systems, particularly the New York City Board of Education, must reduce the bureaucratic hurdles to becoming a teacher, work to increase teacher salaries and address the work conditions of inner city schools. In return, we must be able to demand more hours, more accountability and better work from an improved teaching force. This may be our last opportunity to avoid locking in mediocrity for a generation.

[Ironside]

Neither I nor the authors of Superfreakonomics ever suggested that this trend was unique to the US.

True, but then it becomes little relevant for why the US system looks like it does. One example of a more US specific problem is that the heavy focus purely on passing the SAT is running contradictory to current education ideals and is more resembling the older school system like the one in the 1960ies. Yet falls short of both.

That doesn't invalidate the argument. Primay school teachers were predominantly women. So were nurses. Until womens' career options increased dramatically.

It has a devastating effect on the amount of veterans though. And both professions are significantly helped by experience. So all that brain power didn't come to full bloom.

Exactly. That's why the quality of teachers' used to be higher. Many women competing for one job.

Now you did post data later on pointing in this direction, but as a theory, it has several details that needs to be number crunched before you can say it's correct.

[Centurion1]

True, but then it becomes little relevant for why the US system looks like it does. One example of a more US specific problem is that the heavy focus purely on passing the SAT is running contradictory to current education ideals and is more resembling the older school system like the one in the 1960ies. Yet falls short of both.



It has a devastating effect on the amount of veterans though. And both professions are significantly helped by experience. So all that brain power didn't come to full bloom.

Does sweden have an education model similar to the models of most european countries? At what age are students told what path they are going on? Like at what age does the government tell them they are going to be a tradesworker or a college student?

Many european nations and asian nations put students on a specific path based off of their performance often as early as the beginning of high school. Some students are placed on a track to enter professions like carpentry while others go on the traditional track of university and something like a lawyor. This fact is why I don't place an credence on international test scores because often those scores are skewed because of the nature of educational programs in different countries espcially asia. So when people say american children are becoming dumber and indians europeans and east asians are going to dominate all of americas skilled sector jobs i scoff at the concept.
Now you did post data later on pointing in this direction, but as a theory, it has several details that needs to be number crunched before you can say it's correct.

Also I do not know where you are getting your facts but little to no time is spent in the classroom practicing for the SAT. more like none to be honest.

[Ironside]

Does sweden have an education model similar to the models of most european countries? At what age are students told what path they are going on? Like at what age does the government tell them they are going to be a tradesworker or a college student?

The students pick for the first time when choosing which gymnasium to go on. That's around age 16. Chosing a more practical line gives lesser odds at going to the university (you'll probably need to study some extra courses in that case), so the theoretical lines are fairly popular. Then the big choise become at university, at age 19.

Goverment tells them? Is that supposed to be red as bias against social democracies?

Anyway, the Swedish grades have been dropping internationally, so it's not like we have no flaws here either.

Also I do not know where you are getting your facts but little to no time is spent in the classroom practicing for the SAT. more like none to be honest.

Red the horror stories articles that shows up from time to time. I'm guessing that it's most common in the regions that does very poorly schoolwise. It's probably not universal in the US, as you pointed out, but certainly a problem where it occurs.

[Centurion1]

no ive lived in 5 different states from texas to california, to maryland to conneticut to virginia to new york and have never heard of the SAT being studied in school. you are either thinking of another standardized test or you are thinking that too much emphasis is being placed upon the SAT

[lars573]

Well you have to consider that graduating classes in most of the world are told that in order to even apply to a US university you have to take the SAT or they won't even look at your application. I was, repeatedly.

[Major Robert Dump]

I dont know about the SAT, but the ACT you can take time and time again, and only your last score counts. I had peers taking it in the 10th grade, and by the time they had taken it for the 12th time (along with prep courses) they made almost perfect scores.

This does not in any way mean they were intelligent, only good and persistent test takers. Things like the ACT and SAT should be done with no prep at all if you really want to get a good guage of a persons intelligence

[HoreTore]

It has always been my belief that heavy reading before a test is cheating.

Hence why I've never read much before a test

[Noncommunist]

no ive lived in 5 different states from texas to california, to maryland to conneticut to virginia to new york and have never heard of the SAT being studied in school. you are either thinking of another standardized test or you are thinking that too much emphasis is being placed upon the SAT

At my high school in Pennsylvania, we had one SAT prep course but it wasn't a required course and I never took it.

Well you have to consider that graduating classes in most of the world are told that in order to even apply to a US university you have to take the SAT or they won't even look at your application. I was, repeatedly.

Most schools require it. There are a few which either don't require it or don't even look at it but they are fairly rare.

It has always been my belief that heavy reading before a test is cheating.

Hence why I've never read much before a test

That's what I did with the SAT, seemed to work out fine.

[ajaxfetish]

It is probably worth disambiguating the two tests labeled SAT in the US. One is a college admission test, the other a series of tests for assessing performance during K-12.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just to clarify, from what my experience was in applying to universities, the SAT was heavily favored among the west coast uni's while the midwest and east coast uni's put a bigger emphasis on doing the ACT.

I personally felt that the ACT was overall a much better test than the SAT.

[Centurion1]

um im sorry you have that backwards with regard to the SAT. The midwest takes the ACT plain and simple. California is a little different in that alot of people take the SAT but also quite a few take the ACT. The east coast takes the SAT plain and simple. The SAT was designed for elite east coast universities and that is the test everyone here on the east coast takes.

That being said it is irrelevant because colleges look at both and weigh them equally so it doesn't matter.

[a completely inoffensive name]

um im sorry you have that backwards with regard to the SAT. The midwest takes the ACT plain and simple. California is a little different in that alot of people take the SAT but also quite a few take the ACT. The east coast takes the SAT plain and simple. The SAT was designed for elite east coast universities and that is the test everyone here on the east coast takes.

That being said it is irrelevant because colleges look at both and weigh them equally so it doesn't matter.

I know that people in California take both. If you read my post, you can see I took both. :rolls eyes:

I guess I was mistaken about east coast uni's, but that was what I was told. If you want to get into Boston University(random example) or whatever then you need to take the ACT.

Also just because they look at both doesn't mean they weigh both the same.

[Noncommunist]

[Centurion1]

I know that people in California take both. If you read my post, you can see I took both. :rolls eyes:

I guess I was mistaken about east coast uni's, but that was what I was told. If you want to get into Boston University(random example) or whatever then you need to take the ACT.

Also just because they look at both doesn't mean they weigh both the same.

colleges do weigh them both equally you don't know what your talking about. They usually take one over the other and then convert the score if you take one.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/a...s-say-1.281246

just because I fleshed out my explanation doesn't mean you have to roll your eyes

Your just wrong about East Coast universities. They take both obviously as does every other university in America but they convert their ACT scores to SAT scores. I am sure there are a few schools which only accept one or the other but the overwhelming majority (i would say in the high 90th percentile) take and accept both. The vast majority of students on the East Coast take the SAT

[a completely inoffensive name]

colleges do weigh them both equally you don't know what you're talking about. They usually take one over the other and then convert the score if you take one.

Of course, and universities will say that everything is all equal when it comes to race. Admissions are perfect and nothing is valued more than the other.

Also, the bold is where I fixed your grammar.

Also, the underlined is where you make no sense. By definition, taking one over the other is putting a preference on one. By "converting" one score to another it leaves it open to determine how exactly do they convert it?

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/a...s-say-1.281246

just because I fleshed out my explanation doesn't mean you have to roll your eyes

You didn't flesh out anything. All you did was say "your wrong, you don't know what you are talking about." like a ****.

You're just wrong about East Coast universities. They take both obviously as does every other university in America but they convert their ACT scores to SAT scores. I am sure there are a few schools which only accept one or the other but the overwhelming majority (i would say in the high 90th percentile) take and accept both. The vast majority of students on the East Coast take the SAT

Another FTFY in bold.

Where are you pulling all this from? Oh wait, you have lived in multiple states so you have "experience" that I don't have. Of course.

[Centurion1]

Has nothing to do with where I lived; this is common knowledge. You can convert the scores online yourself its not a bleeding secret. I'm sorry my grammar isn't good enough for you.

Scores have one score that they take for the majority of the time and they usually convert the other to that score. If I apply to Iowa they take the SAT's scores and turn them into ACT scores. If I apply to Dartmouth then they traditionally look at the SAT so they will convert my ACTscores to SAT scores when calculating my admissions. Bringing race as an anecdote into this stupid argument is a Red Herring. They have nothing to do with each other and you are simply using race as a measure of unfair admissions practices. This is not comparable nor is it one. Your just wrong.

http://www.uiowa.edu/admissions/unde...onversion.html
conversion table

http://mitadmissions.org/apply/freshman/tests
MIT's views on the matter

http://www.ivybound.net/newsletter/primer.html
more equality talk

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9669D8B63
Is the NY times reputable enoguh in its facts?

ou didn't flesh out anything. All you did was say "your wrong, you don't know what you are talking about." like a ****.

uhhhhh no. I did not.

um im sorry you have that backwards with regard to the SAT. The midwest takes the ACT plain and simple. California is a little different in that alot of people take the SAT but also quite a few take the ACT. The east coast takes the SAT plain and simple. The SAT was designed for elite east coast universities and that is the test everyone here on the east coast takes.

That being said it is irrelevant because colleges look at both and weigh them equally so it doesn't matter.

Not sure where your getting the rocks to be insulted and call me a ****. You were wrong and I corrected what you believed. This wasn't malicious or meant in an insulting way it was simply alerting you too certain facts. Now you are more knowledgeable about the process and won't look silly if you ever tell an east coaster something about how they take the ACT. Not sure where your being insulted enough to resort to common muck slinging and vulgarities.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not sure where your getting the rocks to be insulted and call me a ****. You were wrong and I corrected what you believed. This wasn't malicious or meant in an insulting way it was simply alerting you too certain facts. Now you are more knowledgeable about the process and won't look silly if you ever tell an east coaster something about how they take the ACT. Not sure where your being insulted enough to resort to common muck slinging and vulgarities.

Eh, I get angry when I know I am wrong. Human nature. Don't take it seriously.

[Centurion1]

Eh, I get angry when I know I am wrong. Human nature. Don't take it seriously.

I just want you to understand that I wasn't trying to be condescending or insult you. I simply wished to let you know that you weren't right so that you wouldn't make the same mistake.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just want you to understand that I wasn't trying to be condescending or insult you. I simply wished to let you know that you weren't right so that you wouldn't make the same mistake.

Oh yeah, I know man. I learn like a dumb animal. You gotta beat it in my head and tolerate my growling and barking. I am just barely smart enough to know that I just gotta keep sticking my neck out so that new stuff/ideas can be beaten into me.

Sorry if I insulted you.

[Centurion1]

Oh yeah, I know man. I learn like a dumb animal. You gotta beat it in my head and tolerate my growling and barking. I am just barely smart enough to know that I just gotta keep sticking my neck out so that new stuff/ideas can be beaten into me.

Sorry if I insulted you.

Anonymous people on the internet can't insult me. Mostly because I imagine the ones with good English to be 300 pound men living in Boise who hate their lives and the poor English speakers call center operators living in Bangladesh and making a dollar a day. Yeah that what I think of all of you *************

[ajaxfetish]

Also, the bold is where I fixed your grammar.

Really a spelling fix, rather than a grammar fix.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

Really a spelling fix, rather than a grammar fix.

Ajax

No, he didn't spell anything wrong, he used the wrong word.

[Strike For The South]

Anonymous people on the internet can't insult me. Mostly because I imagine the ones with good English to be 300 pound men living in Boise who hate their lives and the poor English speakers call center operators living in Bangladesh and making a dollar a day. Yeah that what I think of all of you *************

Why Boise?

[ajaxfetish]

No, he didn't spell anything wrong, he used the wrong word.

'your' and 'you're' share the same pronunciation, at least in some English dialects. Based on the context, it's pretty clear Centurion intended the one that is a contraction of 'you' and 'are,' which makes for a perfectly grammatical sentence. The only mistakes are in the orthography: 'you're' is misspelled by leaving out the apostrophe and the <e>, the first word in the sentence is not capitalized, and two independent clauses run into each other with no period or semicolon separating them. None of these is a grammar error.*

Ajax

*unless of course you're suggesting he actually intended the possessive determiner 'your,' which seems very unlikely, especially from a native English speaker like Centurion.

[Centurion1]

Why Boise?

Because the only appeals to boise in my eyes involve going outside. Flyfishing, Hunting, Skiing. 300 pound men disappointed with their lives are not able to do these things and truly enjoy them because of the physical nature of the acts.