The Cost of Higher Education

[rayjay]

Last week I couldn't spell college student, this week I are one... Its all about the money, its a business, not for profit, B.S.

I was always amazed at what the local state college tried to pass off as srudents.

 

[duhtroll]

Who blamed the parents here?

I am blaming the person who says "I'm a ******** so it is my school's fault."

And when did I ever take credit for success, either? OR say teachers do?

I guess it is easier to make snarky comments when you don't read what is posted and just make stuff up, though. Kudos on that part.

Schools success = teacher's work. Schools failure = parent's fault.

Fantabulous.

 

[duhtroll]

Grammar and spelling do not fall under critical thinking skills. They are simple, basic rote memorization skills. Either you know the words or you do not.

Critical thinking involves application of facts and skills.

To surrender the skill of communication to machines completely is to rob ourselves of certain critical thinking skills I believe, and a level of dependence that high could be dangerous if one is to ever be without their talking and spelling device. I think this would be a sure thing mostly because where you might think people would use those tools to supplement their speaking abilities, the more likely scenario is that people would come to RELY on those machines to do it for them; if you need a reference, look at how many people use calculators to do utterly basic mathematical operations (I'm guilty of this myself.)

So if you are guilty of using a calculator for a tip at a restaurant I should criticize you for not being able to do it in your head?

Or should I say "every phone has a calculator on it, so it is no big deal that he is using the tools he has at his disposal?"

And while I don't believe it is the university's fault that these students can't spell, I don't understand how in good conscience you could certify that someone meets the standard of a well-educated (and in the case of liberal arts schools, "well-rounded") individual when they cannot utilize their main language of choice in even some of the most simplistic ways. If not even the basics matter, what then is the point of a college education? There must be SOME level of standards involved.

I agree that you can't fully blame the school system for an uneducated child, but this is provided the school has actually created an arguably conducive environment for learning; you can't hide behind the "parents" excuse if you have a teacher that does not care about teaching.

I'm not hiding behind anything - I didn't even mention parents. You guys did.

The worst teacher in the world cannot hold back ANY student who wants to learn and has a supportive family. The teacher gets them for one to a few hours per day. There are 21 or so left.

I had some really poor teachers - I went to a low paying Catholic school. I succeeded despite their incompetence.

This isn't a judgement on the entire school system either, this is acknowledging the fact that a poor teach CAN be responsible for a child's failure and WILL be responsible for it if the child has no other outlets for learning available.

If one teacher is the sole source of education for a child...

Wait, scratch that. Show me how that is not physically impossible.

And honestly, could you really tell me that if a student has a poor teacher and doesn't do well, the fault lies on the student for not teaching themselves instead of the teacher for being a failure or the system for mandating attendance to school yet not providing the child with what they need once they get there?

Students have dozens of teachers. One bad teacher isn't going to stunt their educational growth, unless of course there is no other support system.

I'm not trying to duck out of personal accountability, but can't you see that if the system is in place to do a specific task and people either go to them by choice or are forced to them by law (e.g. schools teaching children, universities providing higher education for money, etc.), they have an obligation to provide that service in the fullest and most earnest capacity they can? This is the point of having a professor in front of a class and not having someone design a reading program and calling it a "class", sometimes people need to have someone else that is knowledgeable on the subject to answer questions they may have. I've had professors that were "books-on-tape", it sucks.

I'm really tired of the "bad teacher" argument.

Look, there are bad workers EVERYWHERE. It does not mean every failed student is a product of that one bad teacher.

Using a bad teacher as an indictment of the entire system is prejudiced, lazy, and hypocritical. Yet it happens here and in many other conservative environments.

Here is one thing I will blame on parents. If one bad teacher keeps a child from succeeding, then where the hell were that kid's parents?

My daughter will succeed no matter who her teachers are. I guarantee it. I am her parent and I will see to it. She learned to read before she ever hit Kindergarten.

See how easy that is?

I agree with you that the older school of thought of learning by rote isn't terribly effective, especially not at this point in time, but there are simply some things where there is nothing more to them than just knowing that they are what they are, and they are critical enough that they NEED to be learned, so if rote is the only way it can be done, then so be it.

We have to keep at least some bottom line of basic knowledge and basic skills, or we will become so codependent on our technology that if and when it fails us we will be helpless and hopeless.

...which is why I posted essentially the same thing earlier.

And BTW if you teach rote memorization in classrooms above the third grade or so now, you get bad evals. Thank your DoE.

 

[CBT]

Perfect......

 

[CBT]

LOUDER !!!!

 

[duhtroll]

Heck with that.

THIS is Joe Walsh.

 

[CBT]

Heck with that.

THIS is Joe Walsh.

Dude can play a guitar that's for sure. I wonder if musicians, really good ones who achieve fame and fortune, mind teaching others how to play or if they are afraid of being outdone? Granted, there are music teachers everywhere, but I cannot recall ever reading a story like "Yeah I was given guitar lessons for free from Slash." I guess the free part would be a stretch, even a millionaire teacher still deserve compensation for thier time.

 

[duhtroll]

Musicians I have worked with for the most part don't mind sharing. If you are in a group with them, you being better makes them sound better.

But then again I have also paid $80/hour to watch (not even participate in) a lesson once. Wasn't even for me. But the guy was one of the top 3 players in the world at the time and it was a once in a lifetime thing.

Dude can play a guitar that's for sure. I wonder if musicians, really good ones who achieve fame and fortune, mind teaching others how to play or if they are afraid of being outdone? Granted, there are music teachers everywhere, but I cannot recall ever reading a story like "Yeah I was given guitar lessons for free from Slash." I guess the free part would be a stretch, even a millionaire teacher still deserve compensation for thier time.

 

[CBT]

Musicians I have worked with for the most part don't mind sharing. If you are in a group with them, you being better makes them sound better.

But then again I have also paid $80/hour to watch (not even participate in) a lesson once. Wasn't even for me. But the guy was one of the top 3 players in the world at the time and it was a once in a lifetime thing.

For 80 bucks, shoot I'd pay it to jam with someone I liked. You ever hear of that guy they pulled out of the audience at a Who concert to play drums because Keith Moon passed out? That was crazy. Was it the Who? I'll have to google it, memory is a little fuzzy. He probably didn't get paid, but at least he didn't have to pay, lol.

 

[jerrym3]

My first white collar manager told me that you are what you write.

Let's assume that you are a hiring manager, and you get a ton of resumes that are fairly equal (probably easy in today's economy), but one has spelling errors.

Which pile do you put that resume in?

Or, you send out a status report via email on an important project, and you cc upper management just to make an impression.

Do you really want to include grammar and/or spelling errors in that email?

I'll admit, I was much pickier with my spelling, grammar, and punctuation when I worked and had to write memos for my secretary (sorry, administrative asst) to type, copy, and send out via interoffice envelopes.

But now, while I'm still careful because I don't want to appear two stoopid. (OOPS), I have no real reason to be anal about perfect grammar and spelling anymore.

(One perk gained by reaching old age status.)

 

[jerrym3]

The Rutgers football coach makes almost 2 million dollars per year.

Plus, the school loaned him money for a house, and they forgive a certain percentage of the loan each year he stays with the school.

Not to mention Rutgers' recently completed 102 million dollar stadium expansion project.

I'm sure that a winning football team, along with a larger stadium, would bring in additional revenue, but when they call me or send me "please donate" requests, I get a little testy.

 

[kirk]

Just had an eye-opener today ....

The top paid 1,000 State Employees in Virginia average salary is $211,093.

The #1 employee gets $706,800.
Number 1000 gets a measly $163,762.

There are 763 state employees in Virginia who are paid more than the Governor.

So, just who are these people? 80% of them are college professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and college administrators. There are also 20 VA college presidents on the list.

The other 20% seem to come from the medical or physician managers at the Virginia Health System, program managers for the Virginia Retirement System or various physicians and administrators at State Hospitals.

Other than the Governor, I saw only two other cabinet level positions in the top 1,000 salaries.

Among the colleges, there are 5 that garner the most in the top 1,000 salaries .... 776 of them with the professors getting the bulk.

1. College of William & Mary -- 41
2. George Mason University -- 111
3. Virginia Tech -- 134
4. Virginia Commonwealth University -- 144
5. University of Virginia -- 346

Now we know what is driving the outrageous cost of higher education and the tuition hikes that have outpaced inflation by 2-3 times for the past 10-15 years.

BTW --- teachers at the elementary school level average about $56,000 with a starting salary of $47,000.

Obviously, the solution to this pay disparity between professors and elementary teachers is to start televising Elementary School Football Games.

Just thought all the above was interesting ... I am sure everyone is worth every penny.

I can explain some of this. Numbers 1, 2, & 5 have law schools. Numbers 4 & 5 have medical schools. Number 3 has a veterinary school.

Medical and law schools typically have high salary costs because you are hiring doctors and lawyers to teach. I'll bet most of the people on your list fall into those catagories.

And for those who dislike the public university system let me say that in the 1980s Western Michigan University got roughly 70% of its operating dollars from the state. Today we get about 30%. Part of the reason for today's high cost of public higher education is the drastic reduction in support from tax dollars. Much more of the cost is now paid by tuition.

 

[MrBluGruv]

Grammar and spelling do not fall under critical thinking skills. They are simple, basic rote memorization skills. Either you know the words or you do not.

Critical thinking involves application of facts and skills.

This is true, however if you never actually think about what you are saying, you can slip into not knowing how to articulate thoughts very well. I can't quote you scientific studies on this, but in almost EVERY person I've seen, this behavior goes hand in hand. Of course, to play devil's advocate on myself, these people could all also just be morons, which for them is a much larger problem than a lack of mastery for spelling and grammar.

So if you are guilty of using a calculator for a tip at a restaurant I should criticize you for not being able to do it in your head?

Or should I say "every phone has a calculator on it, so it is no big deal that he is using the tools he has at his disposal?"

I guess you could, but I also haven't reached the point where I CAN'T do it in my head yet. In fact, although this is delving into minutia, I actually do calculate tips in my head, but round off to keep it simple. My point is it's dangerous to reach a level of reliance in which you lose the ability to do it yourself if you must.

I'm not hiding behind anything - I didn't even mention parents. You guys did.

I meant the hiding part in a general sense, not aimed at you specifically, but I could understand how you've gotten defensive about that around here.

The worst teacher in the world cannot hold back ANY student who wants to learn and has a supportive family. The teacher gets them for one to a few hours per day. There are 21 or so left.

I had some really poor teachers - I went to a low paying Catholic school. I succeeded despite their incompetence.




If one teacher is the sole source of education for a child...

Wait, scratch that. Show me how that is not physically impossible.



Students have dozens of teachers. One bad teacher isn't going to stunt their educational growth, unless of course there is no other support system.

Actually, I did go to a poor Catholic private school as well, for 9 years (K-8) I can pinpoint the exact moment where my education in the field of mathematics got ****ed up. Sixth grade: they instituted a model of "education" wherein they assigned you work, then you did it, and THE NEXT DAY they told you how to do it (kind of). Basically, the idea was that you "explored" the concepts and figured it out yourself before they helped you, except you are talking about 11 year olds and their first serious dive into real algebra. Ever since then, equational mathematics has been fairly difficult for me in complex forms. To top it off, the teacher got all sorts of pissed if we didn't understand it very quickly. Am I saying that this point ruined my education in every subject from there on out? No, not by a long shot. But to say it had no adverse effect on me to have been in an environment that was supposed to at least provide me a way to learn but failed to do so is ridiculous, as it made my progress in mathematics difficult all the way through college as I was constantly playing catch-up, and other similar courses have proven difficult that rely on algebraic principles (physics has been an absolute JOY this semester, let me tell you...)

Also, for the majority of my time at that school, "homeroom" teacher was the ONLY teacher you had, so yes, one bad one could really screw you hard. Thankfully the ones I had during those years were pretty fantastic, or at least could explain things well enough to understand, even if they weren't very supportive on any sort of personal level.

I'm really tired of the "bad teacher" argument.

Look, there are bad workers EVERYWHERE. It does not mean every failed student is a product of that one bad teacher.

Using a bad teacher as an indictment of the entire system is prejudiced, lazy, and hypocritical. Yet it happens here and in many other conservative environments.

I guess I just didn't make it clear enough when I said I wasn't trying to pass a judgement on the entire system with the points I was making trying to apply them on an individual level (to any given individual teacher who was a poor performer.) Shame, when I worked hard to try to make it obvious.

So I guess I want to know then, why on EARTH is "bad employees are everywhere" any justification AT ALL for poor performance in one's own field? I am just as disappointed in a lazy plumber or lazy pilot or lazy accountant as I am a lazy teacher, it's just that in this conversation the lazy teacher is all that matters.

Here is one thing I will blame on parents. If one bad teacher keeps a child from succeeding, then where the hell were that kid's parents?

My daughter will succeed no matter who her teachers are. I guarantee it. I am her parent and I will see to it. She learned to read before she ever hit Kindergarten.

See how easy that is?

Frankly I'm a little bothered by how readily you are willing to draw that line and cross your arms and stand behind it. I understand you've caught a lot of flak from people, here alone and not counting elsewhere even, and undoubtedly there were many cases where you shouldn't have been catching flak at all, but seriously one peep out of someone suggesting there was a shortfall anywhere in the education system at any given place and your general attitude is (to paraphrase here a little) "**** you, I've done my part, this is clearly the line of my responsibilities and I'm not going any further than that so if you don't like it then you just don't work hard enough as a parent."

So really, what SPECIFICALLY is the role of the public education system and the teacher if the majority of stuff that children should know is supposed to be taught before they enter the system, and if there is a case where they don't understand something, they should pursue it entirely on the own where the teacher is not at all to be bothered with helping them outside of class because they've done all they are supposed to do by showing up, reading the book to them, and writing out examples that were already in the book on the board?

Reductio ad absurdum, you say? Possibly, but then again, this is all I can consistently draw from your messages on the subject. I would like to think you don't really feel that way about your job, or about the profession of teaching in general, but I can't shake that interpretation from a lot of the things you post.

For clarity and the sake of fairness, let's cast aside the argument for students who are bull-headed about learning and refuse to even try, as I can totally agree that a teacher can only do so much for a student like that, even if they are going far beyond where they should even have to as a teacher. I don't think there would be much disagreement that a teacher shouldn't have to be a personal savior to every troubled child they should happen to come across in the classroom, and those that do, well I'll agree with you that they are crazy to argue that.

 

[slickster]

Why this why that. America the bully union

 

[Fosters]

Frankly I'm a little bothered by how readily you are willing to draw that line and cross your arms and stand behind it. I understand you've caught a lot of flak from people, here alone and not counting elsewhere even, and undoubtedly there were many cases where you shouldn't have been catching flak at all, but seriously one peep out of someone suggesting there was a shortfall anywhere in the education system at any given place and your general attitude is (to paraphrase here a little) "**** you, I've done my part, this is clearly the line of my responsibilities and I'm not going any further than that so if you don't like it then you just don't work hard enough as a parent."

So really, what SPECIFICALLY is the role of the public education system and the teacher if the majority of stuff that children should know is supposed to be taught before they enter the system, and if there is a case where they don't understand something, they should pursue it entirely on the own where the teacher is not at all to be bothered with helping them outside of class because they've done all they are supposed to do by showing up, reading the book to them, and writing out examples that were already in the book on the board?

Reductio ad absurdum, you say? Possibly, but then again, this is all I can consistently draw from your messages on the subject. I would like to think you don't really feel that way about your job, or about the profession of teaching in general, but I can't shake that interpretation from a lot of the things you post.

For clarity and the sake of fairness, let's cast aside the argument for students who are bull-headed about learning and refuse to even try, as I can totally agree that a teacher can only do so much for a student like that, even if they are going far beyond where they should even have to as a teacher. I don't think there would be much disagreement that a teacher shouldn't have to be a personal savior to every troubled child they should happen to come across in the classroom, and those that do, well I'll agree with you that they are crazy to argue that.

You're trying too hard. Last time I had this argument with him and pointed out test scores have gone to hell in a hand-basket over the last couple of decades, and how we get our behinds kicked by other nations spending way less on their education, he immediately jumped up and claimed that his students got top scores. That may very well be the case, but shows how he's willing to take credit for it. Then when you point out the most basic skills in math and English are low in today's graduates, he claims that's the parents' fault.

To summarize it: Students getting good test scores are signs of a good teacher, students getting bad scores are signs of bad parents. If we want better test scores and kids to have better math and grammar skills, parents need to get involved more and teach their kids all of this, and teachers need a pay raise and better benefits than any other private industry.

 

[duhtroll]

Of course, to play devil's advocate on myself, these people could all also just be morons, which for them is a much larger problem than a lack of mastery for spelling and grammar.

I would agree - but that is what we are talking about here. People who are morons blaming everyone but themselves for their own failings.

I guess you could, but I also haven't reached the point where I CAN'T do it in my head yet. In fact, although this is delving into minutia, I actually do calculate tips in my head, but round off to keep it simple. My point is it's dangerous to reach a level of reliance in which you lose the ability to do it yourself if you must.

It was an example, nothing more. You mentioned using a calculator to do math.

Actually, I did go to a poor Catholic private school as well, for 9 years (K-8) I can pinpoint the exact moment where my education in the field of mathematics got ****ed up. Sixth grade: they instituted a model of "education" wherein they assigned you work, then you did it, and THE NEXT DAY they told you how to do it (kind of). Basically, the idea was that you "explored" the concepts and figured it out yourself before they helped you, except you are talking about 11 year olds and their first serious dive into real algebra. Ever since then, equational mathematics has been fairly difficult for me in complex forms. To top it off, the teacher got all sorts of pissed if we didn't understand it very quickly. Am I saying that this point ruined my education in every subject from there on out? No, not by a long shot. But to say it had no adverse effect on me to have been in an environment that was supposed to at least provide me a way to learn but failed to do so is ridiculous, as it made my progress in mathematics difficult all the way through college as I was constantly playing catch-up, and other similar courses have proven difficult that rely on algebraic principles (physics has been an absolute JOY this semester, let me tell you...)

I had a physically abusive nun (thankfully I wasn't one of the targets), more than one alcoholic regular classroom teacher, and a PE teacher/coach (male) who would go and supervise the girls changing clothes, so class would always be late/unsupervised for the first 10 minutes and last 10 minutes.

Also, for the majority of my time at that school, "homeroom" teacher was the ONLY teacher you had, so yes, one bad one could really screw you hard. Thankfully the ones I had during those years were pretty fantastic, or at least could explain things well enough to understand, even if they weren't very supportive on any sort of personal level.

Yet you had many teachers, which was the point. One bad teacher does not a student make.

I guess I just didn't make it clear enough when I said I wasn't trying to pass a judgement on the entire system with the points I was making trying to apply them on an individual level (to any given individual teacher who was a poor performer.) Shame, when I worked hard to try to make it obvious.

That comment wasn't really directed at you, but at the board in general. We have several people on this board whom I and a few others have named the "Hate of the Month" club. They bring to the boards political rants against whoever FOX News is vilifying currently. It uncannily lines up. Watch for a while and you'll know what I mean.

The list has included but is not limited to:

Liberals
Obama
Muslims
Gays
Liberals
Teachers
Unions
Liberals
Obama
Blacks
Poor people
Asians
British
Liberals
Obama
French
Greeks

So I guess I want to know then, why on EARTH is "bad employees are everywhere" any justification AT ALL for poor performance in one's own field?

Where did I say it was? I said using bad employees as an indictment of an entire system is prejudiced, lazy and hypocritical. And it is all 3 of those. If you're going to apply it to teaching, you have to apply it everywhere. It is hypocritical to not do so, yet it happens all the time around here.

I am just as disappointed in a lazy plumber or lazy pilot or lazy accountant as I am a lazy teacher, it's just that in this conversation the lazy teacher is all that matters.

And we don't see angry rants about pilots on a regular basis here. Or complaints that the pilot is responsible for one's level of stupidity.

Frankly I'm a little bothered by how readily you are willing to draw that line and cross your arms and stand behind it. I understand you've caught a lot of flak from people, here alone and not counting elsewhere even, and undoubtedly there were many cases where you shouldn't have been catching flak at all, but seriously one peep out of someone suggesting there was a shortfall anywhere in the education system at any given place and your general attitude is (to paraphrase here a little) "**** you, I've done my part, this is clearly the line of my responsibilities and I'm not going any further than that so if you don't like it then you just don't work hard enough as a parent."

Really, that is pretty thin and not very accurate as to what my position is.

My point is, a kid has a teacher for up to a few hours per day. They have their parents for up to 18 years or more. If there is an influence to blame on how a child turns out, it is pure laziness on the part of the parents to say that a bad teacher is solely responsible.

I am a parent, too. I use that as an example to counter those around here who use individual examples to denounce whatever the HotM club is denouncing that week. If I can raise my child to be successful, anyone can.

So really, what SPECIFICALLY is the role of the public education system and the teacher if the majority of stuff that children should know is supposed to be taught before they enter the system, and if there is a case where they don't understand something, they should pursue it entirely on the own where the teacher is not at all to be bothered with helping them outside of class because they've done all they are supposed to do by showing up, reading the book to them, and writing out examples that were already in the book on the board?

Um, you're reaching again. Nowhere did I state this. I said my daughter could read before Kindergarten. I used it as an example to support the above premise that parents are more important than teachers to their child's development.

If anyone here cares to try to support the position that parents are NOT the most important factor in a child's development, I'll be waiting with the popcorn ready.

And if you want to know specifics on the educational system's priorities, do a search on standards and benchmarks. There are national standards for you to view, at every grade level and for every subject area. We would be here an awfully long time if that were the topic.

Schooling used to be responsible for a set amount of content. Now we have parents insisting that we teach kids how to bathe, how to cook, how to organize their day, how to drive a car, and all sorts of other things that I was taught by family members.

Reductio ad absurdum, you say? Possibly, but then again, this is all I can consistently draw from your messages on the subject.

I'm sorry, but if this is true then you are clearly not paying attention.

For clarity and the sake of fairness, let's cast aside the argument for students who are bull-headed about learning and refuse to even try, as I can totally agree that a teacher can only do so much for a student like that, even if they are going far beyond where they should even have to as a teacher. I don't think there would be much disagreement that a teacher shouldn't have to be a personal savior to every troubled child they should happen to come across in the classroom, and those that do, well I'll agree with you that they are crazy to argue that.

And yet the poor student is what teachers are consistently blamed for, but only in this country.

 

[duhtroll]

You're trying too hard. Last time I had this argument with him and pointed out test scores have gone to hell in a hand-basket over the last couple of decades, and how we get our behinds kicked by other nations spending way less on their education, he immediately jumped up and claimed that his students got top scores. That may very well be the case, but shows how he's willing to take credit for it. Then when you point out the most basic skills in math and English are low in today's graduates, he claims that's the parents' fault.

To summarize it: Students getting good test scores are signs of a good teacher, students getting bad scores are signs of bad parents. If we want better test scores and kids to have better math and grammar skills, parents need to get involved more and teach their kids all of this, and teachers need a pay raise and better benefits than any other private industry.

And you are woefully incorrect.

Show me where I have taken credit for my students' success. Either that or you are talking out your ass again.

Actually, I said the EXACT opposite -- that the students themselves receive credit for their own successes, and failures.

But like I said, it is easier for you to just put words in my mouth, then argue against them.

And as far as pay and benefits go, are you really going to continue to claim that teachers are that well off? When we started talking real numbers and not cherry picking one example as the standard for the entire system -- something else you like to do -- you disappeared, and will again when you realize you are wrong.

 

[MrBluGruv]

I would agree - but that is what we are talking about here. People who are morons blaming everyone but themselves for their own failings.



It was an example, nothing more. You mentioned using a calculator to do math.



I had a physically abusive nun (thankfully I wasn't one of the targets), more than one alcoholic regular classroom teacher, and a PE teacher/coach (male) who would go and supervise the girls changing clothes, so class would always be late/unsupervised for the first 10 minutes and last 10 minutes.



Yet you had many teachers, which was the point. One bad teacher does not a student make.



That comment wasn't really directed at you, but at the board in general. We have several people on this board whom I and a few others have named the "Hate of the Month" club. They bring to the boards political rants against whoever FOX News is vilifying currently. It uncannily lines up. Watch for a while and you'll know what I mean.

The list has included but is not limited to:

Liberals
Obama
Muslims
Gays
Liberals
Teachers
Unions
Liberals
Obama
Blacks
Poor people
Asians
British
Liberals
Obama
French
Greeks




Where did I say it was? I said using bad employees as an indictment of an entire system is prejudiced, lazy and hypocritical. And it is all 3 of those. If you're going to apply it to teaching, you have to apply it everywhere. It is hypocritical to not do so, yet it happens all the time around here.



And we don't see angry rants about pilots on a regular basis here. Or complaints that the pilot is responsible for one's level of stupidity.



Really, that is pretty thin and not very accurate as to what my position is.

My point is, a kid has a teacher for up to a few hours per day. They have their parents for up to 18 years or more. If there is an influence to blame on how a child turns out, it is pure laziness on the part of the parents to say that a bad teacher is solely responsible.

I am a parent, too. I use that as an example to counter those around here who use individual examples to denounce whatever the HotM club is denouncing that week. If I can raise my child to be successful, anyone can.



Um, you're reaching again. Nowhere did I state this. I said my daughter could read before Kindergarten. I used it as an example to support the above premise that parents are more important than teachers to their child's development.

If anyone here cares to try to support the position that parents are NOT the most important factor in a child's development, I'll be waiting with the popcorn ready.

And if you want to know specifics on the educational system's priorities, do a search on standards and benchmarks. There are national standards for you to view, at every grade level and for every subject area. We would be here an awfully long time if that were the topic.

Schooling used to be responsible for a set amount of content. Now we have parents insisting that we teach kids how to bathe, how to cook, how to organize their day, how to drive a car, and all sorts of other things that I was taught by family members.



I'm sorry, but if this is true then you are clearly not paying attention.



And yet the poor student is what teachers are consistently blamed for, but only in this country.

I think we actually agree on more than it seems, but I think we're talking right past each other on some of these points.

Frankly, I'll be glad at this point to agree about what we agree about and disagree on the things I can really tell we disagree about and move on, cause I don't think we'll get much further than that.

Cheers though, it's nice to have thought-out discourse, even if we feel differently on the talking points.

 

[duhtroll]

I would agree, but complex subjects require thought out, thorough answers.

Education can't be reduced to talking points and have any meaningful conclusion.

I think we actually agree on more than it seems, but I think we're talking right past each other on some of these points.

Frankly, I'll be glad at this point to agree about what we agree about and disagree on the things I can really tell we disagree about and move on, cause I don't think we'll get much further than that.

Cheers though, it's nice to have thought-out discourse, even if we feel differently on the talking points.

 

[MrBluGruv]

I would agree, but complex subjects require thought out, thorough answers.

Education can't be reduced to talking points and have any meaningful conclusion.

I think I made a poor word choice there with "talking points", wasn't really going for the angle that it should be so perfectly easy to quantify that it could be solved in a single simple debate.