In my opinion (dummies discuss a free education meritocracy)

[zeitgeist]

In my personal opinion ....



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x102670

UndertheOcean  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 05:35 PM
Original message
In my personal opinion , and from personal experience teaching college students
 I came to the conclusion that only those who graduate HS with >=3.0 GPA should apply to Science or Engineering or Math. And their education should be totally free.

Some students just don't get it , even after explaining the material a million times.

A system I would support is having an Academic committee look at your HS performance , where your strengths are ? , and assign you the proper fields you can succeed in. If you choose to continue your education in those fields then all tuition is waived, if not you have to pay tuition.


I think that is the fairest system we can achieve.

 

The original premise..

and off to the races we go

wtmusic  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Very French
 not the worst system, by far.  

This is actually a very long complicated thread which is better read in its native environment although there are very few prominent dummies represented.  

CTyankee  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Except that, on one of my "aptitude" tests it was recommended that I be a bus driver.
 I had and have no mechanical ability. But I was an communications and fine arts major. What were they thinking giving me this test?
 

Rut roh.....

wtmusic  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. What do you do for a living? nt

Talk about giving a whack up side the squash with a four by twice.

CTyankee  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. I am retired now but for over 35 years I was a Development professional
 for nonprofit organizations. I made a conscious decision years ago that I wanted to work in a cause that I believed in and took a hardheaded look at the options available to me: it was either Public Relations or Fund Development (fundraising). I chose fundraising on the theory that I could always get a job if I knew how to raise money. I spent all my time learning how this was done: direct mail, grant writing, event planning and major donor recruitment and development (increasing their gifts every year). AT my highest pay level, I was a Major Gifts Officer.

While I was right that you can always get a job in nonprofits if tyou know how to raise money, it is also true that it's a job you probably don't want. The exception is the major donor category. You DO want the job there now. You DON'T want to be out trying to get the smaller donations. It's just too hard and you could risk not making the (unrealistic) goal the organization sets for you.

My recommendation: go to work in the Development Office of a major University. Ivy League preferably. Or just look up the college's fundraising online and make your decision accordingly...

Oh, and if you are older, no matter what the nonprofit, be prepared for age discrimination...it will come, it will come....

Translation:

I am a bell ringer at Christmas.

Then it gets good.

jody  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. ROFL because one is assigned possible careers at birth because one's genes contribute to IQ just as
 one's genes contribute to art, athletic, and other abilities.

You might not like it but that's just the way things are.
 

Jody does a good job of  putting the wood to dummies.  Hard to argue with logic but he dummies sure do love to try.

Great thread in many ways, well worth a trip if you have the time and inclination. 

[JohnnyReb]

DUmmie says... I chose fundraising on the theory that I could always get a job if I knew how to raise money. I spent all my time learning how this was done: direct mail, grant writing, event planning and major donor recruitment and development (increasing their gifts every year). AT my highest pay level, I was a Major Gifts Officer.....which is long winded for, "I run bleeding heart/Nigerian scams....and bye the way I'm only $10 away from building a home for...."

[vesta111]

DUmmie says... I chose fundraising on the theory that I could always get a job if I knew how to raise money. I spent all my time learning how this was done: direct mail, grant writing, event planning and major donor recruitment and development (increasing their gifts every year). AT my highest pay level, I was a Major Gifts Officer.....which is long winded for, "I run bleeding heart/Nigerian scams....and bye the way I'm only $10 away from building a home for...."

All education in darn near anything is essential to life.     We teach our children how to tie their sneakers then buy them only Velcro closures.     

I do agree that children that are skilled above the norm should have a chance to go as far as they can go, Math and Science, whatever, take a 10 year old that can hack into the Pentegon, now they need to be educated for National Security and their own benefit.

  What about trade schools for would be plumbers, electricions, the kids that can take the old time stone wall building into a new age.

I have no problem with a free education for those that can and will use the knowledge to benefit themselves and others.

Ok one does not need much education to become a Con man, all depends on just how good they are at fast talk and the amount of greed they have.

BTW some of the best Tattoo Artists have a degree in ART, Someone paid for 4 years in College for them or they worked their way through.

Should we taxpayers have paid for their education??

 If we are to give instate education to Illegal children, then we must choose the top 10 in the field they wish to follow.   What good does it do for us tax payers to educate a child in French Literature, or Recreational studies.?

[JohnnyReb]

"You can treat a DUmmie to a free education but you can't make 'em put the bong down."

[NHSparky]

3.0 GPA?  Far too low a bar, considering how pathetically easy high school curriculum  is today.  Most high schools require no more than two years of science and two years of math to graduate (9-12).

FWIW, DUmmies, I did FOUR years of math (up to Calc), and SIX years of science (Gen Sci, Bio, 2 years each of Chemistry and Physics.)  I still had to work my ass off in college, and later in Nuke School, back in college again, and even use a lot of it today.  All you do when you set a GPA bar is create grade inflation to the point where showing up is a guaranteed B average.

The Japanese have it right--middle school, test out, separate the men from the boys, so to speak.  You pass your exams, you go to high school which there is university prep.  You don't, you go to vo-tech schools and get your ass a useful skill in preparation for the real world.  Not everyone gets to go to college, and frankly, not everyone is cut out for it.  But the unions and the cash cows that are public universities still try to pull the bullshit that a $150K education in Womyn's Studies is somehow marketable and will make you into something in life.

Oh, and another thing--I could go BACK to where I started college (a very highly regarded engineering school) for about HALF of what it would cost for me to get a basket-weaving degree from UNH right down the road.  How sad is that?

[true_blood]

UndertheOcean  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 05:35 PM
Original message
In my personal opinion , and from personal experience teaching college students I came to the conclusion that only those who graduate HS with >=3.0 GPA should apply to Science or Engineering or Math. And their education should be totally free.

WOW!! Totally free, huh?! So, we don't have to pay the professors to teach them? Sounds good. Maybe you can "donate" your time and energy to that "professor"? How's that sound?

[vesta111]

WOW!! Totally free, huh?! So, we don't have to pay the professors to teach them? Sounds good. Maybe you can "donate" your time and energy to that "professor"? How's that sound?

Speaking of education True----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

Now how on earth did this man become able to pay for his education ??

[zeitgeist]

I pulled a few morn quotes some may find interesting.  The professional dummies are a beauty to behold. They constantly fly in the face of truth, justice, and teh Amerikan way.

A graph proporting to show males better at math than females was posted by freakdj prompting this first exchange

jody  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. What a crock, I did not preclude WOMEN from Math and Science Careers, I precluded those who do not
 have the ability for math and science careers, period!

FreakinDJ  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. I have 50 seats available - who will fill them
 by the scores - predominantly Males right?
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 jody  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. "by the scores" regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, etc. n/t
 
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 FreakinDJ  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #80
93. I've met School Administrators seeking to subvert the math curriculume
 because they felt the female gender responded better to "Old Math" teaching curriculum given the apparent disparity currently being experienced

I felt the resulting effect would be an entire school less prepared for advanced mathematics

my bad

 

Little Star  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. I like it. Then parents and students can stop wasting time and
 money just to have the kid drop out or such.
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 Xithras  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. We call them "zombie students"
 They wander around aimlessly without any real idea what they're doing or what they hope to accomplish, but they're sure they need BRAAAINS!

Eventually they just drop out, in debt up to their ears. 

Hello_Kitty  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jan-02-11 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
171. I'm not totally on board with the idea of tracking kids early in life but
 Some people are not cut out for college. Which doesn't mean they aren't smart or can't succeed in other ways. 
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 treestar  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. Such a student would go to other subjects on their own
 After getting a lousy grade. I was like that - good at Math and Science in H.S. but not at college level. Though the HS teachers did explain it better. The trouble with colleges is that people who get a doctorate don't necessarily make the best teachers. But to teach in primary/secondary, one has to learn about teaching.

In college I took Math and the prof was this German guy I could barely understand. Had a lot to do with how I could not understand it.

 
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

I guess those gimmie grades given at Mud Puddle High didn't raise treestar's self esteem enough to pass pre engineer frosh math?

 Xithras  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. A college educator is not a teacher. That's not their job.
 As I told a student at the beginning of last semester, "You are a wall. I am a bucket. I'm hurling information at you. It's your job to figure out how to make it stick." That students problem was ultimately traced (by someone else) to a lack of decent note-taking skills. A high school teacher might have helped the student overcome her problem. I gave her a reference to one of the school tutoring centers, and moved on to the next student.

The job of a high school teacher is to work with each student to help them learn the material. The job of a college educator is to place the material in front of the students in an understandable and accessible format, so that the students can learn it themselves. If a student wants to seek additional help from an educator, they may do so of their own accord, but the approach is different. My "students" are adults, and are expected to be 100% responsible for their own educations from the moment they walk in the door. If the student doesn't actively seek help for topics they're having trouble with, they won't get it.
 
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 treestar  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. I suppose so, but then it still doesn't mean colleges should
 have professors with heavy accents or bad English. Even if teaching a foreign language, that's not quite fair. But I suppose adults can do something, not pay their tuition or complain to a higher level. Though 18 year olds aren't instantly adults.

Then some did "teach" us - they just had a knack for it. 
 

jody  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. Agree, gifted students, i.e. the top 2.5%, demonstrating science and math aptitudes should have free
 college including Ph.D. in majors using their science and math skills.

Several years ago I obtained K-12 data showing that for every $11 we spend on students with special education needs, the bottom 2.5%, we spend an astounding 2 cents on gifted students, the top 2.5%.

I demand equal treatment for gifted students particularly if one is serious about investing in education expecting future benefits to society.
 

Pithlet  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Oh please. They don't even demand equal resources. What do you mean, equal treatment?
 As the parent of two sons, one of whom isa highly intelligent and academically gifted and the other who has benefited from special educational needs, I know a thing or two about this. Do you mean to tell me that you resent the resources that special education take? Seriously? For one thing, programs vary so widely by region and even by district, that it's wrong to make such a blanket statement anyway. If your area doesn't offer enough for gifted children, then by all means do something about it. As a parent, it's your duty. But to make it a fight between gifted kids and kids with special needs is patently ridiculous. It makes as much sense to say that it's the athletic department that is depriving your gifted kid? Why not make them the target? Or the lunch budget? I mean, if you're going to pick one at all.
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 jody  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. ROFL because you quoted ny answer to your question "equal treatment". If you don't understand that
 simple phrase, then nothing anyone says can help you. 
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 Pithlet  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yes, I understand what it means. Why do you demand it?
 The two student bodies don't require equal resources, do they? That seems pretty simple to understand to me.
 

Pithlet  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jan-01-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
49. LOL Okay.
 Please justify your assertion that the sky is blue.... Gee, why are kids with special needs more expensive to educate? Let's see. Physical therapists. Occupational Therapists. Speech Therapists. Various special education teachers. That's just for a start. It depends on the child's IEP and what is required, which is determined through testing, which requires various specialists (who also need to be paid) to make those determinations. Some need more accommodations, some need less. Depending on the level of accommodation and how many professionals are needed, it can add up quite quickly. Some children require a lot of one on one intervention.

Gifted kids are entitled to resources as well. They are entitled to programs to further their enrichment. But they aren't ever going to cost near the money that kids needing IEPs are going to cost. Gifted kids are never going to need highly specialized care like occupational therapy and speech. You're lamenting the fact that special ed receives a different level of attention and funding, while totally ignoring the reasons why. Each group have completely different needs. It isn't that one deserves less. It's that one group needs resources that happen to be more expensive.
 

jody  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-01-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. Please provide source for "aren't ever going to cost near the money that kids needing IEPs are going
 to cost."

While you are searching for that nonexistent source, you might find a source for ROI to society per dollar spent on the top 2.5% of K-12 students versus bottom 2.5% of K-12 students.

Absent a source for the latter, do you expect that social ROI is 10, 100, or 1,000 times greater for the top 2.5% than social ROI for the bottom 2.5%?  

Jody is asking for a double cheese pie with this one

And there is still lots more good stuff in the thread.  Blazing stupid is the only way one can describe it.

[zeitgeist]

Speaking of education True----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

Now how on earth did this man become able to pay for his education ??

He wasn't taught by proud2blib??  

[Rebel]

DUmbasses in a nutshell.

[zeitgeist]

DUmbasses in a nutshell.

yoink!!

good one that is going on my keeper reel.

[true_blood]

DUmbasses in a nutshell.

That's awesome. Someone should post that on the DUmp.
Stir up the brain cells cell a bit.

[jukin]

Ever read a little book called Brave New World?

[GOBUCKS]

Ever read a little book called Brave New World?

No, but I often read unattributed passages from it in Will Pitt "essays".

[NHSparky]

Dear DUmmies,

Familiarize yourself with an expression that goes, "Pass with four, fail with five."

Now show me how many American students have that level of dedication.