[quote]vroom wrote:
Damn, now I’m going to have to watch the stupid thing aren’t I?[/quote]
Well yeh, you should have done that before you started posting. The film has (among other material) interviews of 2 conservative college students who were clearly discriminated against because of their political views. An opposing side prof was also interviewed. All he could do was spout leftist talking points though. Guess you’d have to watch it though.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I went to a mostly engineering college so this was not a worry.
I suppose if you major in political science or liberal arts there is a bit more of this crap.[/quote]
If that’s the case, then there is no problem.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
I had several political science professors who made their political views very clear in the classroom. Of that handful, I had two professors who allowed NO dissent from their views. That was in discussion, in papers, on tests. You toed the liberal line or you did poorly in the class.
On the whole, though, I had a great relationship with most of my professors.
What I have a hard time believing, and I could definitely be wrong, is that students were FORCED to think a certain way in the classroom you just described. That could easily be handled if it is true and grades were deducted for the simple reason of a difference in opinion. My political science teachers never forced a certain opinion. The books the lessons were pulled from weren’t “liberal” so it would have been a stretch to give assignments using the textbook while only giving one opinion of events to the class. Do you have examples of how you were forced to respond “liberally” in class?[/quote]
First, most of the upper level courses don’t have textbooks. You are assigned readings from all kinds of sources. These readings (in a few classes) where always from liberal viewpoints. The best example of bias I can give you is being assigned a paper on Constitutional interpretation. I was still a liberal back then, so I did fine on it (writing exactly what I knew was expected of me). However, there were 13 of us in the class. None of the 5 students who took an “original intent” stand received an A, while all but one of us who took the “living document” got As.
I have had a few very conservative professors who made their viewpoints very well known, but none of them seemed to carry it over to their grading.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I had several political science professors who made their political views very clear in the classroom. Of that handful, I had two professors who allowed NO dissent from their views. That was in discussion, in papers, on tests. You toed the liberal line or you did poorly in the class.
No offense Doogie, I don’t necessarily mean you, but I’m suspicious that some of the cheerleaders around here wouldn’t know the different between reasoned analysis and leftist views.
I mean, when your viewpoint is really a series of republican talking points, the whole damned world will look pretty leftish to you. It would also feel pretty constrictive if someone forced you to think and write about the issues, instead of the talking points.
Damn, now I’m going to have to watch the stupid thing aren’t I?[/quote]
I was very liberal in my college days, so this never really had any adverse affect on my grades. It probably delayed the glorious day when my eyes where finally opened to the beauty of conservatism, though 
[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
I had several political science professors who made their political views very clear in the classroom. Of that handful, I had two professors who allowed NO dissent from their views. That was in discussion, in papers, on tests. You toed the liberal line or you did poorly in the class.
On the whole, though, I had a great relationship with most of my professors.
What I have a hard time believing, and I could definitely be wrong, is that students were FORCED to think a certain way in the classroom you just described. That could easily be handled if it is true and grades were deducted for the simple reason of a difference in opinion. My political science teachers never forced a certain opinion. The books the lessons were pulled from weren’t “liberal” so it would have been a stretch to give assignments using the textbook while only giving one opinion of events to the class. Do you have examples of how you were forced to respond “liberally” in class?
First, most of the upper level courses don’t have textbooks. You are assigned readings from all kinds of sources. These readings (in a few classes) where always from liberal viewpoints. The best example of bias I can give you is being assigned a paper on Constitutional interpretation. I was still a liberal back then, so I did fine on it (writing exactly what I knew was expected of me). However, there were 13 of us in the class. None of the 5 students who took an “original intent” stand received an A, while all but one of us who took the “living document” got As.
I have had a few very conservative professors who made their viewpoints very well known, but none of them seemed to carry it over to their grading.[/quote]
I still don’t understand how you jump to that conclusion when they could have simply been poor writers or didn’t gather their thoughts well. If they had no real basis for their presentation of original intent, then they deserved lesser grades. I mean, honestly, something like that could have been easily fought if these students wrote award winning essays yet were downgraded simply because of the viewpoint.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
I had several political science professors who made their political views very clear in the classroom. Of that handful, I had two professors who allowed NO dissent from their views. That was in discussion, in papers, on tests. You toed the liberal line or you did poorly in the class.
On the whole, though, I had a great relationship with most of my professors.
What I have a hard time believing, and I could definitely be wrong, is that students were FORCED to think a certain way in the classroom you just described. That could easily be handled if it is true and grades were deducted for the simple reason of a difference in opinion. My political science teachers never forced a certain opinion. The books the lessons were pulled from weren’t “liberal” so it would have been a stretch to give assignments using the textbook while only giving one opinion of events to the class. Do you have examples of how you were forced to respond “liberally” in class?[/quote]
No this happens. Rare, but does happen. I actually saw a prof afetr I graduated…visiting…and he actually apologized about his behavior and treatment of the students. He is an ecophilosopher…yes. NOBODY wanted to answer his q’s and whoever did had their ass handed back to them every time. The views were basically we HAD to think like him.
Okay, watching it.
Quotes… lead in quotes have someone saying anyone who bombs the pentagon get’s his vote. Vote for what? Credible threat? Talk about out of context quoting.
Flags… some schools have a ban on all flags. Therefore, the US flag will be removed as well.
Let’s hope it gets a bit more realistic.
Economics… being forced to study Marx. Ahahahaha. I guess the fact that Marx was instrumental in the early days of economics and sociology should be ignored because we don’t like his viewpoints?
Sociology… oh no, we talk about gender issues or sex issues. So, sex, race and gender relations aren’t part of how we are socialized into society? My god, the people they are interviewing as talking heads are retards.
Engineering… ack, the prof started talking about his political beliefs. Oh no, I don’t want to ever hear anyones political beliefs. So, let me guess, the professors own beliefs were on the exam? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I love the dude saying how things are so one sided. Being introduced to concepts and ideas you don’t like, so that you are forced to think about them, is not the same as being one sided. It sounds like what they’d prefer to hear is how great and perfect everything is, like they are told by politicians and media every day.
Students feel they are being indoctrinated? Is there anything to back that statement up? Holy shit, I love the claims they are putting out there without support or any real justification.
Cal Poly… oh no, flyers removed. Somehow, putting stake signs into peoples yards, or other places, seems to be an invitation to have them removed. I can particularly see it happen if they have a provocative title or subject – especially one that can be mistaken for any type of “ism”. As if this has anything to do with the concept of liberalism or with university policies.
I do suspect that there is more to the story of the sign guy, such that he or his group was routinely posting material that was viewed as some type of “ism” from time to time.
To get a fair assessment of this issue we’d have to know a lot more about previous on campus activities… though it does sound like a witch hunt as described in this completely one-sided presentation.
Ahahahaha. I like the fact he goes around campus with a camera and invites himself into peoples offices. Hahahahaha. Yeah, try that on any campus and see how far you get. Then the dude started pestering the administrator guy and raising his voice at him. Why not call security and get him removed so you can go back to doing your job?
Does every nutjob with a camera have the right to bust into every office on every campus? Is that the complaint around here?
Oh hey, at the end after being kicked off campus, he admits that was the actual day the university situation was resolved… that the university decided to pay up. Of course people are not going to comment on an ongoing situation, what would you seriously expect?
In general, the freedom to speak, as we are told around these forums, does not mean you walk into the presidents office to make your point. You do not also necessarily have the right to place signs on property you don’t own or promote your own events at the events being held by others. These issues need to be seperated.
Now, as for speech on campus, at my own university, you could do whatever you wanted, as long as you followed the rules. As soon as you broke the rules and ran afoul of the administration, they were extremely fascist in their dictatorial power… no matter what your political beliefs were.
Speech codes… now this gets tricky. I remember at high school, the fact that we were students in an educational setting actually meant that various rights could be restricted within that environment in order to allow the institution to keep an orderly environment. We get all kinds of dress codes, weapons restrictions and other things these days, which are very restrictive.
Most universities, I expect, will have codes of conduct and speech codes. These are things meant to help provide a smooth and peaceful environment, and they are very restrictive once you fall afoul of them. Universities don’t want to have students clashing over ideologies. I’m going to guess that people who are more politically correct are less likely to run afoul of these things.
It seems to me to be the same thing we have found in our forums. Some folks, whether by intent or not, end up sounding ignorant, or racist, when they discuss certain issues. These people may not be aware or they may not believe certain things, but they will offend many people when they open their mouths.
If they were a bit more intelligent, it wouldn’t be hard to find a way to express their beliefs and thoughts in a way that didn’t fit into an “ism” so aptly.
Is a campus a place where people should deny that the holocaust occurred? Is a campus a place where people should promote slavery or discrimination? These issues, minus the pro-slant suggested, are routinely discussed on campus though. You can discuss just about anything, from an academic point of view, without promoting a viewpoint which will cause disunity, conflict and a breakdown of campus civility.
However, this is certainly made trickier in the US as the campus is often viewed somewhat as “public” property beyond simply an institution for attending students.
Bucknell… oh no, sensitivity training. I think the “charges” that people are brought up on and the “punishments” they are given, are pretty inconsequential. Unless you butt heads with the administration proper, or have a history of doing so, I find it hard to imagine they’d give a shit.
Honestly, what every administrator in every university wants to do is simply have as little headache, hassle and media attention as possible.
Ahahahaha. I’d really like to know what kind of beliefs these people are promoting. Or, alternately, what type of insults they are launching at the administration. At my old school, there are campus publications that routinely make fun of the university officials in various ways, publicly for the world to see. It is not hard to generate a personal animosity, nor is it wise.
Rather than a left versus right leaning, and I should be clear I am against the concept of shutting people up, left or right, I think the rules in place favor those that are politically correct or less likely to raise tensions due to “isms” when they are holding meetings, posting flyers, or writing in campus publications. However, this may call to attention that right wing thinkers are a lot less capable of expressing themselves in a PC manner.
I know how much the PC police are hated around here by the righties.
Ahahahaha. Nothing happened when they where “chalked”. Ahahahaha. Okay, what the fuck is supposed to happen? Wouldn’t you have to catch someone for something to happen? These people don’t get it… visibly and noticeably pissing off other people is the problem. Some coward chalking their window is of course wrong, but really, what the fuck can happen? Maybe a DNA analysis of the chalk dust… this thing is so damned one sided it is hurting.
Wow, swastica’s? I really would like to know what type of viewpoints they were promoting!
Ahahahaha. Jughead and Archie. Ahahahaha. You have got to be kidding me.
This whole movie is about people not wanting to hear anything other than the fact that the US is perfect when it comes to international issues and that certain segments of society are to blame for all their own troubles. Because these views aren’t supported by many thinking people, they don’t get a lot of play at universities… where a lot of work goes into studying these issues and actually understanding how and why things happened.
Ahahahaha.
Oh man, you can tell that guy was having trouble saying that the Sikh student was threatened. Well, post Columbine, sure, he should take it as a threat. We need to see this stuff to get any real idea. Of course it sounds horrible when we only get one sided baloney. Ahahahaha. Death threats. Ahahahah.
So, if I PM somebody a private message about someone else, and it happens to get into the wrong hands, that should be the same as publicly stating something? Ahahahhaha. Now I see what is happening… basically a private opinion between several people leaked out to the guy that resigned, and they went public with it and characterized it as a death threat.
Ahahahahaha.
Then, various right wing groups ran with some mischaracterizations and caused dissent and disruption on a campus wide scale, so the administration tried to stop it.
Ahahahahhaa.
Damn, from now on the university should snoop on all email messages between all people, and if anyone EVER expresses anything “privately” to another, they should be severly punished. That is what they right is asking for here? You realize that don’t you?
Ahahahahaha.
You guys getting a boner over this little one-sided collection of half truths and unstated facts really need to watch F-9/11.
Ahahahhaha.
What a fucking complete useless waste of my time.
[quote]vroom wrote:
What a fucking complete useless waste of my time.[/quote]
Yet you wasted it well.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
brushga wrote:
In all my time in college I only had one professor who I knew was a conservative, and he was an econ professor. And actually, I think he was more of a libertarian. Poli Sci., Philosophy, History, etc. were usually liberal to radicals. I actually enjoyed it, college is a great time to bang up against new ideas, and for the most part the kids who fall hard for the uber-lefty stuff in college grow out of it as the years go by. That is unless they stay on campus and become professors themselves.
To be honest, I think the far lefty environment is actually only a problem for lefties, because they don’t get as many opportunities to hear dissenting opinions and are under a lot of pressure to conform.
Those right leaning kids that fight the power so to speak and go against the university establishment probably get more out of the experience because they actually have skin in the game.
Being a “far lefty” isn’t a problem for anyone. The teachers do tend to be left leaning- that doesn’t mean that they’re hateful or bitter as Rockscar said, or retards who wouldn’t make it in the real world.
To me, the left is always the pinnacle of idealism- certainly not anything that lends itself to being bitter, hateful, selfish, greedy, or whatever else people want to attribute to these liberal professors.
I have met just as many Republicans who are kniving and ruthless, not too mention bitter and hateful, as I have leftists. In fact, probably more.
Ever think that they become professors…maybe because they enjoy working with students, engaging in exchanges of ideas, or just helping people out? I think you guys are being a bit ridiculous with this one. [/quote]
Hey man, I was just commenting on the reality of the situation when I was at school. Like I said, I enjoyed college because I got to experience alot of new concepts and ideas, the overwhelming majority of which came from the left side of the aisle. I had a GEOGRAPHY teacher give extra credit for going to see Howard Zinn speak for god sakes. And I went, and I enjoyed it, and I got extra credit.
I don’t think being a far lefty is a problem, sorry if I gave that impression. All I am saying is that when you are surrounded by people who share your viewpoint it can stunt your intellectual growth, ie. you don’t get a chance to more fully develop the reasons you believe X or Y. And in my experience most people moderate themselves quite a bit after leaving college, while professors seem to remain more dedicated to their original beliefs. None of this is meant as a slam towards professors.
Like I said, I enjoyed listening to and arguing with many of them. And I am neither Republican nor Conservative.
Note: For the record, in non-liberal arts classes I never had a teacher say anything overtly political, with the exception of a couple of geography courses, and even in those I never felt pressure to make up liberal answers in our discussion classes or in my papers, and I enjoyed the classes.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I still don’t understand how you jump to that conclusion when they could have simply been poor writers or didn’t gather their thoughts well. If they had no real basis for their presentation of original intent, then they deserved lesser grades. I mean, honestly, something like that could have been easily fought if these students wrote award winning essays yet were downgraded simply because of the viewpoint.[/quote]
We each had to present our papers to the class. There were only 13 of us. We made copies for everyone, and then read our paper and defended it when it was our turn. They weren’t poorly written papers (one wasn’t great, but not as bad as some of the A papers).
This was a professor who told a student who was maced by some hippies at a Bush/Quayle rally he got what he deserved for supporting the devil. The day after Clinton won in 92 we had a party in class. Food, drinks, music, the whole bit.
[quote]doogie wrote:
This was a professor who told a student who was maced by some hippies at a Bush/Quayle rally he got what he deserved for supporting the devil. The day after Clinton won in 92 we had a party in class. Food, drinks, music, the whole bit.[/quote]
That’s fucked up.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I still don’t understand how you jump to that conclusion when they could have simply been poor writers or didn’t gather their thoughts well. If they had no real basis for their presentation of original intent, then they deserved lesser grades. I mean, honestly, something like that could have been easily fought if these students wrote award winning essays yet were downgraded simply because of the viewpoint.
We each had to present our papers to the class. There were only 13 of us. We made copies for everyone, and then read our paper and defended it when it was our turn. They weren’t poorly written papers (one wasn’t great, but not as bad as some of the A papers).
This was a professor who told a student who was maced by some hippies at a Bush/Quayle rally he got what he deserved for supporting the devil. The day after Clinton won in 92 we had a party in class. Food, drinks, music, the whole bit.
[/quote]
So he was a comedian?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I went to a mostly engineering college so this was not a worry.
I suppose if you major in political science or liberal arts there is a bit more of this crap.
If that’s the case, then there is no problem.[/quote]
I think it is only a problem if you let it be.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I went to a mostly engineering college so this was not a worry.
I suppose if you major in political science or liberal arts there is a bit more of this crap.
If that’s the case, then there is no problem.
I think it is only a problem if you let it be.
[/quote]
I agree. Thus, I don’t see the problem. I had a professor who taught nutrition who would give the most bullshit info regarding carb intake and protein consumption. Her info was at least 10 years behind. I had a choice, however. Either go along with her crap and make a great grade in the class, or act as if it is my duty to change how some overweight nutritionist thinks about protein intake. That seems to me to be what I am hearing here.
Instead of being smart and simply taking the damn class and making the “A”, some of these kids are dumb enough to turn minor shit into huge political death matches and then whine about how liberal everything is.
[quote] vroom wrote:
Most universities, I expect, will have codes of conduct and speech codes. These are things meant to help provide a smooth and peaceful environment, and they are very restrictive once you fall afoul of them. Universities don’t want to have students clashing over ideologies. I’m going to guess that people who are more politically correct are less likely to run afoul of these things.
[/quote]
Some of us here take the first amendment rather seriously. While a private campus is certainly allowed to have its own speech codes (and market forces ought to constrain how restrictive those codes are), public universities or colleges that receive government subsidy have to comply with the first amendment.
I don’t really understand your point about the speech codes, though; you started by saying how the filmmaker was essentially whining about hearing only “one side,” and that it was silly to worry about hearing conflicting viewpoints. And yet, you have no problem saying that universities ought to restrict the expression of viewpoints if people might get their feathers ruffled. So, it’s ok for conservatives to be challenged, but leave the liberals alone?
Ding ding ding.
It seems like conservatism is engaged in a holy war against liberal viewpoints…
The two viewpoints should be like opposite sides of an oreo cookie… seperable, but part of a good thing as a whole.
This is like one side of the oreo maintaining that it tastes better than the other biscuit. Now that’s assinine.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Instead of being smart and simply taking the damn class and making the “A”, some of these kids are dumb enough to turn minor shit into huge political death matches and then whine about how liberal everything is.
[/quote]
True; as a tutor, I have had to advise students to revise essays to better reflect the teachers’ viewpoints. Magically, the grades improved. Is that selling out? Maybe… but playing the game NOW means setting your own rules in the future.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I went to a mostly engineering college so this was not a worry.
I suppose if you major in political science or liberal arts there is a bit more of this crap.
If that’s the case, then there is no problem.
I think it is only a problem if you let it be.
I agree. Thus, I don’t see the problem. I had a professor who taught nutrition who would give the most bullshit info regarding carb intake and protein consumption. Her info was at least 10 years behind. I had a choice, however. Either go along with her crap and make a great grade in the class, or act as if it is my duty to change how some overweight nutritionist thinks about protein intake. That seems to me to be what I am hearing here.
Instead of being smart and simply taking the damn class and making the “A”, some of these kids are dumb enough to turn minor shit into huge political death matches and then whine about how liberal everything is.
[/quote]
I agree as a general rule that it’s not a problem unless you make it one. And yes, the sample size here was small. But I don’t think the documentary was whining about how “liberal” colleges are. Their complaint, and a very valid one, was about free speech. If the tables were turned and a conservative college were attempting to suppress the free speech of liberals, my position would not change - it’s wrong either way.
The guy from FIRE made an interesting statement. He said that most of FIRE’s members were somewhat liberal, and that they actually took heat from the left for defending the conservative clubs. This organization has my respect because they ignored the left-right distinction and stood up for free speech.
BTW - The Steve Hinckle case was very disturbing. The fact that the administration suggested he see a psychologist for “counseling” just conjured up images of indoctrination camps in China.
What happens if you’re a moderate? I guess they’ll say you’re only half crazy.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Anyway’s I’m digressing, I was just trying to tap the thoughts of a professor on how the high school system might be improved.[/quote]
I’d really like to tell you I have a simple solution, that is limited to changing the system through new rules and procedures but the fact is that I don’t. There has been a boatload of discussion about that very subject, and we end up always reaching the same conclusion: the problem is culture and attitude, not budget.
Let me explain: The fundamental culture and attitude in High Schools in this country is cater to normality and attack anyone who is different. Even if you “rule” to respect difference or creativity, the problem is that it takes work and the cooperation of other students AND parents. Which usually doesn’t happen.
Also, as Professor X touched briefly, there is a fundamental lack of purpose / structure / intent, that gives the more intelligent, creative students the feeling they are not really going anywhere – hence many people that otherwise had great potential end up falling through the cracks or getting bored out of their mind.
The students on the other end of the spectrum tend to be equally mistreated. Some of them actually can have great potential in many areas, but because they don’t have either the motivation, the environment at home, or quite simply the strength to cope with the “system”, they fall through also, in many cases labeled as retards, which they aren’t, more often than not.
In fact, I’ve found that many straight-A (and GPA 4.0, if we’re talking graduates) students are dumber, less creative, less able to think or to learn new things than many students who barely made it through. That is one of the things I constantly argue about with Stanford’s admission office, and although I understand their tendency to “play it safe”, it frustrates me how many potentially great people might not get in just because they didn’t fit the “academic achievement” standards.
TC put up a brilliant quote that summarizes this quite nicely:
"
What usually happens in the educational process is that the faculties are dulled, overloaded, stuffed and paralyzed so that by the time most people are mature they have lost their innate capabilities. – R. Buckminster Fuller
"
(R Buckminster Fuller (or Buckie Fuller), was famed as an engineer, mathematician and architect. Fuller’s family were from New England and he grew up with a boyhood fascination for ship-building and fishing which were part of life on the coast of Maine.)
Our redeeming project (at Stanford) has been taking over the administration of some High Schools in the “rough” neighborhoods around Palo Alto and trying to find and help those students that would normally fall through the cracks.
Another problem, of course, is that there is a fundamental lack of respect for teachers. Not only they are poorly paid, they are seen as “the enemy” by both students and parents. That cannot be good, and pushes away people that could have been good, if not exceptional, teachers.
Basically, I don’t think this can be solved only with money. A fundamental culture change is needed. A lot can be achieved with a strong, influential leadership at all levels that is concerned about this problem and has the right attitude. This is not a jab aimed specifically at GWB – in fact, none of our recent presidents, Republican or Democrat, have even tried to do anything about this, and neither have the State and local leadership. Maybe because the people that elect them are, for the most, part of the problem. In fact, I’d say the parents and their attitudes are 80% of the problem. They want baby sitters, not teachers.
What saves us are two things: one, the fact that there are people that are able to thrive even in spite of all the flaws – people like Professor X. It requires a lot of strength and motivation, but somehow we do end up having a few exceptional people achieving success. We lose many along the way, but some to get through, in mosts cases thanks to good parenting. Not to minimize anyone’s achievement, but I’m willing to bet that Professor X’s mother is quite an exceptional lady in her own right.
Two, the fact that this country has a tradition of attracting the best minds in the World, and invariably we get a good chunk of brilliant foreign students that fill up for the Americans that lost their way somehow in the middle… It is quite unfortunate, but it has served as a very effective “aspirin” for the problem…
[quote]hspder wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Anyway’s I’m digressing, I was just trying to tap the thoughts of a professor on how the high school system might be improved.
I’d really like to tell you I have a simple solution, that is limited to changing the system through new rules and procedures but the fact is that I don’t. There has been a boatload of discussion about that very subject, and we end up always reaching the same conclusion: the problem is culture and attitude, not budget.
Let me explain: The fundamental culture and attitude in High Schools in this country is cater to normality and attack anyone who is different. Even if you “rule” to respect difference or creativity, the problem is that it takes work and the cooperation of other students AND parents. Which usually doesn’t happen.
Also, as Professor X touched briefly, there is a fundamental lack of purpose / structure / intent, that gives the more intelligent, creative students the feeling they are not really going anywhere – hence many people that otherwise had great potential end up falling through the cracks or getting bored out of their mind.[/quote]
I really believe this as well. I’ve known some extremely bright individuals who were kust bored out of their minds.
[quote]
The students on the other end of the spectrum tend to be equally mistreated. Some of them actually can have great potential in many areas, but because they don’t have either the motivation, the environment at home, or quite simply the strength to cope with the “system”, they fall through also, in many cases labeled as retards, which they aren’t, more often than not.
In fact, I’ve found that many straight-A (and GPA 4.0, if we’re talking graduates) students are dumber, less creative, less able to think or to learn new things than many students who barely made it through. That is one of the things I constantly argue about with Stanford’s admission office, and although I understand their tendency to “play it safe”, it frustrates me how many potentially great people might not get in just because they didn’t fit the “academic achievement” standards.[/quote]
I see folks like this in the fire service. They can ace the EMT/fire academy exam, but put them put on the street or on the fireground with all dynamic factors that go with it, and they stumble big time.
[quote]
TC put up a brilliant quote that summarizes this quite nicely:
"
What usually happens in the educational process is that the faculties are dulled, overloaded, stuffed and paralyzed so that by the time most people are mature they have lost their innate capabilities. – R. Buckminster Fuller
"
(R Buckminster Fuller (or Buckie Fuller), was famed as an engineer, mathematician and architect. Fuller’s family were from New England and he grew up with a boyhood fascination for ship-building and fishing which were part of life on the coast of Maine.)
Our redeeming project (at Stanford) has been taking over the administration of some High Schools in the “rough” neighborhoods around Palo Alto and trying to find and help those students that would normally fall through the cracks.
Another problem, of course, is that there is a fundamental lack of respect for teachers. Not only they are poorly paid, they are seen as “the enemy” by both students and parents. That cannot be good, and pushes away people that could have been good, if not exceptional, teachers.
Basically, I don’t think this can be solved only with money. A fundamental culture change is needed. A lot can be achieved with a strong, influential leadership at all levels that is concerned about this problem and has the right attitude. This is not a jab aimed specifically at GWB – in fact, none of our recent presidents, Republican or Democrat, have even tried to do anything about this, and neither have the State and local leadership. Maybe because the people that elect them are, for the most, part of the problem. In fact, I’d say the parents and their attitudes are 80% of the problem. They want baby sitters, not teachers.
What saves us are two things: one, the fact that there are people that are able to thrive even in spite of all the flaws – people like Professor X. It requires a lot of strength and motivation, but somehow we do end up having a few exceptional people achieving success. We lose many along the way, but some to get through, in mosts cases thanks to good parenting. Not to minimize anyone’s achievement, but I’m willing to bet that Professor X’s mother is quite an exceptional lady in her own right.[/quote]
I would be willing to bet that this is the case. And I also think that a good education HAS to start in the home. My son is in kindergarten and was lucky enoughto get a really good teacher. She tells me that she always knows which kids have parents that work with them at home and which ones don’t.
I also know that if I were to have disrespected a teacher, and it was reported home, I would’ve gotten the ass whooping of a lifetime. Things like that just weren’t tolerated in my home and sometimes I wonder if that kind of thinking is going by the wayside.
Good post hspder, thanks.