GeorgiaDon

While there certainly may be problems with the Texas public education system, the article you linked shows nothing of the kind. If you read the article, you would have learned that Texas has a lot of adults who did not complete high school simply because of the large immigrant population from Mexico and points South. These are people who come to Texas as adults to work, it is not the fault of the Texas education system that they did not finish high school back in Mexico or wherever long before they moved to Texas. California has a similar issue, for the same reason. Amongst kids who grow up in Texas, a high proportion graduate from high school, more than average (compared to the rest of the US) graduate from college, and more than average (again compared to the rest of the US) go on to graduate school. It's almost always a good idea to read the articles one links to, to be sure they actually support the point being made. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From the article: "It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. When no law prohibits a rapist from exercising these rights, a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child. When faced with the choice between a lifetime tethered to her rapist or meaningful legal redress, the answer may be easy, but it is not painless. For the sake of her child, the woman will sacrifice her need to see her once immensely powerful perpetrator humbled by the court. I know it because I lived it." She was forced to drop the charges against the rapist, in exchange for the rapist not pursuing his "parental rights". What kind of a devil's bargain is that to force on rape victims? If she doesn't agree to drop charges, then she will be forced by the courts to have to consult with the rapist (legally, the father) about every decision regarding the child: where to go to school, what activities to engage in, etc. He could use his right to access to force her to allow him to spend time with the child (once he got out of jail). He could use his legal right to access to prevent her from moving away to take a job. It's almost enough to coerce a woman into having an abortion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You're pleased she died, because you disapprove of the name she may have given her child? wtf? It's a good thing she didn't do something really outrageous, like jaywalk! Maybe then you'd be calling for her to be burned at the stake? Do you have any kids? What names did you give them, so we can all see what "appropriate" (i.e. non-death-worthy) names might be? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Given your posting history, I really can't tell if you're joking. If you are, don't give up your day job, stand-up comedy isn't your forte. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Would I be incorrect to assume that sailors are trained, and periodically practice how to respond to a fire on board? I very much doubt that the Navy's approach is to just tell the sailors "in the event of a fire, try to find a fire hose and get some water on the fire",and then cross their fingers and hope it all works out. Yet, at least here in the great state of Georgia, concealed carry permits must be issued to any citizen who requests one, as long as they pass a background check. There is absolutely NO requirement for any level of training, or demonstration of proficiency. No need to demonstrate that you can even hit a target, much less cluster your shots in the center of mass. For some reason, we assume that in the event of a crisis, such as the theater shooting (or any other attack where there are a lot of panicked people trying to get away), these untrained, unpracticed people will unerringly recognize and then take out the real attacker, without hitting innocent people or mistaking other Walter Mitty wannabees for the attacker and shooting them instead. This is the basis of our "first line of defense"?? I have no problem with honest citizens being armed. But for those who believe that a well-armed citizenry is the solution to these mass killings, wouldn't it make sense to at least require that such citizens demonstrate they have some idea of what they are doing? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It sounds as if you're making assumptions about his deployment altitude based on your tandem experience. At 18 miles altitude there is little atmosphere, so terminal velocity would be a lot higher. In fact, he hit about 600 miles per hour, vs about 120 for a tandem with drogue deployed. He would have gradually decelerated to more normal free-fall speeds as the altitude got lower and drag increased. I believe you're way off in your estimate of deployment height. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Several people have mentioned that people (friends, family) need to take the responsibility to speak up when they think there is risk of someone doing something like this. While I agree with that, there are always going to be people (such as the Colorado shooter) who fall between the cracks as they do not having family nearby, no friends outside of work acquaintances, etc. One possibility would be to require at least first-time gun buyers to complete some sort of firearm safety/proficiency course, where they have to spend some time (several hours at least) with instructors who are trained to teach the course, but also to pick up on "bad vibes". Somewhere in the process, there would be room for "idle banter" about "why do you want a firearm", "what are your hobbies/interests", etc that might give a clue that the person isn't entirely dealing with reality. People who already have a history of gun ownership without violent behavior, or military service (presumably know how to use a firearm safely, and have been "vetted" by the military), could be excused. I don't know how such a requirement could be constructed to pass constitutional muster, and I rather suspect the NRA would firmly oppose such a mandatory program. I also think things would get sticky if the instructors were to identify a potential "problem" student; what to do with them at that point? Maybe just having to go through the process would be sufficient to dissuade those people who only want the firearm so they can vent on an unsuspecting public. Of course, such people could still buy privately, so you'd need rules against selling to someone who hasn't completed the course. And, only law-abiding sellers would respect that. No system could catch every possible problem, and it isn't usually helpful to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Anyway, the advantage would be that the buyer would have at least some training in the law and in safe firearm use, which is hard to see as a bad thing. And, they would have some face time with trained instructors. The down side would be expense, and possibly constitutionality issues. Or, maybe someone has a better idea. Or, we can stick with the status quo, just say "don't do that" to would-be mass killers, and bury our dead from time to time. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, so now we're up to 99% agreement. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'd very much disagree with the idea that you can judge someone's mental state from a photo, certainly not to the extent that you'd be justified in taking away a constitutional right. The guy was living half-way across the country from his family. They didn't know that he had failed his oral prelim exam, or that he was withdrawing from the PhD program; do you think he forgot to mention those things, but told them about his plan for the theater (rhetorical question)? He apparently didn't have friends, and his neighbors never saw him. That's not normal, but also not as unusual as you may think. Some students are successful because they prefer to work instead of socialize, they just have different priorities than most people. He bought a lot of gear over the internet, where there is no human interaction so no chance to appear "unstable". It's not at all surprising that he was able to act normally for long enough for a short encounter with a gun store salesman, who after all has an incentive to "make the sale", and none at all to raise an alarm unless the guy were to be specific about his plans. Not inadvertent. I agree the best defense is "...people who care about you taking an interest in your life and problems." The problem is, you can't force people to have those kinds of interactions, and it's easy for people who are at risk of such behavior to go off the radar. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I do agree that the expectations need to be set from the ground up. I further agree that there is no way to legislate those expectations. And I certainly agree with the notion that one fundamental expectation is that everyone should do their utmost to provide for themselves (in a manner that doesn't involve a criminal enterprise). Once again, we find ourselves in about 95% agreement. My only complain was (and is) the notion that free individuals are not influenced by their environment. We see this notion in the current bogus argument about whether or not "self-made businesspeople" have had any help from the social context and infrastructure in which they operate. Also in the thread about Penn State, where you argued that individuals should account for their unlawful action/inaction (no disagreement from me on that), and also that the environment in which those decisions were made (the "football is God" atmosphere) is irrelevant (I respectfully disagree). Ideally, people of strong moral character would "do the right thing" regardless of the personal cost to them. Unfortunately real life is often more complicated, such as when standing up for your morals means losing the career you've spent decades building, the ability to support yourself and your family, your friendships and "status" in the community, etc. So, I think we agree that the culture of "living on the dole" has got to be replaced by a culture of "take care of yourself", an environment where those who are truly down on their luck can be grateful for assistance as a temporary measure so they can get back on their feet, not as an entitlement. Similarly, the idea (in some cultures) that fathers need not stick around to raise their children is immensely destructive. So too is the culture of resorting to force or the threat of force (including guns) to solve problems. In some segments of American society, incarceration is seen as "normal", a rite of passage even; it would be good to restore some sense of shame and loss of status with screwing up badly enough to be sent to jail. None of those are things that can be changed by legislation, they have to change in the values that people prefer to live by. Still, I think, the process could be helped by some changes in the environment. Large public housing projects just create communities where almost everyone is on government assistance, so it seems normal to live that way. Many families are there because families consist of single women raising several children on their own (highly correlated with poverty), but there again in such a community fatherless families (because Dad is in jail or just moved on) look "normal", and kids grow up with the idea that fathers don't take care of their families. Such housing projects are just little incubators that perpetuate the very social problems they are supposed to be fixing. There will always be some families that need help, but at least integrate them into communities where the kids look around and see families where people work, take care of themselves, and where Dad is around. The problem with the idea that people are self-made and environment has no/little role, is that then there is no incentive to modify environments that surround kids with unproductive or destructive models (such as housing projects for the very poor). Back to our Colorado situation, social values that discourage people with mental health problems from seeking help are part of the problem. Social values where infamy and notoriety are just another aspect of being "famous", where there is no such thing as "bad publicity" or public shame, is part of the problem. Celebration of violence, as a problem-solving strategy (e.g. Dirty Harry) or in folk culture (Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid), also contributes. I like the idea of not naming the killer in most news stories, of reducing him to a pathology specimen, of regarding him as one would regard a biopsy slide of a malignant tumor. Of course, it will sometimes be necessary to name the person, but maybe if that doesn't lead to instant fame (everybody knows my name now!), that course of action won't be as attractive to the unstable who feel unappreciated or overlooked (which includes many of the perpetrators of mass killings). Not legislation, just a consensus on how we'll respond to such actions. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Curious that you would mock the role of "environment", then suggest that part of the solution is to change the "environment". It's libertarian claptrap to pretend that "free individuals" exist somehow completely independently of the context of the environment (i.e. society) in which they find themselves. Rational actors act according to the information they have available, and the set of rules, conventions, and expectations that are "collectively" called "society" is a major source of information. One of the most powerful societal influences is "status"; virtually no-one is completely impervious to being influenced by the way we are accepted and respected by our peers and family. Many problems in our society result from conflicting notions of status, or acceptance of destructive means of obtaining status. For example, to you and me (I'm pretty comfortable in assuming this), going on welfare or other means of government support would be an absolute last resort, because in the value system in which we grew up (or chose to adopt) one loses status (in the eyes of ourselves and our peers) by becoming dependent on others, and gains status by being self-supporting. In other segments of society, dependency is just accepted, and has no adverse impact on one's status with one's peers. In that case, it might be perfectly rational to take the "free money" and spend your time on other pursuits that do improve your status. Similarly, there are segments of our society that attach little status to honest employment for modest (i.e. realistic for most people) pay, but a lot of status is attached to being the toughest/meanest/most violent thug, so rational actors will choose the latter. In all these examples, the solution is somehow (and I don't know how) to change the societal conventions so that being dependent on the government, or being a thug, or going to jail, lowers status to the point where rational actors choose other courses. Which is why I agree with your "setting expectations..." statement. WRT the Colorado shooting, I think a problem is that even seeking mental health treatment results in such a huge potential loss of status, as well as more tangible things like 2nd amendment rights and in many fields future employment possibilities, that most people who would benefit from treatment are dissuaded from seeking it. As a society, we would be better served to regard mental health issues the same way we look at kidney disease, or cancer, as an unfortunate challenge that people need to respond to with compassion and not condemnation. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just curious, why do you say this? I haven't seen anything credible reported except how people were totally taken aback by his actions. Although it's tempting to say "someone MUST have known", there is no law against being a quiet loner, or socially awkward, and being reticent is no basis for a search warrant to check your home/computers in case you "might be up to no good". Anyway, as you say, there is not much that the police can do with a vague complaint of "so-and-so seems depressed, and I'm worried about them". The only way to get a court-ordered evaluation or treatment for someone is to have them involuntarily committed, and to do that you have to sign an affidavit that you have good reason to believe the person is an immediate threat to themselves and others. Given the long-term, life-altering ramifications of that action, people are just not going to do it unless they are very certain that there is a real and immediate threat. Indeed, if there is a real problem our legal system is not set up to lead to psychiatric treatment, but instead to prosecution and long jail terms for even thinking about actions such as the Colorado massacre (any of them). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't know, I don't sell the plan and I have no access to historical data. The point is that it is much better value for the money, compared to the ripoff plans referenced in the article linked to in the OP. It also won't cover a half-way serious car accident, or falling down a flight of stairs and cracking your skull, or treatment for Hepatitis C, and on and on. It might cover a morning after pill, or a case of strep throat. It'll cover the chicken shit stuff people can cover out of pocket anyway without it being the end of the world. The point of having health insurance is 1) to facilitate access to care when you need it, and 2) to guard against complete financial disaster as a result of illness or injury. Plans with a $10,000 cap do neither. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The University where I teach is not ending its student health insurance. All undergraduate and graduate students are required to enroll unless they can show they are already covered under another plan. The premiums are less than $100/month, and the plan covers doctor visits/hospitalizations/pregnancy/mental health etc up to $100,000, with a $300 deductible and 20% copay up to a maximum of $4500 out of pocket. Frankly, a plan that is limited to a maximum of $10,000 in benefits is essentially worthless. This would barely begin to cover a one day hospitalization, or an ambulance ride. Such plans are basically scams, deceiving people into thinking they are insured when they are really not. For about the same money, people of college age can purchase private insurance with much better coverage. If this is the best these colleges can do for their students, I suspect someone is getting a kickback. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Is that really more painful than every day the killer sentenced to life is still alive? That lasts longer. And is it vengeance if they're angry that he is alive while their loved ones are not, or does it require the rage and desire to inflict pain on him? Being angry is not vengeance. Being angry under such circumstances is only human, but it is not helpful to anyone to be so angry that every day, possibly for the rest of their lives, is consumed with hatred and the desire for revenge. IMO, surrendering to a level of anger that will ensure that I would not be able to experience any iota of happiness or joy for most or all of the remainder of my life is conceding way to much power to the killer, and is not at all what my wife or children would want for me (should they happen to be murdered). It certainly isn't what I would want for my wife and kids were I to be murdered. My point was simply that a social convention that holds up execution as the only truly just punishment for murder, then drags the process out for decades (necessary for all the checks and balances to ensure guilt), makes it especially hard for people to get control of their anger. I've lived in Canada, Europe, and the US, and the US is the only place where I've seen people so consumed by the need to see the criminal dead that it takes over their whole life. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Penn State has some of the best faculty in their field, and some excellent degree programs. If a student is interested in excellent training they will still have many reasons to go to Penn State. Contrary to popular belief, Universities do more than just play football. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm not so sure of that. Although people naturally think of the football program (or any such sport) and the University as one and the same, in reality sports are administered by an Athletic Association that is largely separate from the academic side of the University. Revenues generated by football, for example, are kept within the Athletic Association and are not shared (except for a few pittances) with the rest of the University. There is a reason why the football coach and much of the coaching staff make several times the salary of the University president. When people donate to the football program they think they are donating to the University, but they aren't; none of that money goes to hire professors, provide for new courses, etc. So, if the $60 million fine is levied against the Athletic Association, there is no reason why it should impact the availability or quality of any courses. The student body should see no impact on their education. However, Athletic Associations have a way of being separate from the University when it suits them (revenues), and being part of the University when convenient (such as dealing with expenses), so we'll have to see who really pays the fine. Student athletes will get screwed, either way, as football revenues do support other less-profitable sports within the Athletic Association, such as swimming or soccer. Besides Sandusky's obvious primary responsibility for this situation, there is the problem that several senior people, within the Athletic Association and the University Administration, made the calculation that it would be more profitable to sweep the matter under the rug. Those people will be punished (one hopes) for their failure to take action, but these sanctions are an attempt to reset the economic incentives that tempt people to make such poor choices. If in the future people know that the risk is that they will lose the money they seek to protect, and beyond that their cash cow will be destroyed for decades if not permanently, they will be much less tempted to risk the "sweep it under the rug" approach. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Unfortunately, vengeance is often first and foremost in the minds of the surviving family of murder victims. For those people, unfortunately, the death penalty often prolongs or exacerbates their pain, as in their minds "justice" is delayed for decades until the penalty is enforced, and all the while they have to endure appeal after appeal, each one of which re-opens the wounds. I always cringe when I hear family say they won't be happy until the killer is dead, as it seems to me that the murderer has in some way succeeded in bringing people down to his (or more rarely her) level. It also creates the perception that a murderer who is sentenced to life without the possibility of parole has somehow "gotten away with it". The ability to forgive is powerful medicine against wasting years (maybe the rest of one's life) wallowing in hatred and dreaming of vengeance. To "forgive" does not mean to "forget", and just because someone is "forgiven" doesn't mean they do not have to pay the penalty for their crime. Forgiveness is more for the victims, so that they can begin to heal and stop wasting their life nursing hatred. It seems to me that imposing execution , to be carried out at some ill-defined time years or decades in the future, can only be an obstacle to forgiving and moving past the pain and hatred. For the State (as the embodiment of our society), if execution is to remain as a possible punishment at all, it should be applied in the same sense that it is sometimes necessary to kill a parasite or tumor. We remove these things because we need to in order to survive, and there is nothing that we can salvage from them that would make the risk of leaving them alive worth taking. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I hope you have a great time Andy. Check in from time to time and let us know how you're doing. I'm jealous, actually. But, glad someone is getting to do it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Here's a hint: Yaba Daba Doo! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Please don't do that. I need my daily chuckle. For the most part I agree, and I (like you I assume) would strongly object to government imposed mandates to create new stereotypes to "correct" the old ones. Obviously things are changing (overall for the better I think) in the sense that girls are now taking on, and succeeding at, careers that were "off limits" just a couple of generations ago. Change is slower in math/physics/engineering, but I think eventually it's inevitable. The question here is, is there something about how these subjects are approached, in the very early grades (long before high school) that unintentionally perpetuates the idea that girls and math don't mix? There is a big difference between creating new systems to "force" girls to like math, and removing existing unintentional barriers that tend to convey the message that girls don't (or shouldn't) do well at math. That doesn't require federal action, but it does require some introspection on the part of educators, and perhaps policies on the part of local school boards to put the most qualified teachers in the classroom. When my kids were in school, my wife and I made sure to find out about the teachers they were assigned to, and stir up shit when necessary to get them into the better classrooms (or at least out of the clutches of the known bad teachers). I'd (in an ideal world) like to see a day when there are no really bad teachers to avoid, the kind who can leave your child with a long-term handicap like a bias against math. As far as the parent vs school values thing, I have mixed feelings to tell you the truth. For the most part, schools are probably best advised to avoid topics that don't relate to education. But, schools are a microcosm of society, and students need to be able to work (sometimes together) in the same class. The schools have no obligation to support blatantly racist or sexist values, even if some parents may subscribe to those views. Parents may seek to limit their daughters to home ec/nursing, but schools should never alter their curriculum to reinforce that perspective. Just as schools should not gut their biology curriculum by removing the core ideas of biology because they offend the religious sensibilities of some parents. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Apparently I need a sarcasm symbol to stick on some posts. I was just mocking the idea of a "self-made millionaire" who "did it all on his/her own" without any help from anybody, ever. I like Weekender's definition of the "self-made" too; I see them as people who recognize and move on opportunities that exist within the existing society and infrastructure. Risk takers and all that. Successful new businesses add value to existing processes, or add new elements (such as technologies) to what already exists, and people who can make this happen deserve to reap the benefits. What pisses me off are the people who deny any role for the existing social structures (an educated work force, law and order, etc) and infrastructure (roads, power grids, even clean water/public health facilities such as water treatment plants) in their success, and argue that they have no obligation to support any of it. More than any particular individual, it pisses me off to see this mythology promulgated by the Republican party in a blatant effort to pander to those who believe either that 1) they are indeed completely self-made, or 2) they can have access to everything that an organized society provides, without having to pay for any of it themselves. I honestly don't know where the "self-made millionaire" is equivalent to welfare thing comes from. I certainly didn't intend to imply that. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What are you talking about? Everyone knows Sam Walton became a millionaire by selling products he invented himself, manufactured himself using machines he invented and manufactured himself from iron he mined and smelted himself, and powered by electricity (which he discovered) generated from coal-fired generators (of course, he mined the coal himself and invented/built the generators). He sold his products from a building he built himself, using wood he produced himself from trees he cut down, by himself, and processed into lumber in a sawmill he built himself. He moved his products from the factories to the store in trucks he invented and manufactured himself (he'd already figured out how to mine and smelt the metals, so it was pretty easy for him); the trucks ran on oil he discovered, drilled, and processed into gas all by himself. It goes without saying that the trucks (he drove them all himself) used roads he engineered and paved himself. It wasn't too hard to invent asphalt once he'd figured out the oil thing. People learned of his products because he advertized in newspapers he published himself (after inventing paper and the printing press), on the radio (all that stuff you learned about Marconi? Not true, it was Sam), on television (yep, he invented that too), and on the interwebs (Al Gore? not needed). So you see, rich people didn't need to take advantage of any of the infrastructure or resources our society provides. They can do it ALL BY THEMSELVES, because they are special (not like us 99%ers). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

meh - I suspect the situation in the job market is already pretty apparent for those that really care to do their homework. by the 8-10 year olds? They all want to be astronomers and firemen and reporters. Maybe super heroes these days. By the time kids even begin to think about these things (and it's difficult to do too far ahead in technology due to changing trends) it's too late. If you want to do engineering or physics at a serious school, you better be on track to finish 1st year calculus (both semesters, not just the 1st) in high school, or you're going to suffer a bit in year 1 at college. (or more likely, not be admitted) Short of compressing years together, that means algebra in junior high. wow - I had no idea that grade schools and high schools had different curriculums for their students by gender....shows you learn something every day here clearly we need to force the girls to pretend to be astronauts and firemen at least 3 days per week until they think right This comment is beneath your usual standards. It's pretty easy to see how a teacher could bias a math class to make it interesting to one gender and boring to the other. How about if the teacher uses sports "statistics", such as batting averages, to teach fractions? Or cooking to teach about addition? More likely, and probably more insidious, is the scenario where teachers end up teaching classes they are not comfortable with themselves. A female teacher "at sea" in a science or math class can easily send a subliminal but powerful message that women and science/math don't mix. Somehow a male teacher in the same situation doesn't seem to have the same effect, I'm not sure why but maybe it's because the female teacher reinforces existing stereotypes and the male teacher doesn't. Of course, a knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and engaging teacher (regardless of gender) can do wonders to inspire students. For this reason I think it's critical to have courses taught by teachers who have themselves been appropriately trained in rigorous classes. I remember undergraduate classmates who were struggling in biology, switched to education and graduated, and then ended up teaching biology because they had some biology courses (which they did poorly in) on their transcript. That was a long time ago, I can only hope that doesn't still happen but I fear it does. Teachers also should have a role in challenging stereotypes in the classroom, but that often doesn't happen. For example, I used to do outreaches where I'd bring insects to local classes and talk about "bugs". In the lower elementary grades, both boys and girls would be enthusiastic about holding the hissing cockroaches, or letting a tarantula walk across their hand. By the 5th or 6th grade, boys were still enthusiastic but most girls squealed and moved away; a few wanted to hold the insects but when they did they were criticized by the other girls ("How can you touch that thing?? That's icky!"). By late middle school it was very unusual for any girls to participate, but boys were happy to prove their "bravery". Saddest of all were the few girls who were obviously intrigued, got in line to hold a hissing roach, then pulled out when they were "teased" by the other girls. This would have been the perfect opportunity for a teacher to step in and show that it isn't true that "real" girls don't like bugs, or frogs, or whatever, but that never happened. Almost always, if the teacher was female they were just as terrified of the bugs as their students were (or even more so). Perhaps it's not the fault of those teachers, they were raised with certain ideas and it would be very hard for them to overcome their own ingrained fear, but it does show how cultural stereotypes are easily perpetuated from generation to generation. So, boys and girls together in the same class, but cultural stereotypes can lead boys and girls to pick up different lessons from the same set of facts. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

"This video is currently unavailable" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)