SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As teacher resignation letters increasingly go public -- and viral -- new research indicates teachers are not leaving solely due to low pay and retirement, but also because of what they see as a broken education system.
In a trio of studies, Michigan State University education expert Alyssa Hadley Dunn and colleagues examined the relatively new phenomenon of teachers posting their resignation letters online. Their findings, which come as many teachers are signing next year's contacts, suggest educators at all grade and experience levels are frustrated and disheartened by a nationwide focus on standardized tests, scripted curriculum and punitive teacher-evaluation systems.
Teacher turnover costs more than $2.2 billion in the U.S. each year and has been shown to decrease student achievement in the form of reading and math test scores.
"The reasons teachers are leaving the profession has little to do with the reasons most frequently touted by education reformers, such as pay or student behavior," said Dunn, assistant professor of teacher education. "Rather, teachers are leaving largely because oppressive policies and practices are affecting their working conditions and beliefs about themselves and education."
The study quoted a teacher in Boston: "I did not feel I was leaving my job. I felt then and feel now that my job left me."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:36PM (85 children)
It's not like educating the next generation is a newfangled idea; why does it always feel like the governmental schooling system is figuring it out anew every single year? The reason is that there is no objective standard—teacher's cannot be fired easily, money cannot be reallocated to working schools easily, students cannot see the virtue of their studies, etc.; it's all politics and fantasy.
The solution is simple: Give each child a bank account that he can access as sole beneficiary upon graduation at age 18, and every subject that this child masters yields a non-taxable payout to this bank account. Then, kids (especially high schoolers) will have a goddamn reason to become certifiably productive members of society—they are instead needed in vocational positions, places where they would also be more comfortable, anyway.
They need to learn:
If a student doesn't participate sufficiently in schooling by age 18 (e.g., he doesn't get through vocational school), then he should have to report for military duty to learn some discipline.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:38PM (12 children)
"Higher" learning (for those who choose to spend their own resources), or alternatively (and most likely) vocational skills; the vast majority of people are not only ill suited for "higher" learning, but also are not needed in societal positions where "higher" learning is necessary—they are instead needed in vocational positions, places where they would also be more comfortable, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:09PM (1 child)
Not what the article is about genius. This is a discussion of K-12 education not college.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:18PM
Clearly, you do not comprehend this thread.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday April 07 2017, @07:07PM (6 children)
I would suggest also some basic life skills that are valuable to almost everyone:
Logic / debate - how to express their thoughts coherently and recognize the common logical fallacies.
Basic handyman skills - how to wire a lamp, fix a leaky faucet, etc.
Personal finance - investments, retirement planning, insurance considerations
Applied civics - how and why to vote, influence your representatives, and take part in local politics from town hall meetings to electoral delegates. As well as a study of the common methods used to subvert democracy.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday April 07 2017, @11:19PM (1 child)
Agreed. One might add basic cooking skills and nutrition to that list. It used to be part of "home economics" classes, which also bled over into some of your other categories of household finances, managing basic household tasks, etc.
(And before someone chimes in about how "nutritional" science has a bunch of hokum -- I agree. But we could at least make some attempt to make young people aware of the benefits of a diverse diet, the necessity of consuming vitamins and nutrients, etc. A shockingly large percentage of young kids these days have terrible diets -- poor people have frequently traded old types of malnutrition for new ones in the form of "empty" calories of heavily processed foods.)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:30AM
Definitely.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:36AM (3 children)
Yeah, my wife has kids who can't read or write (basically illiterate) or do simple math, but have to attend french class.
NO! They should be learning the basics so they can get by in life (if you can't read cat or dog, what good is chat and chien), and having it drilled til they KNOW it.
Putting them in french class just makes them feel even dumber and makes them act up/skip class.
Have them learn the basics, so they can at least read at the highest level they can attain, and learn simple math and coinage and time(!).
extra on top of the basics is gravy on their mashed potatoes.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:55AM
Sounds like those kids need more Bible Studies so they can get outraged when Fox News reports about Christians under attack in Jerusalem, home of baby Jesus.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:55AM (1 child)
Yeah, in the past it wasn't seen as a terrible thing that some kids just aren't a good fit for university and that everyone concerned would be happier if they did more "vocational" (i.e. manual labour, for the most part) work. I am a graduate who knows other graduates and non-graduates; that factor alone doesn't determine whether they're good people, nor does it make them worth more or less than anyone else. I have friends and relatives who are certainly capable of attaining a BSc (or equivalent), but university just wasn't something they wanted. You can reassure these people and encourage them, but their life is their own to do with as they wish. Now there's this huge drive to have every kid attend university whether that's a good fit for them or not, something that cannot and will not end successfully.
My late mother taught younger children (4-5 years old) for most of her career and for the five years or so before she retired, she saw increasing numbers coming into the classroom with no social skills, no verbal skills, nothing. They were almost feral. That's anecdotal, of course, but anyone interested enough to do the legwork on finding out if the trend in her classroom was replicated across the country would be doing the nation a favour. Blaming the teachers for lack of discipline is to ignore the increasing restrictions on what disciplinary acts are allowed by the relevant regulations; I'm not saying corporal punishment is the right option - it isn't likely to ever be the right option - but if you aren't allowed to lay hands on a child to stop it being violent to itself, another child or even yourself, plus there's the "I know my rights" parents who have kids that parrot this nonsensical shite at the first sign of trouble, then of course they grow up with no self-discipline and no understanding of cause and effect and as such are a net drain on society.
Solutions? I'm buggered if I know. Demonising and undermining teachers certainly isn't going to help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:47PM
There's also the fact that people have access to more information than ever, even scientific studies. Self-education is more possible than it ever was before. Major universities often post the materials (such as books) they use online, so individuals can use that as a guide to learn if they so choose. Schools are not the only way to attain an education, and in fact are often a hindrance to motivated individuals and especially the more introverted ones.
Even as a software developer, I refuse to get a degree out of principle, because what matters is the quality of my education and work.
plus there's the "I know my rights" parents who have kids that parrot this nonsensical shite at the first sign of trouble, then of course they grow up with no self-discipline and no understanding of cause and effect and as such are a net drain on society.
I see no issue with knowing your rights, as schools and governments seem very willing to violate them. Defending your rights doesn't mean you have no self-discipline. What were you referring to there exactly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:43PM (2 children)
So lets dumb em' all down! Don't want to put in the effort? That's OK! Lots of people would like a generation of mules to do their bidding.
.....
The vast majority of people are suited to finish K-12 without too much pain. Perhaps we can dial back some of the requirements, or better yet offer alternatives. Take personal finance instead of algebra II, sounds good to me. But don't try and sell people the idea that education is worthless, that is either an attempt to screw over society (let the dumb dumbs get taken advantage of amirite???? /s) or to downplay personal insecurities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:17PM
Vocational work requires a great deal of problem-solving skill and the application of specialized, studied techniques.
Most university degrees, in comparison, are total tosh.
Also, so what if you can program a computer; you'll still be calling your HVAC guy to fix your frozen ass when your furnace breaks down in the middle of winter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @02:10PM
But don't try and sell people the idea that education is worthless
But that's exactly what our current 'Everybody's gotta go to college!' system does. Most colleges and universities offer an abysmal level of education that's only slightly better than what high schools offer. The more idiots you force to go into secondary schooling, the worse the education offered will be, since they have to dumb things down to make as much money from the morons as possible. If someone wants to go to college or universities primarily so they can earn a degree and make more money, then they are not suited for that environment; it's supposed to be for academics, or people who seek comprehension for its own sake. We need a fundamental restructuring of the entire system, because we are not truly educating people, but instead we're teaching them to be good at Jeopardy!.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @02:47PM (16 children)
"report for military duty to learn some discipline."
I have multiple opinions on that idea.
1. As a petty officer, I learned to HATE all the SOB's in the country who shipped their precious snowflakes out to the fleet so that I, and other petty officers like me, could teach that little snowflake how to be responsible. GOD DAMN IT MOM AND DAD - DON'T PUSH YOUR FAILURES OFF ON MEN AND WOMEN WHO ALREADY HAVE A TOUGH JOB TO DO!!!
2. The military doesn't REALLY teach responsibility and discipline. The military puts people into situations where they may or may not survive, if they lack certain qualities. The military also encourages you to be what you are. If you are an alcoholic or a drug addict, you'll find plenty of justification for your addiction in the military. If you are a mature, responsible adult, you will find more than enough justification for your healthy outlook on life in the military.
3. I think everyone should serve their country. Not necessarily in the military, but everyone should serve. Military duty is great, but serve in whatever capacity possible. I'll note that it's been a long time since I heard of anything that Job Corps has done.
I won't, however, fault your idea of financial incentive. I kinda like it. Give the kids something concrete to work for, a lot of kids will work harder. Ten grand at graduation, vs nothing for failure, is a big incentive!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:54PM (2 children)
I figure they would be funneled into the military, where they may well fail. They should then be court-martialled for insubordination, and sent to a military prison, where they are again given the keys to their success (i.e., the keys to their release): You have a schooling bank account just as before, but now you must complete the requirements in the environment of a prison.
It's not that I want these people to be part of the military; it's just that the military represents the next official notch in in the ramping up of coercion—it provides an official way to get these people into prison, where they won't bother productive society, and will hopefully choose to join it instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:59AM (1 child)
Gotta love living in the Land of the Free!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:26PM
Though it does depend on some kind of "military" organization, the plan that has been described is not an aggressive action; it is a retaliatory response against those people who are abusing productive society; it is those fools who are aggressing, not productive society.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 07 2017, @03:11PM
You definitely have a point on parenting. Being one should necessitate proof that one can handle it or the children should be relocated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:17PM (7 children)
A country should serve its people not the other way around. But I do see your point on other things you've said.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @03:28PM (6 children)
Definitions may be required here.
By serving your country, you are serving your fellow Americans (or whatever, depending on your place on earth). I did NOT say "serve your government", but, "serve your country". If you are Chinese, and unwilling to help your fellow Chinese, then you are a sorry Chinese. Replace "Chinese" with any nationality you care to use.
Everyone should be happy to serve. Unfortunately, many governments have pre-empted that whole service thing.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday April 07 2017, @05:52PM
Everyone should be happy to serve. Unfortunately, many governments have pre-empted that whole service thing.
I would have said "all governments", but you may be able to point to an exception. If so, I suspect that the exception is temporary, as centralization of power leads those in charge to isolate themselves from the consequences of failure. And a good government will in time be replaced by a bad government, no matter what method is used for selecting the powerful. It used to be said that one king out of seven would be a good king, one would be an idiot, one would be evil, and the rest mediocre. Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon monarchy did better than that, as they elected a king from all relatives of the current king (I think out to cousin). But they certainly had some failures. (None up to Britain's George III, but he didn't start out crazy. OTOH, he was one of those responsible for Parliament gaining power, even if that wasn't his intent.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Friday April 07 2017, @07:01PM (4 children)
I have many in my family on both sides that have served. I agree with you that service in some form may be better compulsory than voluntarily, and some countries do just that. Isn't South Korea a nation where military service is required? I would have not minded serving 2-3 years and then moving on to higher education. Most of my life I've felt quite patriotic about my country and wanting to make it better.
That being said..... I would rather just kill my superiors when I get in there. Why should I go suffer and die for some rich fuckers at home? The Civil War was political, if outright avarice and corruption of the power base is political. Vietnam War wasn't even a war. The Persian Gulf was about oil and rich people's money and had nothing to with Kuwait. Grenada was about drugs too, because who really have a shit about a Panamanian dictator? The 2nd Iraq War? Should've been called, "Don't mess with my Daddy!!". World War II and Afghanistan were about the only two places that seemed like we had to go there and do what we did.
I'm all for everyone serving, as long as EVERYONE IS SERVING, and that we are serving people WORTHY OF IT THAT ALSO SERVE AMERICA. In the Civil War you saw rich sons, who happened to also become the richest men in America later, purchase their deferments by having a poor son of some other American go in their place.... and then die for them.
Orange Anus himself got how many deferments for being a "tough, tough, guy"? Trump is a cowardly piece of shit that couldn't serve his country, so why should we make military service compulsory so that our children (mostly the poor and middle classes) go die for a man that didn't give two shits about his fellow countrymen? I may not like John McCain for his support of national security theater, but that man served his country with distinction. He has no shame for being a prisoner of war, but Trump thinks the man is a loser. Yet, the fact is that John McCain went and suffered to make sure that Trump could live a good life of nepotism, fraud, and become the chauvinistic mountebank that he is.
That's my problem with making military service mandatory. We don't live in a representative democracy so it would just become a bunch of poor people being sent off to die for the Owning Classes, and that's not some shit I fucking signed up for. When you can convince me that the people being sent to die are doing so for people that truly serve them, then I will agree.
Until then..... kill the rich and powerful instead. Or even better, we round up the rich and powerful and send them to bootcamp and 5 years of compulsory service. How about our next surge in Afghanistan be comprised of the rich soft handed mother fuckers donating the most dark money to politics?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 07 2017, @07:32PM (1 child)
I like the idea of mandatory service, but what I don't like is our guys and gals dying in bullshit wars for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
What they should do is be stationed at the border, with orders to shoot on sight any unauthorized crossers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:47PM
Found one unauthorized citizen! GIT EM'!!!
Since we're punishing border crossings to harshly how about we punish wrong-think with liberal application of rope and trees?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:43AM (1 child)
I bet that if you made it a law that the first people on the front lines are the sons and daughters of the richest people (and maybe the richest people, as well... yes, Mark Zuckerberg i'm looking at you, person of the correct age), (next in line are the next richest and on down), no war would ever be fought again.
Make the poorest people the last to the front.
That would be a great law to try to get passed, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by boxfetish on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:44PM
At one time, I would have said this was true. Now, I am not so sure. Some of these Senators and Reps are such sociopaths, obviously concerned only with lining their pockets (or laying the groundwork for future linings) that I wonder if they wouldn't just send off their "fortunate sons" to die.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 07 2017, @05:27PM (3 children)
I won't, however, fault your idea of financial incentive. I kinda like it. Give the kids something concrete to work for, a lot of kids will work harder. Ten grand at graduation, vs nothing for failure, is a big incentive!
Kids that age range don't see a future ten grand as much incentive at all. Kids are really poor at weighing future rewards for effort today.
In fact, they might notice it won't even pay for one year at the local community college.
For it to be useful, it would have to be a significant portion of a house (say 100 Grand), or at least enough for a bachelors degree somewhere, or to start a small business.
That might work, and since the money is going to be spent in 12-ish years its a jobs program too. Somebody will be flipping burgers for those who do finish school.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:37PM (2 children)
Most of all, kids want to keep up with their peers [soylentnews.org]. Certainly, kids will see how their older siblings' generation fared in this scheme, and will want to emulate the successful people—the people who now have jobs that allow them to buy high-quality sneakers.
If there's one thing that kids understand, it is social status—and that material wealth aids greatly in establishing a good status. A people has to be wealthy for generations before its minds start considering other, "higher", more noble forms of existence; such a scheme is the way to get there, slowly but surely.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Friday April 07 2017, @05:50PM (1 child)
My what a wonderful sheltered little world you live in.
You should get out more. The world does not work the way you think it does.
Maybe a vacation in Detroit or East L.A.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:58PM
kids do not keep track of social status?
then what was that movie Mean Girls about? Even the name of the clique, The Plastics, epitomized the entire scenario of how fake one has to be in order to be popular in some circles. They had to be aware of and keep track of, and them emulate or implement the behaviors there-of, the cool kids to be cool. high schools are like that all over the US, which is why did well (and was funny, but i dont think the actresses were as important as some think--it was the story in how it stated the obvious in a hollywood way).
and uh I am posting anonymously so that I dont seem uncool so that I can agree with you later and be cool cause i am keeping track of the social statuses of others
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:05PM (7 children)
If there were a way for students to prove competency, then there wouldn't be a need for "schools", per se. A student could learn in any way that works best for him, and then he just need to show up at the place that will test his competency—perhaps there are centers for official monthly testing of "arithmetic", "reading comprehension", etc. One student might attend a traditional school, while another is homeschooled, and yet another watches Khan Academy videos online, and yet another meets with other kids to help each other study.
Whatever works to be able to prove competency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:38PM (6 children)
That is pretty much my idea too: school should be something where you go voluntarily, because you expect it to help you learn what you need to gain certain competencies, which will be judged by someone else, as occasions arise, or none, if there is no requirement for that. But, in the world of nation states, schools are yet another tool for patriotic (most importantly, but also other values, taboos, biases, etc. , too) indoctrination and uniforming of citizens, and therefore you can't learn just what you want, without learning what they want you to, and specifically you can't get official certification of education without that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday April 07 2017, @05:40PM (5 children)
That is pretty much my idea too: school should be something where you go voluntarily,
Education is society's way of making sure there is not large pool of useless people that need to be fed, housed, and clothed, but who are totally unable of doing any of those things for themselves. Education is not, and on a grand scale never was about an individual improving his/her own lot. It has always been about improving civilization.
This is why education has become compulsory in most parts of the world.
Civilization simply can't afford that many useless mouths to feed.
The world of leisure, with robots doing all the work, is a frightening prospect for the same reason. Idle hands and empty minds usually turn to violent pursuits.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:52PM
That statement that you are attacking is not absolute; it has a very particular meaning withing the context of the whole comment. "School" should be an organization that a person wants to attend in order to help him gain the benefits of proving that he's competent in some field of inquiry, whether that be reading comprehension or machine shop work, etc.
The voluntary nature of attending school is meant to be taken in the context of a system of societal organization that supports individual incentive for learning the requisite material; obviously, our current system doesn't do a very good job of revealing this individual incentive, so obviously the notion of voluntary schooling looks absurd when taken out of the context in which it was stated.
Please, please! Try to keep everything in your head at the same time; you have not actually contributed to the discussion; you've only made it necessary to have a discussion about the discussion. You would do well just to keep quiet, instead.
As for minimizing incompetent, useless fools, it's pretty clear that the current system has done a terrible job. We're discussing ways that can change this outcome: In this subthread in particular, it is being pointed out that there is no such thing as "teaching"; there is only "learning"—it is an individual act of the will on the part of the student, so that must be cultivated in as many ways as possible, the best way of which is producing some kind of individual incentive (especially one that makes a child feel like he's falling behind his peers).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:08PM
Idle hands and empty minds usually turn to violent pursuits.
Let's leave Trump [soylentnews.org] out of this, okay?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 07 2017, @07:16PM (1 child)
Education is society's way of making sure there is not large pool of useless people that need to be fed, housed, and clothed, but who are totally unable of doing any of those things for themselves. Education is not, and on a grand scale never was about an individual improving his/her own lot. It has always been about improving civilization.
When one perceives students as problems to be fixed rather than partners to help, which is a common consequence of this outlook, then you end with babysitters and prisons instead of schools. If schools aren't about individuals improving their lot (understanding that you can improve yourself and learning how are the key lessons), then what use are they? They're a waste for their students and I don't buy that they'll be improving civilization as a result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:49PM
When one perceives students as problems to be fixed rather than partners to help
No. The "useless people" that the GP was talking about are formed before that. When you're talking about students, you are talking about free agents that are sufficiently skilled to control their own development. To put it sufficiently simple, the goal of compulsory education is to produce students, and avoid vegetables.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday April 07 2017, @11:32PM
Education is society's way of making sure there is not large pool of useless people that need to be fed, housed, and clothed, but who are totally unable of doing any of those things for themselves. [...] This is why education has become compulsory in most parts of the world.
That may be a reason for education, but it's not necessarily the rationale for state-mandated compulsory education. In the U.S. at least, the history of compulsory education is very complex, and it was first implemented in places which arguably least needed it. (America by the mid-1800s was positively shockingly literate compared to most of the rest of the world at the time, even before the introduction of compulsory public education.)
Some of it was about state control wresting children from parents and indoctrination in state values. It then became a bit about preparing good obedient factory workers who could do basic skills and be moved from place to place at the sound of a bell, and with rising immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it became about educating the "dirty" masses of immigrants. Later, once child labor was eradicated, we were left with the problem of lots of idle young ruffians causing mischief on the streets, hence the "public high school movement" to get those potential rebels, protesters, etc. off the street and locked into obedience-teaching classrooms for another 4-8 years or so.
I'd like to think that the intentions of compulsory public education were always noble and about "improving civilization," but there have been lots of ulterior motives mixed in along the way too.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 07 2017, @03:08PM (3 children)
I'll see some flaws in this scheme. Bad schools will make derail any chances to go with the program. Some just mature later. And higher education should be offered to everyone that had a real chance to prove they can do it. Instead of just having money or luck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:20PM (2 children)
This comment [soylentnews.org] points out the fact that such a scheme would actually obviate the need for traditional "schools"; the method of teaching doesn't matter, because it relies on a student being motivated by self-interest to learn the material by any means available.
In essence, it is the acknowledgement of the fact that there is no such thing as "teaching"; there is only "learning", which is an act of the will on the part of the student.
Students who learn lots of subjects well will accrue a great deal of non-taxable money in their schooling bank accounts; upon graduation at age 18, they could choose to spend that money on further education—you have to make that bet on yourself, or persuade people to bet more resources on your further education (maybe a hospital pays for your education as a doctor, and you either pay back a loan, or work for the hospital for some amount of time thereafter, etc.). These are OBJECTIVE standards, measured by real-world resources like money.
The real truth of the matter is that society just does not need that many people going into higher education—and most people don't really want to learn higher-order subjects, anyway.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 07 2017, @06:26PM
Good luck trying to study with parents fighting each other and a school environment as simulation of civil war.
Children would need to have a nuclear option to have a real shoot. Ie they can divorce their parents for some kind of decent shelter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:54PM
In essence, it is the acknowledgement of the fact that there is no such thing as "teaching"; there is only "learning", which is an act of the will on the part of the student.
Your "fact" is beyond wrong. Teaching is a real thing, but of course it requires a willing student. Good teachers are invaluable, great ones inspire students to reach further and push themselves to accomplish more.
The real truth of the matter is that society just does not need that many people going into higher education—and most people don't really want to learn higher-order subjects, anyway.
I agree with you there, college education is pointless for many and is being more often treated as such. It should still be freely available to any who want it, or we can go with your "payment for completion" method which focuses a little more on completing the programs and not just enrolling for fun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:10PM (1 child)
It's not like educating the next generation is a newfangled idea; why does it always feel like the governmental schooling system is figuring it out anew every single year?
Truth be told it is the lobbyists and education corporations that are always trying to squeeze more profit out of the education system. That's why so many things always seem to be changing or being reviewed for future changes.
Now there is student data to be harvested and sold to aggregators and advertisers. Can't let that opportunity slip through the cracks.
When profit is more important than learning/education then you are truly a 1st world country with its priorities straight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:22PM
If you understood that, you'd understand why OP's scheme makes sense.
Profit is more than "making money"; money is just one way to measure profit.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:16PM (17 children)
students cannot see the virtue of their studies
Because there is no virtue to the mindless, useless studying schools force students to do. Why would they see something that doesn't exist?
The solution is simple: Give each child a bank account that he can access as sole beneficiary upon graduation at age 18, and every subject that this child masters yields a non-taxable payout to this bank account. Then, kids (especially high schoolers) will have a goddamn reason to become certifiably productive members of society—they are instead needed in vocational positions, places where they would also be more comfortable, anyway.
So where's the part where our abysmal education system gets fixed? It's not all on the students, because there's simply very little to learn. Math is taught improperly, being taught as little more than a series of facts you need to memorize in order to solve problems that follow a certain pattern. Science and other subjects are much the same way. Mindless rote memorization does not lead people to truly understand the material. Even worse, most of the work is one-size-fits-all, where you're required to waste time 'learning' something you may already understand, because nothing takes the individual student's current level into account; "advanced" classes are not enough (and they're mostly just sped up versions of the normal classes, with equally poor quality education).
Just getting good grades means nothing. A trained monkey could get good grades in our current system, which is why a high school diploma or GED mean nothing. It's almost funny to me to see people simultaneously recognize that our school systems are abysmal while mocking high school dropouts, as if most people with diplomas are actually educated and as if you can't get an education without going to a school.
then he should have to report for military duty to learn some discipline.
Involuntary servitude sounds like a good way to respect people's liberties. Well done.
And where do homeschoolers fit into all this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:28PM (16 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:57PM (15 children)
On the matter of fixing the schools, see this comment
Well, our education system right now is abysmal, and so are our standardized tests. How are you even going to determine just how much a student actually understands the material? That would require fixing the current situation anyway.
As for the military aspect, see this comment; the "coercion" is actually corrective retaliation for a person's abuse of society.
What I care about is liberty. Being lazy and disrespectful are not and should not be illegal, and should also not result in being forced into involuntary servitude by thugs. That doesn't sound free or brave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:18PM (13 children)
My HOA doesn't want your lazy disrespectful ass sleeping on our park's benches. I'm going to retaliate for your trespassing by having you rounded up and processed as per whatever contracts have been established for this purpose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23PM (11 children)
In a libertarian world, result would be the same. (
In a libertarian world, forcing people into involuntary servitude would not be a thing. Maybe stopping them from trespassing, but enslaving them? No.
Even in a non-libertarian society, we still have the decency to not be freedom-hating thugs to that extent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:27PM (3 children)
You say "stopping them from trespassing", but that's even more loosey-goosey and hand-wavy than "testing for competence". You are just taking retaliation that you do not like and labeling it with emotion-evoking words like "slavery". Well, guess what? The productive part of society doesn't want to be the slaves of these loafers; you either contribute, or you will be removed from us according to well-defined plans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:48PM (2 children)
You say "stopping them from trespassing", but that's even more loosey-goosey and hand-wavy than "testing for competence".
No, property lines are typically well-known and it's typically clear whether or not you're trespassing. Even if you could test for competence properly (which we can't currently, and I wouldn't trust the government to do), it would still be wrong to enslave incompetent people. You'd really just be giving the government virtually unlimited power to harass anyone, and trusting them with 'testing' powers.
You are just taking retaliation that you do not like and labeling it with emotion-evoking words like "slavery".
Your "retaliation" involves initiating violence against someone because you don't like their attitude, and using government thugs to do it.
Well, guess what? The productive part of society doesn't want to be the slaves of these loafers; you either contribute, or you will be removed from us according to well-defined plans.
Well, no one needs to be a slave. You can start by not forcing people into involuntary servitude using government thugs. Your "well-defined" plans are completely subjective, unjust, and anathema to a free society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:06PM (1 child)
We are talking about stopping trespassing, not determining whether someone has trespassed. Your rebuttal is a straw man.
If you're not certified as a productive individual, then you're defined as trespassing wherever you stand; you should be processed accordingly, as per the system of contracts that define such processing.
Of course, perhaps you can find people willing to support you (say, your parents), but you'll be confined to their property or arrested for trespassing. If there is nobody, then you join the military, and if you don't want to do that or you fail to assimilate into the military, then you go to prison for trespassing (or insubordination, in the case of the military).
Whether in your parents' home or a military prison, you can always choose to take those tests again to prove that you are a certifiably productive person, and thereby be released into society.
You're right. I bet there will be a large network of property owners who give refuge to indigent fools. That's their business. However, if those fools try to abuse productive society, they should be dealt with according to well-defined plans that are hopefully corrective—those plans are a retaliation, not an aggression.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:04PM
We are talking about stopping trespassing, not determining whether someone has trespassed. Your rebuttal is a straw man.
Nonsense. The point was that stopping people from trespassing is not subjective like testing for "compliance" is, and is not nearly as open to abuse.
they should be dealt with according to well-defined plans
What's with these "well-defined plans"?
those plans are a retaliation, not an aggression.
You are wrong. If you're attacking people simply for being lazy, then you're nothing but a thug. I'd rather have some lazy people than insane authoritarians like you.
Well, the way you word things makes you seem like a troll, so hopefully that's the case.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday April 07 2017, @06:33PM (6 children)
In a libertarian world, forcing people into involuntary servitude would not be a thing. Maybe stopping them from trespassing, but enslaving them? No.
Don't be so sure of that.
At least one Libertarian author has suggested indenture [bigheadpress.com] as a method for ensuring debts are repaid. For context, here are links to the events leading up to the applied fines [bigheadpress.com] and the arbitration proceedings [bigheadpress.com] where the financial judgement was agreed upon. The author later goes on to argue [bigheadpress.com] that this is OK, because some people are just happier [bigheadpress.com] being beta-dogs in the pack.
The crazy thing is that this sort of thinking makes sense as a consequence of a contract-based libertarian society. If there's no central government, no police, and no jails, how do you redress grievances/punish crimes? Financial damages awarded by arbitration seem reasonable as a solution. How do you handle defendants who don't have the means to repay the damages, even after selling all their belongings? Indentured servitude starts to sound good as compared to letting the plaintiff take all the defendant's property and kill them.
All kinds of things start to sound logical if you pick the right axioms...
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:54PM (2 children)
For instance, if a person cannot repay the debt, the contract should specify what happens and how that is enforced—the debtor agreed to the rules of this game ahead of time, and made a bet.
Guess what?
The creditor also agreed to those rules and made a bet; perhaps those rules specify that the creditor loses his shirt, as is the case with equity investment (e.g., buying shares in a company).
Get it yet?
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Saturday April 08 2017, @06:32AM (1 child)
In a libertarian world, forcing people into involuntary servitude would not be a thing. Maybe stopping them from trespassing, but enslaving them? No.
the contract should specify what happens and how that is enforced—the debtor agreed . . . The creditor also agreed to those rules and made a bet; perhaps those rules specify that the creditor loses his shirt. . .
Get it yet?
Sure, I get it. The contract says that if the debtor ceases to be able to pay interest on his debt that he becomes a slave to the creditor, so it's only fair. Except now we're condoning slavery. In a Libertarian-utopia society.
Are you the same AC who said earlier that involuntary servitude wouldn't be a thing in Libertarian paradise?
Anyhow, I can tell you didn't read the links I gave earlier; they weren't describing a debt entered into voluntarily by contract, it was the result of an arbitrator's judgement - reparations for theft and attempted murder. The community got together, examined the evidence, and a fine amount was determined; the defendants agreed to it, because the other options was likely to be shot by their would-be victims. They didn't have the assets to cover the damages, so they were indentured until they could produce the remainder of the debt. I have to admit, it's a plausible method for handling law-enforcement proceedings in a society without a government or police force.
Depending on your point of view, I guess you could say that they voluntarily entered into the indenture contract (although one skipped out on it later, leaving the other two to pay his share as well as their own). Can you really say that they weren't coerced into it by the community? Think about it.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:45PM
By entering a contract, one has by definition not been coerced by the enforcement of that contract; that is essentially one of the axioms from which a reasonable system arises (i.e., a system about which one can reason).
The real problem is the lack of a well-defined contract, where all the cases are covered and understood ahead of time; a dispute is the lack of a well-defined contract, and dispute resolution is the process of coming up with a version of the contract that is better defined (a contract should ideally specify what should be done in every case, so that the game can proceed in a way that is predictable to every party).
Now, because it is unreasonable to expect people to know and understand every kind of contractual obligation to which they've entered, I imagine that a robust framework of canonical, standardized contracts would arise, and could thus be referenced with shorthand—these ways of interacting would basically become a matter of culture that people learn intuitively for the vast majority of daily existence (after all, that's basically what culture is, anyway).
I doubt this framework would have slavery or murder as an outcome, unless the interaction is similar to what today can lead to incarceration or the death penalty, etc.
Also, with respect to your other comment [soylentnews.org], you should note that there are always 2 "sides" to a dispute; it is in each person's self-interest to ensure that his own contractual benefits be enforced, and similarly to ensure that he can withstand the onslaught of any other party (especially a party that engages in behavior that is not defined well, such as invasion by a foreign power, etc.). That is to say, there is a market for protection (including contract enforcement). It's also in the interests of protection services not to battle each other without good reason, because war is costly, and thus they would have incentive to come to terms, as per not only their customers' contracts, but also their own contracts with each other (such as how to handle evidence, arbitration, and so on).
Everybody knows that a monopoly is probably a bad idea, and that a monopoly which is imposed violently is almost certainly a very bad idea; so, why don't you see that this same insight applies also to the service of providing contract enforcement or protection from aggressive non-contractual behavior? The security industry is not magical; as with any other industry, it would benefit just the same from competition within the market, growing and evolving along with the rest of society and its interlinking framework of contracts—the best check and balance and separation of powers is competition with a market, especially when this competition occurs within a culture that reveres the principle of voluntary trade as defined by contracts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)
I almost responded to the libertroll, but I think the only way to stop this endless cycle of the same argument is to simply not engage. Let him post his thoughts on any article and then ignore it unless it merits discussion. This "we must educate people" motivation is admirable but obviously it does nothing in this case. Once you recognize a repeat troller just disengage, the discussion / argument is what they thrive on.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Saturday April 08 2017, @06:44AM
I almost responded to the libertroll, but I think the only way to stop this endless cycle of the same argument is to simply not engage.
You're right, of course.
I don't mind this one so much, and he's behaving much better these days. To be honest, I'm curious to find out more about his ideas on how his ideal society will work. I'm not sure if he's just naively optimistic about people's willingness to be fair to each other, or about common people's ability to resist coercion by others with more resources, or about the ability of a community to gather together against common threats, or all three. I want to find out, so I'll keep poking at him until I find out.
Really, I expect he hasn't thought it through very far yet. Last time I called him out on that, though, he just told me that my way of thinking was alien to him and he barely understood what I meant. =/
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:08PM
But that has to do with debts and contracts, which is something totally different. The other guy is suggesting that we enslave people based on how "productive" they are, so it's even worse. I was only responding to the other person's comment about a hypothetical libertarian society.
(Score: 1) by charon on Friday April 07 2017, @10:33PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23PM
The tests are objectively available for people to scrutinize, as are the monetary rewards; this will lead to a healthy local discussion on what should be what.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:00PM
no objective standard—teacher's cannot be fired easily,
Expecially by people who cannot spell in their native language?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:37PM (2 children)
Prediction: They would suck some Ds to get some As. Even in mid school.
Standardized tests? They would fuck the proctor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:33PM (1 child)
Require that authorities be eunuchs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:43PM
Have you ever licked inside someone's ear?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:08PM (2 children)
The money need to be no-strings-attached, available ASAP. For security and time/testing/grading reasons you can't really do hourly cash payouts, but one should strive to get as close to that as possible. Weekly paychecks could work.
In some families it would go to feed the family and pay the rent. OK. This helps the kid. It makes the kid a valued contributor and encourages the parents to care.
The low-performers have trouble planning realistically ahead and working toward goals. Thinking is short-term. Rapid payment is really important for these people, preferably in a visible and physical way.
If the payments are big enough, we can get rid of the requirement that kids attend school and not be full-time employed. Those who can learn will attend school. Those who are wasting everybody's time could go get jobs. Ideally, payments would be a significant portion of family income for high-performing students in poor families. Yes, this makes the payments most of the education budget.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:23PM (1 child)
You're probably right; I wanted to avoid the obvious exploitation to which being a "provider" of the family could lead. You don't want that money going to pay for Daddy's drinking, and you don't want kids getting whipped for failing to bring home the bacon.
Perhaps students could receive "student stamps" until age 18, and could use them to buy things through some office that authorizes disbursements for one purpose or another (such as for buying supplies for the student himself; clothes, lunch food, etc.).
It's really hard to keep the parents away from the money when the child is a minor. Most parents are total shitheads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:57PM
I don't think you should try to "keep the parents away from the money". It's pretty messed up if a kid gets whipped for failing to pay for Daddy's drinking but... that is what is required to get the child learning in such an awful home. That "exploitation" provides pressure to succeed. The alternative is that the parents actively interfere with success, or perhaps just let the child run wild and never study.
And no, I wouldn't support taking the child or otherwise interfering. Family is family, even if not the best.
One could even skip over the child, simply paying the parents. That is probably easier. Some parents might give a portion to the kid. It could be 0%, 50%, 100%... or even 1000% for the rich.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Friday April 07 2017, @06:35PM (7 children)
Why is it that people think that the main issue with teachers is the difficulty of firing them?
How about questioning the quality of teachers coming into the profession? Why are those bad teachers in the classrooms in the first place?
Even if you fire those bad teachers, there is no pool of better teachers ready to take their place. In CA, there is a shortage of teachers (note, not necessarily a shortage of people qualified to teach) so firing teachers merely results in understaffed schools.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Most teachers are underpaid when the qualifications required are taken into consideration. Pay more and perhaps you would get better teachers in schools. The average teacher quits after 5 years in the profession, which represents a huge waste of society's resources.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:04PM (4 children)
"This endeavor is failing, so let's invest in it more!"
—said no productive person ever.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:16AM (1 child)
That is complete BS. Cases where an enterprise may fail due to insufficient investment, but succeed with sufficient investment abound us all. In fact, it is essentially the model for all Venture Capital.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @04:04PM
The kind of failure that you are talking about is different from the kind of failure that I am talking about.
The truth of the matter is that nobody really knows what the solution should be; what this means is that the solution must be found, which means that the solution must evolve into existence by means of variation (error) and selection (trial), a process that is most robustly implemented as a market of voluntary trade (i.e., a free market).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:20AM (1 child)
Educating the species isn't even on the same level as business investment. There is a lie floating around that education has been getting more and more money and it does nothing. The problem is that the money is not going to the correct places.
1st: Pay teachers more, help reverse the trend where 50% of teachers quit after 3 years.
2nd: Pay for MORE teachers. Class sizes have been steadily increasing for years. The ideal student : teacher ratio is 12:1 and that doesn't even cover having 5 different classes for a total of 150+ students.
3rd: Take money away from bureaucracy, if anyone is the dead weight you'll find them there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:56PM
Nobody is arguing that it is going to the correct places. That's the whole point; there's no point in giving the educational system more money because this educational system has very little to do with education. It's a fucked endeavor.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:07PM
Because of unions, we can't give more money to better teachers without also giving it to awful teachers.
Because of the sheer number of teachers, paying even the median income is a serious problem. People aren't keen on 30% tax or classrooms with 120 students per teacher.
Teaching degrees are a joke. Those with the lowest SAT scores go into teaching. When not drinking, the soon-to-be-teacher people are "learning" SJW nonsense (which makes them dumber) and struggling to pass a class called College Algebra which is really 7th grade algebra.
Much of the problem is lack of ability to exclude and/or punish bad-behaving students. Add in an uncaring administration, and it's no wonder people hate the job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:03AM
It seems that every time a CEO or politician feels the need of a six figure increase in compensation they jump and shout "If you want well qualified people to do our jobs you need to pay them well!" Usually this proceeds a quarter showing significant losses, or some kind of bone-headed scandal.
These same people apparently believe that teachers don't need the same incentive - that the less you can pay them, the better off we are.
Arguably teachers as a group have a significantly higher success rate than either CEOs or politicians.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday April 07 2017, @07:14PM (3 children)
Forcing citizens to join the military in peace-time is a terrible idea. You ideally only want citizens that actually want to be there. The whole "learn some discipline" idea has very little to do with the military and more to do with intimidating children and giving them busy work (no idle hands). If you treat the military as a dumping ground for your deviants then your army will get rolled over by a very small professional one.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:01PM (2 children)
Firstly, see this existing comment [soylentnews.org], and probably also this comment [soylentnews.org]; your reply has basically already been covered and should be marked "redundant".
Secondly, nobody is saying that the military should be composed exclusively from these people. Your reply is a straw man argument.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:50AM (1 child)
I read those two comments. They both have the same issue i pointed out. Trying to call it a straw man or encouraging other's to downvote for a fake reason isn't constructive at all. You are avoiding my valid point.
Okay then, if you want to get specific. How many "failures" can the military sustain before it becomes a culture of failure?
Why would the government spend hundreds of thousands a year to keep and train someone who not only doesn't want to be there but is actively bringing down the team?
Your suggestion is so out of touch with reality that you don't realize it would be cheaper to just send these "failures" to college with all paid tuition, fees, full meal card, room and board. At least there they are less likely to get someone killed.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:00PM
s/t and links again; read them until you understand.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday April 07 2017, @09:12PM
There's a major problem with your plan: Who gets to decide whether the child has mastered the subject?
- If it's a standardized test, then the child will just learn the answers to the questions on the test, and not how to actually think about the subject at hand.
- If it's the child's teacher, the teacher has the same arbitrary grading power they have now, only now they actually are controlling a cash payout, which makes all the problems with the current system worse.
- If it's an organization independent from the teacher, then the problems that teachers had with arbitrary grading power now get transferred to that organization. But that doesn't solve them, not in the least. Plus you've added even more bureaucracy.
Also, now that you've introduced a financial incentive to get good grades, you've also introduced an incentive for rich parents to bribe whoever is deciding whether money goes in that bank account. From the parent's point of view, if I can kick in $20 today to the Grader's Benevolent Fund and get a $2,000 savings on my kid's college tuition, I'm going to make that investment (added bonus: the kid's transcript looks better for when they apply to college).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday April 07 2017, @10:13PM (2 children)
I can only imagine how frustrated I would get if there were legislation telling me how to go about machining a part. Technological advancement in the industry would slow to a crawl; no experimenting with new techniques unless you're an approved experimental shop.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:02PM (1 child)
Nobody is saying that should be the case. Try again.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:30PM
Yet there is legislation telling teachers how to do their jobs.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @02:37PM (24 children)
These teacher obviously don't appreciate things like "No Retard Left Behind". And, "Core Curriculum". And, teaching the children that they can pee wherever the hell they want. And, "alternative lifestyles".
These teachers probably think that school should be reserved for things like teaching readin' ritin' and rithmatic.
They need to get with the times! Ensuring that students understand doubleplus doublegood modernspeak is far more important than anything these teachers hoped to teach!! HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT!!!!
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56PM (19 children)
If you don't want the guy with sideburns using the men's room because he was assigned the female gender at birth, I guess that has nothing to do with either of us.
Personally it'll never cease to be amusing to me when one of you assholes walks into the men's room and immediately walks out thinking he's in the women's room after seeing me.
My other hobby is walking to a urinal and whipping out my cock after one of you tries to tell me I'm in the wrong restroom.
What's that AC keep going on about? Well-defined contracts? I though it was pretty clear! None of you seem to be happy I'm using the restroom for the gender I was assigned at birth: the men's room! I mean, I'm consenting! You sound like that's the restroom you want me to use, too! So what's the problem?!
Everybody thinks they can spot a crossdresser at 1,000 yards, but nobody expects somebody wearing an advanced infiltrator class woman suit!
I mean, jeebus! I don't even wear makeup and half the time I'm wearing boy clothes anyway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @03:13PM (5 children)
This discussion is about shools. Innocent little shits, for the most part, who haven't even reached puberty. And, when they do reach puberty, they can conform to school standards until they reach the age of majority. Once reaching age 18, and leaving school (with or without a diploma) they can pretty much do what they want to do.
Gotta wonder though - WTF do you make it a hobby to shock people? You're not really comfortable with yourself, and you've got to shock people to justify yourself? Or - you're actually trolling for dates while telling yourself that you're just shocking people?
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday April 07 2017, @03:31PM
She is probably doing what I like to do: force policy changes by following them to the letter.
I am passive-aggressive that way.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday April 07 2017, @06:50PM (3 children)
WTF do you make it a hobby to shock people?
WTF do you make it a hobby to legislate which bathroom I should be in? I'm just following the law and entering the men's room, just like you want me to. It's your damned problem you find it shocking that somebody who appears to be a woman is in the men's room. I have XY genetics, a cock, the whole nine yards. It's your problem, buster, if something about my appearance—without any effort on my part!— makes you think I'm a womyn-born-womyn.
If you didn't want to be shocked, you'd probably back off with the bitching about bathrooms and request that people use the bathroom of the gender they appear to be, regardless of their assigned gender at birth. But you idiots don't!
You want me to present my birth certificate. Guess what it says on there! It has a big M, and I've never had a problem just using the men's room. When I need to take a piss, I just want to take a piss, and I don't care where I take a piss. Your side seems to be adamant that it should be in the men's room, so in the men's room I go!
Haha, maybe you should have thought it through a bit more thoroughly before you joined feminists on the crusade against bathroom rapists! You sound like you're not so sure after all you want me in the men's room! Well, hash it out with feminists now that you're one big happy family!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:03PM (2 children)
Where did this bathroom discussion pop up from? I don't see it in Runaway's original post, only in KT's initial comment about it...
WTF with this thread?
(Score: 1) by charon on Friday April 07 2017, @11:00PM (1 child)
[Emphasis added.]
Not sure if Runaway meant it that way (probably did), but kurenai thought it was about the NC et al. "bathroom bill."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:23AM
haha ok, I totally misread that as "whenever" like it is some jab at entitled millenials.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Friday April 07 2017, @03:33PM
Hey, to be fair, classic restroom etiquette (AKA the last bit of civility holding this goddamned country together) mandates that you, above and beyond all other requirements, engage in ZERO eye contact while within the confines. These men have no idea you're not wearing makeup. Unless they're barbarians, they won't even risk a glance at your face.
Honestly, I think the whole getting uptight about whichever genitals are in whichever restroom is just distracting from the REAL enemy: Fucking sales people. Loudly talking to each other, high fiving each other at urinals and under bathroom stalls. Shaking each other off. Seriously, sales people don't have social skills. That sounds contrary to the obvious, but my argument is that it's not a skill when that's how you're hardwired to act that way 24 hours a day. It's like fucking Jazz. You know, the old saying about "Jazz being about the notes that aren't played," or something like that? Same thing. You can't have social skills if you're not capable of not using them.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @04:42PM (11 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday April 07 2017, @05:31PM
It would be nice if you had a citation for that. Are you possibly thinking of JoeySalads' Transgender Bathroom Hoax (Gender Analysis 20) [youtube.com]? The controversy pre-dated that April 18, 2016 [youtube.com] video.
Bathrooms and locker rooms: the transgender witch hunt (Gender Analysis 17) [genderanalysis.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:54PM (6 children)
And frankly that IS a problem. Because the women and girls who use that bathroom weren't comfortable with his presence, and it's hard to blame them.
Oh, so it's a problem because of people's feelz. I see. I thought we should just have unisex bathrooms, but clearly we have to make sure everyone feels good. No black people in white bathrooms, because otherwise you might upset a KKK member. Note that you can't argue that we should do everything to appease one person's subjective feelings and remain consistent when you say that another person's feelings don't matter. It's totally subjective.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 07 2017, @06:20PM (1 child)
You check the numbers. People who complain about being forced to use a different restroom than the one they want to are like 1% of the population.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @06:40PM
Sure. But that, in and of itself, doesn't really mean anything. Just because they're ~1% of the population doesn't mean they're not human or that it's somehow ok to act as if they were not.
But I think we need to think carefully about whether a particular action actually does that 1% any good waaay back before we start thinking it's ok to force it on people that don't agree. Is this about helping that 1% of the population, or is it just about keeping the general population divided into competing colors and riled up at each other?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @06:33PM (3 children)
Which is part of why I say it's a manufactured issue. It's nearly 100% feelz in terms of the mainstream discourse. It's all about manipulating emotions and stimulating feelz. The blue americans sympathize more with the gender disphoric who feelz bad about not being able to use the restroom he or she would prefer, the red americans sympathize more with the ladies that don't want their customary safe space violated like this, both sides get riled up, who profits?
"I thought we should just have unisex bathrooms"
I could cope with those personally, I have in other places with other cultures, but that would be a very hard one for the typical american to adjust to. And frankly it's not very reasonable to demand that they do.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:45PM (1 child)
I've heard of some in Europe where each toilet has a closed room with a locking door, but the sinks are out in the open. I'd be alright with that, but it would make other things a little less appealing. Who wants to see a girl they're attracted to coming out of a toilet she just blasted into oblivion (or wants to be walking out of one they just rode hard and put away wet when a girl they find attractive is waiting for them to get out)?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:55AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:48AM
Hard to adjust to? I have been thinking over the last several months that this would be precisely the solution that everyone should get behind; you just go do your business and no one else has to know what your junk looks like. Problem solved. In fact, every Starbucks I am familiar with does this already. And I have noticed that other businesses are starting to move in this direction as well. Maybe you need to get out more?
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday April 07 2017, @07:01PM (2 children)
Nope, sorry, it's always you assholes who try to block my way or are asking me to leave until I whip out my cock. Then you shut up all sheepish like and let me go about my business.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @07:06PM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:18PM
I'd have to say "advanced infiltrator-class woman suit" pretty much covers the "passable" part, yet she's being forced to use the men's room due to her lack of female genitals, by the sound of it. She has every right to fuck with peoples' heads until they start treating her like a human being instead of a walking collection of genetics and genitals.
I've been in the same situation. I just took a different tack. No need to whip it out, just embarrass the hell out of the men by giving absolutely zero clue that you're still biologically male underneath the clothes and makeup. Sooner or later they stop making you use the men's room.
Today of course, I'm full-stealth, pass fairly well, and I always use the ladies' room (even in the face of a certain state bathroom law); if someone gives me shit about it, they'll have more to worry about than what's between my legs.
(posting anonymously because too many people here and elsewhere would recognize me)
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 07 2017, @03:15PM (3 children)
The new program is "No teacher left behind in school" ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:10AM (2 children)
A coworker's wife, who majored in math, volunteered to help out at school. I'm actually surprised they still allow that, but it's a nice area.
The problem was effectively algebra, but with blanks instead of variables. The students were given "x - 9 = 0", of course with a blank instead of x.
The teacher accepted both 0 and 9 as answers. Note that the correct answer is 18, but the teacher would not accept it. Her justification was that 2-digit numbers hadn't been taught yet, so that wasn't a valid answer.
This is the teaching in a good public school. It's in a place with lots of white engineers who work for defense contractors. It is typical for people to own homes and have stay-at-home moms. The whole area is nerdy. My coworker's kid is bright, so he's in a good class in this good area. If this is the "quality" he is getting, what might be happening in not-so-nice areas and with the less-than-top levels?
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:46PM (1 child)
The correct answer is 9. 18 - 9 = 9, not 0.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:12AM
x - 9 = 9
I seem to always botch the example horribly. :-(