Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

The New York Times: How Low can they Go?

Filed under:

You'll get no argument from me if you want to contend that American young people could be better educated. All I need to convince me is their strong support for vapid, empty, unqualified presidential contender/cult leader Barack Obama. Indeed, if rumors of their stupidity are true, then their support seems to confirm Obama as ignorance personified. The carcinogenic influence of teacher unions and bureaucracy and political correctness is definitely something we should address.

No argument, that is, unless you are the New York Times. Then I'll call you a far bigger idiot than the worst of those you purport to criticize.

The Times recently ran an article about a study by a weird new group called "Common Core" which had published the results of a survey of 17-year-old Americans on questions of history and literature. Amazingly, the Times article didn't provide links to either the group's website or the survey report. ABC News provided both in their story, and for good measure threw in an interactive feature with a sampling of the questions from the survey.

Neither one of these MSM outlets, however, seemed to have actually thought about the results they were reporting for even a few seconds. The Common Core report provides no baseline to the ability of American students to answer the questions it asked in the past, and it provides no baseline to how well teenagers from other places (Japan, Europe -- much less South America or the Middle East) are able to respond to such questions. Indeed, the author of the report himself states: "There is no current reliable national measure of how much students know about history and literature." ABC gives you this quote, not the NYT. In other words, it's totally meaningless except insofar as your subjective sensibilities might be offended.

And, if you read the Times article, what you will find is that the reason the paper doesn't care about any of this is that it's using the article as an opportunity to launch yet another attack on President Bush, this time savaging his "No Child Left Behind" program -- while at the same time conveniently implying that the the Times is failing so miserably not because it sucks but because Americans are too stupid to appreciate it. This appears to be a running theme of propaganda at the Times these days.

The quality of the anecdotal evidence, if you care about such things, is pathetic, and indicates that the report's authors are at least as ignorant as the kids they purport to survey. They're making a mountain out of a grain of sand.

According to the report (see page 11), you aren't a "literate" 17-year-old America unless you can identify Chaucer, Oedipus and Odysseus. According to it, the Bible is literature, and you aren't literate unless you know who Job was. The report declares that Ralph Ellison is among the very greatest titans of American literature, so if you're not instantly conversant with him, you're a failure.

Now, to be sure, the report did ask a few questions about literature that we might agree should be within a high-school graduate's America literature repertoire: 1984, the Scarlet Letter, Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill a Mockingbird and Leaves of Grass. That's it. Six questions out of 11 on literature were of this type, barely half -- I question whether that's even a statistically significant sample. More than half the respondents were able to correctly identify six out of six on these questions, and three out of six were identified correctly by more than 70% of respondents. Amazingly, there's no mention of the work of America's Nobel Laureates for fiction, such as Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, Pearl Buck or Toni Morrison.

As for history (see page seven), twice as many questions were asked as for literature (apparently, the authors think history is twice as important as literature, a proposition that seems dubious on their own terms). One-third of the questions were answered correctly by over 80% of respondents and only six questions resulted in accuracy of less than 70%. Unless we expect the "average" score to be above average, 70% is exactly what we should expect, isn't it?

What were the questions where accuracy was lacking? They asked students to place World War I and the Civil War in the proper date range, to name the purpose of the Federalist Papers and to place freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the Constitution generally, and to identify Joseph McCarthy and the Renaissance.

Now, to be sure, it's important to know that Americans strongly resisted unification after the Revolutionary War ended, and many years were needed to convince them to form a central government -- so strong was their antipathy to dictatorship. But I'd prefer to see students asked this question directly, rather than indirectly by means of reference to a long-haired manuscript it would be totally unreasonable to expect them to read at such a young age. Likewise, our students should know who McCarthy was, and they should know generally when the Civil War occurred. Less than 70% accuracy on these questions certainly indicates that there are areas where education could be improved. But it doesn't concern me much that students are bit weak in giving the date of World War I or that they are not familiar with the Renaissance, and the question about the Bill of Rights sounds almost like a trick. Freedom of speech wasn't actually guaranteed by federal law until the 20th Century and it was imposed by the Supreme Court just like desegregation. The Bill of Rights only protects Americans from federal encroachment upon freedom of speech, not encroachment by the states. Before students could be expected to know a fact like that, it would have to actually be present in the texts they are reading, and most of the time it isn't. I doubt that European students would be any more familiar with the date of the American civil war than our students are with World War I. Our students should certainly be taught to appreciate that Europe caused itself to burst into flames not once but twice in the space of less than 50 years, but I think that, too, is a more a problem of history books than students.

Given the wholesale fraud that's been documented occurring at the New York Times, the nation's so-called "paper of record" over the past few years, from Jayson Blair to the loathsome smear job on John McCain, one could hardly expect Americans reading it, of any age, to be conversant with the truth. Indeed, it could easily be argued that a more important step than educational reform might be for us to find ourselves a new POR. But it's doubtful we'll hear the Times editorializing or reporting about that any time soon.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


jon says:

The same people who control Bush are the same people who control the NYT and the same people that control all the Presidential candidates including Obama. Investigate that which controls all of them. The NYT vs. Bush angle is merely a smoke screen so you don't see what they're really doing behind the scenes. Many of us in the USA know the upcoming election is a lie and there's nothing we can do about it. The depth of evil that controls this world will not be defeated by the Global Serfs. That's all we are, Global Serfs.


Bill Bennett says:

Thank God someone is asking the same questions I am! I read the NYT article, saw the 500 links on the page and not one of them to the study, and they didn't even identify the organization well enough to easily google. Found it after a couple of guesses, was disappointed to find the actual test questions were not included in the report at all, there was no baseline. The report means nothing at all. I was worried I was the only one to notice this.


Sarah says:

Nice breakdown.

I also saw the Time article - had more questions than answers - and was miffed at the actual report. (Did the authors take a college course on hiding the truth with numbers?)

Who reads Ellison? Those studying American lit on the college level? Anyone else?


Bryan says:

As with any "survey" of this type, it really only proves one thing: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure". I could easily create an 11 question test that proves the people at Common Core are illiterate.

It is real easy to create a "test" to prove the results that you are after.


bunner says:

"Hey! Look at that big, fat, red herring!

You, sir, are part of the problem.

Somewhere between all of this dog and pony malarkey of an election that is happening on mobile text devices and faux news shows and the smarmy invective of pseudo-political posturing it inspires, is the validation of the well aimed opprobrium that this fading culture is experiencing.

It all boils down to priggish dismissal of "the other guy" and blame language.

You're just better read than the people screaming "BS!" but the message is the same and it's as useless as mammaries on a... red herring.

Not one word of it designed to inspire anything useful.

Barack Obama, like it or not, does.

If you ever climb off of your plinth and get your nails dirty, you may become part of the solution.

We're too far into the gutter to go about being shamed by patrician prigs who've noticed that academia is in shambles.

It's a symptom, gov. Put some latex gloves on and help treat the disease. Or don't. But if you're waiting for the soft claps from the well heeled, they're all sitting in large homes with alarm systems, hoping the insulation they've purchased, from a high rung on a broken ladder, will lift them above the scorpion pit that greed has installed, here.

The point?

One red herring does not expose another and wholesale fraud is of no more value than retail fraud.

At least Barack Obama can form a sentence.

Pick up a God**** shovel, Lord Fauntleroy.


minimitable says:

Bunner:

I could not have said it better...cheers!


Josh Elder says:

All you need to do is go into a chat room where teenagers roam, and you can witness the ignorance and stupidity flood the room.

It's rare that you meet a teenager who can type correctly, use even basic English, correct grammar or spelling.

The usual response when it's pointed out is; "I aint n skool. y shuld i car bout spelln?" Maybe because it makes you look uneducated and ignorant?

Heck, go to your local McDonalds and I guarantee you, most of the employees there speak some form of uneducated 'Ebonics'.

I have lost faith in the younger generation. When one of them, that isn't on a debate team or making all A's, can actually hold an intelligent conversation, I will begin to feel as if the US isn't doomed to completely fall down the drain.


Kevin says:

Wow bunner, way to show off your collection of two dollar words. Did you use up your whole supply in that incoherent rant?

That was highly amusing, coming from someone claiming that others are putting on airs. :)

I lol'd.

(I'm guessing you did that just so you could accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being 'ignorant' and not understanding your point. Okay, go ahead and do that. Should be good for more amusement. Elitist intellectualism ftw!)


bunner says:

I'm guessing you're one more idiot who insults people with a typewriter from behind the skirts of the anoanymous internet. : )

Not very good at it, are you?


Bunner says:

IRSTUPID

and I am hiding behind a vocabulary that is mostly the result of my innadequate junior college education and a healthy dose of Microsoft's thesaurus in Word.


pure_drivel says:

My political leanings made it difficult to even read this diatribe, but the publishing of meaningless statistics is one of my pet peeves, having studied both Sociology and Journalism in college.

There's no doubt in my mind that the schools in America are failing their students. I likewise believe that No Child Left Behind is not the solution to the problem. The benchmarks that have been established are as artificial as the results of the study discussed above. "Teaching to the test" stifles creativity for both teachers and students, and results in students not truly learning anything. I'm not suggesting we do away with standardized testing altogether; we should simply make it less important in measuring the performance of our students and our teachers. The real key to fixing the education system in this country, in my relatively uninformed opinion, is to make the job of teaching rewarding, both financially and emotionally. More excellent teachers logically results in more well-educated students.

There is also no doubt in my mind that Journalism as an industry is in a lot of trouble, especially the newspapers. These dinosaurs of the news world are really struggling to adapt to our new information age. The falling subscription rates and ad revenues and scandals reflect this. It's one of many reasons why I decided not to board a sinking ship and go into the Information Technology field.

The New York Times may have blundered here. I can't possibly understand why they are bothering to use these results as an attack on No Child Left Behind and President Bush. There are plenty of obvious examples of Bush's failed Presidency, so I'm not sure why they feel the need to attack his education policy based on this meaningless study.

As a side note: Barack Obama is a cult leader? Isn't convincing people that what you believe would be best for the country Politics 101? I suppose being charismatic and passionate about the issues means you're trying to subliminally brainwash people into drinking the proverbial kool-aid? It only makes sense to me that on the verge of our country taking a huge step toward breaking down racial barriers and predjudice that right-wingers concerned only with maintaining the status quo would attack the black candidate for being too good at his job. I hope John McCain is working on improving his oratory. Otherwise he's going to look like a fool in the debates leading up to the general election.


Scott says:

Josh Elder, for all of his ranting about grammar, should learn the difference between "that" and "who." I would mention the split infinitive, but that's more properly a matter of style.

As for Publius' ideas about what literature should be studied by young Americans, I'll listen when Publius finishes his or her Ph.D. in pedagogy, literature, or both. Greek tragedy, Homer, and Chaucer provide the foundation for every other literary work and author you mention. You'd know that if you'd ever properly educated yourself. And by the way, Ralph Ellison is an author of great importance to American literature.

As for your comments about the results of the history question, you're exactly right: we should expect average scores on all of these questions. That's why it's puzzling that the six questions which "resulted in accuracy of less than 70%" don't bother you while the six questions which resulted in accuracy of more than 80%, if I may use your phrasing, delight you. (You will say seven questions were over 80%, but that's not perfectly true, is it? Or maybe you need help with statistics, too.)


Sam says:

The average American senior high school student is borderline retarded, it just not reflected in the test because IQ's simply represent the average themselves.

I'd blame it on indolent self serving politics on BOTH sides, and the last 10 years of playing a sycophant to parents and following along with its never the kids fault, or its not your fault mom and dad lets lets blame this on someone else philosophy. The parents aren't involved, school systems are without a doubt end means high school diploma mills, wherein kids can out right fail (as in F), do absolutely nothing for 12 years of their life, and graduate without so much as even reading one pathetic book from front to back. This is what then generations above us have made possible. This is what you get when you treat truth like its democratic. This is what you get when you allow the schools to teach nothing but the states' standardized test. This is what you get when you dumb down the curriculum so the lazy kids , who are damn well smart enough, that don't do anything productive, and to which the word 'study' is completely absent from their vocabulary, will pass so you can keep your schools passing rate and attendance up, so you can keep receiving Government tax dollars. I remember calling this trend out when I was in high school, everything, just like in grown up politics, the school politicians (superintendents, principles included) care about nothing that really matters and concentrate on everything petty and stupid, nothing of substance, and its just the same with their talk. Their speeches they're all vapid, no plan of action just political posturing catering to emotional appeal, and you people act surprised that this is the end effect to a populous who was before my generation taught that feeling good and having "self esteem" is more important than being right, and being honest, how dumb are you?

Ex: My mother and now several of my friends are teachers, in elementary school they are not allowed to give kids less than a 50 for a grade. My friend who teaches had one kid out right fail, and another not (if the grades were adjusted to their actual worth) even break 30 on anything she did, and yet the principal made her pass both of the children to the next grade even though they out right failed.


bunner says:

If I thought for one second that throwing bank notes at marginally competent teachers who are working in a hostile, undisciplined and academcially useless environment would help, I'd cut a check. It will not.

Our schools have become intermediary detention homes for kids with a home life that is at least as hostile and useless as the one at school.

You can't sprinkle incentives on a staff of dullards and expect an imporvement in their ability or willingness to teach the only marginally educable.

When I stop getting notes from my nephew's teacher that are awash in spelling, grammatical and syntax errors, I'll pay for her new Hyundai.


pure_drivel says:

@ brunner

You're a fool if you think I was suggesting we reward less-than apt teachers for their poor performance. I think it's more likely you're just trying to twist what I was saying. You know damn well I was suggesting we make teaching an attractive career for smart and motivated people, instead of the dead-end, low-salary, demeaning job it currently is.

@ Sam

My generation and even more the generation immediately following is definitely pampered. Education most certianly begins at home, but I think we both know you can't count on the parents to be involved at the level they should be. So, do we just throw all that potential talent away? How can we best provide opportunities for smart kids with no motivation to excel?


bunner says:

brunner

'You're a fool if you think I was suggesting we reward less-than apt teachers for their poor performance. I think it's more likely you're just trying to twist what I was saying"

Actually, no, I didn't.

And if misspelling my name and throwing a tantrum is the first response you act upon, I can say I'm quite happy that you chose IT and not teaching. I'm a fool, you can't spell my name. I'm twisting your words when they said nothing of the qualifications of the teachers in American schools.

Ye gods, folks.. this is it? The is the highest level of discussion we can subscribe to?

If it is, you're going to play hell making me feel remiss.

Seriously, what are you selling? Did you "win"?

The problem with polite and orderly discourse in this country is that it's last forum is a digital simulacrum of text where anybody can attempt to piss upon anybody else from an ostensibly great moral high ground, with impunity.

It's pretty played out.


Elizabeth says:

I think that the most disturbing statistic that was included in this study (and one that the author did not mention) was that nearly 1/4 of the students surveyed did not know who Adolf Hitler was.
Can you even imagine being 17 years old, walking into a conversation between adults and having to ask who Hitler was just so you can follow along?!
The fact that this author decided not to include that in his diatribe (despite the fact that it's the first stat listed) shows that he is part of the problem - willing to overlook the alarming indications of serious failure in favor of picking out only those more difficult (though certainly not unreasonable) questions that serve his own argument.

Also, none of these questions were asking for detailed, lengthy responses - they certainly didn't ask for a book report on one of Ellison's novels, just an identification of its plot. I also do not think it is unreasonable to expect a 17 year old to know "The guarantee of freedom of speech and religion is found in the Bill of Rights." Hardly a trick question.

And 70% is, on a liberal scale, the lowest possible percentage of average. On a rigorous scale, this is one point away from failure (69%).
This country should expect 100% of 2nd graders to know that Columbus sailed for the New World before 1750. Accepting only 74% (of adults!) as "average" is ridiculous and is a clear sign that we allow students to be as dumb as they are.

The point is, you must have a basic understanding of history and literature (and yes, this is ALL basic) in order to understand how the world got to where it is today. If our students don't know how secret alliances led to World War I (regardless of the date it happened) how can we expect them not to make the same mistake in the future?


pure_drivel says:

@ BUNNER

I misspelled your name? That's your response? The first thing you point out is that I misread and thus, mistyped your name on a forum, and you're accusing me of degrading the level of discourse?

If you weren't responding to my statement about making teaching a rewarding experience, then what were you replying to? I genuinely beg an apology if I misunderstood and you were responding to someone else's post.

Additionally, if you're so tired of forums, oh, I'm sorry, "digital simulacrums of text where anybody can attempt to piss upon anybody else from an ostensibly great moral high ground, with impunity," then why are you even here? I don't even really mind that you cloud your communications with a pretentious vocabulary, though you might be more effective at conveying your point sans pomp. I think Orwell would agree.


pure_drivel says:

That being said, I was attempting to have a civil discussion here about what would make our schools more effective places of learning, and then you began talking about buying teacher's Hyundais, of all things. I'll be the first to admit I have a quick temper, and am wary of people attempting to wrest words from my mouth that weren't there in the first place.

So, back to what I was talking about originally: What do you think can be done to improve American schools' ability to educate their students?


christine says:

ha ha ha.

bunner mispelled anonymous.


bunner says:

Making it a rewarding experience by outlining the benefits of standing upon a knowledge of history based in fact.

Promoting not just the notion of literature as an intellectual merit badge, but the meat of the content as interesting and worth learning.

Making mathematics something that is inherently married to engineering and design, not just in practice, but in the minds of students who would aspire to those fields.

Bring back cracking heads on junior criminals and keep the Oprah-esque malarkey out of the legislature.

Help to bring back a society where speaking well and thoughtfully isn't ascribed to pomp and pretense.

I was very much directing my statement about liberally funding the snake pit that is present public education towards your post.

And I am "here", using this forum because I choose to address the issue that's arisen and I do not need your permission, assistance or approval to do so.

Much as you do not need any of that from me.

I don't change my tune for every Billy Bloke who decides to get porky with me or tell me I "talk funny".

I trust you feel the same and that's as it ought to be.

I hope this clears things up.


bunner says:

christine says:
"ha ha ha.

bunner mispelled anonymous"

No, I mistyped it. I can't type for crap. : )

Perhaps a remedial course is available.


pure_drivel says:

@ bunner

Now that's discourse.

Much appreciated.


Sami says:

As a recent high school graduate, I will tell you all how I graduated high school. Its as sad as you would expect.

In Spanish, I was nice to the teacher and did my homework (albeit not well) while other kids tried to make him cry. I always got extra points in participation because I didn't try to be a smart ass.

In science class, I copied off other people and stayed quiet. I knew enough to make a mildly acceptable answer.

I had to be in Algebra for two years until finally my teacher gave up and let me pass. I was a good girl, he said, but I just didn't get math.

I did well in art, English, and history, but I just found those more interesting.

During lunch, me and my friends would drink liquid codeine and we were the geeks. Most of the student council once got impeached because they all got really drunk on a school trip.

I used to get in trouble for reading in class after I was done with my work. I had in school suspension at least four times for reading. Most of my classmates fit in a book or two (not including class) a year.

I scraped by, though, and managed to get into college.

The amazing thing is that I'm on honor roll now and I'm even doing well in my Japanese class when I couldn't even learn Spanish (and I live near Mexico). Though, I still can't spell and I couldn't get into a math class.

I credit my professors for making classes at least marginally interesting, my classmates because now its ok to get good grades, and being away from my parents. I had to sink or swim in college and without my parents there to talk me out of trouble I had to learn to swim.


pure_drivel says:

@ bunner

I see a lot of “what” in your response. Those are all admirable goals for any education system, busting the heads of troubled delinquents as opposed to rehabilitating them excluded. I guess I’d like to discuss the how.

I wasn’t suggesting that we dump money into a system that is so obviously broken. I think that was my original point – the current system, No Child Left Behind included, has failed and will continue to fail to meet goals such as the ones you propose.

Money is an absolute necessity in remaking the education system in this country. I think a lot of that money could be “found” by eliminating the wasteful nature of our government, a sentiment I imagine you share. I don’t know off the top of my head how much money our government wastes attempting to fund our schools, but I doubt it’s a small number. Ending a certain *ahem* unpopular war would start putting some dough back into our collective pockets, as well.

Regardless, better teachers are the key. I hear a lot of talk about new computer labs and school books: the “stuff” of education. Rarely do I hear talk about the people in education, who I feel are far more important. Actually educating students begins with having motivated, especially intelligent people, such as you, who are passionate about learning. Those people have to instill a sense of motivation and a passion for learning, or the new copies of Catcher in the Rye and new laptops will be pointless.

So, how do we get those kinds of people into the teaching field? What kind of incentives can we offer? Tax breaks? Larger salaries? I know Teach for America is doing some wonderful things, but I think we can all agree that we highly undervalue our teachers here. There must be a way to rectify that without draining the coffers (which are actually already empty).


Kate says:

The more we coddle our younger generations, the more their education slips through the cracks.

...and I think I will stop there. That's about all the intelligent discourse I have in me today.


bunner says:

We stop hiring vain, posturing hacks who go home at night and say "Look what I did!" and we start hiring people who go home and night and say "Look at what my students did!"

The screening process for that is no more clear to me than to anybody else.

The culture of "nobody fails" narcissism is a huge failure.

Stop telling your kids that theyare special and unique and are entitled to respect because they managed to survive birth and have regular meals, bowel movements, and haven't killed any innocent people.

That's a lie. And an expensive one. No child's ass left un-kissed has failed, and until there are mechanisms in place that draw lines between failing and success, and the consequences former have a sting, you could hire Goethe, Einstein, Chaucer and Twain and stick them into a room full of pampered, ridiculously self-important children and do no better. The only difference between that ideal and the present school day grind would be, that, after about an hour of poking these slugs with the stick of knowledge, the aforementioned faculty would stomp into the principle's office and tell the man with the desk to stuff his paycheck.

The entire "us against them" construct, where everything is proffered contest and the winners get to smirk last and regardless of the results, blame MUST be found and shaming language MUST be spoken, and SOMEBODY, (insert teachers, parents, students, security.. your football of choice, here) must be taken to task.

The people who care are tired of walking on eggshells and the people who don't can just go on a chat show and cry or sue somebody.

The tautological economy that has emerged from the pursuit and maintenance of the most profit possible, Über alles, has brought us a generation of children who, while awaiting some sort of moral inculcation or example, have learned well that all they need do is "get paid".

This behaviour denotes that they are capable of being educated. But will we? When a culture tells you that the money offers the only incentive to do anything, people will spend most of their time focusing on how they're going to spend theirs and not the task at hand that is supposed to provide it.

When we value dignity and compassion and accomplishment more than a new Escalade and how much we can get away with, the times they will start a changin'.


bunner says:

edit correction

"The entire "us against them" construct, where everything is proffered contest and the winners get to smirk last and regardless of the results, blame MUST be found and shaming language MUST be spoken, and SOMEBODY, (insert teachers, parents, students, security.. your football of choice, here) must be taken to task" - is counterproductive to learning. There has to be pass and fail, but instilling a love of learning is the goal.

{I need work on my typing.) : )


Brian says:

My question is, who is the right alternative for Obama? Clinton? YEAH RIGHT!! McCain? I don't think so. Huckabee and regressive tax? No winner there either.


Brian says:

I also love the fact that people like the "pundit" want to go and blame teachers, the establishment, etc. for poor education when the fact is good education starts at home. If there is no home support system (which is lacking in almost every American household" there is nothing that teachers, of the establishment can do to solve the problem.


pure_drivel says:

So, what you're suggesting is a massive shift in the valuation of education, as opposed to material possessions, in our society.

Yeah... Let's get right on that. :-)


ster says:

Jon:

Wow... you need a sedative. The voices in your head getting to you? LOL!

As long as you believe there are 'forces' out there controlling everything, they WILL control you. Just like people who hear voices are controlled by them, even though there's nobody really there.

Seek help, dude!


bunner says:

No, I'm talking about enlightening children to, and subscribing to, the things that education can bring about as far as a stable culture and a better quality of life, as opposed to the valuation of a 70,000.00 car in a ghetto as some sort of success.

I'm talking about not being some tool-with-a-marketing-degree's wet dream.

If one's success is dependent for definition upon the perceived failure of others, then success is a lie and an exercise in Schadenfreude that speaks poorly of the culture that sees that as it's definition.

As far as your "Yeah.. sure. Do stuff. That's stupid" pose...

Guess what part of the solution that is.

I'm not addressing this issue in hopes of finding approval for my ideals or even to sell subscriptions. I am simply engaging in a discussion about the obvious failings of our present society and perhaps, the idea that a small seed of honesty might grow into useful action or at least wider dialogue.

If all change is ascribed to either subversion or stupidity, then "Ha ha, U R a looser" (when did "lose" become "loose"?) may be the most intelligent thing we've said to our fellow Americans in ages.

We're two clicks short of having people kill each other on TeeVee for sport in order to sell Gatorade®. If that brings nothing but a cynical smirk, that's fine with me.

But there's a term in economics called "sunk costs" and that which you invest into is the source of your returns.


Logan says:

You see, the corporations...they're all corporatey. And they're in their corporate buildings, being all corporate. See how this works? HOW CAN YOU ALL BE SO BLIND?!!?!?!?!?!111


Nick says:

"All I need to convince me is their strong support for vapid, empty, unqualified presidential contender/cult leader Barack Obama"

That's about the point I stopped reading your article. Not that I think Obama is a good canidate (personally I think they are all ludicrously bad), however it proves that no matter what follows this statement will be tainted with your personal biases. If you think you are a journalist and not anything more then an evangelic with a word processor you are pathetically delusional. Walk away from the computer and get a real job, tool


Rufus says:

Nick, it's an Op-Ed piece. Opinion-Editorial.

The writer is expressing her opinion on the matter and not purporting to conduct an objective analysis.

You should apologize.


GuyFox says:

I honestly think more american students have a story like Sami than you'd imagine. Most students just don't fit the standardized mold the system tries to impose on them and end up picking their strengths while sacrificing where they can. I never believed that Trig was a vital element to an education unless you were pursuing a future in a technical field. All the same, future musicians, artists, doctors, and most of the people you meet in every day life probably made a choice to focus on things more important to them and are not the worse for it. They are doing very well but on paper it appears as if they are failures. I always thought magnet schools were a better model for education than the system at large. You are still exposed to general studies but they aren't all treated as priority one. It allows students to really excell at something rather than just be average at everything.

I just don't understand why the system places such importance on the kids who are behind. It's choking the students who have the chance to succeed and creating more poor performers. I mean, it's the same strategy corporations and marketing agency use but they're trying to create stupid people. They want a world of mindless consuming cattle because it has the unique pleasure of being both easier and more profitable. Rather than passing kids who need a little more time why not devote a little effort to taking the stigma out of being held back. Make the system a little more fluid if you can't make it what it ideally should be.


Larry says:

How come the first person to publish a comment (Jon) is an escapee from an insane aslyum??? After that, it's about fifty/fifty. And you wonder where all the NYT readers are coming from...


paniculture says:

Ha. "vapid, empty, unqualified presidential contender/cult leader" -- That's where I stopped reading (and I don't read your crap, someone posted it to a listserv I read). Not because I'm an Obama supporter (which I'm not), but because those epithets can only be used to describe the Bush nightmare. With the stunningly incompetent Idiot Shrub, our country has hit bottom; with either McCain or Obama it is only up from here, and you're a reactionary fool to think otherwise.








Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/670