2012 Election

[pbrower2a]

I do not like Romney.

I would probably want for Huckabee to run as an independent and I would vote for him. Romney's religion turns me way off and I do not like him being a liberal republican but trying to pretend that he is a conservative just for politics.

So, I would either vote for a third party or just sit this one out.

So, you would rather have Obama as President over Romney? Because Huckabee running 3rd party would guarentee a Democratic victory.
And Huckabee has liberal policies too. He raised taxes as governor of Arkansas, and isn't "conservative" at all on immigration, as he even wants to get illegal aliens scholarships to go to college...scholarships that should be going to American's.

Given the choice between letting illegal aliens get scholarships to attend universities and Americans of substandard motivation and educational preparation -- I'll go with the illegal aliens. There's one sure cure for the "illegal alien" status, and under those circumstances such would be good for the American gene pool.

[Vepres]

I do not like Romney.

I would probably want for Huckabee to run as an independent and I would vote for him. Romney's religion turns me way off and I do not like him being a liberal republican but trying to pretend that he is a conservative just for politics.

So, I would either vote for a third party or just sit this one out.

So, you would rather have Obama as President over Romney? Because Huckabee running 3rd party would guarentee a Democratic victory.
And Huckabee has liberal policies too. He raised taxes as governor of Arkansas, and isn't "conservative" at all on immigration, as he even wants to get illegal aliens scholarships to go to college...scholarships that should be going to American's.

Given the choice between letting illegal aliens get scholarships to attend universities and Americans of substandard motivation and educational preparation -- I'll go with the illegal aliens. There's one sure cure for the "illegal alien" status, and under those circumstances such would be good for the American gene pool.

This is one issue were liberals infuriate me. What could possibly make you think our educational system is worse than others, or that our students are less motivated!?! I'm sure your parents said the same thing about your generation, and their parents to their generation, etc. Are you also aware, that many other countries, including Germany and other rich nations, have a high stakes exam in middle school that determines whether you go through all 4-5 years of high school and then college, or 1-2 years of high school and then a trade school. So if you compare the best students of Europe and Japan to all the students in the US, they will always score higher. It's because that the US gives everybody a shot at graduating high school that we are such a successful nation. Also, as far as I can tell, we always rank in the top 5 in the world in college graduation rates per capita. We only rank behind homogenous, and relatively low population countries such as Sweden or Norway (nothing against them). I believe the only exception is the UK.

Whew... glad I got that out of my system. All I'm saying is that you have generational bias (I'm assuming you're an adult). 

[pbrower2a]

I do not like Romney.

I would probably want for Huckabee to run as an independent and I would vote for him. Romney's religion turns me way off and I do not like him being a liberal republican but trying to pretend that he is a conservative just for politics.

So, I would either vote for a third party or just sit this one out.

So, you would rather have Obama as President over Romney? Because Huckabee running 3rd party would guarentee a Democratic victory.
And Huckabee has liberal policies too. He raised taxes as governor of Arkansas, and isn't "conservative" at all on immigration, as he even wants to get illegal aliens scholarships to go to college...scholarships that should be going to American's.

Given the choice between letting illegal aliens get scholarships to attend universities and Americans of substandard motivation and educational preparation -- I'll go with the illegal aliens. There's one sure cure for the "illegal alien" status, and under those circumstances such would be good for the American gene pool.

This is one issue were liberals infuriate me. What could possibly make you think our educational system is worse than others, or that our students are less motivated!?! I'm sure your parents said the same thing about your generation, and their parents to their generation, etc. Are you also aware, that many other countries, including Germany and other rich nations, have a high stakes exam in middle school that determines whether you go through all 4-5 years of high school and then college, or 1-2 years of high school and then a trade school. So if you compare the best students of Europe and Japan to all the students in the US, they will always score higher. It's because that the US gives everybody a shot at graduating high school that we are such a successful nation. Also, as far as I can tell, we always rank in the top 5 in the world in college graduation rates per capita. We only rank behind homogenous, and relatively low population countries such as Sweden or Norway (nothing against them). I believe the only exception is the UK.

Whew... glad I got that out of my system. All I'm saying is that you have generational bias (I'm assuming you're an adult). 

I am fully aware of that difference -- the exam hells of Germany and Japan that determine what doors open and what doors don't. That the 'college material' and 'non-college material' attend the same high school means little when in fact about a quarter go into college prep courses and the rest don't. Sure, they end up at the same pep rallies and might be in the same home rooms -- and even the same graduation ceremony! -- but that hardly applies to the future of either. When I was a freshman I took tests to determine whether I was fit to take algebra and biology, two of the gateway courses to college. Most who did badly went into some vocational track (typically trades or office skills).

What's wrong with having good auto mechanics and tool-and-die people, anyway?  What's wrong with having competent meat cutters? What's wrong with having good office workers? We would be better off with more skilled people in the workforce than the poseurs that we have as executives. We would be better off if fewer people attended college and had to satisfy themselves with reading and discussing the Great Books as a hobby -- which is a better education than many colleges have available, anyway.

If you want to see a real problem in education, then look at the home instead of the school. The more a family is integrated into American mass low culture the more that it fails in education.   

[Vepres]

What's wrong with having good auto mechanics and tool-and-die people, anyway?  What's wrong with having competent meat cutters? What's wrong with having good office workers? We would be better off with more skilled people in the workforce than the poseurs that we have as executives. We would be better off if fewer people attended college and had to satisfy themselves with reading and discussing the Great Books as a hobby -- which is a better education than many colleges have available, anyway.

Obviously nothing is wrong with that. However, a comprehensive education broadens the mind, teaches you to think and form your own opinions, gives one new perspective in the world, and, as some studies show, may literally raise your base intelligence (apparently half is due to outside factors and not genes). Also, while obviously only a select proportion of our population is going to be leaders or thinkers, I think it's important for everyone to understand what they're doing, and if they agree with it or not. On you're final point, while there are managers who have little skill at what they do and simply suck up, there are also many who are great leaders. While college isn't necessary to be a leader or thinker, it certainly helps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By low culture I assume you mean low income culture, and I agree with you there. Very few leaders will go to these communities and speak frankly about this stuff.

[pbrower2a]

What's wrong with having good auto mechanics and tool-and-die people, anyway?  What's wrong with having competent meat cutters? What's wrong with having good office workers? We would be better off with more skilled people in the workforce than the poseurs that we have as executives. We would be better off if fewer people attended college and had to satisfy themselves with reading and discussing the Great Books as a hobby -- which is a better education than many colleges have available, anyway.

Obviously nothing is wrong with that. However, a comprehensive education broadens the mind, teaches you to think and form your own opinions, gives one new perspective in the world, and, as some studies show, may literally raise your base intelligence (apparently half is due to outside factors and not genes). Also, while obviously only a select proportion of our population is going to be leaders or thinkers, I think it's important for everyone to understand what they're doing, and if they agree with it or not. On you're final point, while there are managers who have little skill at what they do and simply suck up, there are also many who are great leaders. While college isn't necessary to be a leader or thinker, it certainly helps.

We could of course use more humanistic content in formal education, whatever the ultimate purpose of the education. I see nothing wrong with people getting second chances at a first-rate education. I see nothing wrong at all with tradespeople reading Dostoevsky or listening to Mozart. I can assure you that had I been consigned to a trade early I would have an interest in what I might have experienced at the University -- content instead of walking across a stage with a cap and gown. 

If anything I see more importance in a humanistic liberal education for those who are to have a chance to lead in bureaucracies private and public. If people had to ask themselves whether "success" was worth toadying to persons themselves base, then perhaps they would think differently about doing so. That is an indictment of our educational system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By low culture I assume you mean low income culture, and I agree with you there. Very few leaders will go to these communities and speak frankly about this stuff.
[/quote]

There have been low-income people in recent years (think of refugees from Southeast Asia) who far outshone people in families with similar income within schools. That is despite difficulties with language. But if you want to discuss culture -- low culture is anti-intellectual in the extreme. Add to that, crowded, substandard housing may force upon children who dwell within them to endure noise, the infection of "street" culture, and of course the intellectual virus known as television. No, it's not turned to PBS, the Discovery Channel, or Turner Classic Movies.

At one point a few years ago on another forum now defunct I noticed that the highest levels of public-school achievement by state are to be found in the Plains states. They are very rural, and they are the sorts of places that a parent in California would likely use as a threat to wayward kids. They have few entertainments, and the climates are harsh. Those places are not rich; they are on the whole below average in income. Teachers' salaries are low because they have few obvious alternatives.

Worst places for education were California, Hawaii (the latter is a surprise because of the ethnic mix), and most of the South. 

I noticed at the time that one of the best indicators of school quality was how far one was from the now-defunct network UPN... where even FoX might be unavailable.     

[Eraserhead]

O'biden

[Vepres]

What's wrong with having good auto mechanics and tool-and-die people, anyway?  What's wrong with having competent meat cutters? What's wrong with having good office workers? We would be better off with more skilled people in the workforce than the poseurs that we have as executives. We would be better off if fewer people attended college and had to satisfy themselves with reading and discussing the Great Books as a hobby -- which is a better education than many colleges have available, anyway.

Obviously nothing is wrong with that. However, a comprehensive education broadens the mind, teaches you to think and form your own opinions, gives one new perspective in the world, and, as some studies show, may literally raise your base intelligence (apparently half is due to outside factors and not genes). Also, while obviously only a select proportion of our population is going to be leaders or thinkers, I think it's important for everyone to understand what they're doing, and if they agree with it or not. On you're final point, while there are managers who have little skill at what they do and simply suck up, there are also many who are great leaders. While college isn't necessary to be a leader or thinker, it certainly helps.

We could of course use more humanistic content in formal education, whatever the ultimate purpose of the education. I see nothing wrong with people getting second chances at a first-rate education. I see nothing wrong at all with tradespeople reading Dostoevsky or listening to Mozart. I can assure you that had I been consigned to a trade early I would have an interest in what I might have experienced at the University -- content instead of walking across a stage with a cap and gown. 

If anything I see more importance in a humanistic liberal education for those who are to have a chance to lead in bureaucracies private and public. If people had to ask themselves whether "success" was worth toadying to persons themselves base, then perhaps they would think differently about doing so. That is an indictment of our educational system.

While you make a valid point about humanistic education, I would argue that these politicians/businessmen would screw the same number of people anyway. Virtues such as compassion and selflessness (given the right circumstances obviously) can really be best, and possibly only, learned in real life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By low culture I assume you mean low income culture, and I agree with you there. Very few leaders will go to these communities and speak frankly about this stuff.
[/quote]

There have been low-income people in recent years (think of refugees from Southeast Asia) who far outshone people in families with similar income within schools. That is despite difficulties with language. But if you want to discuss culture -- low culture is anti-intellectual in the extreme. Add to that, crowded, substandard housing may force upon children who dwell within them to endure noise, the infection of "street" culture, and of course the intellectual virus known as television. No, it's not turned to PBS, the Discovery Channel, or Turner Classic Movies.

At one point a few years ago on another forum now defunct I noticed that the highest levels of public-school achievement by state are to be found in the Plains states. They are very rural, and they are the sorts of places that a parent in California would likely use as a threat to wayward kids. They have few entertainments, and the climates are harsh. Those places are not rich; they are on the whole below average in income. Teachers' salaries are low because they have few obvious alternatives.

Worst places for education were California, Hawaii (the latter is a surprise because of the ethnic mix), and most of the South. 

I noticed at the time that one of the best indicators of school quality was how far one was from the now-defunct network UPN... where even FoX might be unavailable.     
[/quote]

Well the most recent data I could find was 8th grade state rankings in public education for 2003. You had four New England states (Mass., NH., VT., and CT.), four mid-western states (Minn., ND, SD, and IA), and two mountain west states (CO and Mont.). Four of these states (Mass., CO, Minn., and CT.) have significant urban and suburban areas (Denver, Boston, etc.). This suggests that there is no correlation between population density and the quality of local public education. However, I was also wrong in assuming rural areas had poor education, my mistake.

First, thanks for clarifying what you meant by "low culture". I don't know. I have met many people who pretend to buy into the low culture, but really care about their education and career success. Maybe we should teach children from a young age, say 6-7 years old, the benefits of a good education and how they are a large factor in determining the quality of their education. Even so, there will always be a segment of the population belonging to this "low culture". Though I suspect that these people are present in every country around the world.

Oh, and for educationally weak states, you forgot New Mexico.   

[5280]

Romney/Ensign

[Coburn In 2012]

Romney but I'd prefer Ensign at the top of that ticket.