| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mu-Pi" |
| Date: |
11 May 2004 11:10:13 PM |
| Object: |
Home grown stupidity |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
12 May 2004 12:30:13 AM |
|
|
"Mu-Pi" <Mu-Pi@greekletter.net> wrote in message
news:65Wdnbsb2Kc3PjzdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
I have no idea what this would be necessary in America. In Australia we
have the University of Open Leaning where anyone can attend regardless of
academic achievement. You do 2 subjects a semester over 4 semesters in a
year and complete a degree in three years at $500 per subject. Any
reasonable person should be able to complete 3 subjects a semester and do it
in two years. The government will only pay on successful completion of the
subjects that you must repay (at least in part anyway) on your tax later.
Otherwise you must pay $500 per subject or $4000 py which you could easily
get from a part time job and avoid any repayment. Indeed the government
gives you nearly $160 pw and you can earn and extra $120 pw.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
12 May 2004 03:53:05 AM |
|
|
"Mu-Pi" <Mu-Pi@greekletter.net> wrote in message
news:65Wdnbsb2Kc3PjzdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
Was it by accident or design that I got a University of Phoenix message ad
on top of the voucher news article?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
12 May 2004 10:23:13 AM |
|
|
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
12 May 2004 04:50:27 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
12 May 2004 05:13:26 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
It does not equate with being less deserving either. And with limited
resources (ie with limited ability to squeeze more and more form the
taxpayer before they revolt) it is reasonable to ensure you get some bang
for your buck. Now the evidence is, while difficult to predict future
academic performance, simple IQ and standardized tests are the best
predictors. What I do not understand is the need for it. Here is Australia
we have a non government funded university, the university of open learning
that you can attend via the internet for $500 per subject. Anyone should be
able to afford that.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
12 May 2004 05:00:48 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving?
How does being less intelligent equate to being more deserving?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
12 May 2004 07:13:03 PM |
|
|
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:p8xoc.85$i83.50273@news.uswest.net...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving?
How does being less intelligent equate to being more deserving?
Im n9ot arguing the contrary, just asking a question.
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ksh95" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 03:54:34 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
??? That type of thinking really confuses me ??? Of course some people
are born more deserving than others. This happens everwhere across all
fields and subjects. Michael Jordan (athletic royalty) was born
infinitely more deserving of an athletic scholarship than I was.
Are you suggesting a society where hopelessly unorganized people
become librarians, criples play in the NFL, and uncoordinated people
fly fighter jets??????
Of course the intellectual royalty is more deserving, just like the
athletic royalty, the musical royalty, the child rearing royalty.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 05:41:33 AM |
|
|
"ksh95" <ksh95@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38a3ceaf.0405131254.f81c8f@posting.google.com...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
??? That type of thinking really confuses me ??? Of course some people
are born more deserving than others. This happens everwhere across all
fields and subjects. Michael Jordan (athletic royalty) was born
infinitely more deserving of an athletic scholarship than I was.
Are you suggesting a society where hopelessly unorganized people
become librarians, criples play in the NFL, and uncoordinated people
fly fighter jets??????
Of course the intellectual royalty is more deserving, just like the
athletic royalty, the musical royalty, the child rearing royalty.....
No need to become upset. I was simply asking the prior posters opinion.
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 06:11:07 PM |
|
|
"ksh95" <ksh95@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38a3ceaf.0405131254.f81c8f@posting.google.com...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
??? That type of thinking really confuses me ??? Of course some people
are born more deserving than others. This happens everwhere across all
fields and subjects. Michael Jordan (athletic royalty) was born
infinitely more deserving of an athletic scholarship than I was.
Are you suggesting a society where hopelessly unorganized people
become librarians, criples play in the NFL, and uncoordinated people
fly fighter jets??????
Of course the intellectual royalty is more deserving, just like the
athletic royalty, the musical royalty, the child rearing royalty.....
Of course. Nor does that mean opportunities are not available to those less
gifted. I do not live in America but in Australia and can assure you here
tertiary education is open to all regardless of income or prior educational
achievement; and non government supported at that.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 03:27:43 PM |
|
|
(ksh95) wrote in message news:<38a3ceaf.0405131254.f81c8f@posting.google.com>...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
??? That type of thinking really confuses me ??? Of course some people
are born more deserving than others. This happens everwhere across all
fields and subjects. Michael Jordan (athletic royalty) was born
infinitely more deserving of an athletic scholarship than I was.
You are using "deserving" in different senses.
Do intellectually or athletically exceptional people "deserve" to lead
better lives than others? I don't see why. I'm not even sure hard
working people "deserve" more rewards, though this form of calvinism
is more firmly entrenched -- indeed, in the very unequestioned form of
the epithet "hard working".
However, if the goal of your education system is to produce a certain
quantity of the most qualified scholars, or increase the probability
that your school's sports teams win games, or if the goal of your
company is to produce profits, then you pick the best and the
brightest or the most productive -- who in this sense are no more
deserving than that lean piece of steak you chose over that fatty cut
of chuck.
The whole idea of "deserts" in this sense -- or maybe any sense -- is
unfair and destructive: better just accept we are immersed in a game
from which there is no escape.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 09:46:30 PM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:eca320d0.0405151227.25ab0c91@posting.google.com...
ksh95@yahoo.com (ksh95) wrote in message
news:<38a3ceaf.0405131254.f81c8f@posting.google.com>...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
??? That type of thinking really confuses me ??? Of course some people
are born more deserving than others. This happens everwhere across all
fields and subjects. Michael Jordan (athletic royalty) was born
infinitely more deserving of an athletic scholarship than I was.
You are using "deserving" in different senses.
Do intellectually or athletically exceptional people "deserve" to lead
better lives than others? I don't see why. I'm not even sure hard
working people "deserve" more rewards, though this form of calvinism
is more firmly entrenched -- indeed, in the very unequestioned form of
the epithet "hard working".
In the final analysis it comes down to what system has proven itself
actually workable. Unfortunately, for those of a collectivist bent, its
fundamental problem, that those that produce the goods may not wish you to
appropriate them, is now becoming quite clear. Just ask the youth in
Germany how they like the idea of working to provide artificial hips and
other benefits for a non contributing elderly - they do not like it much at
all. And if they do not want to pay for it, when it is all said and done,
no one can really force them to - they will simply vote in politicians that
will put a stop to it - which is exactly what is happening. In the same way
the general public is not happy with paying for, out of their hard earned
tax dollars, education that has not a reasonable expectation of resulting in
skilled graduates that twill give some kind of return. Push it too hard and
they will simply revolt.
However, if the goal of your education system is to produce a certain
quantity of the most qualified scholars, or increase the probability
that your school's sports teams win games, or if the goal of your
company is to produce profits, then you pick the best and the
brightest or the most productive -- who in this sense are no more
deserving than that lean piece of steak you chose over that fatty cut
of chuck.
It is society that determines the goal of an educational system, and those
institutions increasing concern with ensuring a steady supply of graduates
fit for employment means they have listened quite well.
The whole idea of "deserts" in this sense -- or maybe any sense -- is
unfair and destructive: better just accept we are immersed in a game
from which there is no escape.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ksh95" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 10:28:06 PM |
|
|
(Edward Green) wrote in message
Do intellectually or athletically exceptional people "deserve" to lead
better lives than others? I don't see why.
I see why, because they contribute more towards the advancement of
civilication.
I'm not even sure hard
working people "deserve" more rewards,
Only if their hard work produces results
though this form of calvinism
is more firmly entrenched -- indeed, in the very unequestioned form of
the epithet "hard working".
Those are some big words there.
However, if the goal of your education system is to produce a certain
quantity of the most qualified scholars, or increase the probability
that your school's sports teams win games, or if the goal of your
company is to produce profits, then you pick the best and the
brightest or the most productive --
Exactly, but it's bigger than that. Poets, musicians, artists, even
ocasionally a social scientist.... These people also make valuable
contributions to society.
who in this sense are no more
deserving than that lean piece of steak you chose over that fatty cut
of chuck.
I can just say stuff and not back it up too. Watch this.....The sky is
green!
The whole idea of "deserts" in this sense -- or maybe any sense -- is
unfair and destructive: better just accept we are immersed in a game
from which there is no escape.
The Martians are coming to steal our nipples -- or maybe something
else -- to oppose them is unfair and destructive: better just accept
we are immersed in an
interplanetary game from which there is no escape.
I backed up that statement just as much as you backed up yours.
I guess this all boils down to the this. If you believe in the
advancement of society and civilization your position becomes
untenable. If on the other hand you believe society is destructive and
you long for our simpler hunting and gathering days, I can see how you
reached you conclusions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 04:07:17 PM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
ksh95@yahoo.com (ksh95) wrote in message news:<38a3ceaf.0405131254.f81c8f@posting.google.com>...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
??? That type of thinking really confuses me ??? Of course some people
are born more deserving than others. This happens everwhere across all
fields and subjects. Michael Jordan (athletic royalty) was born
infinitely more deserving of an athletic scholarship than I was.
You are using "deserving" in different senses.
Do intellectually or athletically exceptional people "deserve" to lead
better lives than others? I don't see why. I'm not even sure hard
working people "deserve" more rewards, though this form of calvinism
is more firmly entrenched -- indeed, in the very unequestioned form of
the epithet "hard working".
If you want beauty, prowess, intelligence, dilligence, productivity in
sufficient quantity to keep the society going be prepared to reward it
and invest in it.
Money invested in mediocrity for the sake of being eqalitarian is money
pissed down a pipe.
Humans are not all created equal. Look around and check that out.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guenther von Knakspott" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
14 May 2004 12:55:02 AM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message news:<5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com>...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
Well, that's an easy one, depends on context. Every society has it own
set of values, and said set determines what you are "deserving of"
according to your own qualities. The US American, along with several
others, has reduced it set of values to simply appraising anything and
anyone by their economic potential. Those considered worthless are
discarded. Among the rest, those promising to give the greatest pay
off are considered the more deserving. If you don't like it, do
something about it, but hurry because that is one sick society that is
tearing itself apart while you're watching.
regards
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
14 May 2004 08:32:11 PM |
|
|
"Guenther von Knakspott" <guenther.vonKnakspott@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9e54a9f7.0405132155.430d38cb@posting.google.com...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:<5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com>...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
Well, that's an easy one, depends on context. Every society has it own
set of values, and said set determines what you are "deserving of"
according to your own qualities. The US American, along with several
others, has reduced it set of values to simply appraising anything and
anyone by their economic potential.
Those considered worthless are
discarded.
Tell that to Jaime Escalante
http://www.thefutureschannel.com/escalante_math_program.htm.
Thanks
Bill
Among the rest, those promising to give the greatest pay
off are considered the more deserving. If you don't like it, do
something about it, but hurry because that is one sick society that is
tearing itself apart while you're watching.
regards
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 05:44:01 AM |
|
|
"Guenther von Knakspott" <guenther.vonKnakspott@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9e54a9f7.0405132155.430d38cb@posting.google.com...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:<5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com>...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
Well, that's an easy one, depends on context. Every society has it own
set of values, and said set determines what you are "deserving of"
according to your own qualities. The US American, along with several
others, has reduced it set of values to simply appraising anything and
anyone by their economic potential. Those considered worthless are
discarded. Among the rest, those promising to give the greatest pay
off are considered the more deserving. If you don't like it, do
something about it, but hurry because that is one sick society that is
tearing itself apart while you're watching.
regards
We have the most vibrant, alive, growing society on earth. How you can miss
that is beyond me. Were continually evolving towards ever greater and
greater accomplishments.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 06:04:39 AM |
|
|
In article <MYmdnV2_w5PoaTjdRVn-tA@gbronline.com>,
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Guenther von Knakspott" <guenther.vonKnakspott@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9e54a9f7.0405132155.430d38cb@posting.google.com...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:<5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com>...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
Well, that's an easy one, depends on context. Every society has it own
set of values, and said set determines what you are "deserving of"
according to your own qualities. The US American, along with several
others, has reduced it set of values to simply appraising anything and
anyone by their economic potential. Those considered worthless are
discarded. Among the rest, those promising to give the greatest pay
off are considered the more deserving. If you don't like it, do
something about it, but hurry because that is one sick society that is
tearing itself apart while you're watching.
regards
We have the most vibrant, alive, growing society on earth. How you can
miss
that is beyond me. Were continually evolving towards ever greater and
greater accomplishments.
That happens only if choose the seeds from the best plant
or animal for production purposes. If you don't remove
unwanted plants from your garden, they become the crop
which you can't eat.
Universities are^Wwere designed to filter out those who can't
do that kind of work. The trend of Uncle's liberals is
to remove that filtering and allow anybody in with the very
mistaken assumption that anybody can do that work. Not everybody
can do that work. There are even people who can do the work
but hate it. They also shouldn't be in classes. Going to
a unversity should never be a "right"; it should be something
that is earned.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 10:12:34 PM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40a6079b$0$3033$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
In article <MYmdnV2_w5PoaTjdRVn-tA@gbronline.com>,
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Guenther von Knakspott" <guenther.vonKnakspott@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9e54a9f7.0405132155.430d38cb@posting.google.com...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:<5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com>...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is
where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
Well, that's an easy one, depends on context. Every society has it own
set of values, and said set determines what you are "deserving of"
according to your own qualities. The US American, along with several
others, has reduced it set of values to simply appraising anything and
anyone by their economic potential. Those considered worthless are
discarded. Among the rest, those promising to give the greatest pay
off are considered the more deserving. If you don't like it, do
something about it, but hurry because that is one sick society that is
tearing itself apart while you're watching.
regards
We have the most vibrant, alive, growing society on earth. How you can
miss
that is beyond me. Were continually evolving towards ever greater and
greater accomplishments.
That happens only if choose the seeds from the best plant
or animal for production purposes. If you don't remove
unwanted plants from your garden, they become the crop
which you can't eat.
Universities are^Wwere designed to filter out those who can't
do that kind of work. The trend of Uncle's liberals is
to remove that filtering and allow anybody in with the very
mistaken assumption that anybody can do that work. Not everybody
can do that work. There are even people who can do the work
but hate it. They also shouldn't be in classes. Going to
a unversity should never be a "right"; it should be something
that is earned.
Going to university at another's expense is not a right. People generally
do believe in paying out of their hard earned tax dollars for people they
judge you probably will get a return on - but not for others. However if
you are willing to pay for yourself, then providing academic standards are
maintained, who cares who you admit? Generally the best universities have
rigorous admission requirements because they are the best and maintain that
by keeping to those policies. Since they attract the best they also have
high academic standards. If they are forced to take anyone then they will
not remain the best for long. The universities and institutions that are
not considerer elite, but still meet good academic standards, are available
to all regardless of past scholastic performance, and for the outlay of not
much money either.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 08:16:57 PM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40a6079b$0$3033$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
In article <MYmdnV2_w5PoaTjdRVn-tA@gbronline.com>,
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Guenther von Knakspott" <guenther.vonKnakspott@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9e54a9f7.0405132155.430d38cb@posting.google.com...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:<5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com>...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is
where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after
all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
Well, that's an easy one, depends on context. Every society has it own
set of values, and said set determines what you are "deserving of"
according to your own qualities. The US American, along with several
others, has reduced it set of values to simply appraising anything and
anyone by their economic potential. Those considered worthless are
discarded. Among the rest, those promising to give the greatest pay
off are considered the more deserving. If you don't like it, do
something about it, but hurry because that is one sick society that is
tearing itself apart while you're watching.
regards
We have the most vibrant, alive, growing society on earth. How you can
miss
that is beyond me. Were continually evolving towards ever greater and
greater accomplishments.
That happens only if choose the seeds from the best plant
or animal for production purposes. If you don't remove
unwanted plants from your garden, they become the crop
which you can't eat.
Universities are^Wwere designed to filter out those who can't
do that kind of work. The trend of Uncle's liberals is
to remove that filtering and allow anybody in with the very
mistaken assumption that anybody can do that work. Not everybody
can do that work. There are even people who can do the work
but hate it. They also shouldn't be in classes. Going to
a unversity should never be a "right"; it should be something
that is earned.
/BAH
It should be a right, in every sense of the word, that is earned.
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ksh95" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
15 May 2004 11:10:00 AM |
|
|
(Guenther von Knakspott) wrote in message
The US American...has reduced it set of values to simply appraising anything > and anyone by their economic potential. Those considered worthless are
discarded.
Your exactly right..except for Leonard Bernstein, but besides him your
exactly right...except for Andy Warhol, but besides him your exactly
right...except for Martin Luther King, but besides him your exactly
right, except for.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 04:15:24 AM |
|
|
In article <5PWdnesAs966AT_d4p2dnA@gbronline.com>,
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw you,
Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are we
born
more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That is, after all,
what it amounts to, isnt it?
College is not designed to function as an advanced babysitting
service.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 07:46:14 AM |
|
|
Rob Duncan wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you, Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we born more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That
is, after all, what it amounts to, isnt it?
Rob
What's "deserving" got to do with it? IMO, if you are going to make sure
some fraction of students are going to be properly educated, you should
start at the brightest and work your way down. It just seems like the best
bang for the buck.
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 09:53:18 AM |
|
|
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q6Koc.34497$L8.10259@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Rob Duncan wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you, Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we born more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That
is, after all, what it amounts to, isnt it?
Rob
What's "deserving" got to do with it? IMO, if you are going to make sure
some fraction of students are going to be properly educated, you should
start at the brightest and work your way down. It just seems like the
best
bang for the buck.
How do you define "brightest"?
Also, "best bang for the buck" may be determined by some other metric, such
as motivation, work habits, experience, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 05:50:18 PM |
|
|
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:EZLoc.28686$fE.14216@fed1read02...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q6Koc.34497$L8.10259@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Rob Duncan wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you, Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we born more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That
is, after all, what it amounts to, isnt it?
Rob
What's "deserving" got to do with it? IMO, if you are going to make
sure
some fraction of students are going to be properly educated, you should
start at the brightest and work your way down. It just seems like the
best
bang for the buck.
How do you define "brightest"?
Also, "best bang for the buck" may be determined by some other metric,
such
as motivation, work habits, experience, etc.
Studies have shown that the best predictor of university performance is
standardized IQ tests and exam results. Adding other factors actually
reduces reliability. This type of thing, believe it or not, is discussed in
of all paces a book called What Works on Wall Street. In general research
has shown that simple easy to understand rules nearly always beats complex
ones involving human judgment.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 07:35:20 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:EZLoc.28686$fE.14216@fed1read02...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q6Koc.34497$L8.10259@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Rob Duncan wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you, Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we born more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That
is, after all, what it amounts to, isnt it?
Rob
What's "deserving" got to do with it? IMO, if you are going to make
sure
some fraction of students are going to be properly educated, you should
start at the brightest and work your way down. It just seems like the
best
bang for the buck.
How do you define "brightest"?
Also, "best bang for the buck" may be determined by some other metric,
such
as motivation, work habits, experience, etc.
Studies have shown that the best predictor of university performance is
standardized IQ tests and exam results. Adding other factors actually
reduces reliability. This type of thing, believe it or not, is discussed in
of all paces a book called What Works on Wall Street. In general research
has shown that simple easy to understand rules nearly always beats complex
ones involving human judgment.
Google hires by SAT and GPA. Competitors cannot imagine how it waxes
their fannies every time. Intelligence does exist, it can be
measured, it does make difference.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
14 May 2004 08:22:52 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A41448.867E88F2@hate.spam.net...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:EZLoc.28686$fE.14216@fed1read02...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q6Koc.34497$L8.10259@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Rob Duncan wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is
where
all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not, screw
you, Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny
State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving?
Are
we born more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty?
That
is, after all, what it amounts to, isnt it?
Rob
What's "deserving" got to do with it? IMO, if you are going to make
sure
some fraction of students are going to be properly educated, you
should
start at the brightest and work your way down. It just seems like
the
best
bang for the buck.
How do you define "brightest"?
Also, "best bang for the buck" may be determined by some other metric,
such
as motivation, work habits, experience, etc.
Studies have shown that the best predictor of university performance is
standardized IQ tests and exam results. Adding other factors actually
reduces reliability. This type of thing, believe it or not, is
discussed in
of all paces a book called What Works on Wall Street. In general
research
has shown that simple easy to understand rules nearly always beats
complex
ones involving human judgment.
Google hires by SAT and GPA. Competitors cannot imagine how it waxes
their fannies every time. Intelligence does exist, it can be
measured, it does make difference.
And that is the best predictor. But it is only a predictor - not a
guarantee of anything. For example Feynamns overall GPA (including) non math
and science subjects was nothing to write home about and his IQ of 125 was
good but not spectacular. I know plenty of people who beat him hands down
on that count. In fact despite his math and physics scores being off the
scale Princeton probably would not have admitted him without the
enthusiastic endorsement of MIT because his scores on other subjects was so
bad. So one must not be totally rigid - which is why it is important to
show a little flexibility - but only a little.
The point I was also making is that at least in Australia opportunities
abound for getting tertiary qualifications. Income and previous academic
achievement are no barrier. And these opportunities are at no cost to the
taxpayer either.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
14 May 2004 08:36:18 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
And that is the best predictor. But it is only a predictor - not a
guarantee of anything. For example Feynamns overall GPA (including) non math
and science subjects was nothing to write home about and his IQ of 125 was
good but not spectacular. I know plenty of people who beat him hands down
on that count. In fact despite his math and physics scores being off the
scale Princeton probably would not have admitted him without the
enthusiastic endorsement of MIT because his scores on other subjects was so
bad. So one must not be totally rigid - which is why it is important to
show a little flexibility - but only a little.
Yup--Feynman was no ordinary genius.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 11:06:44 AM |
|
|
Richard Henry wrote:
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q6Koc.34497$L8.10259@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Rob Duncan wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A24161.DA522763@hate.spam.net...
Mu-Pi wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/10/college.vouchers/index.html
"a landmark step that will empower thousands of students."
Get 1400 or more on the SAT and you empower yourself. That is
where all the scholarships should reside, with scholars. If not,
screw you, Jack - there are others more deserving. ***** the Nanny
State.
--
Uncle Al
How does being more intelligent equate to being more deserving? Are
we born more "deserving," than others? intellectual royalty? That
is, after all, what it amounts to, isnt it?
Rob
What's "deserving" got to do with it? IMO, if you are going to make
sure some fraction of students are going to be properly educated,
you should start at the brightest and work your way down. It just
seems like the best bang for the buck.
How do you define "brightest"?
Best at whatever discipline they are going into. Best at advanced math,
physics, piano, whatever. Failing that, best on an IQ test or something
similar.
Also, "best bang for the buck" may be determined by some other
metric, such as motivation, work habits, experience, etc.
Sure. But only the brightest can really push the cutting edge in many
disciplines.
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Home grown stupidity |
13 May 2004 11:41:58 AM |
|
|
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2Noc.54503$wY.24113@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Richard Henry wrote:
Also, "best bang for the buck" may be determined by some other
metric, such as motivation, work habits, experience, etc.
Sure. But only the brightest can really push the cutting edge in many
disciplines.
The truly "brightest" are beyond any help a university education can offer.
Think large bureaucracy heavily interested in raising alumni contributions
by investing in student^h^h^h^h^h^h^h semi-pro athlete scholarships. I
propose to just give the brightest living expenses and fund their
experiments/experiences for a few years, like a MacArthur genius grant for
teenagers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
