Wisest Way To Shorten The K-12 Education Process? (tuition, Associates degree, schools)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice bit of lazy cherry picking on your part, as if Purdue University is the end-all, be-all of linguistics. AP Style Book, Chicago Manual of Style, and even Grammar Girl agree that it's not sexist. Hie thyself back to your ivory tower.
I did a Google search and chose one link. I was on my kindle last night, which is very awkward to post on. Here are a few more:
From Stanford: https://web.stanford.edu/class/lingu...astil_1990.pdf Grammar Girl : Generic Singular Pronouns :: Quick and Dirty Tips "First, some of you might disagree that using "he" is sexist; but even if you disagree, you should still at least consider the alternatives because all of the major style guides that I checked recommend against using "he" in a generic way. (I specifically checked MLA, APA, and Chicago, and I know I have seen it in others. The Associated Press allows "he," but also says it’s usually better to rewrite your sentence.)
Nice bit of lazy cherry picking on your part, as if Purdue University is the end-all, be-all of linguistics. AP Style Book, Chicago Manual of Style, and even Grammar Girl agree that it's not sexist. Hie thyself back to your ivory tower.
I did a Google search and chose one link. I was on my kindle last night, which is very awkward to post on. Here are a few more:
From Stanford: https://web.stanford.edu/class/lingu...astil_1990.pdf Grammar Girl : Generic Singular Pronouns :: Quick and Dirty Tips "First, some of you might disagree that using "he" is sexist; but even if you disagree, you should still at least consider the alternatives because all of the major style guides that I checked recommend against using "he" in a generic way. (I specifically checked MLA, APA, and Chicago, and I know I have seen it in others. The Associated Press allows "he," but also says it’s usually better to rewrite your sentence.)
I feel bad for teachers. They have to take the brunt of what is really a stupid, outdated, and grotesquely wasteful system. But they are the most visible representatives of what education, such as it is, represents in this country.
And I want you to focus on the vocabulary here, particularly the use of the word "system." The education "system." As in blind, unthinking orthodoxy.
The current system was designed in the industrial period to do one thing: Put a five-year-old into one end of the assembly line and have him spit out the other end as a docile factory worker, lawyer, soldier or middle-level manager. That's why the emphasis is on attendance, on behavior, and crossing things off the to-do list, not creativity or critical thinking. And if you think about it, the system is designed to deaden the souls of those who go through it. If you don't believe me, go through this exercise. Imagine a job with the following working conditions:
• You start work at 8 am. But you are encouraged to come in early to do additional work.
• You must be at your workstation, not talking to your co-workers except at highly-regimented times.
• Once every hour, you get a five-minute break, most of which is used to either go to the bathroom or run to your next work station.
• One hour, you work in the accounting department. The next hour, you work in marketing. The next, the warehouse. The next, research and development. In your rush to move from workstation to workstation, there is no time to talk to your supervisor with questions you might have about a particular assignment.
• If you are even one second late arriving at your designated work station, you are disciplined. If you speak to a co-worker during work sessions, you are disciplined. If you are not at your designated work station without a written excuse from your supervisor, you are disciplined. If you accumulate enough offenses, you must come to work on Saturday or stay late.
• If you are better at a particular task than your co-workers, you may not work ahead. You must work at the same pace as your other co-workers, no matter how boring it is.
• You are evaluated based on an abstract rating system where a great deal has more to do with your ability to perform busywork rather than your overall mastery of your job. If you excel, there is no material reward such as a bonus, extra vacation days or anything else.
• When you get to the end of the day or the week, your work is not done. You must take your work home with you. If all of your supervisors give you work at the same time to take home, that isn't their problem. You are simply expected to cope.
• You enjoy thirty minutes for lunch. You are not allowed to go anywhere for lunch but the designated office cafeteria.
• When your work day is completed, you are expected to join the company softball team, the company glee club, or the company charitable organizations, all of which require extensive time and energy after work. While not required, you are expected to do this to make a good impression on your supervisors.
So. Who wants to work in a company like that? Yet that's where we blithely drop our kids off every morning. Yet people wonder why educators are not widely admired in this country. Fairly or not, they represent a highly orthodox, regimented, expensive and, quite frankly, soul-crushing enterprise that is ill-equipped to turn out people to function in today's decentralized and fast-paced economy. And, most of all, despite all its manifest flaws, the crowning irony of education is that it seems incapable of learning and adapting to the world today.
I agree with all of this. And, laughably, this process is considered "training for the real world." My "real world" does not look like that, and I hope that my kids' "real worlds" don't look like that when they're adults.
All I know is that my kids (8th and 10th grades) get all of their required schoolwork done in 2-3 hours each day, with maybe an extra couple of hours per week on projects or catching up on something they didn't do correctly the first time. I get that the school day needs to include things like lunch, switching classes, etc, but I don't understand how anyone could think that spending 7+ hours per day in school is beneficial for kids, especially elementary school-aged kids (but also for teens).
For high school, I think a reasonable expectation would be that all students must take math and English, because competencies in these subjects are necessary in society. Then maybe each year for grades nine and ten, they could focus on either history/geography/world events or science, one each year, along with a foreign language and/or art (or other desired elective). Then for grades 11 and 12, they could focus on whatever they want in addition to math and English. Business and real-world math would be a good alternative for those who don't want to go past Geometry or Algebra 2; there's no need for many kids to take Trig or Calculus in high school. For those who do not want to attend college, technical education should be the focus. If they change their minds later, they can always catch up at community college later; it's not like the ship has already sailed and someone is relegated to a fast-food job for life if they don't take AP Physics or Trig as a 16-year-old.
Also, as a professional copywriter and editor, I try to always use "he or she" or "they" as a singular pronoun (I know, I know, but it's a thing!) when writing for general audiences. Obviously that's not true if I'm working on a pieces about prostate cancer or pregnancy. But in general, it's better to err on the side of inclusion. I don't worry about it much on forum posts, though.
I did a Google search and chose one link. I was on my kindle last night, which is very awkward to post on. Here are a few more:
From Stanford: https://web.stanford.edu/class/lingu...astil_1990.pdf Grammar Girl : Generic Singular Pronouns :: Quick and Dirty Tips "First, some of you might disagree that using "he" is sexist; but even if you disagree, you should still at least consider the alternatives because all of the major style guides that I checked recommend against using "he" in a generic way. (I specifically checked MLA, APA, and Chicago, and I know I have seen it in others. The Associated Press allows "he," but also says it’s usually better to rewrite your sentence.)
Oh wait. You seem to think this is proof. The sources you cite are hardly definitive. Once again, you're just cherry picking websites that believe that the use of 'he' as a generic pronoun is per se sexist. Even the passage you quoted states that the question is really up for debate.
But all of this also misses the larger point. You can't refute my argument so you're forced to go on a witch hunt about sexism in my pronoun usage. Weak cheese on your part.
Also, as a professional copywriter and editor, I try to always use "he or she" or "they" as a singular pronoun (I know, I know, but it's a thing!) when writing for general audiences. Obviously that's not true if I'm working on a pieces about prostate cancer or pregnancy. But in general, it's better to err on the side of inclusion. I don't worry about it much on forum posts, though.
Actually, I think if we're talking about school, we should attempt to be inclusive. I've noticed it's always guys, including my DH, who get all huffy when this topic comes up.
Actually, I think if we're talking about school, we should attempt to be inclusive. I've noticed it's always guys, including my DH, who get all huffy when this topic comes up.
Probably because, at moments such as this, it's little more than pedantry that gets in the way of the subject being discussed. I mean, if you want to open up a thread on inclusive pronouns, knock yourself out. But, last time I checked, this is a thread on making schools more suited to the needs of students.
Probably because, at moments such as this, it's little more than pedantry that gets in the way of the subject being discussed. I mean, if you want to open up a thread on inclusive pronouns, knock yourself out. But, last time I checked, this is a thread on making schools more suited to the needs of students.
Perhaps you could respond to the substance of my post then. My comment about "him/his" was merely an aside in that post.
Perhaps you could respond to the substance of my post then. My comment about "him/his" was merely an aside in that post.
It was not. It was cheap bomb-throwing in an attempt to derail the rest of my argument. And I already responded to your points, by the way in a fairly substantive way. No, I didn't spoon feed it to you number by number, but I did indeed refute your points.
Let's get one thing clear. The words "School" and "Education" today are not synonymous with one another, no matter how hard you try to conflate the two. A school is a method to create educated citizens, but it's also becoming obvious to almost everyone that it is a method that no longer works. In an age of ubiquitous knowledge, in an age where one can buy Rosetta Stone and learn basic conversational French in a fraction of the time it takes to do so in a classroom, clinging to the tired pedagogy of the 18th Century is looking more and more stupid. Yes, I realize that you have a living to defend, but simply toeing the line on the blind orthodoxy that passes for modern education really isn't a meaningful argument.
The problem with this is that such a program would legally run smack-dab into Brown v. Board of Education.
If it became clear that a racial category of students were getting disproportionately tracked into that lower "life skills" program... it would become a 14th amendment issue and thus game over.
Very true. Non-Asian students of color would probably be nudged toward vocational training. They may have skills suitable for the college track, but likely go to schools with sub-par teachers and administration. Basically a kid with a "C+" average that's probably an "A-" student if he had the same opportunities as Joe Suburban Kid.
Tracking sounds OK in theory, and probably works in relatively homogeneous European/Asian nations. In the U.S. it would simply push more advantaged kids into white collar (doctor, lawyer, accountant etc.) positions and less advantaged kids into blue collar work. Poorer kids with a knack for working with their hands would benefit tremendously, but poorer kids that are better suited for white collar work would get left behind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
