Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-20-2023, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Sunnybrook Farm
4,534 posts, read 2,669,541 times
Reputation: 13048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
The bolded is a very important -- and potentially dangerous -- concept.

I still want kids to be kids. They'll have 50-60-70 years to be adults. And when you start "training" children to be what you want them to be, it gets very much like what I see in some authoritarian countries. Middle and at least through the 10th grade (if not beyond) should be two things (in my view) -- receiving a cultural education that helps them understand who they are and the nation and world that they are a part of AND learning a broad set of learning skills and behaviors that can prepare them to make wise choices FOR THEMSELVES (not for mommy and daddy).
Well, part of "being kids" is going to school and learning things - things for which the child may not see the immediate value, things that are DIFFICULT, things that are NOT within the field of the child's current interests.

My favorite quote on the subject of education:

"And if the student finds that this is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. The student's taste should not be consulted; it is being formed."

********************************

On the academic side, this means math and science. If you don't master algebra 1 in 8th grade and geometry in 9th, you're not prepared for algebra 2 in 10th grade. If you don't master algebra 2 in 10th grade you're not prepared for trigonometry and analysis in 11th, nor for introductory calculus in 12th grade. Do you think that an 8th grader is knowledgeable enough to KNOW, and to DECIDE for the rest of his/her life, that he/she will NEVER go into a technical field, so that sluffing off 8th grade algebra is OK?

Learning skills and behaviors are fantastic things, but the MATERIAL is also important. All the learning skills and behaviors in the world aren't going to be enough to get you through freshman calculus in university if you slept and joked your way through math from 9th grade on and never mastered the material.

********************************

Beyond this, there's the non-academic side of being someone who will succeed in technical work. Generally this means a fascination with how things work, an interest in doing things with one's hands, an ability to focus on details but also to step back and look at a bigger picture. I'm at a loss to imagine how children brought up by being babysat by TV, internet, and video games are going to develop these, or find out whether they have them. It's all just pushing buttons designed by someone else, then something incredibly sophisticated inside the box does some stuff and presents a result. No cause and effect, no visibility of the mechanism (I mean "mechanism" figuratively here).

They have never MADE anything in their lives. That's a great way to start understanding how different materials behave under human influence. When you can SEE from personal experience that a 1 x 6 bends differently in the thin direction than in the thick direction, you've just laid the groundwork for understanding the moments of inertia of rectangular sections and stiffness of beams in transverse loading.

So I think the experience of childhood "fiddling with stuff" is something essential to making good engineers and scientists. This SHOULD come from the family environment, but too often it won't. In the lower starat of society, they're either too busy getting food on the table, or too absent, to provide those kinds of opportunities; in the upper strata the parents themselves too often have no connection to the actual physical world. (Astounding number of millennial parents I see can't even mow a yard or trim a tree, never mind fixing a garbage disposal or replacing a light fixture.) If these kinds of experiences aren't available at home, schools do offer a possibilty of providing them. Shop class! No one wants shop class (except a few old farts who aren't on school boards), but it was a fantastic way to get exposure to how the physical world works under human influence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2023, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Sunnybrook Farm
4,534 posts, read 2,669,541 times
Reputation: 13048
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
...The university seemed to believe when my son entered in his freshman year that he should have progressed so far through math that he had taken the equivalent of two semesters of calculus before college. I find that a bit much when he had taken College Algebra and Trigonometry both before graduating high school.....
Well, that's the curriculum.

First of all, there hasn't been such a thing as College Algebra and Trigonometry since the 1940s. Those subjects are high school subjects in the modern world.

Freshman physics in university is a fully calculus-based course. Chemistry not so much, not till the second semester when you start getting into reaction rates and you need at least a rudimentary understanding of differential equations. Yes, freshman calculus is being taught at the same time, but freshman calculus in university is a much higher-level course than high school calculus; and you need high school calculus to cope with freshman physics. Otherwise you have to dumb-down freshman physics till it becomes a course in memorizing formulas and plug-and-chug without any understanding. I mentioned differential equations - well, of course, DiffyQ is a second year course normally, but in college calculus, they're already touching on differential equations in the second semester, so you at least understand and can cope with the rather basic material on reaction rates in second semester freshman chemistry.

Now after the freshman year, the different engineering disciplines start to deviate, but I know that my second year statics and dynamics course was based on a PRESUMPTION that the student had a complete mastery of differential and integral calculus; I sure wouldn't have wanted to come in to freshman calculus never having seen those concepts before, scuffled through the whole year, and then hit statics and dynamics with a kinda-sorta-crammed-for-the-final comprehension of the math required. Not to mention AC and DC circuits (man the math there was tough, and I wasn't an EE so I didn't even go into the even more demanding EE courses later), or strength of materials - also a fully calculus-required course.

Really, the ideal situation as far as students having the tools they need when they need them, would be a demanding high school calculus course, which might be more than two semesters, completed and mastered before college freshman physics - but that might well push algebra 1 back to 7th grade, and if you look at the progression of math learning from basic arithmetic in 1st and 2nd, through other subjects, I doubt there's enough time between 1st and 6th grade to launch the kids into algebra in 7th grade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2023, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,797 posts, read 24,297,543 times
Reputation: 32935
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit33 View Post
Well, part of "being kids" is going to school and learning things - things for which the child may not see the immediate value, things that are DIFFICULT, things that are NOT within the field of the child's current interests.

My favorite quote on the subject of education:

"And if the student finds that this is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. The student's taste should not be consulted; it is being formed."

********************************

On the academic side, this means math and science. If you don't master algebra 1 in 8th grade and geometry in 9th, you're not prepared for algebra 2 in 10th grade. If you don't master algebra 2 in 10th grade you're not prepared for trigonometry and analysis in 11th, nor for introductory calculus in 12th grade. Do you think that an 8th grader is knowledgeable enough to KNOW, and to DECIDE for the rest of his/her life, that he/she will NEVER go into a technical field, so that sluffing off 8th grade algebra is OK?

Learning skills and behaviors are fantastic things, but the MATERIAL is also important. All the learning skills and behaviors in the world aren't going to be enough to get you through freshman calculus in university if you slept and joked your way through math from 9th grade on and never mastered the material.

********************************

Beyond this, there's the non-academic side of being someone who will succeed in technical work. Generally this means a fascination with how things work, an interest in doing things with one's hands, an ability to focus on details but also to step back and look at a bigger picture. I'm at a loss to imagine how children brought up by being babysat by TV, internet, and video games are going to develop these, or find out whether they have them. It's all just pushing buttons designed by someone else, then something incredibly sophisticated inside the box does some stuff and presents a result. No cause and effect, no visibility of the mechanism (I mean "mechanism" figuratively here).

They have never MADE anything in their lives. That's a great way to start understanding how different materials behave under human influence. When you can SEE from personal experience that a 1 x 6 bends differently in the thin direction than in the thick direction, you've just laid the groundwork for understanding the moments of inertia of rectangular sections and stiffness of beams in transverse loading.

So I think the experience of childhood "fiddling with stuff" is something essential to making good engineers and scientists. This SHOULD come from the family environment, but too often it won't. In the lower starat of society, they're either too busy getting food on the table, or too absent, to provide those kinds of opportunities; in the upper strata the parents themselves too often have no connection to the actual physical world. (Astounding number of millennial parents I see can't even mow a yard or trim a tree, never mind fixing a garbage disposal or replacing a light fixture.) If these kinds of experiences aren't available at home, schools do offer a possibilty of providing them. Shop class! No one wants shop class (except a few old farts who aren't on school boards), but it was a fantastic way to get exposure to how the physical world works under human influence.
Perhaps you could point to something in your long post that I disagree with.

Well, one thing...you're still trying, although more subtly than some, to push them into engineering and science. But I am for a broad based curriculum that includes healthy doses of the sciences (after all, I have two degrees in geology). I don't want parents or schools deciding what kids are going to be when they grow up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2023, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Sunnybrook Farm
4,534 posts, read 2,669,541 times
Reputation: 13048
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Perhaps you could point to something in your long post that I disagree with.

Well, one thing...you're still trying, although more subtly than some, to push them into engineering and science. But I am for a broad based curriculum that includes healthy doses of the sciences (after all, I have two degrees in geology). I don't want parents or schools deciding what kids are going to be when they grow up.
No, I'm not trying to push them into SE. That's more competition for me. I'm pointing out that technical skills (all learning, really) is built upon mastering subjects of increasing complexity and especially math is very difficult to catch up on if you miss the progression.

If you're not staying up with the math progression, you're limiting your future options. There is absolutely NO reason why a student who has all 5 years of standard secondary-school math can't go off and major in music, or Renaissance French poetry, or anything else - but the student without that preparation - or who's barely passed the courses and never really learned it - is sunk if at age 16 or 17 they decide they really DO want to try something technical at a professional level.

It's the same reason I would not suggest students who appear to have a clear technical bent drop English, or history, or foreign language, on the grounds that "I'll never use that". At 14, or 16, or 20, you simply DON'T KNOW what you will or won't use in the next 50-80 years of your life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2023, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,797 posts, read 24,297,543 times
Reputation: 32935
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit33 View Post
No, I'm not trying to push them into SE. That's more competition for me. I'm pointing out that technical skills (all learning, really) is built upon mastering subjects of increasing complexity and especially math is very difficult to catch up on if you miss the progression.

If you're not staying up with the math progression, you're limiting your future options. There is absolutely NO reason why a student who has all 5 years of standard secondary-school math can't go off and major in music, or Renaissance French poetry, or anything else - but the student without that preparation - or who's barely passed the courses and never really learned it - is sunk if at age 16 or 17 they decide they really DO want to try something technical at a professional level.

It's the same reason I would not suggest students who appear to have a clear technical bent drop English, or history, or foreign language, on the grounds that "I'll never use that". At 14, or 16, or 20, you simply DON'T KNOW what you will or won't use in the next 50-80 years of your life.
Good...a balanced approach that leaves all doors open.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2023, 10:23 AM
 
12,846 posts, read 9,045,657 times
Reputation: 34914
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit33 View Post
Well, part of "being kids" is going to school and learning things - things for which the child may not see the immediate value, things that are DIFFICULT, things that are NOT within the field of the child's current interests.

My favorite quote on the subject of education:

"And if the student finds that this is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. The student's taste should not be consulted; it is being formed."

********************************

On the academic side, this means math and science. If you don't master algebra 1 in 8th grade and geometry in 9th, you're not prepared for algebra 2 in 10th grade. If you don't master algebra 2 in 10th grade you're not prepared for trigonometry and analysis in 11th, nor for introductory calculus in 12th grade. Do you think that an 8th grader is knowledgeable enough to KNOW, and to DECIDE for the rest of his/her life, that he/she will NEVER go into a technical field, so that sluffing off 8th grade algebra is OK?

Learning skills and behaviors are fantastic things, but the MATERIAL is also important. All the learning skills and behaviors in the world aren't going to be enough to get you through freshman calculus in university if you slept and joked your way through math from 9th grade on and never mastered the material.

********************************

Beyond this, there's the non-academic side of being someone who will succeed in technical work. Generally this means a fascination with how things work, an interest in doing things with one's hands, an ability to focus on details but also to step back and look at a bigger picture. I'm at a loss to imagine how children brought up by being babysat by TV, internet, and video games are going to develop these, or find out whether they have them. It's all just pushing buttons designed by someone else, then something incredibly sophisticated inside the box does some stuff and presents a result. No cause and effect, no visibility of the mechanism (I mean "mechanism" figuratively here).

They have never MADE anything in their lives. That's a great way to start understanding how different materials behave under human influence. When you can SEE from personal experience that a 1 x 6 bends differently in the thin direction than in the thick direction, you've just laid the groundwork for understanding the moments of inertia of rectangular sections and stiffness of beams in transverse loading.

So I think the experience of childhood "fiddling with stuff" is something essential to making good engineers and scientists. This SHOULD come from the family environment, but too often it won't. In the lower starat of society, they're either too busy getting food on the table, or too absent, to provide those kinds of opportunities; in the upper strata the parents themselves too often have no connection to the actual physical world. (Astounding number of millennial parents I see can't even mow a yard or trim a tree, never mind fixing a garbage disposal or replacing a light fixture.) If these kinds of experiences aren't available at home, schools do offer a possibilty of providing them. Shop class! No one wants shop class (except a few old farts who aren't on school boards), but it was a fantastic way to get exposure to how the physical world works under human influence.

You stated all that so well. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2023, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,072 posts, read 7,505,741 times
Reputation: 9796
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post

Now, you are getting quite selective. They need a background as a "farm kid" or maybe someone who is from a family that were craftsmen.
The only time DS got to the farm, was when he was about 2 yo and helped me steer the tractor. DW didn't want DS to know the manual labor part of farming. He acquired the skills in personal projects.

If business wants engineers badly enough they are probably going to have to take people who aren't up to this level and find some way to give them on the job training. Its either that or simply do without.
It costs money and above all costs mentoring time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
1. Do you think its the job of schools to teach students to "think like an engineer"? (I don't)
Mostly an innate gift. DS has his wheels turning all the time. We just didn't where it the wheels would take him and what his internal mechanisms produced.
2. The university seemed to believe when my son entered in his freshman year that he should have progressed so far through math that he had taken the equivalent of two semesters of calculus before college.
he did. But his roommate started at senior class work as a freshman in mathematics. The other roommate was an accomplished first chair violinist (4yrs at the professional this arts and tech school, but doing ME. .

3. Are you upset that on standardized achievement tests that American kids test 34 out of 40 countries? Teachers are trying to "teach to the test" precisely to improve that standing. As long as ranking on standardized tests is so critical much teaching will be "to the test".
I think this applies to non top students.

4. Ideally, kids would be given more of an opportunity to experiment both at home and at school. However, I think this is part of the problem. Where years ago, kids built a tree house or took the vacuum cleaner apart and put it back together today they play with electronic toys or watch television. One reason I proposed lengthening the school day and/or year is it would create more time to do things like labs and experiment more. DS joined school sponsored activities. Enjoyed the public speaking - project oriented clubs. Not so with the knowledge based clubs. He called the knowledge based activities as "RAM or Jeopardy games"

I don't see many calling for a longer school day or school year. Nor, do I see many extra-curricular activities other than the standard football, baseball, and basketball.
DS was bored enough even with an IB curriculum. We then lived too far out in the country
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
It's not, and here's why.

I always hear this 'thing' about Asian students. Well, my school had a somewhat large number of Asian students.
The same for here in tech land. The public HSs are just a little under the accomplishment as the private HS. But a lot cheaper than the $40k/yr and limited enrollments.
If all these people want their kids to get an American education...how can American education be so bad? And, more to the point of the post...lauding "Asians" as superior students...depends on which Asian culture to a large degree.
I see it as Asian Students squeeze themselves thru the filter paper. American students find the best funnels
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Good...a balanced approach that leaves all doors open.
DS figured out how to use a screwdriver with the toy workbench. He soon discovered that doors had screws holding the latching mechanisms. He's well rounded and does many things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2023, 12:33 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,705 posts, read 58,031,425 times
Reputation: 46172
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'm not an educator. From my many posts I'm surprised you don't remember my profession. I trust anyone EDUCATED (especially the 'prestigious' ones and those on this forum are actively mentoring, as they have all their 'professional' (?) life. Informed contributors who think and ACT. (responsibly) - those still stuck in Jr Hi excluded, their comments are expected, and irrelevant

My sister was a teacher, ... She gave up teaching in public schools because she saw it as a dead end career .... I slowly began to realize the problem had more to do with parents and society than it did with either the teachers or their students. Passionate teachers continue to walk the minefield and contribute to their students. the 'excuses' have little to do with parents or society, EXCEPT as they allowed schools (whom they trusted(?) to actually deliver on education (Their stated purpose)... to NOT educate, and instead decline, and bring down the caliber of our future society / country.

To switch subjects again: What percentage of those foreign engineers you dealt with grew up on farms or drove bulldozers before they became engineers? Many foreign engineering programs include 2 yrs practicum / tech / application + they will also align with employers and be sponsored as the equivalent of 'employees' for the last 2 yrs of college (Required in many programs). They graduate 100% capable to enter the company upon graduation as a full contributing employees, on day ONE. Many of the engineers I have known and hired from India were quite capable on practical application. They had repaired their scooters, worked with grandparents in multi gen households, spent time on family acreage fixing and inventing solutions. Most importantly, they were inquisitive, confident, well educated in the basics, and incentized
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
...
Japanese engineers are famous for designing the best automobiles in the world. Again, I doubt there were many "farm kids" in this group. Why the racial bias? Do you know Japanese engineers and the processes of their education system? They are an industrial MACHINE as a culture, they know how to problem solve and create solutions. It's REQUIRED, and taught well in the home and school.

...

If business wants engineers badly enough they are probably going to have to take people who aren't up to this level and find some way to give them on the job training. Its either that or simply do without.
Easier just to hire someone who KNOWS basic skills, math, communication, and is interested in contributing to your company. That may not be a USA hire. We can't afford the risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
1. Do you think its the job of schools to teach students to "think like an engineer"? (I don't) Schools can grow the interest in thinking, analyzing, creating, solving. Or the schools can stifle creativity, individualism, confidence, ability, and aptitude.

2. The university seemed to believe when my son entered in his freshman year that he should have progressed ...Suffice it to say, he ditched engineering as a major and now has a successful career in the accounting field. Congrats, do what fits.

3. Are you upset that on standardized achievement tests that American kids test 34 out of 40 countries? Be advised... the 33 leading countries DO NOT "teach to the test" to improve that standing. ... They teach and deliver CONTENT. If you know the CONTENT, you can legitimately pass the test on your knowledge, not on your ability to 'game' the test.

4. Ideally, kids would be given more of an opportunity to experiment both at home and at school. ... One reason I proposed lengthening the school day and/or year is it would create more time to do things like labs and experiment more. I'm all for LESS time at school and more time interfacing as ADULTS in the community, learning REAL LIFE SKILLS!!! That is not gonna come from cry-baby staff at Public Schools. Get the kids outta that drain hole and get them actively and productively engaged in LIFE!

... Nor, do I see many extra-curricular activities other than the standard football, baseball, and basketball.
Been around much? I can think of very few kids excelling in sport programs to the benefit of their lifelong community service and careers. But I know of thousands of kids who's lifelong contributions, enjoyment and careers have been greatly influenced by available Drama, Music, Debate, foreign language clubs, DECA, Science fairs, FFA, 4H (including, and especially city kids).

Don't get stuck in the Woe is (/ are) our educators, because they have so little support and $$ and talent to work with. They are abundantly supplied, and presumably educated (as they have been for generations).

Just Do It. (Educate)

It's not hard, ask any nation with far more challenges than the USA.
No shortage of 'how-to' / best practices. Information in the EDU world is fully accessible, far different than information in the protective innovative world, where many of us survived, and thrived. IP is 'protected' knowledge. Teaching / learning / educating is 'open source' EZ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2023, 03:29 PM
 
4,383 posts, read 4,234,636 times
Reputation: 5859
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit33 View Post
Well, that's the curriculum.

First of all, there hasn't been such a thing as College Algebra and Trigonometry since the 1940s. Those subjects are high school subjects in the modern world.

Freshman physics in university is a fully calculus-based course. Chemistry not so much, not till the second semester when you start getting into reaction rates and you need at least a rudimentary understanding of differential equations. Yes, freshman calculus is being taught at the same time, but freshman calculus in university is a much higher-level course than high school calculus; and you need high school calculus to cope with freshman physics. Otherwise you have to dumb-down freshman physics till it becomes a course in memorizing formulas and plug-and-chug without any understanding. I mentioned differential equations - well, of course, DiffyQ is a second year course normally, but in college calculus, they're already touching on differential equations in the second semester, so you at least understand and can cope with the rather basic material on reaction rates in second semester freshman chemistry.

Now after the freshman year, the different engineering disciplines start to deviate, but I know that my second year statics and dynamics course was based on a PRESUMPTION that the student had a complete mastery of differential and integral calculus; I sure wouldn't have wanted to come in to freshman calculus never having seen those concepts before, scuffled through the whole year, and then hit statics and dynamics with a kinda-sorta-crammed-for-the-final comprehension of the math required. Not to mention AC and DC circuits (man the math there was tough, and I wasn't an EE so I didn't even go into the even more demanding EE courses later), or strength of materials - also a fully calculus-required course.

Really, the ideal situation as far as students having the tools they need when they need them, would be a demanding high school calculus course, which might be more than two semesters, completed and mastered before college freshman physics - but that might well push algebra 1 back to 7th grade, and if you look at the progression of math learning from basic arithmetic in 1st and 2nd, through other subjects, I doubt there's enough time between 1st and 6th grade to launch the kids into algebra in 7th grade.
Children need to have reached the formal operations level of reasoning in order to really be able to understand abstract mathematics, including algebra. That doesn't happen for every child at the same age. Just as with other developmental milestones, the age when a child reaches a point doesn't necessarily determine his/her proficiency level once they have the requisite skills.

In Finland, for example, formal reading instruction is not begun until after children reach age seven. Until then, they are learning other things, mostly social skills. Yet even with fewer years of instruction, their students leaving secondary school are doing just fine for the most part.

I took the full math sequence available in my high school, was algebra I, geometry, algebra II, and advanced math, which covered topics like trig and polar coordinates. I went straight into calculus in college with no college algebra or trig prerequisites.

Students from schools who lack calculus can still go on to graduate as engineers, but it may take them just a bit longer. There are still many places in the U. S. where high school students are unable to take advanced coursework because it isn't offered. And even if it is offered, the students may not be ready for Algebra in middle school, but by the time they reach college age, they can catch up to the early maturers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2024, 08:01 AM
 
73,009 posts, read 62,585,728 times
Reputation: 21929
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
67% of African American children live in single-parent households.

Blacks have had a significantly higher rate of single-parenthood than other races for many decades in the United States.

However, single-parenthood has also increased for all races since the 1950s.
Here is an important question. WHY? And do not say welfare, because as you say, single parenthood rates have been on the rise since the 1950s, long before any so-called welfare state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top