DrTorch Wrote:Wow, not only a HS teacher w/ no idea of what her job is, but teaching the most overrated, immature subject that exists. Psychology today is like alchemy in the middle ages.
Maybe if she didn't waste time teaching about Freud, Maslow and Piaget, she could cover some of that "interesting" stuff.
Hmmm... so there is no evidence of left brain/right brain, personality traits, no reason to study parts of the brain, etc.? There is some talk of Freud (id/ego/superego), Maslow, Pavlov, etc, as there should be.
Now explain this to me, she teaches what her board of education tells her to teach, who gets their curriculum from the state of Ohio, but she doesn't know what her job is? I'm confused as to how she is not doing her job. She presents kids with material, has them put it to use through exercises, and tests them on it. Unfortunately she has less time to do many of the exercises where they put what they learn to use.
She has been a US History teacher, an Urban Planning/Studies teacher, and a Psychology teacher in her time there. She has won multiple teaching awards where she was nominated by her students and by her peers. But I digress, she works in a public school system and obviously doesn't know what she is doing in the classroom.
Quote:Awww, so school wasn't fun 'n' games. Big whoop. Do they even cover psychology on SOLs? If so, why? It's an elective, remember?
It is considered a social studies credit. It also is considered a college prepatory class. Every student, whether engineer (of which I was/am), teacher, business, etc., have to take psychology while in college. So yes, it is a standard of learning.
Quote:Maybe that's where your first problem is. You and your mom don't know the first thing about what schools are supposed to be doing. Maybe playing psych games sounds like school to you guys, but I doubt that helps a kid compete w/ some engineer from Singapore.
Apparently it didn't hurt me getting a well rounded education. I had a job right out of college. In fact I had it before I ever graduated.
Quote:Like get guns?
That's a profoundly ignorant paragraph that further demonstrates you know NOTHING about childhood development. Children have a keen sense of right and wrong, and they are weaker than adults, emotionally as well as physically. Bullying, injustice, etc, all affect kids much more profoundly than adults.
There is a timing that goes along with what materials are to be taught to kids, and what they should be exposed to. You don't just throw them into situations figuring they'll learn from them.
Respectfully disagree all you want, but if you used any empirical evidence maybe your theories wouldn't be so absurd.
Schools are safer today than ever before. The media likes to accentuate the negative, thus many people believe schools are more dangerous today than in the past.
From the US Department of Education:
Quote:Between 1992 and 2004, the victimization rates for students ages 12-18 generally declined both at school and away from school; this pattern held for the total crime rate as well as for thefts,7 violent crimes,8 and serious violent crimes9 (table 2.1). At school, total crime and theft victimization rates for students were lower in 2004 than in 2003. For example, the victimization rate of students ages 12-18 at school declined from 73 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 55 such victimizations in 2004. Theft victimization at school declined from 45 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 33 such victimizations of students in 2004. Away from school, total crime and violent crime victimization rates were lower in 2004 than in 2003. There were 48 victimizations per 1,000 students away from school in 2004, compared with 60 victimizations in 2003. Violent victimization away from school declined from 32 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 21 victimizations in 2004.
It appears to me that both bullying and guns are not as big of a problem at school as you lead people to believe.
Quote:BINGO. The homeschool kids didn't know how to party.
Actually, they don't know how to behave in those situations. Whether getting drunk and fighting or sitting in the corner talking to nobody, in most cases they haven't had the social situations in life to learn how to behave before college.
Quote:So you got rejected by homeschool chicks, and now you're bitter. Too bad.
Yes, you got me, those damn homeschooled chicks would not go out with me. Luckily for me there were a lot more public schooled chicks who had no problem talking to me or going out with me...
Quote:In your landmark casestudy, did you compare that w/ public school kids who don't know how to talk to the opposite sex? Did you investigate to see if any homeschool kids just didn't go to your parties, and did fine in their own peer groups? Did you do any sort of longitudinal study to discover if you were looking at a non-representative set of students who were pulled from public school b/c of emotional/social problems and who now are years beyond where they would have been if they remained in public schools? Did you document any numbers to see if you were biasing your observations on your anecdotal recall?
Those were my experiences, with people from my dorm floor (all engineers), people in my fraternity, people in my classes, people whom I associated with outside of all of those places, etc. Obviously it was not a scientific study.
Quote:"Many times" well, you must have reams of data to support this.
Once again, I admit, it is just based on experience.
Quote:While the US universities may be better than their counterparts, the international students are better than their US counterparts. Which is exactly the point. Owned.
Maybe before college (according to standardized tests), but after tests both students have studied the same material. I'm confused as to how that would prove any point about the foreign students being better than US students after college graduation. I'm not too worried about their HS students coming out with a slight lead in standardized test scores if the US students continue to go to college and graduate at the current numbers.
Quote:Yeah, well when you start hiring top scientists, engineers, craftsmen and other employees, maybe your opinion will mean something. In the meanwhile, you are simply using circular reasoning: you're defending the system that produced you, using your training as evidence that the system is good. Ironically, if the system were as good as you say, and if you knew logic like you claim, you wouldn't be making that fallacious argument.
Funny you should say that, I am the IT manager for an IT and Scientific company (we hire employees for NOAA, NASA, DHS, as well as develop custom computer applications for other US government agencies). I've been involved in hiring/recruiting/interviewing top scientists, software engineers, and network engineers.
My logic is that your way of grading students is too simple. A standardized test score is not a good way, in and of itself, to grade how our students are doing. A well rounded employee needs to have the intelligence and the social skills if they are going to succeed at the highest level. In my opinion, home school puts kids at a disadvantage in terms of social skills compared to public and private schools.
Quote:No go see Mommy and see if she can bolster your self-esteem and self-actualization. You are good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you.
Nice, classy statement. I guess you must be the bully nowadays. Were you picked on while a kid since you feel the need to attack people? You make yourself feel better by attacking others without your same view instead of listening to multiple viewpoints?
I probably shouldn't have even responded to your post... I got a PM from a person on here who is a conservative who even said not to bother with you, all you do is attack people who don't agree with you. Even though he agrees with most of your view points, he said it isn't worth the time to argue with you due to your style of attack instead of a style of fostering more conversation...