Actually in her case it wasn't because of the testing. It was that her school simply didn't cover a wide enough range of subjects to give her and the other students the type of information that benefits them when taking college classes. It's like taking calculus for a couple of years in high school and then going to college and finding out that the calculus you learned was more like basic math. College can be overwhelming and even the brightest students from the best schools feel small and not so smart so when you come from an inferior school....you know how overwhelming it truly is.

You know, sometimes I sit back and wonder....do the young kids today have it tougher, or was it tougher for me when I went to school?

Sorry to get off-topic.

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Roman

You know, sometimes I sit back and wonder....do the young kids today have it tougher, or was it tougher for me when I went to school?

Sorry to get off-topic.

No apology needed....I think it's a very fair question and it's probably a case of in some ways yes and in some ways no.

When I see old programs that show that whole village thing where everyone was involved in everyone else's life and well being it makes me think that they really had the right idea.

We're so detached now that kids are missing more of what I call the human touch and it's evident with the video games and gadgets. Technology is wonderful but the way it brings us together illustrates how detached we've become as a world since it's universal. Kids used to go outside and play with each other and now they go online to play with each other.

I think that some of them do get that not all of the kids are eager to learn but it really doesn't help whatever arguments or positions they're trying to push if they focus on that aspect. They're generally trying to shine a spotlight on the kids that do want to learn because as a society we tend to focus on the negative and the easy solution would be to say that since those kids don't want to learn, don't even waste any time on them.

I'm one of those people that firmly believes that if you can get one out of one thousand that wants to learn then it is worth the effort....since you never know what that one child might end up accomplishing and what discovery that one child might grow up to make.

Maybe in your schools it wasn't the teachers and I think it is unfair to put it all on the teachers. In my experience it's been some teachers, students, counselors and parents that have contributed to the problem. I know that the school district in Los Angeles has a lot of teachers that I consider unqualified to teach....some of them do not even use correct grammar and some cannot even speak English properly (as in they sound as if they just came to America a few weeks ago, learned a little bit of English and got a job at a school). I've even encountered college adrministrators with the same deficiencies.

I see it more as a lack of ambition/motivation but I don't see it as being cultural....otherwise it would be a 100 percent problem which is not the case. To me that's like saying if some kids in one race or ethnic group is like that then it's cultural but if there are kids of another race that are like that then it's an aberration. These types of problems are more economic than anything else because the lack of ambition/motivation trends more towards children in low income neighborhoods....especially gang infested ones. Those are the children that normally have more to overcome in terms of what it takes to make themselves believe that education is worthwhile and those are the ones that end up with the less qualified teachers....although I have seen them all over the place including private schools and they irk me everywhere I see them.

But I think if you let students dictate teachers (which is what happens if "bad" teachers are fired), there will be an endless stream of teachers. I'm not saying that all teachers in my schools were good, because they weren't. But there were AMAZING ones that just got really lousy kids that didn't give a d*** about education. Is it the teachers fault that these communites are gang infested? Is that the teachers fault that parents don't make the kids come to school? Is it the teachers fault that the parents just want the kids to get by with D's?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809140003?f=h_top

Discussing "Lipstickgate," Kurtz asked: "Why, exactly, did the mainstream media go hog-wild over a manufactured story that was pushed by the right?"

You know, I don't have a problem with testing of students. I do have a problem with it being used punitively. I think school districts with a high percentage of failing students should receive help from the federal government. They should not fire teachers or cut funding.

I think the problem with No Child Left Behind also is that the federal government isn't paying its share of the costs.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809140003?f=h_top

Discussing "Lipstickgate," Kurtz asked: "Why, exactly, did the mainstream media go hog-wild over a manufactured story that was pushed by the right?"

I watched Kurtz on CNN today. he asked some good questions. The reporters all agreed the pig thing was BS.

This is funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656Z6gN5-4g

Man, it looks like I missed quite a bit over the weekend....

LOL! The links keep coming,...

Actually, I think the links are quite useful, regardless of whom is posting them. And not all of them are from "liberal" blogs, btw. Oh, that's right....unless we post a link to FAUX News then it's a "liberal" source. I got it now.

You know what's really scary is if there is a tie. I think it's a strong possibility come November. If you click on no toss up states, Obama has the edge 273 to 265 based on the state poll averages. BUT if you change NH to McCain there is a tie of 269 to 269 which will leave niether candidate with the 270 needed to win. Could you imagine the pandemonium? It will be worse than 2000!

Nah. Nothing could be worse than 2000 when Bush was chosen to be the next President. He certainly wasn't elected. The Repubs made such a big deal of Clinton not winning the majority of the vote in 92 but didn't make a peep in 2000 when Bush became the first appointed POTUS.

I guess Cindy is peeved off at Babs & Co:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

This was the first time that McCain had to answer real questions about the issues and the positions he has taken with his campaign. And now the crying starts. Aren't Repubs supposed to be the "tough" ones? Funny when given a taste of their own medicine, they start whining.

I don't recall Obama making any fuss over the way Bill O'Reilly was asking him questions. Hmmm.

This is an interesting item from Face The Nation yesterday:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/14/...in4448077.shtml

And yes, I know it's a Dem arguing against a Repub, so take of it what you will. However, there are other voices heard supporting her such as Kay Hutchison.

There is a good point to be made here. Even though SP is a female, there isn't much discussion of women's issues thus far in this campaign. The only one that staked a claim in this arena is Obama, stating several times that he supports equal pay for equal work.

What is McCain's position on this? Since the media is shouting from the rooftops that white women now are supporting McCain, how would this affect this support?

I can't imagine a Democratic, socially liberal woman all of sudden switching to McCain simply because he has chosen SP. Just as much as I couldn't see a Republican socially conservative African American voting for Obama simply because he's black.

Obama in 2004: I Wouldn’t Have Enough Experience to Run in 2008

"You know, I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people that might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people." -- Barack Obama

So, at what point did he become one of those people?

"I just don't think he's got yet the proven substance or experience to be president." --Jimmy Carter

So, at what point did Carter suddenly change his mind?

http://patriotroom.com/?p=426

I love the hypocrisy. Maybe Hunter Biden was paid to lobby Barry... to convince him to run and save the country.

Again, just proves that hypocrisy runs both ways.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...mpaign-tactics/

Obama, Biden Declare War

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26709927/

Wall Street scrambles as Lehman, Merrill falter

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

First Read

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Roman

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...mpaign-tactics/

Obama, Biden Declare War

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26709927/

Wall Street scrambles as Lehman, Merrill falter

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

First Read

The Lehman, Merrill articles are terrifying. I think America is in for a really tough time economically. I would very much like for BOTH presidential candidates to get serious about this.

The Lehman, Merrill articles are terrifying. I think America is in for a really tough time economically. I would very much like for BOTH presidential candidates to get serious about this.

Hopefully they can, once the bullshit is left behind. I heard this morning that there are insurance caps on money people have in these institutions. Anything over $100,000 and over $500,000 for investment firms could have been or either was lost.

Shameful.

Hopefully they can, once the bullshit is left behind. I heard this morning that there are insurance caps on money people have in these institutions. Anything over $100,000 and over $500,000 for investment firms could have been or either was lost.

Shameful.

Both of them are huge in retirement accounts.

Again, just proves that hypocrisy runs both ways.

What does hypocrisy running both ways have to do with anything unless you're under the impression that supporters of one candidate think such candidate is a saint and the other is not?

If supporters of McCain think he's full of straight talk and is the answer to the country's problems does hypocrisy matter then?

Are all lies equivalent? If a kid lies about breaking a window would you consider that the same thing as a kid lying about being drunk and hitting a pedestrian while driving?

I don't even get the significance of what Obama said in 2004 versus his making a decision in 2006/2007 since it's not even an indication of hypocrisy as much as it is an indication of his arriving at a point where he felt comfortable enough to run. What you're indicating is that if a person at one point said I don't think I'm qualified to do such and such but then gains whatever knowledge he/she feels is needed in a year or more span of time the person has no righ to change his/her mind and move forward. That tp me is a lot different than a person making such a statement and then turning around in a matter of days or a couple of months backtracking.

It is also different from someone standing around launching accusations about that which he/she is guilty, at the time they're launching accusations.....especially without acknowledging his/her guilt.

And is it possible that Jimmy Carter thinks differently since there's a difference between someone not thinking something and someone making a declarative statement as in he definitely doesn't?