How to improve American Education in 2021. (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Paul

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2021
    Messages
    2,155
    Reaction score
    712
    Location
    Latin American from Potomac, Maryland 20854
    Offline
    The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.


    My suggestion is rather simple.

    1. Study why immigrants from East Asia, India, and Nigeria do well with American education. Apply that insight to other groups (if possible).
    2. Manage public schools as if though they were private schools with uniforms and discipline.
    3. Create high end special schools for those that are truly disenfranchised.
    4. Create a force of social workers to treat family dysfunction with regards to education.
    5. Reduce the curriculum to the simple basics and repeat that on a yearly basis.
    6. At about 10th grade divide college bound students away from non-college bound.
    7. Provide solid basic education and trade training for non-college bound kids. There is no point in offering free college to these kids.
     
    Last edited:
    I give you credit for googling the info and learning something new. Congratulations!
    🏆
    I do not give you credit for pretending you always knew this.
    Believe it or not...
    The cause is complex and due to multiple evolutionary forces.
    No kidding.
    However, some men get to pass more DNA than others.
    And?
    Female reproduction is primarily limited by their access to resources to nourish and produce these large gametes, whereas male reproduction is mainly limited by access to females (Bateman 1948). Therefore males typically compete among themselves for access to females, whereas females tend to be choosy and mate only with preferred males.

    And the characteristics of "preferred males" aren't always strongest, biggest, more aggressive.

    Male–male competition for females has led to the evolution of a diverse array of sexually dimorphic traits which may be advantageous to males.

    Darwin (1) argued convincingly that male combat and female mate choice were the contexts in which sexual differences appeared. Yet Darwin observed too that sexual selection “depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between males for possession of the females; the result is not death of the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring.

    Darwin
    You may want to quote the whole paragraph that paraphrases what Darwin says in his book, or heck, even the book itself.

    Some men have greater access to women for intercourse than others (INCELS).
    Not having as much access to women doesn't make anyone an incel, Having no access does.

    Women decide who gets to have intercourse. It is what it is and it has profound implications in evolution.
    Not in all species, and their decision isn't based just in who's the better fighter, or the biggest, etc.

    The biochemical and physiological explanations for dimorphism are likely in the DNA. I agree.
    Likely?

    The question is why it happens. BTW, as you pointed out after you googled

    If thinking I needed to search what I posted makes you feel better as a person, I guarantee you, I didn't look any of that up.

    The male spiders live in a matriarchy that is based on biology and not a social construct.

    I rest my case.

    🏆
     
    And the characteristics of "preferred males" aren't always strongest, biggest, more aggressive.
    This is only true today and in recent history. Men that are smart and successful and not necessarily large or strong have a lot of access to women. To this day women prefer successful men. However, the modern MAN is 200,000 years old. During most of that time brute force meant something.
     
    This is only true today and in recent history. Men that are smart and successful and not necessarily large or strong have a lot of access to women. To this day women prefer successful men. However, the modern MAN is 200,000 years old. During most of that time brute force meant something.

    Wrong again, but you do you.
     
    Paul— kinda right

    I teach 4th grade. Early education specialty. Minor in science with a focus on infectious disease.
    It’s my son who is the aeronautical engineer whose rants inspire and challenge how I teach
     
    Paul— kinda right

    I teach 4th grade. Early education specialty. Minor in science with a focus on infectious disease.
    It’s my son who is the aeronautical engineer whose rants inspire and challenge how I teach
    And you are to be admired. I would love to teach part time after I retire.
     
    Sam: You always come up with the key point!

    There is no point in throwing money at a crappy school if the students come from very dysfunctional home environments. Ideally, the resources should be directed at improving the quality of life at home. Once the home is fixed the school can be tackled.

    And how, pray tell, does a libertarian such as yourself propose to do that?

    Education is the fundamental part of increasing one's economic and financial status.

    Are you suggesting we kill off the poor and divorced? My parents divorced. They ran a dysfunctional family and I turned out ok with my ivy league education and alphabet soup of degrees and I'm not even a socialist.

    Should we punish the parents or just send them to private schools for reeducation?

    You seem to think Catholic Schools are the best, but when I was a kid and today the best place in my town to score illegal drugs or loose young women is the Catholic High School.
     
    Then why make it illegal for parents to send their child to a private school/religious school, who generally provide much much better over all education? How are your tax dollars being spent on private schools?

    That sounds very authoritarian to me, no?

    Nobody has suggested outlawing sending your kids to private schools.

    What's been said is that public money funded via taxes ought not go to teaching deluded nonsense instead of actual science and history.
     
    And you are to be admired. I would love to teach part time after I retire.
    Well if coronavirus ever ends and you come to central California, hit me up. I’ll give you a tour, and show you my school. Too bad they did such a good job of fixing the bullet holes from the latest shooting a couple years ago
     
    And how, pray tell, does a libertarian such as yourself propose to do that?

    Education is the fundamental part of increasing one's economic and financial status.

    Are you suggesting we kill off the poor and divorced? My parents divorced. They ran a dysfunctional family and I turned out ok with my ivy league education and alphabet soup of degrees and I'm not even a socialist.

    Should we punish the parents or just send them to private schools for reeducation?

    You seem to think Catholic Schools are the best, but when I was a kid and today the best place in my town to score illegal drugs or loose young women is the Catholic High School.
    No this is what Paul wants to do with them. It’s been tried before. By the way they were Christian schools also.
     
    Nobody has suggested outlawing sending your kids to private schools.

    What's been said is that public money funded via taxes ought not go to teaching deluded nonsense instead of actual science and history.
    What is really perplexing is that he completely missed Paul’s extremely authoritarian proposal that children be removed from either single parent or homes deemed dysfunctional and sent to boarding schools. 🤷‍♀️
     
    What is really perplexing is that he completely missed Paul’s extremely authoritarian proposal that children be removed from either single parent or homes deemed dysfunctional and sent to boarding schools. 🤷‍♀️
    Paul is consistent with his contempt for the poor and single parents.
     
    So, you guys are a hard 'no' child protective services as well then?
    Probably not, but it is funny how the family unit is suddenly very important when it is politically beneficial or when Paul has an thought that is actually worth discussing.
    I thought I was a bur under people saddle but this dude is renting space in yall head like ole boy Trump.
     
    Nobody has suggested outlawing sending your kids to private schools.

    What's been said is that public money funded via taxes ought not go to teaching deluded nonsense instead of actual science and history.
    Yes, that is exactly what has been suggested.
     
    It would be a much harder job. Do you teach kids that come from disadvantaged homes? I truly believe is a difficult job if the parents are not involved.
    I do. A place that would probably be a stunning environment to most anyone
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom