packsaddle

Heh, heh, THAT''s the spirit, Scoutldr!

Unless those hungry people are giant termites, those bibles are not going to have much nutritional value. A thoughtful church interested in really helping the people, would buy food for their charity, not paper.

Beavah, There''s nothing stopping parents from making those choices now. School choice just costs money and if parents aren''t willing to pay the price, then tough luck...they made their choice. Aquila is an example of the way it should work. He exercised his choice in the path for his children. If they succeed that''s great. If they fail because of the path he chose, then HE will be responsible for the failure of his children and I won''t feel the slightest twinge of responsibility for the failure or for the cost of fixing the situation if it occurs. Tough luck or not, he made that choice. What gets me is the people who whine and wring their hands over problems with public schools and just give up when a few vouchers are waved at them by politicians. People DO control the public schools either through hard work and strong actions or through lack thereof. They CAN have good schools if they want. If they want to opt out, then that option is available as well. It costs money and it ought to. But there''s a chance that what is really happening is that some of them don''t really care that much about the hard work and personal investment necessary to make their schools great. In that case those failing schools are exactly the place they should be, because those people made it that way. And as Aquila says, time will tell for the outcome for those children as well.

Gunny, I also see those distinctions (fundamentalist vs best education) but while those are motives for going that direction, ALL of them can either excel at home or they can be miserable failures. Success or failure may have nothing to do with motive. I see strengths AND weaknesses, both coming from the same source: family-to-family variability. Any family that invests honestly and wisely in education will have a better chance of a good experience (whether HS, public, or private) than the family that invests unwisely or not at all. Where society allows the every-family-for-itself approach (whether through HS, vouchers, private, whatever), society is allowing the risk of such failures. But most of the risk is isolated to that family. On the other hand, where we all invest in a standard public school setting, the risk is shared. And if we, as a group, invest unwisely the failure is also shared by all and not just the few. This is the problem with the totally public approach as exemplified by some districts that we all hear about in the news. I support a market approach to all this because it uses evolutionary principles of fitness and survival. It is ruthless. It tends to weed out bad decisions and more quickly optimizes for success. The problem with that approach is that the failures remain in the population as less-productive people and since this selective process always works most successfully on pre-reproductive members of the population, this translates into children for human populations. And I hate to see children hurt. Therefore, I see an optimal market that includes not only the HS and private schools, but also the entitlement programs (public schools). The difference in my approach is that I think EVERYONE should pay for education if they have the means. And if they want the best education they should be willing to pay more for it. My bias is that a lot of people who say they want vouchers don''t really want to pay for education, they want something for nothing. I disagree with the voucher approach because I view it as a deception at several levels. But mostly because it enables the government-handout crowd who complain loudly about public schools but who are too cheap to invest in the HS or private alternative. I''d rather have a marketplace where selective pressures will eventually remove them from the economic and political populations.

Hunt, I guess I''m noting that if the distinction is so fine that it comes down to a point of view, then there might not be a real distinction at all. Just a point of view. And if the distinction is that small, why make it at all? Other than to somehow preserve this divisive feature of membership for some members...but not others? As Merlyn notes, BSA seems to be unclear as well, at least in history of application.

Yeah, Lisabob, I understand. I try to do the same thing. I have to admit you have a much better field to do this with so I have to work a bit to find the right topics. But knowing beforehand what popular prejudices are running just now, I give them a set of technical details in the field and then pose one or two of those situations for comment. I mention a recent government decision, or a position statement by a candidate or an advocacy group. Then I ask, is this a good thing or a bad thing? We''re only a few weeks into the semester and they already assume a shell-shocked look when I ask that question, heh, heh. Someone will attempt an answer and I say, "OK, that is reasonable but.." then I add some detail that switches it around. Now they start to argue back and forth and all I have to do is make sure they have the technical stuff correct. Sometimes they turn to me and ask, "so what IS the right answer?". Sometimes there actually IS a technically correct answer but often I tell them it is up to THEM to judge. That all I wanted them to do was to understand all the opposing arguments. I just love this stuff. Lisa, I suspect I have a little more freedom than most faculty. I work from a position in which tenure no longer means anything. I have nearly complete freedom to pursue my courses and as long as I don''t p*** the administration off too much, they''re happy to have me. And with age I have a pretty good perspective on things so they really don''t have much to worry about. Heh, heh, but it IS so much fun to tickle the tail of the dragon once in a while.

Heh, heh, someone once mentioned the pot and the kettle thing to me...I remember well my college days...booze, war protests, women, pizza, Virginia International Raceway, the original Star Trek series, United Campus Christian Fellowship.... I''m still alive I guess, maybe a little less of a blight on society, heh, heh. Maybe.

OGE, I wrote something similar to that in another thread a while back. I agree. Parents in this area demanded good schools and we got what we demanded. We also paid for it willingly because that is what we wanted for our children. "No problem with that, but it means ending free government education....etc." Beavah, For one thing, as others have noted, no education is free. All of us pay for public education in a variety of ways. If we don''t participate to effectively demand a superior product, we risk getting an inferior product. It works that way for private schools too. Also the market exists now, along side public schools. Therefore it is obviously not necessary to end public schools to have the marketplace. The people who want government handouts might not want to pay the price in the marketplace. If having to pay for a good product causes them to mess in their panties I have no sympathy for them, but the market is there for them if they change their minds. But regarding your assertion that it would be good to end public schools and let everyone fend for themselves, up to a point I''d be OK with that. However, as a society we recognize that for the good of everyone, economically and almost every other way, we benefit from public literacy and public education and therefore we offer it. In my ideal world I would support reductions in taxes, thus allowing those with the means to pursue alternatives to public schools more easily. However, we would still need to have public schools as an entitlement for those who do not have those means. Kind of like Medicaid, I suppose. This would be necessary, vouchers or not. At the same time I would, however, require a means test for anyone who wanted to enroll their children in those public schools as part of the entitlement program. If they have the means they should pay, whether for public or for private. THAT would support the marketplace more directly than vouchers, in case that is what you want. Vouchers would not be necessary. The market would be robust. And everyone whose lives revolve around lower taxes should be satisfied. And we''d get the best education we could afford, each and every one of us. Kind of like the way it is now. Look, all I am saying is something I''ve said before (as I mentioned to OGE). If we are paying customers and don''t demand the best product for our money, then we risk not getting the best product. We have to take personal responsibility for this. If we rely on others and just sit back and wet the bed when things aren''t as good as we would like then we''re engaging in a self-deception. The test of this is to go ahead and leave the public sector and pay for the superior private alternative. Find out how much better it is. Put your money where your wet mattress is. We did this for our children until we found a public alternative that provided the superior product. Then we switched. Now we''re paying for private college. As it should be. If we didn''t have the means, there''s always the public alternative. Again, sorry for my liberal leanings.

If you enter a colon : followed by a parenthesis ) you get a plain smiley. If you enter a semicolon with the same paren you get a wink. Beyond that you will have to get the tips from someone else. But as you are typing in your reply, look to the left panel. You will see a hot field called, ''Format this Post''. Hit that once you''ve typed stuff in and you enter the realm of html. Have a nice trip. I''m not sure how far you can take the edits, I have never pushed it. BTW, I do not consider belief in the resurrection to be necessary for a legitimate faith. I can view the resurrection and other such things to be delightful myths. But that does not detract from the value of, say, the great commandment. However, I do understand that others may be of the opinion that belief in all sorts of myths are necessary for all sorts of religious faiths.

Beavah, if you read my mention of higher education carefully, you will see that I agree with what you wrote. My example was one in which the institution succeeded very well. My point was that while some of us naively think vouchers are the key to school choice, they may actually have formed their arguments based on prejudice rather than an understandin of the complexities of things. Fact is, we all have school choice even without vouchers. When my children were old enough we enrolled them in private school. No vouchers. It cost us about 30% of our gross income. But it was important enough that we made the sacrifice. THAT is the marketplace working right now, without vouchers. It is, or used to be the, the American way...take personal responsibility and pay your own way... self-reliance rather than reliance on big government. If we value our children enough, we will pay the price for the private alternative and not rely on some government handout. Or otherwise we can send them to public schools and support them in that manner. We did that too. However, if a politician waves the possibility of a voucher in front of people who are critical of public education but too cheap to pay out of pocket for the alternative, some will sell their votes for the vouchers. And the politicians know this. The politicians can also count on those same people making naive arguments that a government subsidy somehow stimulates competition, thereby somehow qualifying as a conservative approach. If they really want the marketplace to work, why wait? Why predicate it on government subsidies? Pay the full price for the better product if that is what is desired. Let the market grow on its own merits. Or whimper into well-deserved oblivion. Vouchers, in this sense, can be viewed as just one more government handout for people who don''t want to pay the full freight, or who want something for nothing. In this sense, anyone who is critical of entitlement programs ought to also apply that ideology to vouchers. Otherwise they risk the hypocrisy of thinking entitlements are good... if THEY are the recipients. Sorry, I guess I am sounding like another one of those liberals again.

Heh, heh, if he wanted to stimulate discussion, I would say he was 100% successful!

GaHillBilly, You are correct...this has gone off topic. Sorry. Yeah, I also had some conflicts with the humanities crowd way back when. I sought refuge in science. As soon as I hit the send button, I will be hooking up the canoe trailer and gathering the gear so I can take the class out on a lake to actually SEE some of the things I am lecturing on later this morning. Bright, beautiful September afternoon, calm quiet water on a lake, and the only sounds are canoe paddles and students splashing around making measurements, looking for new things and learning about their environment. ...and maybe venting a little about some humanities courses, heh, heh. Your college-age child might enjoy this for a change.

Beavah, your interpretation of what I wrote isn''t exactly what I wrote. The first word in that statement was "If". I didn''t say that vouchers DO take money away from public schools, I wrote about a hypothetical condition in which they "or something" COULD. You seem to be very sensitive about the whole voucher issue. Or perhaps you were thinking about the last line. There, I am commenting on direct observations. In a competitive environment, educational institutions must choose the most competitive operating policies. In one such case, the state cut funds to the institution and made the funds available to students in the form of scholarships, "vouchers" if you will. The institution responded by raising tuition AND admission standards. It paid off for the institution but proportionally fewer of students from that state are admitted, primarily because they now fail to meet the admission standards - while richer students from out of state do...in larger proportions. The marketplaced worked its magic in this case because the institution was free to compete in any way it decided to. Hypothetically it is not clear that the only high school for a sparsely-populated county in a very poor region of a state could muster such a competitive response. I could be wrong. The poor students in this situation, holding a voucher, have little or no choice. Perhaps these are not truly the object of our interest? Theoretically, the real deal is all revenue neutral for the government. So why are the people so upset? The answer is that they don''t have the promised choice they thought they would have. Beavah, there seems to be an inclination to apply a market approach to education as if the same sort of competitive interactions that have so successfully enhanced environmental protection and increased corporate honor and integrity would also improve education. I admit that it may work with precisely the same effectiveness. In reality, the real struggle I described had almost nothing to do with education but with political power. The legislature delivered these vouchers in order to take power from the institution that lost funding. Because the institution then successfully competed in a market for a higher quality (and richer) customer (you might call this educational outsourcing I suppose), the people of the state as well as the legislature actually lost decision-making power, not to mention native student enrollment. Who won? I would argue that the winners were the customers, you know, the ones from the other states and other countries who met the standards and had the cash. Interestingly, because the legislature now funds the institution at a lower level, it has a smaller stick - even less influence...and increased funding is just not in the cards for this mindset. The unseen hand and the magic are such wondrous things sometimes.

Dan, good to have you back. That last link has some feedback after the article. If you think the article opens up a plethora of issues, scroll way down and take a look at one of the photos. I'm trying to figure out the source for that contrivance and the purpose of the image, but I have drawn a blank so far. It is a creature with both animal and human features, evidently on display with its offspring. Rather unsettling to some, I should think, but it illustrates probably some of the worst fears of those same people. Edited part: Found it! Patricia Piccinini sculpture entitled, "The Young Family". What a wonderfully creative mind she must have. She has a web site with more good stuff like this as well! Hope to see it myself someday.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

John-in-KC, uhhhhhh, they're not supposed to KNOW about those male parts on her, are they? H'mmmm? Same for the C-cup. I CAN tell you they are VERY aware of the chubby kid with the breasts that are at least C-cup size...and he is accepted just fine. Anyway maybe the guy just likes to cross dress...just a few steps away from a kilt and panties, right? So what! Around here I bet the boys would be fine with it, maybe better able to handle it than the adults. I could be wrong though, better not test it just yet. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Scoutldr, good question. I know faculty who have a task to try to identify the reasons. However, at this level we have no control over states' K-12 programs. We can offer advice but that''s about it. If a state wants to put their resources into vouchers or something to the detriment of public schools, we can merely hold onto our admission standards and wait for the criticism when fewer of those students are accepted. Moreover, on my side of the problem, the reason they are not prepared is unimportant. They are actually a fairly small proportion of the incoming class anyway, we're just trying to help them succeed. And I occasionally have fun with the admissions people, jabbing them with the observation that if their standards were constructed properly, those kids would be going elsewhere (community colleges or something) in the first place. Personally, I have almost no interaction with freshmen at all so I don't have to deal with it, just a few sophomores. So by the time they get to my courses as juniors and seniors, most of the ones who are not serious students have been weeded out. I will say that when I ask the best students where they went to high school, there is a definite pattern to the answers. And it is rarely a private school. Could be, though, that the kids from private schools don't tend to apply here in the first place. I also have to say that the ones in my classes are almost all outstanding young people with great potential. Some of them are serious enough for graduate school. We have a lot of fun poking holes in favorite theories and devouring sacred cows. Edited part: fixing those pesky double quotes again.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Brain development continues well in to the twenty-somethings for many persons, I think we used to call them late-bloomers or something like that. This is well-known but it doesn''t seem to be what it being discussed in this thread. I think Acco40 was trying on a sense of humor with his ''teens have brains?'' remark, at least that''s how I viewed it. The discussion seems to be less about neurophysiology/development and more about the relative merits of certain educational environments. That topic is full of personal and political agendas as well as a great deal of variation in quality of education and outcomes. Home-schooling in particular seems to be on the mind of some respondents. To some, home-schooling is a way to protect their children, to others a way to give them the best education available. In practice home-schooling effectiveness is dependent on the home and the student, both quite variable. I see the outcome at the college level. That is also quite variable. One of our technical programs is considering a special remedial program to help certain students who are not prepared for college-level math, physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, etc. This new program will consume extra resources that will take away from other parts of the overall program. Without passing judgement on the merits, or lack thereof, for this new program, I have heard whispers from the people who keep the statistics...that the majority of these needy students were home-schooled. We seem to be afraid of putting all this out for a public forum and I can understand why, given the political currents of this country right now. If, in fact, home-schooling has caused a new program to help marginal students in technical fields, I am glad for it because it will also be available to other students who might not have had access to those resources otherwise. Me, I''d like to see issues like this addressed, for once and for all, without the burden of politics and religion. However, it is too much, I''m afraid, to wish for.

Aquila, Could you clarify that 'spitting' part? Specifically, what does that mean anyway and how does becoming a transexual amount to "spitting in the face of the Almighty". That might be your opinion but wouldn't it be more authoritative if the 'almighty' spoke for him/her/itself? Regarding race, the topic had already included variation in age, gender, role, etc. Let's face it, this topic is a mix of questions involving biology, psychology, morality, BSA policy, technology, sociology, and prejudice. I decided to add a touch of race to try to complete the picture. Chalk it up to my desire to be 'inclusive' if you want. And it WORKED, didn't it? You joined right in...welcome to the thread! Edited part: fixing those pesky double quotes.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beavah, you can change the double quote back to single using the edit mode. I noticed the same thing. Thanks Dan, for starting this thread and especially with the benefit of your expertise. My mention of this issue in several past threads was primarily with respect to adult membership. I was aware that this was happening at very young ages but I thought it was a rare event. I think my most recent mention was a hypothetical situation in which a male leader decides to become female and subsequently becomes romantically involved with another male leader. As I remember, in the hypothetical I had decided to go under the knife and then Ed found me very attractive, or something like that. Heh, heh, I'd still like to see national sort that one out. But regarding the karyotype, even chromosomes may not be all that reliable when one considers the growing evidence that human examples of genetic mosaics and chimeras are fairly common in our population. I found a link to one of the most cited cases of this which also notes some medical and ethical issues. http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html This article has copied the original text from the New Scientist article, which you might be able to find in a library. Or you can pay for access online. The following article covers the general topic of genetic mosaics and chimeras. It is a good place to start if anyone is interested. Note that probably half of the human population is a genetic mosaic of some sort. This stuff is so interesting that it makes me wish I had another lifetime to observe and study these things. http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/medgen/chromo/mosaics.html But the result is that BSA can''t reasonably base policy on genetics alone. The problem is, by basing it on behavior, they nearly have to allow transgender adults. So if I, a male WASP, was married to a MTF-transgendered black person whose features nevertheless remain very male, would I be considered homo- or hetero-sexual by BSA? Would BSA allow me to be a leader? How about my partner? Edited part: Here's another interesting twist to all this if anyone is interested: Human-animal chimeras. Now this is really an interesting topic for those of us disposed to moral absolutes: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856883/posts(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

My family was in transit, driving to NY. We were in PA, stopped at a favorite place for fuel and food. My son and I were in the restroom. He was 10, about to finish Webelos. Above the restroom sink was a row of dispensers with a large variety of products, most of which were marked as having tropical colors (or flavors in some cases). My son was intrigued. He asked me what they were and, having already explained the facts of life to him a while back, I decided to tell him. In one short sentence I told him what they were, how they were used, and why someone would use them. He stood there for a long silent moment. Then he said, "Ooohhh mmmmmyyyyy gggodddddd." A few quarters could have produced a quick condom, but there are some things that money can''t buy.

We were in transit on a long out-of-state trip. This morning we were having a quick breakfast at a Burger King. They boys were having fun, and the scene was as if we had just slopped the hogs. They were tossing tater tots at each other and sticking straws up their noses to squirt drinks...you get the idea. At another table two girls about the same age were having breakfast with their mothers. I noticed that they were in rapt attention to the boys. In uniform, I went over and sat with them. The mothers smiled at me...sickly. They were polite but I sensed disapproval, perhaps disgust. I apologized for the boys and then turned to the girls. I said, "I want you to think about this for a very long time....one of these days not very many years from now, you're probably going to marry one of those." The two moms nearly snorted coffee out their noses and the girls sat in stunned, silent shock. I bid them good morning and left, smiling.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gonzo1, "Fred, That sounds like gobbledygook. Dan, what Fred posted is psychobabble." Heh, heh, I just love to hear you talk dirty... This sounds like we''re about to enter a nature/nurture discussion. Before I had children I was firmly of the belief that nurture (upbringing, society, peer groups, economic status, etc.) was the primary control of our personalities. My wife and I then entered into an uncontrolled experiment with an ''n'' of 2. I think we decided to rethink the idea that nurture controls things about 6 months into the experiment. Years later, we sometimes wonder if nurture has a chance, maybe the Presbyterians are right after all, heh, heh. So with regard to boys being boys, I am ready to accept the idea that there are real hard-wired differences between males and females, and by this I mean differences beyond the reproductive stuff although it''s probably strongly related in an evolutionary sense. Sure, given the genetic legacy and developmental sequence that is hard-wired, nurture can certainly change persons through limits or opportunities. But that basic hard-wiring is undeniable and difficult to overcome for most persons. And...to bring this full circle, given that this potentially allows a biological basis for determination of many of our traits and characteristics, I''d say that Presbyterians ought to fully embrace evolution as a rational explanation and validation of their faith. H''mm, I really LIKE that!

Heh, heh, it''s been my experience that several vehicles disgorging a bunch of boys tends to make all sorts of wildlife suddenly scarce. If anyone is there seeking a discreet place, homo or hetero, they''ll probably leave in disgust, along with the other large mammals and most of the birds. Chances are the parents are already aware of this but it''s worth mentioning just so they''ll know. I''d tell them discreetly.

Thanks Dan for pointing out that transgender twist. I hadn''t spotted it. Edited part: After thinking about Eamonn's reply I think there is much merit to it. He's right about some of the girls. I probably don't see them much because they don't make it to my classes very often. If he's correct, I agree with him that we should be looking for solutions for both genders. However, the numbers indicate a significant trend toward female dominance in academia, even after taking demographics into account. And to me it further indicates that the problem is a bigger one for males than for females. To me the solution resides primarily with the parents. If the parents care, and if they understand the problem, they can control the growth environment for their children (both genders). If they don't care or if they are unaware of the problem, then the children are unlikely to do this for themselves. I think I have read someplace that this is a mechanism of evolution at the level of society. I'll try to dig that out if I can find it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Aquila, that ''men being men'' part, you want to expand on that a bit? Fred, you posted the original article. That indicated that either you agreed with it or not but you definitely thought it was important enough for a new thread. But YOU seem to be obsessing on a respondent and ignoring your own topic. The topic was your topic. You chose it. If you think I''m wrong, state your opposing thoughts and give your reasoning. Lacking that we can only speculate on the source of your disagreement. You can begin by indicating whether you agreed with the original premise as stated in the article, or not. With regard to being offended: I think you doth protest too much. What nerve did I touch with my old belt-driven dental drill? Evidently you don''t agree with me. That''s fine. What are your reasons, other than that what I wrote offends you?