besides, I don't mind the whole girl on top thing ...

Of course, not every male has to go to college to succeed, to be a good husband, to be a good and productive man. But a dismal future lies ahead for large numbers of boys in this generation who will not go to college. Statistics show that a young man who doesn't finish school or go to college in 2005 will likely earn less than half what a college graduate earns. He'll be three times more likely to be unemployed and more likely to be homeless. He'll be more likely to get divorced, more likely to engage in violence against women and more likely to engage in crime. He'll be more likely to develop substance abuse problems and to be a greater burden on the economy, statistically, since men who don't attend college pay less in Social Security and other taxes, depend more on government welfare, are more likely to father children out of wedlock and are more likely not to pay child support.

Here is my opinion on what happened to real men:

http://www.dogicdesign.com/misc/graph.jpg

Where men once dominated, they now make up no more than 43 percent of students at American institutions of higher learning, according to 2003 statistics, and this downward trend shows every sign of continuing unabated.

Now, however, the boys who don't fit the classrooms are glaringly clear. Many families are barely involved in their children's education. Girls outperform boys in nearly every academic area. Many of the old principles of education are diminished. In a classroom of 30 kids, about five boys will begin to fail in the first few years of pre-school and elementary school. By fifth grade, they will be diagnosed as learning disabled, ADD/ADHD, behaviorally disordered or "unmotivated." They will no longer do their homework (though they may say they are doing it), they will disrupt class or withdraw from it, they will find a few islands of competence (like video games or computers) and overemphasize those.

Boys have a lot of Huck Finn in them -- they don't, on average, learn as well as girls by sitting still, concentrating, multitasking, listening to words. For 20 years, I have been taking brain research into homes and classrooms to show teachers, parents and others how differently boys and girls learn. Once a person sees a PET or SPECT scan of a boy's brain and a girl's brain, showing the different ways these brains learn, they understand. As one teacher put it to me, "Wow, no wonder we're having so many problems with boys."

We need to stop blaming, suspecting and overly medicating our boys, as if we can change this guy into the learner we want.

So basically, this guy is arguing that the traditional school system doesn't adapt to different learning styles, and this primarily disadvantages boys. This then leads to more high school drop-outs, and few college graduates. It is in the best interest of society, not just men, to correct the problem. That is, adapt to the needs of the students, and to stop trying to force each one through the square hole, when some are clearly circles and stars.

So basically, this guy is arguing that the traditional school system doesn't adapt to different learning styles, and this primarily disadvantages boys. This then leads to more high school drop-outs, and few college graduates. It is in the best interest of society, not just men, to correct the problem. That is, adapt to the needs of the students, and to stop trying to force each one through the square hole, when some are clearly circles and stars.

Males - the latest victims of a non-responsive education system. :roll:

I didn't read it all, so I may be off the mark, but this sounds like another well-developed rationalization, made to excuse poor performance.

Bottom Line - School is supposed to be hard. Part of getting a good education is learning skills/habits that help us deal with aspects of life where our natural talents may be lacking.

But if you have Michael Jordan, and Stephen Hawking, you’d be a fool for not focusing on what they have the most talent for naturally. What we should be doing is trying to maximize individual potential, and you shouldn’t focus on making Jordan into a better physicist. That in no way means that you should let Jordan ignore everything else, but basketball is where he can make the greatest contribution to society and you should promote that.
Another problem is they are judging output and not effort. If I try really hard and fail in school, I fail in school. There is no reward for giving it your best. That is unfair. No matter how hard I try, I’m never going to be as good as Jordan or Hawking in there respective fields. That is like rewarding blonde hair or height, it is totally arbitrary, a genetic lottery.

Thorne, just a guess, but you never had too many problems in school? Ever been taken to a doctor to find out what’s wrong with you? Ever been prescribed drugs to make you a better student? Ever been called a space cadet by a teacher? My problems when I was young were highlighted by the fact that my older siblings are incredibly smart (1580s on SATs), and fortunate that I came from a family where college was just a given, but I don’t think the difficulties I had were unique.

but if everyone is educated to CEO level, no one is gonna clean the floors. untill we either automate *all* manual labor tasks, some of which are very skilled work such as bricklaying, we are not going to be able to operate a capitalist society in which everyone is equally educated.

first of all, i think if you're considereing the educational system in this... you have to ask if basketball is, in fact, a "contribution to society." if you assume that atheletics are contributions to society on par with the science that gives you purer food and water and medicine, than fine.

first of all, i think if you're considereing the educational system in this... you have to ask if basketball is, in fact, a "contribution to society." if you assume that atheletics are contributions to society on par with the science that gives you purer food and water and medicine, than fine.

You could actually go one step further and blame the scientists for making us the weakling soceity that we are. Filtered water ... ha!

But really, I think many of our scientific advancements have contributed to (yes I know it's cruel) people with "not so great genes" living and producing offspring to carry on that gene. Of course it seems terribly inhumane to even consider having a family member die because of a cold or a flu and be okay with it. However,if you went back a 100 years when this was just a fact of life and never changed it. We'd still be okay with it and our gene pool would be getting that much stronger. Then add intercultural and interracial mixing into that and we may even recover from our current weakling status.

dont get me wrong, i still think you should have to have a permit to breed.

part of the problem NOW is that the less educated you are, the more likely you are to be poor, and the more likely you are to reproduce. multiple times.

the more educated you are the less likely you are to reproduce.

dont get me wrong, i still think you should have to have a permit to breed.

part of the problem NOW is that the less educated you are, the more likely you are to be poor, and the more likely you are to reproduce. multiple times.

the more educated you are the less likely you are to reproduce.

You pompous ass. And I supposed it is a forgone conclusion that you would be granted a permit to breed.



Did you obtain that information from some exclusive ivy league poll? :roll:



OMG, Clausti, you are a living, breathing cliche'.

yes, boone, there are other factors, and i'm not even saying the education is is causational with the reproduction. It is, however, highly corrolational.

and no roofy, actually under what would be my ideal criteria i would be currently ineligable for a breeding permit. and continue to be ineligible untill i changed some things in my life.

if i get done with my hw tonight, i might take the time to look up some statistics for you rufus. however, it has been so widely publicized that i'm pretty surprised you dont already know and acknowledge the inverse correlation between educational level and average number of children. certainly there are exceptions. and i'm not implying causation. you'd have to do mad unethical studies to prove that.

however, there is a *strong* negative correlation between education level and number of kids, if any, a woman has. i would assume they didnt bother to count men in most studies since you'd be at the risk of countin the kiddies twice, ect.

I am familiar with the statistics, Clausti. It is not that I don't believe that there is a modicum of validity to some of them - more that I find your demeaning portrayal of persons, who possess less than MENSA level intellect, highly offensive.

let me be very clear here: i phrased those statistics the way i did for a reason. "level of education" or "extent of education" are NOT neccasarily the same things as actual intelligence level.


and i'm going to ask you two things. please answer them seperately.

1] by what statements did i refer to those of ANY specific intelligence level?

2] which of those statements do you find offensive?

I will answer them as one. It wasn't any particular thing that you said. It was the overall tone of the body of your statements that came across to me that way. Try reading them from the position of the people whom you are portraying, and see if you don't hear what I heard. You might be surprised. I always try to put myself in one's position, before I level such criticisms.

i'm sorry that you read things into my post that werent there.

it would have been a *lot* less typing to say "dumb ppl have more kids." but i *didnt* say that did i?

Actually, you did. I read nothing into your post. You obviously aren't aware of your attitudes about certain groups.

why dont you enlighten me.

the fact that i beleive the statistics that level of education is inversely proportional to average number of offspring means... what, exactly?

oh and as far as the negative correlation between educational level and income level... "less educated you are the more likely you are to be poor," surely you arent going to argue that.

HS dropouts make less money than HS graduates who make less money than BS degreeswho make less money than masters degrees.

why dont you enlighten me.

the fact that i beleive the statistics that level of education is inversely proportional to average number of offspring means... what, exactly?

Why are you attempting to have an intelligent discussion with someone so obviously incapable of providing that?

Curt

I`m a high school drop out that makes far more money than anyone with a masters degree.

I doubt it.

Curt

I guess so, doofus.

Curt


I guess Phil's less than subtle hint flew right over your head, Sherlock.

I doubt it.

Curt

oh jesus h crist roofy.

ON AVERAGE. just add that to the end of my speil about who makes more money.

get your panties out of a wad, dude.

Actually Curt may be correct in that my statement was far too broad. I should recant and say that I`m a high school drop out who makes far more money than some who have a masters degree. I cannot categorically state that someone with a masters degree makes more money than I. What in effect I am saying is that the lack of a masters degree has mode no difference in how much money I make or am capable of making. Nor should anyone state that an education necessarily equates that a person can make money. An education can help one make heaps of money but it does not hold true that all masters degree recipients have the necessary financial education to be able to create the necessary wherewithall to be financially independant.

I know of heaps of high school dropouts who make far more money than the Prime Minister of Australia. They have worked tirelessly to create the basis for financial independence.

I also have known of people with degrees who have made a complete mess of their financial lives.

Step outside your average educational career path and you will find people who are entrepeneurs who employ people with degrees. It is not necessary to know everything but it is necessary to know how to find out everything one needs to know to get the job done.

Henry Ford had telephones linked to the very best educated people that money could buy. He had a very basic education though.

It does not matter what your station in life is, what matters is your self motivation to advance yourself. Those on welfare can cry me a river for not getting off their butts and doing something for themselves. Quit the grog, quit the smokes, quit the drugs and start doing something for yourselves. Of course there are those with mental problems who are less fortunate than ourselves who need support but I have no pity for those who will not help themselves.

i could handle boondock

in all fairness, i was exactly as unclear as phil was in my statement. i forgot to say "on average" and he forgot to say *some* instead of "most" or "all."

both statements that you seem to find issue with, however, are demographic fact.

level of education shows a strong positive correlation with average income.

i will not answer this again.

Of course there are those with mental problems who are less fortunate than ourselves who need support but I have no pity for those who will not help themselves.

http://www.unitedwayla.org/...C_KeyFacts_FINAL.pdf

read.

As for your comment about the correlation of education to numbers of offspring, there is a reason for that, and it doesn't necessarily equate to failure. It is called insuring the chances of survival. Those so called lesser educated people, to whom you refer, aren't as dumb as you might think they are.

some of my bitterness towards the vast difference in respect placed on pro atheletes and scientists came out in this post.

Q: How many emo kids does it take to change a light bulb?


A: None! Those sissies can cry in the dark!


Where did I hear that? Can't remember , but it made me laugh. Then again, I'm easily amused.

I'm in California, and coming from the midwest I really notice this sort of thing. A sort of disdain for sports, hunting, fastfood, TV, or even religion. You get that up-turned nose for not shopping at Trader Joe's or god forbid, you shop at Wal-mart. It is fine if you don't like sports, but it often comes off as contempt for the culture of the vast majority of people in this country (primarily the working class that most liberals say they are trying to help).

Note: I'm generalizing, and do realize that this is not a blanket statement that can be said of all Californians.

One of the best documented relationships in economics is the link between education and income: higher educated people have higher incomes.

Yeah the whole masters degree = more money is pretty laughable.

I would also like to state for the record clausti that you are far more even tempered and have held your ground with dignity in this debate.

Of course there are exceptions. Generally speaking, higher education translates into higher income.

Do you have anything other than anecdotes to support your opinion? Perhaps, a single study.

Yeah the whole masters degree = more money is pretty laughable.

Higher Education does open many doors for you. You will make more money and go further than the guy with the B.S. degree

My point is that higher education simply puts a little bit above the bottomfeeders in the corporate ranking.

Breeding permits eh? You mean, like the Nazi's, right?

DMT

more like enders game.

A master's degree won't in anyway ensure that you make above 150k a year.

Uuuh, what?!?!

:?

Clausti, the link you posted shows very well that correlation between lack of education and income. As did the vast pile of documents I found when I did a basic Google search.

The fact that Rufus dismissed you without tackling your point or critiquing your reference is just his way of sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" because he knows that you're right and he's completely wrong and is embarrassed about it.

Janitor with no highschool degree -> Secretary with h.s. degre -> engineer with b.s. degree -> engineer with masters degree ------> director of whatever ---- > director of the director ------ > exective ------> CEO/President

that's my point ...

When my wife was pregnant with our first child (no permit!), she came up positive on that bogus downs syndrome test. So they set her up for a genetic screening, to make sure.

In advance of sticking a 10 inch needle into my wife's belly, we were required to sit down with a Genetic Counseler. I'm serious, that was her title.

Now what she did was splain the whole downs thing, and what the test was actually looking for, how it would go down, etc.

But prior to the entrance of our very own Genetic Counseler, we sat there in this office, speaking wtih pathetic affected german accents,

"Your Genetic Papers please!"

"Vee vill remove that defective zygote from your voom and you vill thank us for it ven vee are finished!"

We had tears in our eyes with Ms. Genetics showed up. She must have thought we were whacked as we were laughing hysterically when she came in.

I hope to every non-existence god that has ever cursed humanity, that government NEVER intrudes on us in this facist way. I would take up arms I think, to prevent it. Way to Animal Farm for comfort.

DMT

Actually clausti I am pretty certain that you and every statistic out there that says more educated people make more money is absoulutely wrong:

Start with Bill Gates, a college drop-out, add every football player, basketball player, baseball player, actor and musician who finished highschool or some college. Contrast that with what all the Ph.D's in this country make and I'm sure you'd find the uneducated bunch makes 10 times more

You pompous ass. And I supposed it is a forgone conclusion that you would be granted a permit to breed.

Did you obtain that information from some exclusive ivy league poll? :roll:

OMG, Clausti, you are a living, breathing cliche'.

Clausti was making a one dimensional evaluation of people, and I tried to open her mind to the fact that there is more to these situations than what she proposed from stats.

I don't know why I bother explaining this to you, because I would almost wager cash that you are no longer able to debate with me without prejudice.

tread gently on the genetic councelors, mr milktoast. that is one of my very likely career options.

i think some kind of population control would be good. i think forced abortions are bad. i have obviously not come up with a reasonable solution to this, nor do i really know if i have the resources to do so.

I think you are missing alot of CEO's and top scientists. In addition, there are um maybe 1000 professional football players, 500 professional basketball players, 1000 professional football players. 100/200 top actors (the rest get paid s--- and work in restaurants) and 100/200 top musicians. When you think about it these numbers begin to pale when compared to the millions of uneducated poor out there.

although they in no way represent the absolute truth of things for all people or even most.

The only accurate map is a complete reproduction of the terrain. Everything else is approximate.

Nevertheless, we use maps to great affect, navigating the realities they depict.

Put the map in the hands of an idiot, he gets lost. Put the map in the hands of someone who knows how to use it and she can find Shangri La.

DMT

How eloquently you said nothing.

There are also tens of millions of undereducated working class making upwards of sixty thousand dollar per year, which is in the ball park as where most undergrads and many grads sit. I have met many.

How eloquently you said nothing.

I liked this gem.

"undereducated working class" WTF?

10s of millions of them "make upwards of sixty thousand dollar per year"?
How nice up you to note the upper limit of the range.

How's this compare?
There are over a hundred million workers making upwards of one billion dollars per year.

This business of you just throwing a bunch of vague, irrelevant blather is getting kind of old.

I'll take his prose over your ineloquent sh!t spewed forth. You're spinning yourself into a quagmire, my friend.

My point is that I might seem acerbic with RC.Com members at times, although most of it is meant in the spirit of good natured banter, and most of my attacks are provoked by people like you.

They also know that I am open, direct, fair, and honest. I concede my mistakes, and I apologize when I have behaved in a manner unbefitting of civilized interaction,

There you have it, amigo. And he's still doing it, like a broken record. This is a fascinating and tricky business. It's also something we all do, though rarely with the blind venom of brethren Rufus.

In old psychodynamic terms, it's called "objective identification," whereas you subtly rile folks, often with faux objectivity and civility, all the while projecting your own insanity onto someone else who will act it out for you. Later you act surprised and disappointed that someone would ever call you a “prick,” mindless to the fact that you unconsciously evoked the response in the first place.

Objective identification is a subtle and destructive psychological racket because it's so unconscious. It’s also a hard habit for anyone to break because there’s rarely any ownership of admittance to doing so, rather the person will predictably try and invert the issue and say it's something someone else is doing, or will engage in some other form of attack (i.e., deflection--"It's you, it's you, it's you--NOT me!")--anything but cease and desist doing what he’s doing--and denying.

Though rare to this extent and gravity, it makes such folks the biggest trolls on any site.

It was a rhetorical question

The only accurate map is a complete reproduction of the terrain. Everything else is approximate.

Nevertheless, we use maps to great affect, navigating the realities they depict.

Put the map in the hands of an idiot, he gets lost. Put the map in the hands of someone who knows how to use it and she can find Shangri La.

DMT

Males - the latest victims of a non-responsive education system. :roll:

I didn't read it all, so I may be off the mark, but this sounds like another well-developed rationalization, made to excuse poor performance.

Bottom Line - School is supposed to be hard. Part of getting a good education is learning skills/habits that help us deal with aspects of life where our natural talents may be lacking.

Easy there. The article pretty much supports your point. The problem is pointed out that school discourages many things that boys respond to well for learning--competition for example. Girls generally women perform better in cooperative environments, boys perform better in competitive ones. Individual exceptions exist--many of them--but the point is that men are falling back in general because of these factors. Even in science based curriculums, like say, Georgetown Medical School here in DC, women outnumber men.

UB

I will answer them as one. It wasn't any particular thing that you said. It was the overall tone of the body of your statements that came across to me that way. Try reading them from the position of the people whom you are portraying, and see if you don't hear what I heard. You might be surprised. I always try to put myself in one's position, before I level such criticisms.

In "professional" disciplines (law, medicine, etc.) that's true. However in the "hard" sciences and engineering, men still far outnumber women in both undergraduate and graduate schools.

Curt

You are like the energizer bunny. You are admirably earning your title as class clown. Quite the role model for your children. Is your wife out supporting them while you act the fool all afternoon on the computer? Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

Hilarious! This from the guy with 1.5k posts in < half a year?

Better a clown than a dunce!

Actually, you did. I read nothing into your post.

Where's the street-wise Hercules to fight the rising odds?"

Disappointed, I am.

You are like the energizer bunny. You are admirably earning your title as class clown. Quite the role model for your children. Is your wife out supporting them while you act the fool all afternoon on the computer? Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

Reno...your search has ended. :lol:

Reno...your search has ended. :lol: