Stupid In America
#1
Posted 01 September 2006 - 08:07 PM
Discus. :blink:
#2
Posted 01 September 2006 - 08:12 PM
Dunaaa!
#3
Posted 01 September 2006 - 08:17 PM
#4
Posted 01 September 2006 - 08:20 PM
*coughBushcough*
#6
Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:20 PM
It's all about teacher's unions.
The teachers unions have more influence over the public schools than any other group in American society. They influence schools from the bottom up, through collective bargaining activities that shape virtually every aspect of school organization. The situation is truly absurd when one compares it to other labor unions in other industries. What other industry has no competition at all? In what other job are you insulated against being fired for your own incompetence?
A few years ago, the Democrat and Chronicle printed quotes from student-evaluation reports written by public school teachers. One said that a student "does not take to many things serious," and another had a "studdring" problem. One teacher wondered about a boy, "Why is he not learning or learning so but so little. How comes his past teachers have been passing him from grade to grade without he advancing or progressing academicly. I will like to know what is causing the mental blockage." This level of incompetence is unacceptable for even students, but did any of the quoted teachers lose their job? No. Did any of these red flags spark an investigation into the competence of these teachers? No. And I’ll bet you know why.
Teachers' unions were created to protect good teachers from being fired for trivial reasons. Today they protect all teachers from being fired for all reasons, even legitimate ones. A teacher at my school made sexual advances on no less than three teenage girls at my school. His sentance? Suspension with pay for a year. He got paid the same, but didn't have to work anymore! The school district rewarded him for comitting a crime all because the teachers' union put several hundred pages worth of red tape and legal requirements in the way of firing him. The money they spent in legal fees would've paid his salary for another two years. And not all schools are as lucky as mine, some are forced to keep bad teachers because they can't afford to fire them.
Yet the American public is largely unaware of how influential they are, and how much they impede efforts to improve public schools. This is because teacher’s unions are smart and powerful enough to cover their own tracks. Nowhere in union charters does tenure directly guarantee job security, leading most to believe that this doesn’t occur. The only guarantee made regarding job security is that “Once granted tenure, a teacher is guaranteed a system of due process.” It sounds fair. Indeed, the phrase “due process” appears in the constitution. That’s why this issue has remained hidden for so long.
But the unions have re-written the meaning of “due process.” When administration attempts to fire a teacher, Union lawyers snap into action. They complicate court proceedings to a level of impossible difficulty. In the last five years, the average court case to fire a teacher took 1.7 years, cost $223,000 plus the cost of the teacher’s salary for that time, (The case at my school was not unique. The Charter requires that, even if a teacher is suspended pending the court verdict, the school must continue to pay him/her) and had only a 72% success rate. That’s time and money that most schools can’t afford to spend on a pot-shot at removing a single defunct teacher. Thus, many such teachers are allowed to keep their jobs.
The problem is not that the unions are somehow bad or ill-intentioned. They aren't. The problem is that when they simply do what all organizations do; pursue their own interests. They are inevitably led to do things that are not in the best interests of children.
If the teachers unions won't voluntarily give up their power, then it has to be taken away from them through new laws that, among other things, drastically limit (or prohibit) collective bargaining in public education, link teachers' pay to their performance, make it easy to get rid of mediocre teachers, and give administrators control over the assignment of teachers to schools and classrooms.
What does all that mean for the students? It means that they are given teachers that condone underachievement. Bad teachers will produce bad students that are unwilling to learn. There are plenty of sucess stories about children that rose from adversity and got a better education, but there are many more untold stories of students that were bowed forever by their lot in life and were turned off to learning from the very start.
I'm not even going to start on the whole "America on the international stage" thing. Thats...
(dare I say it?)
another topic in itself!
#7
Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:58 PM
#8
Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:59 PM
#9
Posted 01 September 2006 - 10:51 PM
#10
Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:58 AM
#11
Posted 03 September 2006 - 06:06 AM
#12
Posted 03 September 2006 - 07:38 AM
#13
Posted 03 September 2006 - 11:06 AM
#14
Posted 03 September 2006 - 12:21 PM
Anyway, there are stupid people here. And there are smart people too. And smart people realize that.
#15
Posted 03 September 2006 - 12:34 PM
#16
Posted 03 September 2006 - 01:55 PM
Anyway, here's the skinny: America has the BEST Universities in the world, BUT just about all our schools before University are weak.
Let me reiterate in saying that we're getting better though. :D
#17
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:45 AM
Wind Dude, on Sep 3 2006, 08:55 PM, said:
Anyway, here's the skinny: America has the BEST Universities in the world, BUT just about all our schools before University are weak.
Let me reiterate in saying that we're getting better though. -_-
Lies.
Oxbridge > USA universities. xD
#18
Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:31 PM
On a side note, I can do 12 to the 3rd power in my head. ;)
#19
Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:46 PM
Although I'm happy that you agree with me on something.
#20
Posted 11 September 2006 - 08:04 PM
Anyway
America does have great colleges. You get what you pay for though, and you'll end up paying a lot. Many other countries have governmental assistance programs towards paying for college, in America, you have to spend years running around begging for scholarships.
#21
Posted 11 September 2006 - 08:04 PM
#22
Posted 03 November 2006 - 02:50 PM
Eugine, on Sep 3 2006, 03:48 PM, said:
You foreigners b*tching about not helping other countries. Helping other countries tends to cost alot of money.
And lets see, how many countries are there in the world? Alot more than 25, and being is how we are comprised of foreign idiots who cant even speak english I think it is expected we would perform poorly. We can thank Mexicans, and to an extent black people. Its a known fact that african americans perform worse than white people, so they get handicaps when applying for government jobs etc. Say a white guy needs to score a 95, an african american has to score an 80. We accomidate for idiots thanks to the liberals, so so why bother being smart?
#23
Posted 04 November 2006 - 02:12 AM
Quote
hm, basically that proved my point.
Anyway, there's black people all over the world - Canada, Britian, Caribbean, France and they still perform well on exams. Actually, Britian is known to have one of the best education system in the world, and the children perform well, despite it being very challenging. So, it's better to say it's the system and not the colour.
But I do admit we do perform poorer in all countries, but reasons are there, and that's a whole new topic...
#24
Posted 04 November 2006 - 02:23 AM
And phantom, it's not so much as blacks are dumber to why they have lower requirements, it's that the Liberals feel that African Americans aren't treated fairly. They pretty much baby them all.
But don't get me wrong. I have nothing against black people.
#25
Posted 04 November 2006 - 02:59 AM
The reason why we dont perform well is because there is no need to, you conform to the minority group *not race but the outnumbered group* and thats why a liberal is a terrible thing for our office.
#26
Posted 04 November 2006 - 03:26 AM
#27
Posted 01 January 2007 - 12:05 AM
#28
Posted 03 January 2007 - 11:18 AM
#29
Posted 04 January 2007 - 10:30 AM
Most European countries can't begin to realize just how BIG the U.S. is physically. That's why it's unfair to judge a whole nation like America with stereotypes like how we're all stupid, we're all fat, and we're all arrogant. Where I live (California FTW!) there aren't too many fat people. People are mostly friendly until you get to bigger and busier cities. California could use some better schools, though.
This might be a bit unorthodox, but the person who labels all of a country as big as America with these stereotypes is the ignorant one, not America.
#30
Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:26 PM
#31
Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:49 PM
I'd assume people voted for Bush because they believed he held the same opinion as theirs, so when criticising the Presidents decisions you are effectively criticising those who voted for him, because really he's a representation of them...
So, that's why most news network criticise Bush. Do you want them to criticise you? Do you want them to criticise every last American? Of course not. Best to criticise the leader, since most likely the majority holds the same opinion, and would have made the same decisions as him.
#32
Posted 04 January 2007 - 01:26 PM
Hotshot101, on Jan 4 2007, 07:26 PM, said:
Now that's stereotyping here! So your basically saying: "All you Europeans think we're fat and think our president sucks." Not all us Europeans think that way! I've been to America myself, I went to Flordia and the only conclusion I could make is that Americans use the car more than we Europeans do... Which is true, because in Europe we use the bicycle more. BUT THAT'S ALL.
And to make something clear: We Europeans aren't "mad" at America. And why should we?
As Wind Dude said, it's unfair to stereotype a nation as big as America. But you can stereotype about almost anything and anyone! America has been in the news negatively lately, and even though we don't necencarly WANT it we automatically think more negative about it...
Unless America comes in the news in a positive way, which also happens! It's just the way it goes... Not only from Europe to America, but otherwise to... Just look at yourself stereotyping.
#33
Posted 04 January 2007 - 01:31 PM
#34
Posted 04 January 2007 - 01:44 PM
Eugine, on Jan 4 2007, 01:49 PM, said:
I'd assume people voted for Bush because they believed he held the same opinion as theirs, so when criticising the Presidents decisions you are effectively criticising those who voted for him, because really he's a representation of them...
So, that's why most news network criticise Bush. Do you want them to criticise you? Do you want them to criticise every last American? Of course not. Best to criticise the leader, since most likely the majority holds the same opinion, and would have made the same decisions as him.
#35
Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:12 PM
#36
Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:08 PM
#38
Posted 05 January 2007 - 03:08 AM
#39
Posted 05 January 2007 - 09:27 AM
Saturos Striker, on Jan 5 2007, 04:08 AM, said:
Its not quite screwed. I can fairly explain it. See each state is polled and the president with the most votes in that state, gets the state. At the end of the election the president with the most states wins (states are pretty much popular votes). Its pretty much that simple really. Tallying the votes by the states pretty much is a solutution to having to count votes for a billion people.
#40
Posted 05 January 2007 - 09:43 AM
#41
Posted 05 January 2007 - 09:59 AM
#42
Posted 05 January 2007 - 07:15 PM
Saturos Striker, on Jan 5 2007, 10:43 AM, said:
No system is 100% perfect...
#44
Posted 01 February 2007 - 10:46 AM
I agree that the electoral college system needs to go. You shouldn't have more votes than the other man and still be able to lose the election.
#45
Posted 01 February 2007 - 05:26 PM
#46
Posted 01 February 2007 - 06:40 PM
#47
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:40 AM
#48
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:07 PM
@ Brits: Does that bother you guys?
#49
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:51 PM
Blair won't be in power for much longer anyway. He's planning when he'll leave office and it looks like Gordon Brown will step in with no competitors (for the moment anyway).
@GL: Even with the stereotype of Americans being stupid, that's still pretty surprising. Is it really that low?
#50
Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:56 PM
#51
Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:55 PM
#52
Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:18 PM
Really, who won the Vietnam war.
I understand how many people he would had to ask to get those answers but still, thinking Australia is Korea...
!~1700~!
#53
Posted 06 February 2007 - 08:06 PM
#54
Posted 06 February 2007 - 08:09 PM
#55
Posted 07 February 2007 - 05:22 AM
Mr.T- I reckon I could label most countires without the names (except those tiny countries in Asia, Europe and Africa, maybe I wouldn't do as well as I think...) I certainly would not mistake South America for Kansas though...
#56
Posted 07 February 2007 - 06:21 AM
#57
Posted 08 February 2007 - 02:00 AM
watch, on Feb 7 2007, 03:22 AM, said:
XD
I know a few people who know their geography really well, but I don't bother much with it. I know where most of America's states are though, and a few countries in Europe and Asia (only one in Africa. Egypt is kinda hard to forget when you studied it for three months......D:), but I probably wouldn't be able to pinpoint Iraq or Iran on a map. That doesn't mean I'd want to invade a country I didn't know about though, I'd research it first before deciding.
#58
Posted 22 February 2007 - 01:33 PM
When I saw a recent study had listed California as 47th in the list of most intelligent states, a Californian friend of mine said "Can you believe that? We got 47th out of 52!"
#59
Posted 22 February 2007 - 05:58 PM
Now the people in Washington (state) are smart. :) *points to location*
#60
Posted 23 February 2007 - 11:09 AM
#61
Posted 23 February 2007 - 12:12 PM
#62
Posted 23 February 2007 - 07:39 PM
@SoT: No, I'm saying a vast majority of them are stupid in general, and then on top of that, saying they spend too much time freaking out over global warming. Which, also proven by science, isn't true.
The only reason people believe global warming is true, is because it's gotten media coverage. Fact is, our planet tilts slightly from side to side every few years, resulting in temperature changes of about 1 degree farenhiet. It's been proven by scientists, but it hasn't gotten news coverage because it's not as interesting as a global doomsday crisis.
Sure, CO2 traps heat, and yes, cars and power plants produce a lot of it. But global warming won't become an issue, if it ever does, until much later than the currently specified date. But for now, to those of you who still believe in global warming, invest in hydrogen powered cars,. And push for hydrogen to be harvested from biofuel. It's the most economical, safest, and cleanest way to get it. Trust me, I've done my homework this time.
#63
Posted 23 February 2007 - 08:37 PM
Golden Legacy, on Feb 1 2007, 06:26 PM, said:
Wow. Now that's just sad. ._.
Now, the concept that everyone needs to grasp is that not everyone in the United States is stupid, and create stereotypes and opinions based on that. As long as that can happen, everything would be fine. I mean...I live in the United States, in California, and I'm smart. So there. =|
#65
Posted 24 February 2007 - 08:06 PM
#66
Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:49 PM
And in my opinion liberals are actually the smartest. We're smart enough to stick it to the man. I'm a liberal.
Though we did elect Ahnold as our governor, which I still don't really see the logic in WHY...
Platinum Sun, on Feb 22 2007, 02:33 PM, said:
Can we talk about Texas now?
#67
Posted 25 February 2007 - 07:04 PM
#68
Posted 26 February 2007 - 11:22 AM
Mr.T, on Feb 23 2007, 07:39 PM, said:
@SoT: No, I'm saying a vast majority of them are stupid in general, and then on top of that, saying they spend too much time freaking out over global warming. Which, also proven by science, isn't true.
The only reason people believe global warming is true, is because it's gotten media coverage. Fact is, our planet tilts slightly from side to side every few years, resulting in temperature changes of about 1 degree farenhiet. It's been proven by scientists, but it hasn't gotten news coverage because it's not as interesting as a global doomsday crisis.
Sure, CO2 traps heat, and yes, cars and power plants produce a lot of it. But global warming won't become an issue, if it ever does, until much later than the currently specified date. But for now, to those of you who still believe in global warming, invest in hydrogen powered cars,. And push for hydrogen to be harvested from biofuel. It's the most economical, safest, and cleanest way to get it. Trust me, I've done my homework this time.
I'm not going to argue this here, because it's not the right topic. But you are completely wrong on everything except needing to find a new fuel source.
#69
Posted 26 February 2007 - 01:59 PM
~*800!*~