Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[Tokenconservative]

I don't know because you are wrong. It never happened and is probably a product of your demented imagination. Or you are simply a liar.
Which is it, Okie?

Well, I am not from OK but I think that if I were, I'd be a bit put out by that...so now you are saying that being from Oklahoma makes you...what?

Stupid?

Tokie

 

[volatile]

Hey, I didn't object to being called a pedant, it was more the "ass" part. I wear my pedantry with pride.

I don't think it's pedantic to point out the inherent gaps in the arguments of others, though. Nevertheless, thanks for clearing up your opinions, because it really wasn't clear what you meant. If you don't mean to say that there is a fundamentally biological basis to male and female behaviour, don't say that there is.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Okie - I notice you didn't answer my question. When you incorrectly stated I reported your post, were you demented or lying?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The problem with this discussion is one fold. You offer no facts, only your uniformed bigoted opinion, expressed in an obnoxious manner. You have no idea what research is going on in this area and don't seem to have the background to understand it if you did.

What? You dare ask for a LIIIIIINNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!

The DIFFERENCES are COMMON knowledge.





(The shouting helps )

 

[Tokenconservative]

Okie - I notice you didn't answer my question. When you incorrectly stated I reported your post, were you demented or lying?

It really does't matter whether I am demented or lying...you are part of the little sniping cabal, so whether it's you or a fellow member, who cares?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

What? You dare ask for a LIIIIIINNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!

The DIFFERENCES are COMMON knowledge.




(The shouting helps )

It's simply a matter of effective communcation.

I like to speak the language of those I'm talking with. Libs shriek. So I shriek back.













SO THEY DON'T GET CONFUSICATED!!!!!!!!!

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Hey, I didn't object to being called a pedant, it was more the "ass" part. I wear my pedantry with pride.

I don't think it's pedantic to point out the inherent gaps in the arguments of others, though. Nevertheless, thanks for clearing up your opinions, because it really wasn't clear what you meant. If you don't mean to say that there is a fundamentally biological basis to male and female behaviour, don't say that there is.

Once again, you are simply playing with language to avoid the truth.

The truth is that IN GENERAL, males and females have FUNDAMENTAL physiological differences, including in their brains, and that these differences have nothing to do with culture (why do boys in virtually all cultures...yes, yes, the Kung...zzzzzzzz) behave the same--IN GENERAL--being more agressive, more active, having less tolerance for sitting still for long periods, wrestling, fighting, playing at war or other inherentlyviolent games, taking more risks....or are you saying that Japanese culture is the same as American culture is the same as Peruvian culture is the same as Icelandic culture is...

Oh...yeah, except the Kung!

Which proves that you are right.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

Once again, you are simply playing with language to avoid the truth.

The truth is that IN GENERAL, males and females have FUNDAMENTAL physiological differences,

Oh, for Ed's sake. "IN GENERAL" is the opposite of "FUNDAMENTAL".

If it is *general*, it cannot, by definition, be *hard wired*, can it? If there is a hard and firm biological basis to the traits you ascribe to the biologically male phenotype, it cannot be "general".

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either (as you claim) there is a "hard-wired" biological basis for masculine behaviour, or (as biologists claim) behaviour is a complex mix of biology and socialisation.

If boys and girls are "hard-wired" differently, what, in your opinion, makes "girly" boys and "tomboy" girls act they way they do? Either it's "generally" true that boys and girls behave differently (which indicates something rather more nuanced than you're claiming) or it's biologically in-built and intricately connected with gender, as you imply (in which case ALL boys and ALL girls would behave in the same way).

The truth of the matter, Tokie, is that there does seem to be biological bases for some behavioural traits, but they are resolutely not "hard-wired" to gender.

It is not correct to say that boys and girls are "hard-wired" to act in pre-determined ways. You are wrong. Would you like to borrow a shovel?

 

[Jeff Corey]

It really does't matter whether I am demented or lying...you are part of the little sniping cabal, so whether it's you or a fellow member, who cares?

Tokie

People who care about accuracy. Evidently you don't.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...You are wrong. Would you like to borrow a shovel?

Apparently he's already got one. He's been shoveling the crap since he started posting here.

 

[volatile]

Oh, and while I forget, and to try and get this thread back on topic:

How does treating boys like boys (who, as we all know, all like to play with guns) and girls like girls (who all love to nurture dolls) improve the education system?

 

[Prometheus]

I was once a witness to a boy/girl differences conversation very similar to what this thread has devolved into, but it had a very funny ending. After hours of back-and-forth between "Scott" who, at first, argued that all observed differences were from socialization, and "Mr. K." who thought they were hard-wired, Scott finally admitted that, "Perhaps there's a small biologically hard-wired difference, but not enough to matter."

Mr. K responded, "Gee Scott, I'm sorry to hear that your "difference" is so very small!"

 

[volatile]

Are you comparing me to "Scott"?

 

[Prometheus]

Sorry, I should have included the disclaimer:

"The persons and events described in this anecdote are based on real people--but not anyone in this thread"

 

[digithead]

Okay...here it is for you to Google (gonna need you to offer some proof, by the way, that you found this online when you come back and lie...er, say that ya did, okay? You can prove it by telling me what is sketched on the inside cover): The Standard Referenc Work, Vol. VIII, Chicago Standard Education Society, 1927.

Tokie

No need to Google, I just ordered it through interlibrary loan. We have a kick-ass higher education library system here Washington State. However, it's from 1922 though so it's probably not the same edition as yours but it should be close enough for government work. The 1922 edition I ordered is edited by Harold M. Stanford...

I'll let you know when I get it...

 

[Prometheus]

Okay...here it is for you to Google (gonna need you to offer some proof, by the way, that you found this online when you come back and lie...er, say that ya did, okay? You can prove it by telling me what is sketched on the inside cover): The Standard Referenc Work, Vol. VIII, Chicago Standard Education Society, 1927.

Tokie

Nice!

Could the above book have any relation to this one, published in 1913 in Chicago by the Progressive Educational Society?

Could Tokie have been enamoured of a PROGRESSIVE tome, all along?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Wasn't John Dewey the force behind Progressive Education? But, according to Okie, he was a socialist, left wing, liberal radical - you know, all the things that make him shriek, foam at the mouth and type all in caps! Maybe all this frenetic behavior is Okie's inner conservative fighting the good fight against the evil mindworm emitted by this subversive tome that has targeted his prefrontal cortex.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Nice!

Could the above book have any relation to this one, published in 1913 in Chicago by the Progressive Educational Society?

Could Tokie have been enamoured of a PROGRESSIVE tome, all along?

I have no idea.

I don't access links provided by libs.

Too worrisome.

I did not say I was "enamored" I said "tomes" of that time used as school texts were much more advanced than they are today.

I believe it was you (or a fellow leftist--what the hell is a "progressive"?) who claimed that texts today are "smarter" or some such.

If you have access to a text similar to the one I am referencing, only an utter idealogue intent on never admitting how wrong he is would not agree...this text is MUCH tougher than anything a 9th or 10 grader will see today.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Wasn't John Dewey the force behind Progressive Education? But, according to Okie, he was a socialist, left wing, liberal radical - you know, all the things that make him shriek, foam at the mouth and type all in caps! Maybe all this frenetic behavior is Okie's inner conservative fighting the good fight against the evil mindworm emitted by this subversive tome that has targeted his prefrontal cortex.

I love this (necessary) conflation on libs' parts!

It's always wonderful to see them drag themselves into this minefield.

Why is it that your ideology utterly blinds you to anything else?

Serious quesiton...I'd like to know.

It's pretty obvious, by-the-by, who the truly well, let's not put lipstick on a pig, unintelligent (I din't call ya stupid! Don't run to a mod!!) libs are, by the way, in this response. The more...circumspect libs are silent, because they can see the trap this sets for them: they can rush in and shriek "Tokie is referencing a 'progressive' (LOL!) text!!!" like you two are doing, or they can remain silent, recognizing that (yikes!) reglardless of any political bent of the publisher, or of that the text itself takes, it is quite simply more difficult going intellectually (...yes, an analytical conundrum for you) than anything similar you'll find since at least the late 1960s.

That raises the obvious question: why, if it indisputably the case that the schools have not "dumbed-down" their materials, was this sort of text in widespead use in the US so long ago? Someone in here argued that kids today are "smarter" (conflating the notions that ability to operate a contemporary piece of machinery equates to "smart"--I wonder how many kids today could hitch a team to a plow?)

Of course, you cannot answer address any of this. All you can do is sit like a magpie on a wire shrieking "lookit here!! Lookit here!"

Astounding.

And, I'm pretty sure you were calling...MY intellect into question?

Tokie

 

[Prometheus]

I have no idea.

I don't access links provided by libs.

Too worrisome.

I did not say I was "enamored" I said "tomes" of that time used as school texts were much more advanced than they are today.

Sheesh! Grow a sense of humor. I just thought you might enjoy being mischaracterized in much the same way you do to others.

I believe it was you (or a fellow leftist--what the hell is a "progressive"?) who claimed that texts today are "smarter" or some such.

Nah, I don't use textbooks in my classes. I just make stuff up as I go along, and shout, "LIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNKKKKKK!!!!" if anybody questions me. Why do you think the NEA let's me keep my job, even though I rag on them whenever I get the chance?

If you have access to a text similar to the one I am referencing, only an utter idealogue intent on never admitting how wrong he is would not agree...this text is MUCH tougher than anything a 9th or 10 grader will see today.

From a 1924 lawsuit in Kansas (my bolding):

Methods of education and courses of study have been and are still undergoing a transition which has resulted in great confusion so far as classification of grades is concerned. Courses originally taught in high schools are being taught in the elementary grades, while courses taught in the elementary grades are being extended into the high schools....A large number of the school systems of the state have departed...from what was originally known as the "8-4" plan of school organization--eight years in the elementary schools and four years in the high school....other systems are being organized on what is termed the "6-2-4" plan--six years in the elementary grades, two years of intermediate and four years of high school. Another plan now gaining in popularity is what is known as the "6-3-3" plan--six years in the elementary grades, three years intermediate....The transition in educational methods in Kansas is not different from that in other states.

So the existence of your book in no way implies that the materials it covers were representative of the work that all 9th or 10th graders were capable of at the time.