[sixgun_symphony]

IF WE WERE AS FREE...
AS 1953


By: Dorothy Anne Seese

A number of ezine readers recall 1953 and to those of us who do, it doesn't seem that long ago. Since I was a teenager then, I knew a lot more about everything than I do now. Notwithstanding the fact that teens still go through that phase but with government support, our people as a whole enjoyed many more freedoms than we do today.


Children and teens, until their eighteenth birthday, are now wards of the state who can dial 911 if mama swacks the kid across the seat of learning with a handy switch or a handy hand. Parents are supervised by the government. In 1953, we were supervised, disciplined and yes, owned by our parents, for better or for worse. And the age of majority (emancipation) was 21, not 18.

If we were as free as we were in 1953:

* Children would belong to parents unless a crime (actual crime) was committed against the child.

* We could fly without being searched, stripped, humiliated and detained for carrying nail clippers.

* Graduating from high school would mean someone had a decent education, and attending or graduating from college or university would mean that the person had met the academic requirements rather than a social agenda.

* Medical costs would be at a level where we all could afford to go to the doctor and most of us would be able to afford prescription medication without any help, unless it was some help from the family.

* Our medical, financial and family records would be our business, not the government's.

* Spy cams would be on a program shown by that newfangled gadget, television, not the street corner.

* Computers would belong to giant businesses to process tabulating cards, sometimes called "IBM cards" and the word "hacker" would leave people with a blank stare.

* No one would be straight jacketed into their automobile, the kids would not be harnessed up like animals, and most people would obey the traffic laws.

* Security would be a matter of installing a dead bolt on the door.

* The only terrorist fear we would have was that another nation possessed the atomic bomb.

* Women would consider it natural to stay at home and the government would not consider them an abused minority for being married, having children, and baking cookies.

* Social workers would be few, and have little to do on most days.

* Most citizens would not have any fear of the police, particularly on a routine traffic stop.

* Divorce would be frowned upon and marriage vows would be taken with the best of intentions.

* Children born out of wedlock would not be subsidized by the government.

* Christmas wouldn't be the subject of litigation against displaying a nativity scene or singing carols.

* There would be no laws against prayer in schools or anywhere else, and Christian children would not be forced to learn the Muslim religion.

* Owls and fish would not be given preference over humans when discussing land use.

* Most goods purchased by Americans would be made in America and made to last.

* Being on welfare would be a disgrace, not a government entitlement.

* Neighbors would not be encouraged by the government to snitch on one another, nor would the people who deliver milk, mail and read meters think it "patriotic" to snoop on the people in their neighborhood.

* Homosexuality would not be a mandated subject for "education" in public schools.

* Stupid litigation would not result in windfall awards, making litigation a viable source of wealth for some individuals.

* Personal responsibility, cause and effect, and consequences of bad decisions would not be replaced by terms such as genetic defects or the results of a dysfunctional family.

* Most courts would not be very busy. Neither would most trial lawyers.

* The borders would be there for a reason other than to make lines on maps.

* Abortion would not be a subject for Supreme Court deliberation and opinion.

* American citizens would have the right to protect their lives, families and property without fear of being prosecuted for doing so.

* People would not blame guns for killing people, they would blame people.

* The public wouldn't tolerate the trash on the media.

* We could still have fun with Ole Svenson jokes.

* Newspapers would try to outdo one another for a story rather than following the official drumbeat.

* The police would not look like a cross between space travelers and a military special forces team.

* No one would care about a place called Iraq.

That's my list. Or as much of it as immediately comes to mind, but if there were a couple of other ezine writers here, I'm sure it would be too long to publish.

However, any reader can print this and start adding to the list and if enough people do that, we might wake up to the fact that in 2003, we are a lot less free than we were fifty years ago.

Just as an afterthought, fifty years ago we drove into a gas station and said "fill 'er up, check the oil, water, battery and the tires." Cleaning the windshield was part of the routine and we didn't even mention it. With a full tank of gas, we could then proceed to a malt shop (not a drive through) and get a malt made with hard ice cream, syrup, fresh milk, malt powder, all stirred together by a Hamilton Beach mixer. And it cost about a quarter. The government didn't warn us about cholesterol or force no-smoking signs in restaurants, buildings and even the city parks. The surgeon general, whoever he was, minded his own business (whatever it was) and we could eat butter without guilt or fear. The grocery store didn't give us bargain prices in exchange for tracking our eating habits. Now, back to my rocky road ice cream.


"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

[Joe Demko]

If we were as free as 1953:
* we would still have Jim Crow laws.
* there would be at least as much police brutality as we see today but it would be accepted.
*the FBI would be denying the existence of organized crime and accumulating files on people the Director found personally distasteful.
*the military would be conducting various harmful experiments on its own enlisted personnel.

Nostalgic articles like this one do nothing for me except elicit a mild annoyance. The good old days weren't, in most cases, any better than right now. They were only different.

[Marko Kloos]

If we were as free as 1953:

* Married women could not get a bank account, loan, or apartment lease without the signature of their husband. (Kind of explains the low divorce rate, doesn't it?)

* More than a third of high school students would not graduate.

* Folks of a darker hue would have separate drinking fountains and bus seats, and would not get service at many establishments.

The Fifties were only "free" if you were a white male. That's not political correctness, but documentable fact.

[2nd Amendment]

And so women have traded that for a higher divorce rate, abortion, higher domestic abuse, drugs use and a lower standard of living.

Blacks have traded jim Crow for black on black youth violence, gangs, drugs, illegitimacy and multi-generational welfare.

The drop-out rate has barely improved and the quality of the education for those who do graduate has deteriorated, while violence in schools has run wild and any concept of Right & Wrong has been removed from testing, grading and sex.

Today you're only "free" if you fit into a governmentally subsidized PC group. Yes, the 50's were indeed better.

[Joe Demko]

And so women have traded that for a higher divorce rate, abortion, higher domestic abuse, drugs use and a lower standard of living.

This is not imposed by the government.

Blacks have traded jim Crow for black on black youth violence, gangs, drugs, illegitimacy and multi-generational welfare.

Neither is this.

The drop-out rate has barely improved and the quality of the education for those who do graduate has deteriorated, while violence in schools has run wild and any concept of Right & Wrong has been removed from testing, grading and sex.

The schools today are mandated to meet the needs of all students. Unlike the 50's there is no shuffling them out the door or warehousing them in isolated special ed classrooms. Teachers may no longer phsically beat their students which they did when I was in school. I don't know what planet you live on where tests have no right or wrong. Every school I've ever taught in still gives tests, issues grades, and sends home report cards. Sex, and its rights and wrongs, is primarily the responsibility of the parents.

Today you're only "free" if you fit into a governmentally subsidized PC group. Yes, the 50's were indeed better.

Specifically, which PC group is freer than you?

[2nd Amendment]

No-Fault divorce and the tax code are certainly of government.

Welfare and the death of individuality and drive are certainly in part responsible for this. So is the War on (Some) Drugs.

All students? One size fits all which leads to something known as the Lowest Common Denominator. Perhaps this government mandate to ignore those who can't or won't is why most never get the opportunity to learn. That and a simple piss-poor curriculum. And the end of corporal punishment may well explain why it the teachers today who are beat, shot, raped or simply ignored. As for tests, there have been links here to articles of adjusting test scores to better satisfy the feelings and "self-esteem" of students. In fact, we could have a dozen links of this sort of "esteem" based grading.

I'd agree that sex is primarily a parental duty. But it's the schools and the NEA which insist on graphic sex education without any moral discussion so while they have assumed part of the responsibility they have abrogated the rest and the consequences are obvious.

Which groups? Let me tell a black joke, a gay joke or call for the creation of the NAAWP. But hey, whitey and Christianity are fair game in humor and in court. Who benefits from Affirmative Action? What group continues to seek not equal rights but special protection? Which sex benefits from the family court system and walks away almost always victorious in custody fights based entirely on gender?

Things are no better than the 50's, merely different and worse depending on what group you find yourself labeled into. Add in size and scope of government and taxation and I am completely amazed anyone can trot out this silly idea we've accomplished anything. We've just traded one set of problems on the individual level for a bigger set on the national/bueraucratic level.

[Beren]

Federal and state levels of government certainly /are/ in part responsible for the violence and bloodshed that has troubled the black community for over twenty years.

Prohibition breeds violent crime. We learned this in the 1920's.

The "War on Drugs" is nothing but a futile, feel-good struggle that empowers violent gangs and encourages inner city youths to fight over drug turf.

It may not be murder on the government's part, but the government is certainly criminally negligent for fostering conditions it /should reasonably know/ will cause excessive violence and death.

[Joe Demko]

As for tests, there have been links here to articles of adjusting test scores to better satisfy the feelings and "self-esteem" of students. In fact, we could have a dozen links of this sort of "esteem" based grading.

I'll ignore the rest of your post, for now, to concentrate on this. I've no doubt you can link to dozens of articles at various axe-to-grind websites. Instead, I want you to show me just one (1) actual public school where grading is based on feelings and esteem. I've been teaching for nearly 20 years now, here in Pennslvania and also in Texas. Every school in which I have ever taught still gives homework, book reports, tests, and all the rest of the stuff you remember from the 50's. The only differences were in how the grades were reported. Some still used letter grades, others (such as the one I teach in now) moved to straight percentages on report cards. One thing I have never seen on a report card or test form or student record is anything about feelings or self-esteem.

[2nd Amendment]

And how would you propose I show you such a school? You'll only hear of such things when someone complains and it makes the news, thus one of your "axe-to-grind websites". Convenient device, that.

[Joe Demko]

And how would you propose I show you such a school?

Thousands of school districts, even very poor ones, now have their very own websites. Those websites virtually always include legal information about such things as discipline and grading policies. Link me to a website for a district that grades on feelings and esteem. If they have such a policy, it will be on their site. Failing that, show me an article from a disinterested source that documents feeling/esteem based grading in a public school.

[Pawcatch]

In 1953 the area I'm in right now would not be safe to live in.
Up until the early 70s,Polk and parts of Haralson county were lawless areas.Feuding and shootouts between rival gansters were common and people dissapearing to never be seen again wasn't that uncommon.
OTOH,it was okay to be a gun owner,but it still is in this area.

[2nd Amendment]

Rather like their websites will detail Zero Tolerance policies which will result in the expulsion of a student for having a vaguely gun shaped laser pointer or a butterknife in the back floor board of their car? You demand what can't be given. Likewise, you want a disinterested source by your definition.

[Joe Demko]

Okay, a disinterested source means from someone other than an advocacy group. If this feelings/esteem based grading exists, find an article on it from a major news organization for starters. An article from an advocacy group is suspect. Would you trust an article on guns from HCI?

ps Schools that have zero tolerance policies do document that they have them. They do so to cover their behinds legally, which is also the biggest reason they have zero tolerance in the first place.

[Sean Smith]

Things are no better than the 50's, merely different and worse depending on what group you find yourself labeled into.

Ah yes, the good old days. If you were white and protestant. Nothing like the brain-dead nostalgia for things as they never were to make me (almost) hate the right as much as the left.

The Klan killed with impunity (and law-enforcement support) in large areas of the country. That's a historical fact, not PC revisionist "history." Discrimination was the rule of law. Respect for religion? Only if you weren't a black person going to church. Or a Catholic. Or a Jew. Or...

There is an qualitiative difference between (dumb, goofy, self-defeating) "affirmitive action" policies that give college applicants an extra 20 points out of 200+ for being black, and legally excluding and separating all black people from virtually all public and private services, denying them all due process under the law, and law enforcement allowing terrorists like the KKK to kill them with impunity. If you can't see the real, objective difference between political debates over the Pledge of Alliegance having the word "God" in it, and mass firebombings of churches frequented by black people, there is no point debating you.

[2nd Amendment]

The Klan did not kill with impunity. The murdered, yes, but never with impunity and seldom without paying the price. Those murders have more than been replaced by the drug/race related murders by gangs today.

"All" blacks? Tell that to the black doctors, attorneys and teachers of the period, and they most assuredly did exist in numbers roughly equal to the per-capita numbers today. Tell the discrimination tale to all the Catholics and Jews who lived then. There certainly were enough of them. And there were never "mass" church burnings, then anymore than the recently media driven tale of race oriented burnings which turned out to be statistically unchanged and usually not race oriented.

I don't see where I mentioned the petty arguments over the Pledge. nice straw man. I'm speaking of divorce, illegitimacy, drug use and violence. Certainly the moral equivalent. But you are correct, there is no reason to debate, since unrevised history won't support your claims.

[2nd Amendment]

Moses wants DISD trustees to voice concerns about test: TAKS is too difficult

01/23/2003

By TAWNELL D. HOBBS / The Dallas Morning News


DISD Superintendent Mike Moses asked trustees Wednesday to support a resolution voicing opposition to the state's new student achievement exam, which he says was made too difficult.

The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, which debuts this spring, will be given to students in grades three through 11. The exam is more rigorous than its predecessor, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, covers more subjects and tests more grade levels.

The Dallas Independent School District is not alone in its opposition. The Texas School Alliance, a group of 29 school districts, opposes the new passing standards and has hired a lawyer to assess the matter.

Dr. Moses' concerns escalated – as did other superintendents' across the state – after field-test results showed that students performed worse than expected, especially at the junior high school and high school levels.

"I think that test really needs to be reviewed," Dr. Moses said. "We're finding a standard ... I think is troubling, and I think that it indicates that there may be difficulties with the test."

The board will vote on the resolution next week. Dr. Moses said the governor's education liaison suggested most of the recommendations in the resolution.

The recommendations include asking the State Board of Education to conduct additional hearings on the adoption of passing standards; to release TAAS equivalency scores simultaneously with the release of spring TAKS results; and to examine the TAKS results for inconsistencies in test development or a lack of reliability.

DISD has prepared a report that predicts that the performance gap between Anglo and minority students will widen with the new test. The report, which used statewide field-test results and historical data, showed that the district's passing rates could drop by at least 25 percentage points in math and 15 points in reading.

The report concludes that the test is too difficult and that the passing standards the state board set in November are too high.

Trustee Jack Lowe said something should be done about the test.

"The thing's just flawed, and it needs serious review," he said. . . .

Unbiased enough? (http://www.dallasnews.com/localnews/city/dallas/stories/012303dnmettaks2.7a81b.html)

[Joe Demko]

That is an article about what an administrator apparently wants to do. Is the district actually grading based on feelings/esteem? I can find you articles about what all kinds of things politicians and administrators want to do. I'm asking you to display some proof that something you say is widespread is actually happening in even one place. Nowhere in that article, by the way, did I see a single reference to feelings or esteem.

[JohnBT]

In April of 1995, the Educational Testing Service began adding about 100 points to the scores of all test takers. They said they were recentering the norms.

I say they just wanted to make the high school students feel better about their lousy scores. A 1400 in 1990 is in fact a better score than a 1400 today. If that's not feel goodism, what is?

And don't get me started on high school graduates with diplomas in hand who can't read or do simple math. I test people for a living. There might not be a written feel-good policy, but actions speak louder than words and they're just passing these kids through the system.

As far as the original article, she should return to the 50's and try to find a job writing tripe - or writing anything. What a ditz.

John

[Sean Smith]

The Klan did not kill with impunity. The murdered, yes, but never with impunity and seldom without paying the price.

LOL! Read up on your history, scooter. Two words: "Jury Nullification." :rolleyes:

The FBI had to use some interesting legal contortions in the mid to late 1960s to finally prosecute jury-nullified murders by the KKK as "civil rights violations," which only had max sentences of 10 years.

[Joe Demko]

Tell the discrimination tale to all the Catholics and Jews who lived then. There certainly were enough of them.

Ah yes, the Klan. Quite active they were, in the little town where I grew up, right up to WWII. People I know personally, my grandparents for example, had direct experience with those sheet-wearing SOB's. They most certainly did operate with impunity since, under the sheets, they were the mayor, the chief of police, the mine owners, the area merchants, and other members of the podunk "power elite." They had to keep those italians, Eastern Europeans, and other "mackerel snappers" in their proper place, you see. It also wouldn't have done to let the Jews get above their proper station in life. After WWII, maybe they put their sheets in the attic, but their attitudes didn't change. What finally did them in as a power center was the collapse of the coal/steel industry in the 70's and 80's. The money, and power, passed into other people's hands. Society itself changed too. No thanks. You can keep the 1950s.

[Azrael256]

Too difficult?!?!? How can it possibly be too difficult?!? I took the old TAAS in 10th grade. I missed the last 3 questions because I FELL ASLEEP!!! It tests you on about a 7th grade level.

There would be no laws against prayer in schools or anywhere else, and Christian children would not be forced to learn the Muslim religion.
I don't recall ever having to learn the religion itself. I learned about it in sociology, but nobody ever made me face East and pray. Somebody please tell me what is wrong with learning about other people in a history or sociology class.
Computers would belong to giant businesses to process tabulating cards, sometimes called "IBM cards" and the word "hacker" would leave people with a blank stare.
...and nobody would be reading this.
Graduating from high school would mean someone had a decent education...
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... that is simply a fantasy. You honestly believe that people were better educated back then? My mother graduated in 1978. Her mathematics requirement alone was two full years less than mine was in 2000. Turn that back to 1953...
No one would be straight jacketed into their automobile, the kids would not be harnessed up like animals, and most people would obey the traffic laws.
I don't consider a seatbelt to be a straight jacket. That is hyperbole, and it offends me. The law requiring seatbelts may be questionable, but this is just silly.
The only terrorist fear we would have was that another nation possessed the atomic bomb.
While it may not be our only fear, you may have heard of North Korea...
Homosexuality would not be a mandated subject for "education" in public schools.
This is evidence that this man has not been in public schools for some time. I do not recall a single lecture in a single class about homosexuality during my 13 years of public education.
No one would care about a place called Iraq.
No, but a place called Korea would be fresh in our minds, Germany and Japan would still be a rather strong memory, and a little strip of jungle in S.E. Asia would be coming up pretty soon. War happens, deal with it.

That's my $0.02. I'm going to lunch now.

[Drjones]

I want you to show me just one (1) actual public school where grading is based on feelings and esteem.

I dunno if this fits, but at the University of California at Santa Cruz, students can choose to have "personal evaluations" by their professors in place of letter grades.

[Zander]

Nowhere in that article, by the way, did I see a single reference to feelings or esteem.Let's see if I we can help you read between the lines.

What do you think will be "damaged" if the existing test isn't dumbed-down?

That's right...the students' "self-esteem". Never mind that a goodly number of them will eventually graduate in spite of the fact that they are functionally illiterate. They'll be out of Superintendent Moses' hair and that's all that matters.

You honestly believe that people were better educated back then? -- Azrael256 Absolutely without question. The typical 8th grade student in 1953 would have no trouble whatsoever outscoring the majority of today's high-school seniors on reading, writing and 'rithmetic tests, especially those in government indoctrination centers.

Probably would embarrass them in geography, history and spelling, too. And physical education? What a joke...in most school districts, it's not even required any more!

Given the miserable track record of an education system run by feel-good liberals ["Oh, Johnny, you did so well...2+2=5 is almost right! Give yourself a hug..."] and the cabal of statists in teachers' unions and administrations, can't we just admit the truth?

Their approach doesn't work; and we're fools if we continue throwing more of our tax dollars into the sewer.

[WilderBill]

Much of freedom is, in fact, how you percieve it and how free you feel.
I was around in '53 and remember the '50s as being the best time of my life.

[gburner]

The Fabulous Fifties...
Ike and Nixon
Atmospheric Nuclear Testing...we dropped more A bombs on ourselves than we will ever drop on anyone else.
Jim Crow, Segregation and The Clan
Communist Witch Hunts
Blacklisting
Rampant Organized Crime
The Korean Police Action
Rampant Environmental Pollution
Oh to be free, white, male, protestant
and Repulican.:neener:

[wingman]

"Much of freedom is, in fact, how you percieve it and how free you feel.
I was around in '53 and remember the '50s as being the best time of my life."


Second that Wildbill, I was there and
with the events I have been witness
too I suggest young folks enjoy the
present because it will get worse kids.:evil:

[Poodleshooter]

Ah yes, the good old days. If you were white and protestant.
Ummm, some people here actually fit that profile. So, in deciding which era was more pleasant to live in, they can justifiably say that the '50's were better- for them. Why would someone judge a decade from another persons shoes? What sense does that make?
Me, I wasn't a glimmer in dad's eye yet, so it really doesn't matter to me. Also, I do like seatbelts.

[Joe Demko]

"Let's see if I we can help you read between the lines" means "let's see if I can spin this to mean what fits my agenda best." I can give you a couple other interpretations of why they would want to adjust or discard the testing. Perhaps they are afraid low test scores might adversely affect their funding. Nothing to do with feelings or esteem there. maybe they genuinely think the test was incorrectly calibrated for the levels at which it was given. Again, nothing about feelings or esteem there. I can thin of lots more explanations, some noble some not so, for why the administrators in question might want to change or discard the test, but none of those explanations have anything to do with feelings/esteem based grading. I've heard that particular accusation hurled as a nationwide problem at TFL many times, and now here. I want to see ONE documented example of it, not your "interpretation" of something somebody else said.

[4v50 Gary]

No double stack semi-autos except for Browning Hi-Power, Mauser Broomhandle. About the only real viable semi-auto pistol was old slabside (1911A1) and the cottage industry that existed was very small. You'd talk about the newest Winchester Model 70 or 88 lever action. P.O. Ackley was still developing his wildcats and you could write him about it. Blackpowder shooters were few and far between and Val Forgett didn't start the blackpowder gun industry in Italy yet. Who cares about replicas anyway? You could buy originals cheap enough. You could buy M-1 Garands, Carbines or the 1911 through the DCM if you were a member of the NRA. The NRA wasn't seen by the media as the "enemy" back then. Kids could easily recycle pop bottles to get enough $ for a movie and a snack.

A 1950s Skunk wouldn't be tactical but would have the cuffs on his levis rolled up - just like the rest of us would lest we'd be called "communist."

[Moondancer]

In my not so humble opinion, Poodleshooter got it right. You cannot judge how good a time period was for any individual based on what it was like for you . I was born in '53, and while we would probably have been considered to have had an income in the very low part of the "poverty" category, it was a good time for me. As was the '60s. And the '70s. And the '80s. And the 90's just ROCKED!

But... I grew up and lived in small town, white, rural America. I have no problem accepting the fact that had I been born in the ghetto area of Detroit or Chicago, it would have been very, very different for me.

As for whether society as a whole is better or worse? IMNSO, it's neither. Overall.

I feel we have made vast improvements in equality vis-a-vis racial and gender issues. We are more tolerant of some things that just would not be accepted in the 50s. Illegitimacy, for example. (Why blame the kid for the parent's actions?) But we're having to endure massive government intrusion in our lives. Political correctness run amuck. Zero tolerance (read: not having to make decisions). You see my point?

Education? Again, it depends. I had a great education, and remember... this was in a small rural community. I had Latin available, and French and German. I had Calculas and Physics and Chemistry and Biology classes. We also had Shop and Auto Mechanics for those who like working with their hands. I graduated with a 3.88 average and went on to the U of Mich. But in the same school, others struggled and failed. I personally know people who graduated and could not read a newspaper. At all. We had the cliques, and there were the outcasts then as now. But in my school, we didn't have the violence. I can't say for inner-city Detroit.

Were the schools "better" then than now? Define "better"? Give me specifics and then we'll debate.

[Gordon]

I don't even want to get into politics; the human race sucked since the end of the garden of eden tour. However in the 50's you could get: a great Winchester Mod 70, Unertl scopes, Mannlicher Schoenauers, S&W's and Colts beyond compare, REAL Mopar Hemi's, and a Lahti 20mm on sled in trunk with extra mags for $100 thru the mail. :(

[Ed Brunner]

I was born in 1936, so on a good day, I can remember the 1950's. Being born and raised in the mountains, I was isolated from things like Klan etc. We had no racism or religous prejudice. MLKjr would have loved it. People were judged on their character.
Education was different. People who graduated from high school could read and write. Of course some very intelligent people graduate from high school today, that is not disputed, but as an absolute fact so do some purely ignorant ones.

If you are selective you can make either side of this argument.

When I lived in Kentucky they had an expression about "back in the good old days when times were hard". Some folks wouldn't understand that.

[sixgun_symphony]

It's amazing that some people are so upset that communist subversives had been prosecuted in the '50's.

The Soviet Union may have collapsed, but obviously some people are glad that reds like Bill Ayers have found a home in our own "PC" college campuses. *link* (www.housing.uiuc.edu/living/unit1/guest-2001/BillAyers.htm )

[fallingblock]

I was born in 1949...lived on a small farm in central Indiana. Peace and harmony. My mother kept me away from town for the whole term of the last polio epidemic just before the Salk vaccine arrived. There was no violence at the schools I attended. Our neighbors knew us and we got along. As an early teen I collected old military rifles ordered through the mail using money from my share of the farm work. When I needed ammo, I rode my bike about a mile to a small sporting goods shop and in accordance with a prior agreement with my parents the owner sold me whatever I asked for.
I would return to the lifestyle I enjoyed in the 50's/60's with no regrets. :) No doubt others who lived different lives in the same time period would not be so willing to do so. Yes, it is an entirely 'relative' question.:D

[Glock Glockler]

More than a third of high school students would not graduate.

Lendringser, where are you getting these stats from? We both know that statistics can easily be manipulated to suit the agenda of whomebver is presenting them, and I'm curious about those numbers. I'm not saying you're not trustworthy, but I want to know the source, and then the source behind the source.

We can probably say that a lot of students didn't graduate high school, but why is that a bad thing? If you don't make the cut, you don't graduate. It's very simple. Perhaps someone would have to repeat a grade, maybe even a few times, but you would not simply be issued a diploma as is currently the norm.

The standards for school have become so low that a high school diploma has become nearly worthless. It's basically academic inflation, and it'a also why a college degree is almost a requirement for most decent jobs out there. Why are young people thrust into a situation where they now have to spend years of their life and many thousands of dollars before they can get a real job and start providing for themselves?

If you consistently make the value of high school less and less by puming students through without consideration of whether or not they should graduate or even be in school to begin with, you'll make the situation worse and worse.

[Skunkabilly]

Wouldn't I be sitting in the back of a bus?

At least I can play tailgunner!

[Gordon]

Skunk above the Mason Dixon line there were no "backs of bus" . My family doctor Tommy Lee was Chinese during the 50's and I came from upper middle income Yankee white family.P.S. He made HOUSECALLS in his 56 T-Bird! I "bopped" and played football on team with blacks in Catholic school in 50's. I never was aware of racial bigotry until I went to South for college at turn of 50s into 60's.There I didn't know why my fencing coach was so friendly to me until I went to dinner at his house and had to escape his amourous advances- my first contact with homosexuals. For this my English Lit. grade went from A to D ! I never fenced again and went into service from ROTC which I never graduated from.:(

[Ed Brunner]

I'll say this to you in front of God and everybody else:

I'm glad you're here. If it were up to me I'd let you drive the bus.

[hipower22]

In 1953 I could go into any hardware store in my home town (pop. 8000) and buy any rifle or shotgun I wanted, no questions asked.

There was work for the asking and no unemployment. I had just finished school and life was more free than it ever has been since.

People say you only remember the good times. Maybe, but there were more good times than bad.

[Skunkabilly]

A 1950s Skunk wouldn't be tactical but would have the cuffs on his levis rolled up - just like the rest of us would lest we'd be called "communist."

Hey hey hey. I'd be wearing my 5.11 Tacticals ok? ;) OK I guess in 1953, Levi-Strauss wasn't anti-gun yet.

I'll say this to you in front of God and everybody else:
I'm glad you're here. If it were up to me I'd let you drive the bus.

Awwwwwwww! :)

If it were 1953 and someone tried pulling some 'colored' thing on me, I'd challenge them to a duel and see who can pick Dear Old Dixie like a true night-operator!!

[Vladimir Berkov]

As a fairly recent HS graduate and a college student, I can tell you that there is no BS "feelings" or "self esteem" being graded in the public or private schools, at least where I live.

From what some people write, school now is a total joke where nobody learns, everything has been dumbed down, and students are graduating without learning how to read or do simply math.

Students, now or then, are only going to learn if they want to. The schools are teaching the material, and the students who want to learn can. They are in the AP and IB programs (where I was) they participate in different competitions such as ACADEC, UIL, etc. It is much harder to get into a good college today than it was in the 1950's, so the students who really want to go must do much more in high school.

A HS diploma actually meant something in 1953 because many of the jobs we have no simply didn't exist. The workforce as a whole was less educated, and that was O.K. then. We had less foreign competition to deal with, and we didn't have the whole technology revolution. Manufacturing was a lot bigger, with less service industry.

A guy working at a steel mill can work with only a HS diploma. (or even less) A programmer needs that college diploma.

[Rangerover]

Anyone who claims that the quality of education at public schools overall is better now than it was in the 1950's, or even 60's or 70's is living in a fantasy world or isn't old enough to remember the 60's and 70's.

In my experience (and I'm not alone) there is a moderate percentage of incoming college Freshmen who are actually equipped to succeed at their university. However, there is an ever growing percentage of them who are so frighteningly stupid, so dismally dimwitted that I can't even fathom how on earth they survive on a daily basis, let alone got admitted to an arguably "major" school. Granted, most of these idiots won't graduate, but how on earth did they get a High School diploma??!! Don't tell me they "earned" it, because every year a larger number of them DIDN'T. They may not have been graded on "feelings" but they sure as hell weren't graded on what they KNOW, because an increasing number of them don't know ANYTHING.

Take it from someone who has looked into thousands of vacuous Freshman eyes: as a general rule, public schools and the students they "graduate" aren't remotely what they used to be. I'm not blaming teachers for this sad fact. Every generation is becoming more moronic than the last. Why? I stopped trying to figure that out years ago. I'm just telling it as I've seen it.

Harsh? Truth often is perceived as such.

True? Bet on it.

This frightening state of affairs is being offset somewhat by the increasing number of immigrants (primarily Asians) whose culture doesn't glorify ignorance and stupidity. They are increasingly filling the vacuum left in technical fields which were once filled by our own citizens (though most of these immigrants will indeed become citizens), because more and more of the "MTV Raps" generation can't make the grade. You don't find many Asians majoring in "Modern Recreation". As evidence, how many people on this board have a family doctor whose last name is easy to pronounce? You see what I mean.

It shouldn't be a matter of, "Our schools are the same as they've ever been because a student can learn something if he WANTS to." The High School student shouldn't have a CHOICE as to whether or not to learn anything and still get a diploma.

You want to "choose" to be an idiot? Fine. You should be an idiot without a High School diploma. This dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator needs to stop because it has profound implications for the future political stability and global competitiveness of the United States (not to mention the distribution of wealth in our society).

Yeah, it "needs" to stop. Will it? Not before I'm really old or really dead, if ever.

[Joe Demko]

However, there is an ever growing percentage of them who are so frighteningly stupid, so dismally dimwitted that I can't even fathom how on earth they survive on a daily basis, let alone got admitted to an arguably "major" school.

Maybe I'd put more value on the rest of your rant if you knew the difference between stupid and ignorant. If these kids you see are indeed "frighteningly stupid" and "dismally dimwitted" then that is the fault of their genetic heritage, not the school system. If, on the other hand, they are ignorant and/or illiterate, then that is conceivably the school system's fault. Like many for whom this is a hot button issue, you are long on ranting and finger-pointing, but haven't offered much in the way of solutions. Harsh? Truth is often perceived as such. True? Read your own post and don't bet on it. You'd lose.

[Atticus]

I wasn't born in 1953, but the biggest difference I see between the sixties and the present is perception.

Back then families lived in two bedroom houses, had one car garages (or none), they had one B&W TV (or none), meals usually consisted of meat and potatoes (most of us never had Mexican, Chinese, Greek, etc.), our mothers stayed home, most of our fathers supported the family working "lowly" jobs in retail,manufacturing or construction, BUT WE THOUGHT WE HAD IT MADE.

Now it seems that no one is happy in spite of all the things they have. "Poor" people bitch, because they can only buy two pairs of $100 sneakers instead of six on what the government pays them.

I'm reading T. Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation" right now. Life really sucked back then, yet most people were busy and happy. They didn't thrive on self pity. Harlem was a showcase in spite of racism. Black businessmen thrived in segregated neighborhoods. Back of the bus? How many black (or white) folks even feel safe on a bus today? What the heck happened?

Granted, there was a lot of inequity back then, but I'd have to say the quality of life WAS better for most.

On the question of freedom, I'd have to say yes, for the same reasons listed by others. Gun laws? Yeah..don't shoot anyone not needing shot. If the government wants to mess with you, they can do it now and they could do it then...no change. Freedom of expression may be greater today (if you are expressing the opposite of what was acceptable in 1965), but certainly not freedom of thought.

[Rangerover]

Like I said, the truth hurts doesn't it?

You're going to tell me that a college Freshman who doesn't know who the President of the United States is isn't "stupid"? You can call him an "deprived victim of society" if you want. A rose by any other name...

Call it what you want. It's stupid to me.

I'm not going to play semantic games. My opinion is that public schools are worse than than were in the 1950's. I'm not alone in that opinion by a long shot.

The increasing number of dullards struggling through abysmally easy classes at our state universities is alarming. Where you see a "victim", I see an idiot.

Don't like my choice of words? That's fine. I'm not going to follow p.c. rhetoric. Mollycoddling these people and dumbing down the curriculum isn't doing them or anyone else any good.

Solution? Discipline in the classroom and accountability of the schools. They keep graduating idiots, they lose their funding. It's not going to force students to WANT to learn anything, any more than it will make them WANT to pull their pants up and stop shooting their teachers, but it will force them to learn something if they are going to be handed a diploma.

The government can keep pouring your tax dollars into the black hole of public education if they want. I'd just soon they left mine alone or used it for something productive.

Besides, who said I had to have a "solution" for anything? I can speak my .02 cents without being able to solve all the world's problems.

Besides, the gist of the thread is to compare 1953 to today, not to create utopia on an internet bulletin board.

In summary: :neener:

[Joe Demko]

You're going to tell me that a college Freshman who doesn't know who the President of the United States is isn't "stupid"? You can call him an "deprived victim of society" if you want. A rose by any other name...

No, I'd call him ignorant, as you probably would if you really wanted to be accurate. "Deprived victim of society" is not a term I, or anyone else in the thread, used, so pack that particular straw man argument up and put it back where you found it.

Call it what you want. It's stupid to me.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more or less."



I'm not going to play semantic games.
To quote noted right-wing shockjock and windbag Rush Limbaugh "Words have meaning." Using the correct words is the essence of effective communication. "Stupid" and "ignorant" are not even close in meaning. This is not a semantic game.


I'm not going to follow p.c. rhetoric. Mollycoddling these people and dumbing down the curriculum isn't doing them or anyone else any good.

This is less a matter of pc than it is proper use of the English language. Do you consider yourself to be "smarter" than those "stupid" freshmen?

Discipline in the classroom and accountability of the schools. They keep graduating idiots, they lose their funding.

Idiots in, idiots out. Perhaps what you really meant is "If they keep graduating students who lack the basic skills in literacy and numeracy, they will lose their funding." Such rules are already in place. Discipline is a good idea. What would you suggest? A return to the paddle? Ask some of your fellow THR members how they might react to their child getting a good old fashioned beating from a teacher. You see, I remember when teachers really beat students. Wouldn't fly today, not legally, not ethically. Beat your own child, then maybe when he gets to school that type of discipline won't be an issue.

The government can keep pouring your tax dollars into the black hole of public education if they want. I'd just soon they left mine alone or used it for something productive.
Okay, de-fund the schools. Then "smart" freshmen will magically start appearing before you?

Besides, who said I had to have a "solution" for anything? I can speak my .02 cents without being able to solve all the world's problems.
Nobody said you have to have a solution. Having a solution, though, makes it seem like you are doing more than whining and bellyaching.

Besides, the gist of the thread is to compare 1953 to today, not to create utopia on an internet bulletin board.
Go back and read your own first post. You are the one who decide to enter the thread complaining about the "stupid" freshmen.

In summary: :neener:

I am smote a mighty blow by your rapier-like wit.

[Ed Brunner]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're going to tell me that a college Freshman who doesn't know who the President of the United States is isn't "stupid"? You can call him an "deprived victim of society" if you want. A rose by any other name...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, I'd call him ignorant, as you probably would if you really wanted to be accurate. "Deprived victim of society" is not a term I, or anyone else in the thread, used, so pack that particular straw man argument up and put it back where you found it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call it what you want. It's stupid to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with both of you.
Yes, by definition he is ignorant.
However to be that old and that ignorant is really stupid.
Do you agree?

[Zander]

It's stupid to me. -- RangeroverI'm in agreement with your comments in general but let me offer a classic distinction between 'ignorant' and 'stupid':

The state of ignorance can be cured; we are all ignorant in certain areas or subjects. Is it incumbent upon us to cure as much of our ignorance in our too-short lives as we can?

Absolutely...and some of us do our best to remedy it.

OTOH, there is no excuse for stupidity...that is, having facts or having ready access to them but choosing to ignore them. Our country is chock-full of those who are not only truly, willfully stupid but who revel in their stupidity; and use that stupidity as an excuse to impose that stupidity on others [ref: certain politicians...pick a reason] or claim victimhood.

Helping others overcome ignorance is a noble cause; enabling stupidity cannot be condemned too strongly.

Ask some of your fellow THR members how they might react to their child getting a good old fashioned beating from a teacher. -- Golgo-13Sorry, I've no choice but to disagree with such hypocrisy. You excoriate another THR member for "misusing" words and willingly abuse a basic definition yourself. You said:

"Using the correct words is the essence of effective communication. "Stupid" and "ignorant" are not even close in meaning."

Neither are "paddling" and "beating". I can only conclude from your remarks that you believe that some people are more capable of controlling the lexicon than others. I disagree...and it has nothing to do with ignorance or stupidity. This is, after all, not a semantic argument.

Okay, de-fund the schools.A rather egregious non-sequitur, one that is surprising coming from someone who claims to be concerned about the basic distinction between 'stupidity' and 'ignorance'.

What's your solution for the pronounced failure of the federal and state governments' "education" systems? Demonstrably, the average high-school graduate is more lacking in reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic skills than his 1953 counterpart. What's more, the trend is downward, wouldn't you agree?

[Rangerover]

Ed, Zander, et al:

Heh-heh! Excellent input!

However to be that old and that ignorant is really stupid.
That was precisely my point. Obviously there is a dictionary difference between "ignorant" and "stupid". I wasn't saying that an increasing number of High School graduates are becoming mentally defective or ingesting excessive amounts of lead or something. I was saying that they are increasingly opting to remain devoid of basic everyday skills which their teachers tried (to no avail) to impart to them. Anyone who gains access to a state university in this condition is, in my mind, de facto a "poo-poo head".

There. "Poo-poo head" isn't IN the dictionary. Far be it from me to stir up a semantic hornet's nest! :p

Now. Regarding my beloved straw men: Stop picking on them! Every time I set up a half decent straw man, some smart person has to come along and knock him down! It's, "Accuracy!" this and, "Ad hominem!" that! Can't I be allowed the humble luxury of lashing out in blind, unfettered fury, while attempting to browbeat all who disagree with me into submission?

No?

Geez. You guys play rough... :p

[Glock Glockler]

Okay, de-fund the schools. Then "smart" freshmen will magically start appearing before you?

Almost. De-fund govt schools and let free market schools take over. If a school graduated idiots they'd loose credibility and no one would send their children there because the degree wouldn't be worth anything and they'd soon find themselves out of business. You'd be left with good - excellent schools that would do the job infinately better than govt schools do right now.

[Rangerover]

Well. What a coincidence. CNN is reporting on similar to what we are discussing.

You'll find it at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/01/27/college.freshmen.ap/index.html

Hmmmm...what was I talking about yesterday?

Something about "idiots" and arriving at college about as prepared as a wet sock... :neener:

[fallingblock]

to defend the achievements of 'modern' education;)

[Rangerover]

Fallingblock:
I expect so. He or she will probably descend upon me like an avenging eagle for using the "I" word again, as well. :p

I don't think anyone can say it's a "Straw Article", though! :D

I worked as an adjunct History professor at a, er, "major" state university for several years apart from my full-time job. I usually taught six or nine hours per semester. Easy way to get gun money, pay off vehicles quickly, etc. I'm thinking about doing it again next year. It's easy to get hired because the institution doesn't have to pay any benefits, etc. Consequently, I'm a little bit familiar with the topic at hand. The CNN article is dead-on about grade inflation and crappy study habits. College teachers have been complaining about this for years on end. Those of us who teach survey classes have had to start semesters with the assumption that the Freshmen are a blank slate; i.e, that they have virtually no knowledge of history, representative government, etc., AT ALL. None. Because often MANY of them don't. And the number that don't has been getting larger and larger for years.

I used to give a quiz at the beginning of each semester: basic questions like "Who is the President?" "Who is the V.P.?" "Who bombed Pearl Harbor?" Things like that. Basic things that any American should know. I'm not going to drone on, but suffice it to say that I was absolutely flabbergasted by the results. The first time I was just stunned. Oh, there were always five or six out of eighty or so that were top notch. But the rest were...mediocre at best ("mediocre" is a euphamism) and the worst were...*GROAN*

And my whole point has been that this group comprising the "worst" got more numerous each year.

The public education system is a mess. It's just that simple.

You would be amazed at how many kids think France or Portugal bombed Pearl Harbor...:p

As far as that goes, you'd roll in the floor if you could read some of the inane crap which was turned in under the guise of "writing". Rarely a semester went buy where I didn't almost fall out of my chair laughing when I was grading some of these papers. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about ALL of my students, just an alarming number. I kept thinking over and over, "These nimrods are going to graduate and be turned loose on society under the guise of being 'educated'!!!" :p

Anyone who thinks our education system is better than it was in 1953 simply because we throw billions of dollars away on it is sadly misinformed. Kids learned more in one-room schoolhouses with no indoor plumbing or electricity than they do today. Believe it. It's true. ;)

[wingman]

" Anyone who thinks our education system is better than it was in 1953 simply because we throw billions of dollars away on it is sadly misinformed. Kids learned more in one-room schoolhouses with no indoor plumbing or electricity than they do today. Believe it. It's true. "


Worth seeing in print again. Thank you.!!!

[Vladimir Berkov]

Do you have any evidence that this was true?

The historical evidence shows that because of a government mandate for education, and a lack of qualified teachers the "single room schoolhouse" was often a place where an under-qualified teacher taught the best they could, often to students who couldn't even come to school all the time because they had to work as well.

Not to mention that the idea of everybody staying in school until 18 was unheard of.

[fallingblock]

since I last taught secondary school (in New Zealand), but from my friends who still 'man the trenches' of public education in the U.S. I hear tales very similar to the CNN article above. History as a subject has largely been downplayed in many public school systems, with the results Rangerover observes with his freshmen.
I don't claim to have the solutions, but I surely do believe there is a decline in the average standard of education in many public school systems in the U.S.:(

What are the solutions? Any ideas?

[Dorrin79]

Bah - the fifties were only more "free" in the real sense of the word (e.g. absence of governmental controls) in regards to a handful of things (gun laws and environmental regulation come to mind)

-in the 50s it was illegal in most states to use birth control

-in the 50s it was illegal to have non-conventional sex (including with one's wife/husband)

-in the 50s it was illegal to be homosexual in most states

-as noted, the 50s were the last stand of Jim Crow, one of the worst stains on America's history.

I could go on and on, but much of the rest has already been covered here. Suffice to say that the past was rarely better. It was usually worse.

Blind devotion to tradition and the selective remembrances of yesterday are two of the many reasons I am most definitely not a conservative.

[Dorrin79]

just read all the hubbub about education.

I agree that people are, in general, getting more and more ignorant. I'm fairly young (graduated high school in '97) and most of my classmates were frighteningly uneducated (and I was in honors/AP type courses). Things were much the same in college - I attended UT Austin and quickly discovered that most of my fellow students had no business being there - they were completely unprepared to learn, had no concept of critical thinking, and wrote on a (by my way of thinking) 3rd grade level.

There's a quick and easy solution, of course.

Privatize it!

The problem with modern education is not the teachers, the students, the parents, or even the administration (at least not entirely - it is a little of each). It's the State.

Privatizing education would allow conservatives to send their kids to religious schools where they get smacked with a ruler for daring to raise their heads from their task of copying Scriptures. It would allow liberals to send their kids to schools where they sit around talking about their feelings and learning how everything is the fault of white males.

And everything in between.

Of course, it would require that people take responsibility for their kids' education, and destroy a massive, entrenched State edifice. I see these aspects as a feature, not a bug.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Hey fellow longhorn! I am currently studying economics at UT Austin.

[Joe Demko]

I am still waiting for a documented case of a school district grading on self-esteem and feelings. That is, supposedly, a specific problem with the American public school system. If the problem cannot be demonstrated to exist in even a single school, then none of the peripheral issues brought up in association with it are worth discussing.

[cuchulainn]

2nd Amendment:

Is domestic abuse more common today -- or is it reported more often? Rape stats were skewed upwards by lessening the stigma of being raped. Perhaps that too is the case with abuse stats.

I don't know the answer.

[NewShooter78]

I think that if you want to talk about why the schools are "lesser" today is that parents on the whole, in the districts with poor public education, don't take an active role in their childrens' education. Public schools are in desparate need of parent involvement. More and more public schools, especially in inner-city or metro areas, are looked at as free babysitting services.

I graduated in '96 so I think that I can vouch on this one. My parents always made sure of what I was doing and made sure that I was passing all of my classes. I can remember many a time when I was slacking, grade wise, my father making me bring home all my books even if I had no assignments to take. They talked with my teachers to make sure I was doing my work. My folks didn't expect straight A's, but they wouldn't allow me to fail, or barely make it by. When I was doing well on my own, they let me be. I also was a student athlete, and I studied music, and I was in other extracurricular clubs. In short, I was involved and they were too.

Vouchers for private school with state money is absurd in my opinion. No one should have to suffer their kids a poor education, but taking the money away from a suffering school is not a solution. Putting unworthy kids in a private school wouldn't help it either. I've seen high quality schools go down hill after they were forced to lessen their entrance requirements because mad parents couldn't get their kids in because the children were not up to snuff.

Another problem is that people more and more a degrading skilled professions. What is wrong with someone being a mechanic or metalworker instead of a doctor or computer programmer? There needs to be more technical curricluli at high schools. Mine didn't even have a wood shop! I would have loved to have taken a few classes in that.

People put too much emphasis on a college education. I graduated college in '00 and I saw many people who shouldn't have been there. Most notably the football and basketball players. I'm not saying all of them shouldn't have been there, but a lot of them wouldn't have made it without their sports background. Plus now the job market is flooded with college graduates, I've had more trouble than you'd imagine trying to find jobs.

My parents being products of the 40's and 50's, I think people on the whole were different then. And that goes across the board for race, creed, whatever. The government was probably worse, but I think the majority of people were better. There are lots of really bad laws from the time, and a minority of really bad people most notibly in the south. Talk to someone in their sixties or late fifties who grew up out west and ask them about people. If they were hard working, and an active part of the community it didn't matter what color you were. My grandfater unloaded on a bunch of KKK'ers once for buring a cross on his front lawn because he worked with blacks, and was openly friendly with them. That was the last time they wanted to have the ole double barrel pointed at them.

Women to us now, especially those of us that are younger, don't seem as free then as they do now. But have you asked a 60 something, or older, woman how free she believed she was? I don't remember either of my grandmother complaining about their lives. They were more worried about keeping their children healthy, and the bills paid. One of my grandmothers worked and the other didn't. The one that didn't never talked about wishing she could have been out in the work force. She was too busy taking care of her family. Having 6 kids does that to someone.

How we perceive things now is from a different mindset as those of us from 50 years ago. Some things were better, some were a lot worse. Personally there is a lot of things that need to be fixed in the here and now, and I don't think we should worry about what happened 50 years ago. Learn from it, don't forget it, and fix the present.

That's just my $0.02 worth, and I'm sticking to it!

[Zander]

Vouchers for private school with state money is absurd in my opinion. It isn't "state" or "federal" money...it's mine. And I can't think of a better method of bringing accountability to government indoctrination centers than to introduce competition.

Parents should decide where their children are educated; the voucher system reintroduces control where it belongs. But I consider even the voucher system to be an intermediate step.

To do it the correct way, we must resolve to keep our education-dollars in our own pockets and take the government out of the loop altogther. The savings would be staggering and the results in improved education most gratifying.

[ahenry]

Dorrin79: I attended UT Austin
Vladimir Berkov: I am currently studying economics at UT Austin.
Oh crap! Thats all we need, two more t-sips attending that little junior college in Austin. :rolleyes:

:neener:

[4v50 Gary]

Rangerover: You mean the French & Portugese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor? I thought it was because we imperialists with our silly notions of manifest destiny had disrupted the French trade route to Vietnam and for the Portugese, their route to Macao. This was clearly Dewey's intent when he bombarded the hapless Spaniards in Hong Kong Bay. "Damn the torpedoes!" cried Dewey as he looked over to his flag captain, Porter. "I have just begun to fight," he shouted to midshipman Jones when the Spanairds asked him to settle their differences over tea.

Kids, they know nothing of his-story. ;)

[Mr. James]

This from today's Washington Times. Suggests a reason other than "esteem" for that grade inflation.

High schoolers study less, but
grades rise

By Ellen Sorokin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


High school seniors are studying less but getting better grades than their predecessors, and are spending more time on the computer for both research and fun, according to an annual nationwide study by the University of California at Los Angeles.

"The best interpretation we can make is that grade inflation has been increasing because of all the pressure on teachers from students and parents to help them become more competitive for college," said UCLA professor Alexander Astin, director of the school's Higher Education Research Institute and the survey's founder.

"Each year we think it can't inflate anymore. And then it does again. The C-grade is almost a thing of the past."

Thirty-three percent of students said they spent six hours per week or more studying or doing homework — the lowest percentage since the survey question was first asked in 1987 — 46 percent of whom managed to graduate with an A average in 2001. Only 17 percent earned A's in 1968, and 44 percent did in 2000.

Linda Sax, a UCLA professor and the survey's current director, partially blamed the decline in homework and study time on increased computer use. "It is unclear if computer and Internet use has enabled students to complete their homework in less time, or whether the time students spend using the computer simply takes away from the time that they could be spending on their studies," Miss Sax said.

The survey of 282,549 freshmen at 437 universities shows that they are spending more time on the computer. Frequent use of personal computers hit a record 84 percent last year, compared with 82 percent in 2001, the survey showed.

The percentage of students using the Internet for research or homework during their last year in high school increased from 75 percent in 2001 to 78 percent last year. The percentage of students surfing the Internet for reasons other than studying or research also rose from 52 percent in 2000 to 62 percent last year.

Jacqueline King, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the Washington-based American Council on Education, said the situation is "a cause for concern."

"The jury is still out on the increased computer use," Miss King said. "We don't know if students are using computers to be more efficient or they are using them to take the easy way out instead of going to the library and doing research that way. But this is a cause for concern."

The survey also found that this year's freshmen don't drink, smoke or party anywhere near as much as their predecessors.

The survey said 46 percent of freshmen — compared with 74 percent in 1982 — reported drinking beer either frequently or occasionally during the past 12 months. An additional 36 percent said they don't attend any parties during a typical week. Twenty-five percent of freshmen said they spend six hours or more per week partying, down from 27 percent last year and 37 percent in 1987.

The percentage of incoming freshmen who smoke cigarettes frequently has dropped for the fourth consecutive year, reaching a 15-year low of 7 percent. Nine percent of freshmen said they smoked cigarettes in 2001 and 15 percent in 1967, the survey found.

With the decline in partying has come increased focus on politics.

Among freshmen entering college in 2001, 31 percent said they regularly kept up with politics. Last year, the number increased to 33 percent as the first class of freshmen entered school after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"We don't know whether it's a 9/11 blip or part of a trend," Mr. Astin said.

The all-time low in political interest, 28 percent, was recorded in 2000 and the all-time high, 60 percent, in 1966.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030128-82116717.htm

[Rangerover]

Gary:

As long as you don't claim that Louis XIV, "Forced himself on the people" as one student of mine did, I think we can inflate you up to a B+! :p

I was afflicted with another character who claimed in a research paper that Ramses II was, "King of the mummies". :what:

Apparently some students spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep the "high" in "higher education"...:D

[Frohickey]

Grade inflation can also happen in college/university. Its not a phenomenon restricted only to high schools.

I had a EE professor at college. He's the instructor in the department that had a reputation for being hard but fair. His courses were not the only sections being taught, but students got more out of his courses than from the other section. And most often, he teaches the first-ever course in the university. Bleeding-edge type courses.

Anyway, I still remember his comment after the first week of classes, when the time to add courses has passed, and he was explaining the grading system. One new student, new as in never had taken the professor before, asked if he graded in the curve, or not.

Professor said that he graded on a strict percentage point. He does not believe in grading on the curve, and that if he wants, he would sign the drop form for anyone that wants to drop the course right now.

He's an old school Indian professor. He said, "I don't give grade on a curve. If you get 90% or above, you get an 'A'. 80% to 89%, 'B', 70% to 79%, 'C', and so on. If all of you get 90% or higher, you get 'A's. Students are 'elephants' or 'pigs'. 'Pigs' are the ones that are trampled by the 'elephants'. I'm here to find who are the 'elephants'."

:D :neener: :D

[Shalako]

Here's a modern day esteem based tid-bit for you:
My girlfriend is in the Teacher Prep program at a CSU. A portion of her courses are 'multicultural learners' and 'reading for secondary schoolers' oriented. I think this is good because it will prepare her for students of various backgrounds and will help her establish a link with different students to get the info into their working grasp. But..... due to today's (not 1953) public schools' over-fascination with sensitivity rather than learning, she was given some very interesting guidance when dealing with students from diverse backgrounds. The instructor told them it is not acceptable to correct a student's grammer because in some cases it would be an insult to their culture. The example was, the kid says to the teacher, "I aint got no pencil." The teacher is not supposed to correct the student in this case because it would insult the kid's culture. The teacher is to say, "You don't have a pencil? Well, here is one for you."

I understand being sensitive to different cultures, but how does promoting poor grammar help anyone succeed in American society? It is the teacher's job to prepare those kids and provide instruction. An agenda of benevolent acceptance compromises that goal.

-Shalako

[Glock Glockler]

I'm waiting for Golgo to tell me why a free-market education system would not work better than our govt run system. I think a lot of these debates would vanish if a market system were introduced, as "self-esteem" schools would go out of business.

[Joe Demko]

Keep waiting. I'm in line ahead of you. When someone offers reasonably documented proof of even one school district grading on feelings and esteem, then I will return to this discussion. I'm done allowing the terms of the debate to framed that this problem exists and something must be done about it. Demonstrate the existence of the problem, then I'll address its solution.

[Dorrin79]

Golgo - 13

I also have never heard of an actual "feeling" based grading system. My girlfriend is a 3rd grade teacher and has never encountered such a system, at least in practice.

I think the confusion may be a conflation of grading systems and disciplinary techniques. It is a documented fact that disciplinary techniques in most public school have gone completely over to the "touchy-feely", egocentric schools of thought. Students physically assault other students, leave the classroom during instruction periods, act extremely disruptive, etc. and there is literally nothing that Rebecca or the administration can do, as per school policy, save send them to "timeouts" or to a counselor.

She thinks (and I agree) that this is largely reponsible for the poor academic performance of public school children in general; even the ones who want to learn are often prevented from doing so by the presence of highly disruptive classmates that no one can do anything about.

This is not to say that I am a fan of corporal punishment, or teachers whacking their students with rulers with they fail to pay attention. However, if you can't (as a teacher) exercise control over the classroom environment, is it little wonder that grades keep dropping?

Vlad - awesome! Are you still attending, or an alumni? I got out in '01, still living in the area.