Stupid Guest Tricks

Extremely well said, shilohmm. I could not have put it better myself.

shilohmm wrote:My problem with public education is that passing has nothing to do with hard work. I got grades and scores good enough to get me in the Honor Society and Mensa, not because I worked hard, but because I liked reading, writing, research, and playing with logic problems. I did generally finish my homework (because my parents would have killed me if I didn't), but I did a lot of it in the ten minutes before class or whatever. My sister, who is a musical genius and is quite successful now working with computers, worked like a dog to get grades lower than mine. Which drove her nuts at the time, but now she figures that school basically taught me how to coast and her how to work. :p:

And some people just aren't made for the kind of work schools were designed for -- entrepreneurs traditionally do poorly at school, because school is geared for fitting people to big corporations, not to teaching people how to take wise risks or to innovate. I've never known a really successful person who wasn't a hard worker, but I've known some people who were total slackers at school who knew how to work hard at other things.

Sadly, kids who could be really good at something non-schoolish often get discouraged by their failure at school and never learn that working hard at something they can succeed with is worth doing. :(

I also think school poorly serves some of those who're socially oriented and natural leaders, who quickly realize they may be able to pass the classes, but they aren't skilled enough to excel. The only way they can follow their natural talents at school is to convince people that what the school is measuring is meaningless -- which, for a lot of kids, it is! So their natural skills are trained and honed in a completely unnatural environment, and once they're out of the system, they have no other skills. They are brilliant at manipulating a particular environment, but practically the only "employment" for an adult that works that way is being a client of the welfare system -- or in prison.

The more financially successful guys of that last type can also make excellent Stupid Guests. ;) Disney, like most school systems, rewards the squeaky wheel and is less interested in justice than in keeping things cool on the surface, and in both cases you can game the system like crazy.

I actually know someone who started his own business while in high school and the people I refer to were not like that. The people that bragged about failing were the kinds of people that you just know are going to be spending their lives bagging groceries because that's the only thing they actually CAN do. I think you all know the kind of people I'm talking about...

If I may?

Both my parents worked as educators and, later, administrators for public schools. I, myself, worked at a public high school for a time. While I will admit there are those in the public school system, at various levels, that cause problems, overall I think most are at least making the attempt to give the students a good education.

In regards to there being no distinction between those who got high marks and those who squeaked by at graduation: While I can understand being upset at those who deliberately did the minimum possible work, but some students work very hard just to get that "C" average. Should they be shamed for not having the same skill as those who get all A's? Not to mention, as someone noted, those who show a lack of drive in school are going to have a harder time of it out in the "real world".

Slightly off-topic: Big Wallaby, I find your analogy flawed. One can, in fact, have a floor without a ceiling. Heck, you can have a floor without any walls, for that matter. However, you can't have a ceiling without a "floor" of some sort.

DragonFox98 wrote:It does amaze me that some parents (well, ALL SG parents), don't teach their children.

My family and I like to joke that if you ever want to learn how NOT be be a parent, just go to Disney and watch how other people's kids behave. Sure, there are responsible parents in the crowd, but you probably wont even notice their children because they're not the ones running amuck and screaming bloody murder.....isnt it funny..you have to have a license to drive or own a gun, but any idiot can have a child

kerbear135 wrote:...isnt it funny..you have to have a license to drive or own a gun, but any idiot can have a child

I know this was meant as just an off-the-cuff remark, but I have given some thought to the matter:

There are a few obstacles to the idea of a "parenting license". The first is how is it determined that one should be awarded such a license, and who gets to make the decisions regarding the awarding of the licenses. Then there is the matter of what to do about those who become parents without a license. Finally, could we get enough of the general public behind a plan that basically tells folks who can and cannot be a parent? Mind you, I'm not saying it isn't a bad idea to have some sort of law in place that says, for example, anyone who is pregnant needs to take some course in basic child-rearing. Just saying trying to have a full-out license to become a parent could be rather tricky.

PatchOBlack wrote:I know this was meant as just an off-the-cuff remark, but I have given some thought to the matter:

There are a few obstacles to the idea of a "parenting license". The first is how is it determined that one should be awarded such a license, and who gets to make the decisions regarding the awarding of the licenses. Then there is the matter of what to do about those who become parents without a license. Finally, could we get enough of the general public behind a plan that basically tells folks who can and cannot be a parent? Mind you, I'm not saying it isn't a bad idea to have some sort of law in place that says, for example, anyone who is pregnant needs to take some course in basic child-rearing. Just saying trying to have a full-out license to become a parent could be rather tricky.

I don't disagree with your point, and I definitely dont have the answers- I just think it's odd that you have to prove yourself for a license for a car or gun (which have the potential to kill people in the hands of the wrong people) but yet it's acceptable for any moron to procreate and become responsible for another innocent person's life...and we wonder why stupid is an epidemic....

knitster wrote:And those are many of the reasons that I've chosen to homeschool.

Yah, I do, too. :) School was a better fit for hubby than it was for me, but he wanted to avoid the bullying both he and my brother had to deal with. :(

PatchOBlack wrote:overall I think most are at least making the attempt to give the students a good education.

I had some terrific teachers, and I agree that most are trying to give the students a good education. But even the best can get caught up in "the system." At one point I switched school districts, and I had taken two classes in ninth grade at the first, one of which (student's choice) was required of a high school student in the second. But because I hadn't taken those classes the right year, they wanted me to take one or the other over again. :mad:

And they really didn't understand why I was upset by this. I'd gotten good grades in both classes the first time, so they were trying to convince me taking the class would be "cake" and "an easy 'A'" and the like. My counselor finally understood my point that school is supposed to be about learning, and if I have to be there at least give me the opportunity, but it took a while. Certainly she believed that school is about learning, but at the same time, that wasn't how she was acting. She wasn't acting according to her beliefs, and she wasn't even thinking according to her beliefs - she was following the system.

She eventually managed to get the rule changed so I could take a more advanced class in either subject for that credit and everybody was happy. But if school was really about learning, that argument would never have happened. My initial protest, "Why would I want to sit through stuff I've already done?" would have sufficed. Not that I'm opposed to review (I swear I forgot everything I knew about math every summer), but not a whole year of only review, thanks.

I think public schools do a good job with most kids, but I also think they're a bad fit for a fairly large minority.

kerbear135 wrote:I just think it's odd that you have to prove yourself for a license for a car or gun (which have the potential to kill people in the hands of the wrong people) but yet it's acceptable for any moron to procreate and become responsible for another innocent person's life

They're dealing with totally different realms, from kind of opposite directions. A driver's license and a license to own a gun are mostly preventive -- "hey, don't go out and kill someone with this potential instrument of death." And pretty much everyone agrees that people shouldn't be allowed to harm others.

Child rearing, OTOH, is a much more active process of shaping someone (as opposed to using something), and every one of those said someones being shaped is fundamentally different from all the rest. Meaning approaches that work brilliantly on one child can severely damage another. And anyone who's hung out on parenting board can tell you there is no consensus on that front! It's pretty easy to write code addressing the various types of motor vehicles or guns -- how do you write code on children?

Looked at another way, what parenting system do you hold those licensed to? Babywise was hugely popular for over a decade -- then all those beautifully behaved children from the first wave of enthusiasm hit puberty. :p: Worse, it turned out that the author's children were not the only ones parented by that technique who seemed to sail through their teen years as well behaved as ever -- except that once they reached adulthood, they completely cut off all contact with the parents who subjected them to said system. :(

Dr. Sears' system hasn't had quite such horrific fall out, but it doesn't work so well with some kids, either. Some kids respond well to redirection and are traumatized when you punish -- others need to have someone in their lives who is willing to thwart them on a right regular basis. People who don't have Sears' skill or determination at settling limits end up just letting the second kid walk all over them.

And although Dobson's approach works pretty well on most kids, some kids look like strong willed kids to many parents (and they're pretty clearly not the cheerfully conforming ones he talks about), but treat them the way Dobson recommends you to, and you get cascading disaster.

You can systematize the rules of driving and the rules of gun use because, by their very nature, cars and guns are all going to respond the same way, responding to the same natural laws. Push a car too hard on a curve, and it's going to eventually break free, and where it will break free can be pretty easily determined. Push one child "too hard" and that child will respond by trying harder. Push another child "too hard" (i.e., apply the same treatment), and that child will respond by breaking down. Push child three "too hard," and that child will laugh at you and do as they please.

Same exact treatment. Three (or more) totally different responses. How do you regulate something like that, outside of removing kids who're obviously being poorly served by the parents they have?

(I could go off on how poorly the government is handling that -- far easier -- job, but I'll resist.)

edit: Hmm, though I stuck that onto the last one. Seems to me I remember that you guys don't get too wound about double posting here -- guess I'll find out the hard way.

PatchOBlack wrote:I know this was meant as just an off-the-cuff remark, but I have given some thought to the matter:

There are a few obstacles to the idea of a "parenting license". The first is how is it determined that one should be awarded such a license, and who gets to make the decisions regarding the awarding of the licenses. Then there is the matter of what to do about those who become parents without a license. Finally, could we get enough of the general public behind a plan that basically tells folks who can and cannot be a parent? Mind you, I'm not saying it isn't a bad idea to have some sort of law in place that says, for example, anyone who is pregnant needs to take some course in basic child-rearing. Just saying trying to have a full-out license to become a parent could be rather tricky.

It would be nice to let parents know what they're really in for if they plan to raise a child or two. I wouldn't say they should get a license to have a kid, but being educated on what it would entail would be good. Technically, you should be learning practical life stuff like this from your parents along with general education from teachers, but parents aren't always good teachers and teachers aren't always good parents.

(Cutting out classes like home economics makes for less capable adults, I say. I would've loved to learn how to sew and cook in school.)

TiggerHappy wrote: (Cutting out classes like home economics makes for less capable adults, I say.

Second that. My brother took home ec back in the day (on my mom's recommendation) and has never regretted it. My mom never required him to do any of that stuff at home, but at least she recognized he needed to learn it. Home ec was mostly review for me, but I found the budgeting stuff useful, because while my parents are frugal, they never really set up a family budget. They're so much alike - similar personalities, raised in the same small town - that they never discussed money while always handling it well, so that was not something I'd been exposed to before.

And our "health" class -- sex ed before sex ed was an issue -- was much more about relationship skills and dealing with your own hormonal changes than about sex per se. More broadly useful information, and important even in sexual relationships; one survey of girls who'd had sex ed classes for years revealed that what they most wanted to know was how to turn a guy down for sex without getting him mad at you.* Not that this is even possible with some guys, but part of developing social skills is knowing you have the right to establish boundaries, even if that means offending someone.

They did cover sex ed, birth control, and pubertal changes, but that only took a couple of weeks. Even back then, for most kids in Jr. High that was more about review and challenging some common myths than new information. And it's not like sex is particularly complicated subject to teach -- it's the undefined and ever changing human part that makes it complicated, not the sex part. :p:

edit:

*Come to think of it, that's the only survey I've seen that discussed what kids wanted out of sex ed. Every other one was about what various adults thought the kids needed. Granted, most topics taught in school I wouldn't worry about what the kids thought (eldest son saw absolutely no point to learning history until he hit 17 or so and started thinking like a potential voter), but when it comes to sex ed, especially sex ed for teens, I think most kids have a better grasp of what they need to know than the average adult.