So, what is it with the US education system?

[TheLaofKazi]

"No child left behind"

Not even the ones that should be left behind. Parents don't want to learn that their kid is a complete moron, so they blame the schools for failing him, even though its the kid who's stupid.

This, this ruins our education's natural selection. Not everyone is smart and some people will have to be the bean counters. To quote Frank Fontain...

"All these poor schmucks. They come down here thinkin' they'll be Captians of Industry. They forget that someone has to clean the toilets..."

Plus most kids simply don't give a shit about education, so its less 100% of the education system's fault and more of a 50/50 where both the system and students are at fault.

Also true. I knew a lot of people from my graduation who passed high school easy but theres no way in hell they're going to make it through college with the same attitude.

That's not necessarily the issue of No Child Left Behind itself, it's more the issue of the way many schools are designed and the parents. The problem is, our schools focus so much on standards and testing in our schools, instead of the actual learning part. This focus on testing makes education poorer, because now it's not really about learning and growing both intellectually and emotionally, it's about passing that standardized test so that school can get it's money. Schools will teach to the test instead of just teaching, they will have to cut corners to make sure they can cover everything the test demands, and sometimes things that aren't demanded by the test get cut, because the school needs the money, even if it means creating what is essentially a class of people trained to take tests who lack deeper understanding of the material they need. This leaves those students unprepared for college and generally... real life.

Standardized tests are a very narrow test of one's intelligence, because they mostly only asking the student isolated facts. Not critical thinking, or applying news concepts in theories to a real life, hands on scenario, just isolated facts. And to top that off, standardized test add much unneeded stress and anxiety to school, which is one of the many factors that play in to making kids not like school. The focus is put on this life-determining test instead of learning.

And to further top it off, we have a school system that covers a very limited variety of talents. Most schools focus primarily on math, science and reading and writing. Generally, left brain stuff. And sure, those things are very important, but what about the many other subjects and skills that can be covered? Sure, a lot of them are covered, but not nearly as much, and there is less opportunity to pursue them in greater detail. So generally, you are going to end up with the kids that like and are good at math, science and reading and writing be successful in school, while the other kid's whose intelligence and talents lie elsewhere, not do as well and gain the same prestige and opportunities. They are going to end up being unhappy with school, and even end up thinking they aren't intelligent, even if they are, but their grades may say otherwise.

Creationists

Yeah, those damn creationists are the only thing ruining our perfect education system.

But no seriously, prove to me that creationism is being taught in an alarming number of public schools and then that would be a good point. I mean, I agree with you that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, but of all of the other issues and problems, this whole creationism thing is simply just a little bit of controversy blown out of proportion by fun things such as the news media to spice up people's boring lives.

 

[Demongeneral109]

It's true, actually. America is an incredibly intolerant, racist place. Did you know we have an entire political party dedicated to perpetuating class warfare and racial tensions? If you don't think exactly the same way the Party does, it tries to blacklist you from your ethnic community. It's scary shit.

Read the above text. Yes I know it is long, but seriously read it and think about it. It should answer much of your misgivings.

Dude, I *live* here. I've taken more history courses than my college counselor knew what to do with. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. The Democrat Party has had a foundation in racism and class-warfare from the beginning. Getting swallowed by the Marxists was the best thing that ever happened to it. They can much more easily pass hate off as love now than they could in the mid-20th century.

you're getting the new Democratic Party mixde up with the pre-Civil Rights Democrats. The Old Democratic party was, indeed, a white-supremacist party,mainly focused in the southern United States. After FDR and the great depression though, the Democratic Party became the party of the working class, many of whom were African American. It was at this point where the Republicans and Democrats had a re-alignment and the Republicans became the party of the Economic elite and (for a time) white supremacy. The Democrats, not the Republicans, passed civil rights legislation. So, if you want to be technical, the current Republicans are resemble pre-FDR Democrats than Modern Democrats do.

Wrong. The 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Also, Democrats fought against women?s suffrage from the beginning, all the while Republicans were supporting it. Republicans had speakers from the Feminist Movement at its conventions as guests of honor multiple times (see this link for details):

Democrats Defeat Voting Rights Amendment
Republican Senator A. A. Sargent of California pioneered the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1878. Encouraged by Susan B. Anthony, Sargent?s amendment was also called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Unfortunately, a Democrat controlled senate defeated the passage of the amendment four times.
Republican-Controlled Congress Finally Passes Suffrage for Women
Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.
As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification?eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

As I said, race and social-status has always been the foundation of the Democrat Party to stay in power. The only thing that?s changed is that it re-focused its sights on a more easily exploitable subject (more on this in my next post; I don?t want to overwhelm you) and convinced its former victims that Republicans want to hurt them because they're the wrong color.

Also, why does everyone assossiate the Democrats and Marxists? Yes, both are left-leaning groups, but the Democratic party is more centrist than most would like to think. Several European countries have stated that Americas' "Liberal" party (Democrats) would equate more to their own "Conservative" party. What American Liberals want is an economic system similar to European socialism (so far as I understand it anyway)to allow anyone to get medical treatment and other nesessities without jepordizing their financial security (or making their situation any worse.)

Because all their conventions, all their affiliates, and all the political diatribes of those who represent them are of the same theme: Class Struggle. They always claim that there are Big Corporations trying to steal the Little Guy?s money, or Rich People not ?Paying Their Fair Share?, or white people waiting to hurt minorities, and this is always the basis for that party?s staying in power. They make their constituents focus their hatred on groups of people based on their class. Instead of basing their staying in power on preserving/promoting Liberty and Equality of Opportunity, the Democrat party tries to champion Equality-of-Outcome through special rules and regulations for some (but not others). Where others say our rights are universal and exist in spite of the government, more and more spokesmen of the Democrat Party claim that all needs are rights, even if others provide the services that satisfy them. When non-constituents say ?no?, or ?that?s Unconstitutional?, Democrats say they?re in the Big Corporations? pocket, or that they?re racists, or ?Uncle Toms?. Then in 2008, we elected a Democrat president who has appointed several self-described Marxists to positions of power, including one who called Mao Zedong (Chairman Mao, the Chinese Stalin) one of her favorite philosophers (his face was on one of the Whitehouse Christmas tree ornaments last year). He was the disciple of a racist, Marxist preacher for 20 years but didn?t know it until the shit hit the fan on national television a second time. He was asked by a New York Times Journalist?one of the most liberal newspapers in the States?if he was a Socialist, and he laughed and stuttered. Meanwhile, the Democrat base asks, ?What controversy??.

Does that answer your question?

Ah, but who passed civil-rights legislation? Like I said, in 1887, the Democrats were the "conservative" party. It wasn't until after the Great Depression (and FDR)that the Democrats became the progressive party. And truly, who cares who the president is during a given administration? the Congress are the ones who pass the laws, the President just suports or denies that pass. And remember that until fairly recently, several conservative states were nominally Democratic because of Holdovers from the pre-civil rights Democrats; many of whom were socially conservative, and were more ideologically aligned with modern Republicans. The retirement or death of these holdovers is leading to a new Repubican "Solid South" Even within Parties there are varying ideologies, which is why candidates need to be judged by their stated position, rather than their party positon.

As for the second part of your argument, on "marxism and Democrats," and your, adnitedly valid statements on Democratic retoric; both parties rely on Socio-Economic tensions to garner support from their respective platforms, the Democrats, as I stated, are now the "workers" party, while the Republicans are the party of Buisness. Both groups use these tensions to rally their supporters. Don't try to vilify one party for playing politics, because they all do!


As for the Times Journalist story, remember that Right-Wing retoric tends to be more inflamitory than its left-wing counterpart. Most Democrats don't take FOX News seriously so there is no controversy to them. And to clarify Socialism is not marxism or Communism. Socialism is an economic policy based around the idea of the welfare state, in the same way President Obamas economic policy is based around Keynesian Economics, or Herbert Hoovers(bad example I know, but It's 1:30 AM and I can't be bothered to look for a better example) was based on Classical Economic Theory. Just to clarify, both theories have their place, but classical economics works better in small recessions, and large depressions are generally agreed to be affected more by Keynesian policies.

To further clarify the parties economic platforms, the Republican Party, and its belief in small government, leads to a more 'true' Capitalist economy, governed by Supply and Demand, leading to higher economic "booms" but proportanatly parge "busts," The Democratic platform seeks to Lessen the economic instability through government programs, thus the Democratic party of Big Government. Each has their pros and Cons, its a matter of what each individual wants, thats what Democracy is all about no~?

Also, please tell me who said Mao was their favorite Philosoper? Either way, that is an idividual, not representative of the party as a whole. Your know what? Just name the people your stories are connected to, it just sounds like retoric to me right now. This sounds like those "I know someone who knows a guy who..." stories; without names or dates, these stories lack validity. Regardless; it's hard to take any one example seriously, trends are the more important establishment of a given partys' base. After all, if I took the Tea-Party and their reputed racial-slurs and posters comparing Obama to Hitler as my template of the Right Wing, I think they(and you I think, sometimes its hard to tell on the internet ) would be rightly pissed off!

 

[Demongeneral109]

"No child left behind"

Not even the ones that should be left behind. Parents don't want to learn that their kid is a complete moron, so they blame the schools for failing him, even though its the kid who's stupid.

This, this ruins our education's natural selection. Not everyone is smart and some people will have to be the bean counters. To quote Frank Fontain...

"All these poor schmucks. They come down here thinkin' they'll be Captians of Industry. They forget that someone has to clean the toilets..."

Plus most kids simply don't give a shit about education, so its less 100% of the education system's fault and more of a 50/50 where both the system and students are at fault.

Also true. I knew a lot of people from my graduation who passed high school easy but theres no way in hell they're going to make it through college with the same attitude.

That's not necessarily the issue of No Child Left Behind itself, it's more the issue of the way many schools are designed and the parents. The problem is, our schools focus so much on standards and testing in our schools, instead of the actual learning part. This focus on testing makes education poorer, because now it's not really about learning and growing both intellectually and emotionally, it's about passing that standardized test so that school can get it's money. Schools will teach to the test instead of just teaching, they will have to cut corners to make sure they can cover everything the test demands, and sometimes things that aren't demanded by the test get cut, because the school needs the money, even if it means creating what is essentially a class of people trained to take tests who lack deeper understanding of the material they need. This leaves those students unprepared for college and generally... real life.

Standardized tests are a very narrow test of one's intelligence, because they mostly only asking the student isolated facts. Not critical thinking, or applying news concepts in theories to a real life, hands on scenario, just isolated facts. And to top that off, standardized test add much unneeded stress and anxiety to school, which is one of the many factors that play in to making kids not like school. The focus is put on this life-determining test instead of learning.

And to further top it off, we have a school system that covers a very limited variety of talents. Most schools focus primarily on math, science and reading and writing. Generally, left brain stuff. And sure, those things are very important, but what about the many other subjects and skills that can be covered? Sure, a lot of them are covered, but not nearly as much, and there is less opportunity to pursue them in greater detail. So generally, you are going to end up with the kids that like and are good at math, science and reading and writing be successful in school, while the other kid's whose intelligence and talents lie elsewhere, not do as well and gain the same prestige and opportunities. They are going to end up being unhappy with school, and even end up thinking they aren't intelligent, even if they are, but their grades may say otherwise.

Creationists

Yeah, those damn creationists are the only thing ruining our perfect education system.

But no seriously, prove to me that creationism is being taught in an alarming number of public schools and then that would be a good point. I mean, I agree with you that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, but of all of the other issues and problems, this whole creationism thing is simply just a little bit of controversy blown out of proportion by fun things such as the news media to spice up people's boring lives.

This isn't quite creationism, but Politics in Education isn't helping either, so [link]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=1[/link] is a bad sign methinks nyoro~

 

[Miumaru]

School should be about teaching us. Thats it. I did bad alot. A perfect school system would work to help me to learn and do well. Instead it just added to my stress. Only my US History teacher in 11th grade knew how to teach. When I did poor the first quater, he talked to me...and HELPED ME! I then was one of his top students the rest of the year.

Schools do not work to teach us and help us learn. They just stress us out and drop us on our asses if WE do not conform to THEM.

I remember some teachers saying how us failing did not reflect bad on them. But why not? Now I understand some people refuse to learn, but not every failing student wants to fail. If a teacher has failing students, thats like a factory making shoddy merchandise.

Schools need to be reformed to focus on teaching us no matter what. If it does not work, they should change. Not everyone is the same. Some people do fine with the way it works now, but not everyone. Schools should also be on the same level. Why the hell am I taking tests in New York that the rest is not? (This is one reason why I am pro more government power vs state power, a country should be united)

 

[KeyMaster45]

I've been told multiple times over my student life by teacher and professors (of both university and high school) "You are not in school to learn, you are in school to get a piece of paper that proves you can learn." or something to that effect.

That philosophy right there, I believe, sums up why our school system is in the crapper. We are not being taught the comprehension of our studies what we are being taught is how to better retain and repeat information fed to us. There is no thinking meant to be had, when was the last time you (if you're a student in the US) actually retained things you learned after you've taken a test? Maybe a few very important things here and there that you've been told you will need in years to come, but other than that you do a memory purge to make room for the next wave of information they feed you.

I'm guilty of it myself, granted I have a far harder time doing so with anything that's not math. Do I wish I had been taught better in my early years of learning? Of course I do; I crave knowledge and thankfully that craving has driven me to teach myself when the system has failed to follow through on something. That last chapter of the science text-book where they ramble on about how the weather works? Since we would never get to it I'd just read it myself, and do look up things that further interested me.

Oh and please, don't get me started on the patronizing format of every textbook given to us that attempts to be "hip" and talk down to us like we're retarded invalids. I've been very fortunate over the years to have been given teachers who really have a passion about teaching their students more than just what the state mandates. Blame for poor education rests upon the shoulders of both parties; students have to be willing to learn and teachers have to be given the freedom to teach without fear of repercussion. You want to know how people learn? You challenge their ideas and concepts of the world, I'm sad to say that when my family finally picked up digital cable I learned more in one afternoon of watching BBC world news than I had in the last 7 years.(that's a whole separate rant on the state of US news services and the availability of information to the public)

Oh, and let me leave you with this thought. In the state of Louisiana, my home state, (where I'm starting to think most terrible ideas originate from) they are opening the state's first "Trade High School". This school is for students who would normally not graduate high school and its sole purpose is to teach them a trade and send them out into the world. While admirable in its intent to ensure every child has the ability to obtain a job, I feel it circumvents the need to address the reason as to WHY these kids wouldn't normally graduate high school.

 

[devildog1170]

My school is the worst. We had a system that went 100-93 percent is an A, 92 to 85 is a B, and so on. Why would you know make the grading system the same as everyone else's in the state? Not to mention, there were a bunch of practice ACT tests you could take, most of them being held somewhere in our town, and the school never mentioned it once.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

There is no problem with our education system.

 

[TraceurRyuk]

I don't think it's really THAT bad... I mean, I went to public schools and I turned out... Alright...

 

[Lexodus]

So yeah, as an American student, I can tell you it really is that bad. I have to wonder what sucks in other educational systems.

The food, mostly.

Then again, you can tell something's wrong with the American schooling system. "No Child Left Behind"? Wasn't so long ago you were talking about "Giving kids a headstart"! From a headstart to being left behind, somebody's losing some fucking ground here, huh?
As George Carlin would continue, the politicians hiding behind education always say '''we need more money for education. We need more books, more teachers, more classrooms, more schools, more testing; we need more testing for the kids." "Well", you say, "We've tried all that." "Well that's okay," they reply, "We're going to lower the passing grades!' Soon, all you'll need to get into university is a pencil!
"You got a pencil?"
"Yep!"
"Well get the fuck in there, it's Physics!""

The other part, of course, is a byproduct of the American Psyche as a whole: Jingoism. How many times do I have to salute the Union Jack, sing God Save The Queen, recite some godforsaken pledge to be the best darn mind-slave I can be a day? Not a fucking one. So much importance is placed on all the mindless shit like that, the other stuff gets pushed aside. All they 'teach' you is "America's the best! We won every single war ever! Even the Akkadian invasion of Syria! War of 1812? Never happened! If you do stuff we don't like, if you question us or think for yourselves, that's un-American! Being un-American is wrong, because being American is the highest form of life! Jesus was American!"
All in that nasally, high-pitched whine. I was just on holiday in Canada, and I had the misfortune to get into a group of Californian tourists. I mean, I could swear I could see people, but all I could hear was a large infestation of angry bees asking where the Hyatt was when they were standing right in front of it, directly under a sign saying 'HYATT' in huge fucking letters.

And THIS, this 'Land of the Free, Home of the morbidly obese, hurr durr terrorists hate me cause of my freedoms' bullshit, THIS is what is wrong; instead of trying to breed it out, that kind of rubbish is actively taught to young minds with so much more to offer. And then you wonder why seventeen other countries graduate more scientists than you, and why arguably your greatest claim to fame, electricity, was invented by a fucking SERBIAN (which, sadly, most of your classmates won't even have heard of, let alone be able to point to on a map).

Huh. Guess I've become cynical in my old age... or perhaps it's the sleep deprivation. Oh well...

 

[webchameleon]

Of course things are not as black and white as I might have worded them to be. It is not the case that Europe crushes individualism we just take an alternate route to achieving it. Methinks that major responsibility is relieved (rather than imbued due to lack of state handling of certain things), giving you more free time to pursue your interests and hobbies or overcome the 'problems' you mention. It seems to work pretty well.

That's what I mean by conflict of vision. Even most Democrats would feel emasculated under a system that openly admitted to trying to relieve people of their responsibilities.

That's a pretty impressive analysis. You kind of poisoned the well in that first scenario, by polarizing two subjective views of Western ("Harsh") and European (?Nurturing?) school environments. I don't understand why you have to characterize the former so overwhelmingly negatively and the latter so overwhelmingly positively. It must be an East/West thing, because while I'm sure you thought the analysis unbiased and favor the latter (your subconscious, however?), I find the latter description to represent a flaccid upbringing and a denial of personal development.

It's not my own. It's from a book I read [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Society-Forgot-Another-Instead/dp/1847375715] on psychology.

I thought it sounded awfully text-y--familiar, even--but I wasn't going to say anything

The views are polarised precisely because they represent two extremes. Of course it is not so black and white and there is extreme variation within each area. I recognise this. All I claim is that the US tends towards a harsher atmosphere and lifestyle while the EU is more nurturing. Which is something you agree with in the end anyway.

Actually, I was being ironic in the end. The ideal of trying to legislate "brother-love" and success for all has not just emasculated the citizenry, but held a lot of promising minds back for failing to meet ridiculous criteria in academic and professional settings (more on that later, but I will stop to finger affirmative-action and almost explicitly stated need-over-merit employment). It's harsh, Dude.

Neither one is worded specifically to make it sound worse or better, I just list the characteristics associated with each kind of upbringing, off the top of my head. It just so happens that prevailing moral views place the descriptives of the latter on a higher level than those of the former.

Although the latter has been the way I have been brought up, and it's worked tremendously well for me, so perhaps I am biased. Doesn't really matter. The attributes of a harsh upbringing are appropriate for a harsh environment.

I'd call this a conflict of vision. In truth, your first description is a far-cry from the US public school system, but much like a boot camp. When people like me (Libertarians/Conservatives) say "competitive" with regard to schools, we don't actually mean competition between students (not to imply we think that's usually a bad thing). We mean competition between schools for students. The best schools aren't the ones that march students down the field and make them shout their times-tables in unison. They're the ones that have a financial interest in improving their curriculum, instead of sucking up tax money we have to pay them at the threat of prison.

The problem with having competition between schools for students is that you propagate the class divide.

Explain. How does schools competing for parents to send them their kids (read: money) propagate the class-divide? You mean because "better" schools will cost more? Isn't that true already? And if you didn't have government-mandated school funding, would it not compel schools of all price-ranges and districts to improve so low-income families won't send their kids to other "cheap" schools? You would necessarily have all schools improve to survive, anyway--a net gain, not a loss for the less affluent. Get real.

It does mean some schools are truly stellar, though. The problem (Which we have in the UK) with having competition between students for schools is that a student might not be placed in an appropriate school (Distance-wise and such.). The upshot is that everyone has equal opportunity to an education.

The problem with having public schools in the United States--and there have been news specials on this for decades(man, I love ellipses!)--is that students are mandated by the government to attend certain schools, sometimes across town from their homes. You know what they use to determine who goes where?

Skin color.

This is not a joke. It is factual. The government tries to make sure that there is "racial diversity" in school by forcing kids to go to schools that need more Black/White/Latino students. This happens most often in Black communities. A good number of their kids get shuttled across town, and other kids get brought in.

The view here is that the best schools are not those that march their students down to the field and make them shout times-tables in unison. They're the ones that have an emotional and moral interest in improving their students, instead of merely processing them. When you remove money from the motivational spectrum, you leave only those who really want to do what they are doing for moral reasons, not just financial ones. Example being that trial of paying for blood donations I've seen referenced a few times.

How do you legislate emotions? Thoughts? You can't guarantee a person's thoughts as they pursue a goal. That's why in America, most of us are partial to the profit-motive of business. With limited checks (via the government), only those who can truly provide what customers want--whatever their motives-- stay in business. In the case of schools, parents want excellent curriculum, attentive teachers, and a safe environment. If the teachers are sleeping at their desks, the school is serving rat-meat, or kids are only reading "Go-Dog-Go" in in "Honors: English", parents are going to find-out. Then they take their kids out, and move them to a better school. Before they do, they tell their friends about it, and they pull their kids. Then someone reports it to a website that reviews schools, then 20-20 picks up the story, and the school scrambles to fix its image or goes under. That's how Capitalism works.

I've never been to Europe.
*I know that since that new health plan was passed (the one that was supposed to better emulate the UK plan), my insurance rates have gone up twice and a lot of businesses have either stopped expanding or imploded.
[sub]Your health plan doesn't really emulate the UK system. As far as I know it simply obligates coverage via the expensive private sector.

There's a limited public option, now.

There are still no state hospitals or anything like that. What I know is that the UK health system really, really works well. In some ways not as good as yours (Prostrate cancer, for example), but generally speaking it is as good as it, even better in some areas, and is vastly, hugely, massively cheaper.

Not for us (Or for you. From what I hear, your government is going to have to roll-back to prevent bankruptcy. Same for Canada). Current projections show deficits will increase. What the government's option (again, this isn't the titular "Public Option" Obama wanted, just limited for low-income persons) does is only a small amount of what private health plans offer, and it's STILL not efficient enough to be cost-effective! And, again, it's driven private rates UP, not down.

*I know Charles Mansion is still alive and as crazy as the day we took him in.

Is this a cherry picked example of someone who will never be reformed?

I admit, that wasn't fair. I extended that point, but it was too long. My point was that we get lots of really, REALLY evil people we have to take care of the rest of their lives because more often than not, we can't kill them. Manson was in the fast-lane to the frier, but just after he was sentenced, California banned Capital Punishment. Fact is, very few people get executed in the United States per year (I think it could be less than a hundred, if even 50. I didn't check, I'm just trying to recall what I heard on a news panel). This idea that we have a blood-thirsty justice system is ludicrous. Some really bad people get let off the hook for technicalities by law enforcement all the time. Most inmates don't even serve their full sentences for "good behavior".

*I know we have something called ?Social Security?, but Congress dipped into it every time another social program came about, and there?s no more money left for my generation, no matter how much we pay into it.

Explain? I don't geddit.

Social Security was created by Franklin D. Roosevelt, I believe just after World War II. The idea was that taxpayers would pay into a government account collectively and once they retired, they would get money paid out to them for the remainder of their lives. But there were several problems. One of the most serious was that all the soldiers who came back had a
"Baby Boom", all born at approximately the same time. Now these babies are retiring and there's not enough money to pay them with in Social Security. Originally, retirement was set at about 50 years-old. But as Congress kept repeatedly dipping into it to pay for new programs, and as the population continued to rapidly expand (assuming that somehow there are more retirees than not), the retirement age increased several times. Furthermore, the benefits offered have been cut a few times as well (less money paid back to the retirees). Retirement is now set at 65, I believe. So when you hear Republicans saying "They're stealing our grandchildren's future", one of the things they're talking about is the government spending money meant for Social Security. The other thing is, naturally, the fact that they (me) have to pay higher taxes to pay off our mounting debt.

So now you know. This was actually a bipartisan explanation.

(Oh, and Republicans want to "Privatize" Social Security, which I assume just means we pay into our own pockets via a government account, and the government gives back to each of us what we *individually* put in.)

*I know people who thank god for every extra hour they can get of overtime?I?m one of them (but I don?t thank god).

Why? Because you like to work or because you have to to survive?

Both. Not all people like their jobs, but again, most Americans find unemployment low hours to be emasculating. People like me think a person should be allowed to work as many hours that their employers will agree to. We also would like to eliminate the minimum wage, which would make more hours possible for people just getting into the jobs market, i.e. students. Sometimes just a dollar too much is enough to make an employer say "he's just not economically viable". It would really help out in this recession, where kids' parents are being laid-off. There'd be a lot more entry-level positions available.

*I know that general education has been dumbed-down for years to accommodate different cultures and disabilities (read: Less learning about American societal foundations and more time hearing about a coastal entrepreneur named Shelly).

Huh? This sounds like it has a funny story behind it. Explain?

It's a tongue-twister to help improve pronunciation of English words that begin with "s" and "sh" alternatively: "Shelly sells seashells by the sea shore. Shelly sells seashells by the sea shore. Shelly sells seashells by the sea shore. Shelly sells seashells by the sea shore. Shelly sells seashells by the sea shore. Shelly sells seashells by the sea shore. [sub]Shelly sells seashells by the sea shore...[/sub]"

(Just a joke about how time is wasted integrating new cultures from scratch in a mainstream setting. No offense to my foreign friends, but that's what preschool is for.)

*I know I got the best marks of anyone in grade school in Math, Science, Language, and Art?but was threatened with being held back repeatedly for low Citizenship.

Shame, for someone who seems to know so much about their chosen political ideologies. Do they even teach that in citizenship or is it more like PS(H)E is over here?

Aren't you full from all the words I've made you eat? The grading system is different in the early stages of a US public education. You don't just get graded on academic subjects. You also get graded on something called "Citizenship", which is not a class, but how much time you spend with your peers, how often you collaborate, how you work in groups, etc. I was a very introverted kid in Kindergarden and Elementary School. My parents had just divorced when I started school and lets just say I received some very unjust flares of emotion from time to time. My father wasn't physically abusive, but my mother would freak out sometimes [...]. One step-parent is emotionally abusive, the other *might* have gone too far during one of his punishments with my brother when we were young--I'm sure he didn't hurt him, though. He's just a hard-ass and passive-aggressive. I hate him as much as I love him.
I digress. Anyway, I was messed-up. I can say without exaggerating that in many respects--particularly in Reading, Writing, Art, and exposition--I was 'gifted' during my early years (let me take this opportunity to say I NEVER use this many parentheses and ellipses in academic prose). But I failed to relate to anyone my own age and just preferred to be left alone. I didn't collaborate, I didn't hang-out, and I didn't make friends [easily]. I didn't bully either, though. Even though I got extremely high grades in Kindergarden, my teacher warned my mother I'd be held back if my "Citizenship" didn't improve. This continued to happen until about 4th grade, when they stopped grading in that category.

American society is harsh. And yes, the school system definitely reflects it.

And deep down I think that's the fundamental problem with the US way [sup][sup](Blah blah who am I to judge blah blah. Please humour me.)[...]Although given [...], I can be forgiven for thinking that the US way isn't really beneficial for the people that support it, except for those at the top.

I don't humor surrender to ignorance. Nearly all of your claims are just Liberal anecdotes. Anecdotes are to be expected in a forum, but you provide no sources (and fail to note when you've copied other people's work) to back anything up. You never differentiate b/w fact and opinion, or even walk us through the process that leads to those opinions. You only speak in absolutes, which, while admirable in relation to philosophical ideals, is sloppy when applied to descriptions of a large nation/group of people. I frequently use words like "most" and "some" to avoid blanketing any individuals in disgrace unjustly. When I *do* describe groups in absolute terms, I try to provide context. You do not. If I have not done so somewhere, I should go back and provide it.

I am not saying you're a bad guy, I just think you could be a little more open-minded.

{I know I still haven't explained what happened to the Democrats, yet. It's 4:00am, and I'm tired. G'night.)

 

[webchameleon]

I was just cruising Wikipedia and came across this interesting bit of info [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#cite_ref-97] on an early 20th Century American President, Calvin Coolidge (Republican):

Civil Rights

Coolidge spoke out in favor of the civil rights of African Americans and Catholics.[127] He appointed no known members of Ku Klux Klan to office; indeed the Klan lost most of its influence during his term.[128]

In 1924, Coolidge responded to a letter that claimed the United States was a "white man's country":
? ....I was amazed to receive such a letter. During the war 500,000 colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it. [As president, I am] one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution....[129] ?

On June 2, 1924, Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted full U.S. citizenship to all American Indians, while permitting them to retain tribal land and cultural rights. However, the act was not clear whether the federal government or the tribal leaders retained tribal sovereignty.[130] Coolidge repeatedly called for anti-lynching laws to be enacted, but most Congressional attempts to pass this legislation were filibustered by Southern Democrats.

I remembered posting here and wanted to add this.

 

[W8NKA]

Being an Australian i don't belive that i have that problem, what problem i do have is the crap teachers my school employs. My first enconter with a crap teacher is when i was in year 8. He was from egypt (im not racest), but man was he crap. Some of my friends had him for year 9 maths and guese what.. they were teaching him!

So in conclusion, i gather is that its not education departments fault, no, it's the shity schools that employ the crap teachers