bmags

Why are we talking about internships as if they are either or? Most people get internships in the summer or during a semester during college, so I don't think they are missing out.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) Meh, I don't think that means much. When Ben was a child, and first finds Richard in the woods, The Others were considered "The Hostiles" by Dharma. They were not part of Dharma either. They weren't dressed in uniforms when we saw them either.

their live shows really aren't that nuts. I mean, yeah Kevin Barnes may still be in that naked stage, but like the rest of the band is just standing at their instruments and Barnes costume changing can get pretty annoying.

Behind the plate, he's an excellent hitter ha.I hope he's right and he can be fringe-avg... I can handle weak D behind the plate as long as he calls a good game.

On more than one occasion my friends and I laughed out loud at how bad the acting was tonight. I was really disappointed tonight.

ugh, what a boring argument peanut. Are you really going to argue classical liberalism for the modern day usage?

I feel like this should have been such no-brainer stuff.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 08:01 PM) You went to Waubonsie HS? I went to Oswego. Yeah. Funny how similar Oswego and that Aurora/Naperville stretch on Ogden look now. Same with Plainfield. But compared to Neuqua, North and Central, Waubonsie was often referred to as second-rate. (because we were in a marginally poorer part of town)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 07:59 PM) Benet Academy is a private school, and considered a high end one. I know, I meant to separate the two. I needed to specify kirkwood was a good public school because it is in missouri so not a lot of people would know it.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 07:54 PM) Gladwell's book sounds interesting. I'm not trying to criticize a liberal arts education. I had one and going that route was the best choice of my life. But we need to really encourage other options. I think the smart option is also a red herring--the people that have quit graduate school before their PhD (or take forever to get one) are often the smartest. Smart only gets you so far. We teach kids that they're smart, so the world is theirs and that is bulls***. You have to sacrifice and work hard. Smart in and of itself is worthless. I agree. I was surprised how poorly some of my friends who went to good public schools kirkwood missouri, and good private schools( Bennet (lisle?)) have done along side me in Missouri. These were kids who did well in high school. And it really does come down to effort. For as much as Waubonsie was s*** on when I was in naperville, I'm forever grateful that our administration gave us a curriculum that focused on writing and essays more than tests. It really set us up well. And considering how well my friends from high school are doing, I think its a testament to that education as well.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:09 PM) And to bmags, maybe stigmatized is too strong of a word. But if someone told you he was attending Harvard or CoD, would you initially have a higher opinion of one? We, collectively, place high value on baccalaureate institutions and minimize the valuable contributions of 2 year schools and tech schools. Okay, I agree, I was speaking more to the fact that I enjoy that American curriculum is very broad education. one thing I learned in a public policy course: Universities found that raising their tuition raised attendance. Higher tuition was seen as more prestigious. I quite agree with you, soxy, I think these US news college rankings are such a load of crap. Things like flat screen tvs come into effect. Its a reason that I previously have argued that to I don't believe there is a difference in education in most colleges, Despite the 20 grand difference in tuition, I don't think University of Wisconsin students got a 20,000 dollar better education than me. I didn't really care for the book but an interesting part to Malcom Gladwell's Outliers book was talking about being smart enough, and pointed to where the last 20 nobel prize winners for different categories, and pointed to all the different colleges, sure some Ivy league or MIT. But he explained how at some point people are just "smart enough" and the difference between 120 and 180 isn't that different in terms of how much success is to be obtained. Kind of a rah rah anyone can do it thing. SS2k5, http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm#Summary I may have mislead. The study took two sets of kids in k-3, one in a small, 12-1 maybe, ratio of T-S. The other were larger. The kids who had a smaller class size in that time of their life did better throughout the educational experience compared to the kids in the higher class sizes. Now I feel like our professor said that in a follow up study of class size in high schools there was not much difference in how they performed at that level. But I couldn't find it in that summary.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:06 PM) Sure, but how many people really need to rack up $80k in student loans to get an B.A. in art history? I don't know where you got the impression that I meant art history should be what was pushed. Our engineering educations at American universities are a more liberal education than in Europe with all the upper level electives and gen eds needed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:05 PM) Interesting. I wonder if that has a change in higher achieving school systems? I would be curious to see what types of school systems were in the study. If I remember correctly, I believe it was called the "STAR" program, done in Kansas I believe? I'll do a google search.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 06:00 PM) But liberal arts isn't for everyone. And by stigmatizing trade schools we're denying some people the kind of education they need. I like the European system because there are more choices for students--so they get an education that is useful and beneficial to them. Too many students in this country go to college although they are academically unprepared or intellectually subpar because they feel like they have no other options. Not everyone should go to college, and even fewer people will flourish in a liberal arts setting. I do think that there is beginning to be a much needed switch--for example Stout has made a rather nice transition to a tech school. I didn't get the impression that trade schools or community colleges were stigmatized when I was in high school. They were openly encouraged. A liberal arts education is important to our democracy, in my opinion.

So is David Iglesias now working on these convictions of terrorists? Ahh, this is great. edit: sure is http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...gitmo_cases.php

I read a study that lower teacher-student ratios are really just important in k-6 levels and not as important in high schools. I believe it was a study in Kansas. I, personally, like the American higher education system. I think it's good we keep such a liberal arts education instead of such specific "trade" schools like you would see in Germany.

For me, it won't be over until the mistakes are corrected.

It seems the true criticism of the selection of Warren for the invocation was that he is terrible at it. Who knew. And my objection was to his stance on the gay community. How naive!

Yeah. I think it's fair to say there were a small number of teams willing to pay a fair price in compared to last year for the top free agents this year. But it does not seem like these mid-level free agents will see the same type of demand. Much like how an expiring contract can be as attractive as a superstar in the NBA, it seems like young pitchers and hitters are going to get a shot this year.

I guess I'll give them credit for sticking to their allegiance.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:24 AM) It's a gray area to me. I laregly think it's up to the state and local goverments. I have a hard time with the "voucher" program, although I understand the intent. I do think that there should be a standardization by our national government but I don't think that national education funding should go back to the states based on a test score program... I have a serious problem with that because there's too many issues with that. I think that part of the budget should just get allocated back to the states based on the populations of said children. In that way, the NATIONAL money is equalized ($X/student). Fair? That depends on your view point. On a national level, I think it's fair. The state then distributes how it can. The biggest issue (and therefore problem) is population shifts, inner cities whose dynamics simply don't change or get worse. How do you take care of that? In that way, somehow, there has to be a revitalization of the areas - and that goes beyond education programs. The problems largely start at home and where these kids live. If you're in a disadvantaged area, you stay in a disadvantaged area. I don't really know how you take care of that... other then through some of the initiatives beyond education to get off of urban blight, if you will. Parents are the other hugely important role. If you have parents that screw just to pump out kids for the welfare money, that's obviously a huge problem too. And it happens in the more economically depressed areas in the country. Again, that transcends "education". What do we do about that? Education is more then children. It's about the whole population. Re-education is something that is sorely needed in this country. I guess I don't have a good answer. Me neither, I actually feel quite similar. I'm for more standardized education, but also realize how culturally delicate that is. We are such a big country, and so diverse. So I think there are specific things can be done nationally, along the lines of some of the things you said, but also know that there needs to be a lot of flexibility for schools to fit their students.

Deism also has a pretty strong influence in that era. Ben Franklin, for instance, liked the morality set by church, but didn't attend it for the majority of his life and tended to lean more towards deism than dogma.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:00 AM) Probably because Jon Garland isn't ready to settle for a year or two or give up on his dream of $13M a year. It's a 2 way street. Is there a pitcher that will sign that gives Garland a better clue what he is worth?

Yes.

Out of curiousity, kap, do you think that is an issue the fed gov't should be tackling.