Can someone please explain this to me?

[Maggie]

A good and quite accurate article. I as an educator fully believe that we push way too many kids down the college path, and we set up the system to be geared towards that to the detriment of many.

If I had my choice, high school would have the freshman and sophomore years be oriented as the end of our traditional core subject structure (math, science, social studies, English, plus some semester long things and some electives). Junior and senior years would be focused very specifically into what the student is wanting to get ready for after high school. For many, that would be college prep and the classes would be a lot like what they are now. But there are many who would be better served by getting a couple years of classes targeted towards a career. They would still be getting their "core" subjects, just embedded in career preparation. I know some don't like the idea of making kids choose at age 15, but honestly, one could go through a career path, and if he or she decided college was the desire at after high school, it is still possible. Maybe first by going to a juco before moving on, and such a student would hopefully be a bit more intrinsically motivated.

Not bad but you would need to change the entire culture of higher education and the perception of those doing the hiring. That is a high hurdle - any many have careers and money at stake. They will act in their own interests.

[ShockBand]

A good and quite accurate article. I as an educator fully believe that we push way too many kids down the college path, and we set up the system to be geared towards that to the detriment of many.

If I had my choice, high school would have the freshman and sophomore years be oriented as the end of our traditional core subject structure (math, science, social studies, English, plus some semester long things and some electives). Junior and senior years would be focused very specifically into what the student is wanting to get ready for after high school. For many, that would be college prep and the classes would be a lot like what they are now. But there are many who would be better served by getting a couple years of classes targeted towards a career. They would still be getting their "core" subjects, just embedded in career preparation. I know some don't like the idea of making kids choose at age 15, but honestly, one could go through a career path, and if he or she decided college was the desire at after high school, it is still possible. Maybe first by going to a juco before moving on, and such a student would hopefully be a bit more intrinsically motivated.

Not bad but you would need to change the entire culture of higher education and the perception of those doing the hiring. That is a high hurdle - any many have careers and money at stake. They will act in their own interests.

Self-preservation and the greater good unfortunately don't always go hand-in-hand. And you are right, such changes aren't likely to happen at the instigation of the institution if it doesn't help their "way of life". Change will only happen if more youngins break the ditto and lemming mode and figure out that your real path and journey in life is made by finding your own way, which is often frustrating and fraught with challenges. In life, there is no "easy" button, but too many think there is. "What, I have to actually work and work hard?"

[Maggie]

A good and quite accurate article. I as an educator fully believe that we push way too many kids down the college path, and we set up the system to be geared towards that to the detriment of many.

If I had my choice, high school would have the freshman and sophomore years be oriented as the end of our traditional core subject structure (math, science, social studies, English, plus some semester long things and some electives). Junior and senior years would be focused very specifically into what the student is wanting to get ready for after high school. For many, that would be college prep and the classes would be a lot like what they are now. But there are many who would be better served by getting a couple years of classes targeted towards a career. They would still be getting their "core" subjects, just embedded in career preparation. I know some don't like the idea of making kids choose at age 15, but honestly, one could go through a career path, and if he or she decided college was the desire at after high school, it is still possible. Maybe first by going to a juco before moving on, and such a student would hopefully be a bit more intrinsically motivated.

Not bad but you would need to change the entire culture of higher education and the perception of those doing the hiring. That is a high hurdle - any many have careers and money at stake. They will act in their own interests.

Self-preservation and the greater good unfortunately don't always go hand-in-hand. And you are right, such changes aren't likely to happen at the instigation of the institution if it doesn't help their "way of life". Change will only happen if more youngins break the ditto and lemming mode and figure out that your real path and journey in life is made by finding your own way, which is often frustrating and fraught with challenges. In life, there is no "easy" button, but too many think there is. "What, I have to actually work and work hard?"

The key is to try to create an environment in which self-preservation might advance the common good. I personally think monkeying around with the system (mostly to satisfy the desires of one group or another) be it in education or the economy does much more harm than good.

But certain incentives have been in place for decades, regarding education, be it at your level or college. In that respect, I don’t fault the kids or their parents. And it is not the young men and women of the world that need to change things – adults do, adults in the position to do so. You made some good suggestions…but don’t fault the children or their parents for playing the hand they have been dealt. Things are “easy” because they are “easy” – right up until they graduate. The kids act on incentives the same as everyone else.

[1979Shocker]

Poll: ‘Occupy Wall St.’ much more popular than Obama, tea party

A poll by Time released Thursday, which asked participants’ opinions on President Barack Obama’s job performance, the impact of the tea party and views of “Occupy Wall Street,” contains a startling revelation that the national press hasn’t quite pieced together yet: the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters have a higher approval rating than President Obama.

The poll’s figures show that President Obama has an approval rating of just 44 percent, with 50 percent disapproving and six percent not sure. That stands in contrast to the 54 percent who say their opinion of “Occupy Wall Street” is either “very favorable” (25 percent) or “somewhat favorable” (29 percent).

Comparatively, the tea party, which has essentially become the Republican Party’s attempt at a populist movement, only has a 27 percent approval rating, with just eight percent being “very favorable” and 19 percent being “somewhat favorable.”

[Kung Wu]

Poll: ‘Occupy Wall St.’ much more popular than Obama, tea party

A poll by Time released Thursday, which asked participants’ opinions on President Barack Obama’s job performance, the impact of the tea party and views of “Occupy Wall Street,” contains a startling revelation that the national press hasn’t quite pieced together yet: the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters have a higher approval rating than President Obama.

The poll’s figures show that President Obama has an approval rating of just 44 percent, with 50 percent disapproving and six percent not sure. That stands in contrast to the 54 percent who say their opinion of “Occupy Wall Street” is either “very favorable” (25 percent) or “somewhat favorable” (29 percent).

Comparatively, the tea party, which has essentially become the Republican Party’s attempt at a populist movement, only has a 27 percent approval rating, with just eight percent being “very favorable” and 19 percent being “somewhat favorable.”

Haha, the same magazine that had a picture of Obama or Obama's name on 25 of 52 issues in 2008 (and 14 of those he was featured). One year! That's a poll you can believe in!

[Maggie]

Poll: ‘Occupy Wall St.’ much more popular than Obama, tea party

A poll by Time released Thursday, which asked participants’ opinions on President Barack Obama’s job performance, the impact of the tea party and views of “Occupy Wall Street,” contains a startling revelation that the national press hasn’t quite pieced together yet: the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters have a higher approval rating than President Obama.

The poll’s figures show that President Obama has an approval rating of just 44 percent, with 50 percent disapproving and six percent not sure. That stands in contrast to the 54 percent who say their opinion of “Occupy Wall Street” is either “very favorable” (25 percent) or “somewhat favorable” (29 percent).

Comparatively, the tea party, which has essentially become the Republican Party’s attempt at a populist movement, only has a 27 percent approval rating, with just eight percent being “very favorable” and 19 percent being “somewhat favorable.”

Haha, the same magazine that had a picture of Obama or Obama's name on 25 of 52 issues in 2008 (and 14 of those he was featured). One year! That's a poll you can believe in!

Kung Wu: Read the relevant questions:

Q8. ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE TEA PARTY TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 8%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 19%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 9%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 24%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 39%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

vs.

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 25%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

TIME Poll

[RoyalShock]

Did Time hire Frank Luntz to formulate their poll questions?

They could have worded it like this.

Q8. ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEM TO HAVE AN OPINION?

and

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF FURRY PUPPETS HAVE BEEN GATHERING ON SESAME STREET TO TEACH YOUNG CHILDREN HOW TO BE GOOD CITIZENS. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PUPPETS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PUPPETS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

and received similar results.

[Maggie]

Did Time hire Frank Luntz to formulate their poll questions?

They could have worded it like this.

Q8. ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEM TO HAVE AN OPINION?

and

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF FURRY PUPPETS HAVE BEEN GATHERING ON SESAME STREET TO TEACH YOUNG CHILDREN HOW TO BE GOOD CITIZENS. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PUPPETS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PUPPETS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

and received similar results.

Bad things are happening to the puppets or muppets:

Occupy 'Sesame Street': Grover arrested, Count pepper-sprayed

[Kung Wu]

Kung Wu: Read the relevant questions:

Q8. ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE TEA PARTY TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 8%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 19%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 9%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 24%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 39%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

vs.

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 25%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

TIME Poll

Oh Geez. Point proven. Thanks Maggie. Usually they aren't this obvious -- they are usually more strategic in picking the polling body.

:shock:

[Kung Wu]

Bad things are happening to the puppets or muppets:

Occupy 'Sesame Street': Grover arrested, Count pepper-sprayed

Hahaha!

[Maggie]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.

[RoyalShock]

More interesting reports and anecdotes from the protests, particularly as it pertains to who is organizing them.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/solid-evidence-that-occupy-wall-street-is-a-communist-movement-run-by-socialists-who-wish-to-bring-down-the-free-enterprise-system

[1979Shocker]

Occupy Wall Street gets support from the rich 1 percent via Tumblr

[RoyalShock]

Occupy Wall Street gets support from the rich 1 percent via Tumblr

Am I supposed to be persuaded because the Warren Buffett wealthies support the OWS protests?

"My family doesn't need our second home. My friends really badly need healthcare. I want EVERYONE I love to have enough! I will continue to fight for wealth redistribution. I am the 1%. I stand with the 99%," one of the captions said.

The great thing about a country like the United States is that wealthy people like the one quoted above have the freedom to sell that 2nd home and help their "poor" friends. Until those privileged hypocrites spend their wealth doing what they want the government to do, they have no credibility and no right to petition the government to steal from me to benefit their pet causes.

Yes, by all means go "stand" with the "99%". But lead by example and give your wealth away first. When I start hearing stories about trust fund kids paying off their so-called friends' student loans, hospital bills or insurance premiums, then I'll consider listening.

[Maggie]

This is all just very silly. If you even attempt to have a discussion with any of these "protesters" - you would be better served talking to fellow down the street who believes the moon is made of cheese.

As an aside, given the intellectual ignorance of many of these individuals I am slowly coming around with regard to their complaints about student loan debts. In all fairness, they probably deserve a refund.