OMG. I'm starting to believe hawkeye

As far as accountants go, their basic job hasn't changed in more than 5000 years (there actually are accounting records that old, both in what we call China and from Sumeria). Largely, what has changed are the tools of the trade, and double entry accounting, invented by a monk at the dawn of the Renaissance.

Apparently, though, theft in office by accountants has been with us just as long as accounting records. Them boys at Enron may have had creative methods, but they weren't doing anything new.

When I was in high school vo-tech programs were huge and tremendously popular. Do schools still offer auto mechanics?

I agree that education will take on a more free-range atmosphere and I think that's great. I love how kids will find an interest and pursue it to the ends of their ability -- it stops being "work" and starts being a "passion". Then they start applying that to other things. They don't even know they're learning and they don't think of it as studying.

The worksheet factory of elementary school does nothing to harness this ability.

vocational auto mechanics is largely a thing of the past.

it is more of a theory class now...

Ha! It's still pretty freaky when it happens though, right?

That's sucky.

I think all students would benefit from a semester of hands on auto mechanics.

Then why do you continue to join threads about education issues?

If you find them boring, buzz off.

The basic mechanics don't change, but the rules do. New tax laws every year, ya know?

OK.

Well, I think they can definitely be done badly.

I loved it and I think it was good for me in a lot of ways. People tend to think "oh the smart kids will be fine whatever, just leave 'em and focus on the other kids." I liked school fine but liked it much more when I had stuff that was really challenging, and also liked socially being in a situation where being smart was not a negative. And it is a negative in so many ways. (I'm loath to say that sozlet is in gifted programs for example, realized that after I posted my last response with the neutral "familiar.")

In sozlet's case (since I'm admitting that now), I also think it's really helpful for her. It's pretty short time-wise -- she has three separate classes that are half an hour each, once a week. So an hour and a half out of one day for her, other kids have some combination (just one for 30", or two for 1', or all three for 1.5') (the classes are by content area, rather than a more general "gifted" class which is what I had).

She seems to love both the challenge (I mentioned her skating tendencies -- spelling lists that are a challenge for many of her classmates are a no-brainer for her, etc.) and like the same social stuff that I talked about.

As a general concept I want her to have a work ethic -- not just think everything is easy (and should be easy) because the baseline curriculum is easy for her. I think it's important to have to work for accomplishments, both to establish good work habits and to feel the satisfaction of an accomplishment that is really earned.

There is stuff that happens within the classroom too as part of the program. Basically the point is to keep her challenged.

This is while there are also significant resources allocated to a kid with special needs in her class, autism spectrum I think.

As in, as far as I can tell, there isn't anything inherently bad about gifted programs. It can be done, and can be done well.

I'm sure it can, and is, done badly too, though.

I did the same thing as your son.

The artist as a social critic? That sounds cool.

Old testament prophecy taught by a rabbi? Can't miss that.

Communication law? I really ought to know that.

I've thought about going back for my degree but the idea that I'd have to take some boring, bullshit classes prevents me from doing so.

Plus, not having a degree never once prevented me from having a job that "required" a degree.

I'm all for spreading the resources around, but one of the issues that affect TAG kids is that if they are in the same class as everyone else then they end up getting fewer resources than average. Since they need less guidance, they receive less guidance.

It's a tricky balancing act.

I do know that one of the schools in Austin is a science magnet school, and it's in a poor part of town. For a long time, they were using the demographics of the entire school to get grants, but then only using the grants for the gifted kids. Pretty shady. So I definitely understand the concern of school-within-a-school.

This is what we're focusing on, too. Mainly because I encountered this exact problem. I skated through high school, but when I encountered challenging stuff in college, I found that I didn't really understand how to study. It was like running up against a brick wall.

Edit: I came across a study (here on the site? some other site? dunno) that showed the results of praise.

If you praise a kid by saying they're smart, and you praise a kid by saying they're a hard worker, then then "hard worker" ends up doing better because they don't give up when they encounter a problem that isn't easy for them.

My 9 year old great-niece was recruited for that school after winnng the 3rd grade level of the state science fair.

Her mom (my niece) looked into and decided against it.

After hearing that, I'm really glad she did.

Like I told Fido, I haven't really read enough about it to form a strong opinion one way or the other.

That's why criminal accountants, like them boys at Enro, have to get creative . . . whether or not crime pays, it can only pay, like everything else, if you make an effort . . .

Interesting. That makes sense.

They already are and we already do.



I don't think this is AS much about higher education, though I think that's suffering too from confusion of purpose. The thing that's alarming (to me) is coming at early education from the perspective of worker preparation rather than education. And I've seen that a lot lately -- justifying early school hours, for example, with the argument that "these kids will have to get up at 7 when they enter the workforce". Maybe, but right now they're kids and if they sleep through high school they're going to have trouble entering the workforce.

Amen. I hate the worksheet. I hate it... sooo much.... flames! Flames.... on the side of my face... burning....

Ya think??? That is the same as thinking half of them have extra digits...

In a biography of Thomas Jackson ("Stonewall" Jackson) which i read a few years ago, it recounted how he had been paid by Green County, Virginia--now West Virginia--for teaching children in their homes. Interested, i did some research, and found that it was common for people to hire a young man known to be competently literate and diligent to teach children in their homes. Usually, this was done by one of three groups--prosperous farmers, merchants and the religious. They either wanted their children to be literate to sustain the family business (the first two categories), or they wanted them to be able to read the bible. Jackson himself had learned in this manner, though bible readings, and he used the bible in his instruction (according to the accounts of acquaintances interviewed after he became famous).

In the northeast, public schools were instituted on the claim that they were educating the citizens of the Republic, and citizens need to be literate to vote responsibly. That may have been disingenuous in that the beginning of the 19th century was when capitalists began to realize that a literate and at least minimally educated work force would increase production--and the cost could be laid off on government. In those days, before the income tax in the United States, and when the income tax laid lightly on the wealthy in England (property tax as still the largest internal revenue), it looked like a chance to improve productivity at little or no cost to themselves.

I suspect that for whatever has been alleged, the point was always to provide an educated work force--which is still the strength of industrialized nations.

Well, drew dad, I have to say I agree with you...which is why I am now for the thrid time saying/pasting the following from a prior post...

THAT is why I said this...

Of course not everything you learn is relating to getting a job, so don't make out that I'm saying that.

But, even learning how to learn is preparing you for when you are out in the world, and need to learn to do something new in your job.