Questions Game

I'm not into word games, but I will look at the acronym.

Do you speak any other languages?

No.I did French and Latin for five years but I wasn't fond of school and only did the minimum.
One day everybody will speak English apart from local dialects.

I don't really think it possible to learn another language in any serious way.I think English must be relatively easy to pick up judging from the way foreign sportsmen perform in interviews.

Would you agree?

I don't know if it is that easy, but it is the first foreign language most nations teach, either from first grade or
third grade on. My daughter is learning Spanish since
Kindergarten and now having finished 3rd grade, it
is amazing how much she's retained already. I hope
she'll do as good in German.

There is an ongoing discussion to enroll children at an
earlier age into school. Do you think that's advisable?

No, not really. I think they need to be allowed to be young. After their work IS play. Three-year-olds may need a pre-chool environment for socialization,but as far as starting school, Kindergarten starts with 5-6 as opposed to 4-5 when I started school. My degree is in Child psychology so don't get me started!

What do you think?

Good to see you devriesj, I thought you were on vacation
already.

What I think? I am torn, but tend to agree with you. When I went to Kindergarten B.C., with those dreadful nuns, all we did was play and have a good time (if that's possible with nuns). When my daughter finished Kindergarten, she knew how to read and write, and started a foreign language besides getting proficient in computers.

I was amazed how easy they learn. Kids are like sponges,
they absorb everything without any difficulties. So from
this perspective, I would agree to have them enroll in school
earlier. On the other hand, they are emotionally not
equipped to handle a disciplined school environment, and
they need time to develop social skills and gain a certain
amount of maturity before entering school.

In essence, I probably would not forfeit their emotional
well being for the academic advances.

spendius, care to give your input (despite having no children)?

My eldest son went to nursery at 3 and school at 4 3/4 and because he was lefthanded then, was encouraged to write that way. However he later changed handedness but was stuck as a left paw for writing - has been muddled about spelling and sequencing ever since. I think he shouldn't have started till 5 or 6. Socially, though, early school was good for all my boys.

Do you think school is generally a good thing?

Yes, very much so. I am concerned and somewhat disturbed by all this home schooling in this country (don't want to start a war though). I am a firm believer that
children need the environment of their peers to thrive
socially and academically.

Is home schooling popular in England?

No.

This whole subject is miles too complex for here I'm afraid.The first answer is that there are no answers.There are only bets.
The Ed. system is an attempt to make the best out of contradictory elements.It can be plausibly argued that the needs of the state come first.Also that the needs of the child come first.Then parent's and teacher's needs start distortions and the economy's capacity to provide the resources.There are also racial and religious corners to fight.Even these matters oversimplify things.Children's abilities and temperments are another source of dispute.And what to teach and how.And what are the children being prepared for.Do we know what that will even look like.And there's the rural/urban divide and transportation.And then there's TV where other mores live.Rich and poor.Going up-coming down the social scale.Parental mobility.Safety considerations.Health.Sports.Exams.
Have I missed anything?

In a population of 300 million there are,roughly,4m at each age.With education from 5 to 18 there are 75-80 million children in the system.With class sizes of 40 there will be 2 million teachers required.Some just starting,some washed out,some leaving,some coming back.Wages in other fields being generally higher it is unreasonable,daft actually,to expect the average teacher to have much more than average intelligence.

It is a total muddle and anybody who thinks they have an angle on it is spitting into the wind.

You have had the little monsters and you knew all this was waiting for them.

You did didn't you?

Yes, I did know, and so did other parents, I'm sure of.
Despite the problems one has with children, they are
an enrichment to one's life. They take the focus away
from yourself and put your ego into perspective.
I would have had terrible regrets going through life without
a child.

Probably a female trait, isn't it?

I consider a female trait to be something all human females do and not all females want children.I know you can say they are perverting female nature but I wouldn't be so sure.Which is to say that your statement Cal is a learned thing.Part of your conditioning.A psychologist would draw a distinction between a reflex and a conditioned response.The former has to be the latter doesn't.
As far as I know the maternal urge has not been proved to be a reflex and Huxley envisaged a whole society without it's presence.And so have others.
But that is beside the point.A conditioned response can have the power of a reflex and for the purposes of a discussion of education they may as well be thought of as the same.

With 80 million children you have l60 million parents most of whom are pushing the boat out on the superiority of their genes.Plus some grandparents.And teachers have children too.

If you asked me what I would do if I was Sec of Ed.
I would resign.I'm not thick skinned enough for a job like that and I almost have chain mail skin.And Mr Bush has another 20 of that sat on his desk alongside the sign that Mr Truman put there.So I stopped thinking what I would do about anything.Maybe our voting system selects the guy with the thickest skin in a hard fought contest.A thick skin is when you can go to sleep while all hell is breaking loose.If you had a thin skinned President the men in white coats would be leading him away in a day or so.A week at the most.

Going with the flow is an alternative.Most of the women round here do it.

Can you follow that?

What? Going with the flow? No, I don't think so!
I am not so sure that my needs and wants are the same
as the "flow" have. Now, having said that, doesn't make
me different than other women, but I do like to see us all
individually with individual needs.

I had to laugh at your statment, you'd resign if you were
Sec. of Ed. because your not thick skinned enough.
Actually, it surprises me, as I do consider you as thick
skinned, or at least that's how you come across here -
then again, maybe just my assumption.

So, you're fairly thin skinned then?

It's another spectrum.

I learned some great things in the pub tonight.I forget how it started.One of the slopers got on about those sprays they sell which are supposed to render women into "on heat" mode.Pherenomes I think is the active ingredient.It's the sort of thing that comes up when there's no cricket or football.So,being a member of the awkward squad,a sophist if you like,I pooh poohed the idea in favour of cash.Like Henry Kissinger I argued that money and power was what turned women on.

I won't go into detail because we are men and thus not in a position to judge.I said I would ask you and insist you couldn't say neither.

Is it money and power or biological determinants?
Or are there two types of women?

Ha interesting! To answer your question honestly, I would
have to say, there are two types of women. The ones who
have enough money and power, are attracted by biological determinants, whatever they individually mean to them.

Very young women and women whose financial and personal outlook is less than they desire, will be fascinated by a man with money and power position.

So you tell your pub buddies of your virtual family at a2k?

Virtual harem more like.You get a mention.They all think you're nuts and should be washing up or ironing.

It's neither Cal.It's the troubadour.

But I'm just a worker and I have a date with a rare early call so byeeeee!

May I?

Of course you may. Now I am wondering what you're
telling those poor people, what a lunatic runs around a2k.

Do you tell your friends/family about your internet life?

Hey, Jane! I do. My hubby know more about some than others. I mention them as it comes up in conversation. I saw your post a page or so back about me being on vacation. HA! I wish! I get a day or two here and there, easy enough to do when you own your own business, but we're not 'big' enough yet to afford a whole week's vacation!

Do YOU tell your friends/family about a2k?
and do you get a vacation?

Family yes, friends no, and I don't think they would understand. Most of my friends are not into computers that much.

Vacation? Yes I take every year about 2 weeks off to
Europe. That's the true luxury I'll grant myself.

Do you think spendius is showing off at the pub with
having made our aquaintance ?

Yeah. Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall there?!

Oh yes! I'd love to see the little pub that's so enticing for
spendus to bathe, and run there every evening.
And wouldn't he drop dead if we'd chat him up there

We can dream, can't we?

I would hope I wouldn't drop dead but assuming I didn't I would definitely turn the conversation to neutral subjects and away from the nitty-gritty which is so troublesome for ladies of a certain temperment.

If there are two types of lady,as you conveniently claim,we have left integrity behind in favour of crude strategy.If there are biological determinants for,say,Roman Empresses what puts them in abeyance for those less well off.And is less well off a subjective perception.

Are all men mugs or just those who chase ladies without knowing what their aim is?