Say What??

Just a second.  Watch this first.

I didn't see what I just saw, did I?  Is this how our schools are now?  I know I have been out for a few years now, but we can't be that bad, can we?

Here's a Canadian translation of what she said.

Firstly, some Americans don't know where America is on a map because they don't have maps. This is because we don't teach them the value of studying the geographic structure of our planet. Furthermore, the same people who have trouble locating our country on a map wouldn't be able to find South Africa or Iraq either. This also illustrates our failure in educating our own countrymen and women.

Education is so important, in the first case, because it allows us to help ourselves — to make a better country for us to live in. But, also, education at home means that we'll be able to help people in places like South Africa and Iraq. Without education, we risk our future.

Proof that you can tell the truth and lie at the same time

Check that price tag before you buy: 20% off plus an additional 25% does not equal 45% off.   A study by University of Minnesota finds that people will buy more if they think they are getting a "better deal."  That "better deal" is because they cannot correctly calculate multiple percentages.

This "lying truth" is the same way that the Devil we lie to oursevles about the real cost of our actions.  Perhaps that's why we are told to "count the cost," not "calculate the cost" in Luke 14:26-33.

I really like the way that Ron Julian from the McKenzie Study Center paraphrases this passage:

All who follow Jesus will inevitably come into conflict with the world around them. Sometimes following Jesus means losing the love of family and friends. Sometimes following Jesus means losing the approval of our neighbors and our society. Sometimes following Jesus means losing our worldly possessions. Sometimes following Jesus means losing our lives. It is all worth it; the wealth which comes to those who follow Christ is richer than anything the world can offer. We cannot avoid this choice; if we insist on keeping the world's approval and the world's wealth, then we cannot be disciples of Jesus. If we are disciples of Jesus, then we will have to loosen our hold on the world and its riches.

Report on College Faculty

Volume II on a series of Profiles of the American University titled "Religious Beliefs & Behavior of College Faculty."

Some Major Findings:

Faculty Feel Warmly about Most Religious Groups, but Feel Coldly about Evangelicals and Mormons
Faculty have positive feelings toward Jews, Buddhists, Catholics,and Atheists.

Faculty Feel Most Unfavorably about Evangelical Christians
This is the only religious group about which a majority of non- Evangelical faculty have negative feelings.

Faculty Are Almost Unanimous in Their Belief That Evangelical Christians (Fundamentalists) Should Keep Their Religious Beliefs Out of American Politics
Faculty who are secular/liberal are more likely to favor separation of religion and government, and those who are religious and conservative are more likely to advocate a closer connection between religion and government.

Although Faculty Generally Oppose Religion in the Public Sphere, Many Endorse the Idea That Muslims Should Express Their Religious Beliefs in American Politics
Faculty are far less likely to endorse Evangelical Christians expressing their beliefs in American politics.

A Caricature of Things to Come?

Hostage drill at NJ school features mock 'Christian terrorists'

I cannot believe the "drill" that they practiced at Burlington Township High School.  I do not understand why they had to create a fictional situation to practice.  School attacks around the world are pretty common, unfortunately.  You can look to several examples just by picking up the paper.  For instance at least one school girl was killed and dozens wounded in a explosion just outside their school in Iraq.  Why go create a situation that should never (and I highly doubt would ever) occur?  Christians attack a school because their daughter wasn't allowed to pray?  What Christian group is this?  What Christian would ever do this?

Does anyone actually believe that this would happen?  I've always been taught to "train as you fight."  Get a realistic situation that is as close to real combat as you can and practice under those circumstances.  Picking a non-realistic situation does not allow for good training.  Is this a subtle attempt to influence the participants -- "one day Christians will come at you with guns" ?  I find that to be a little too hard to swallow.  I think that there are people who believe that the extreme right Christians would do something like this.  That shows two things:

1. Some people are ignorant about Christian beliefs and believers.
2. Christians need to live IN the world but not be OF the world.  You can't "win hearts and minds" by living in a hole-in-the-ground.  You have to let your light shine.

Pray for our brothers & sisters in Iraq. 

My heart grieves for this mother:

“When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it. They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child  – beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice.”

The infant’s crime was to be an Assyrian, but this story, reported by the Barnabus Fund, went unnoticed in the West, like so many other horrific accounts of Christian persecution in Iraq.

Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians. Last October, Islamists beheaded a priest in Mosul in revenge for the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensburg. But never let it be said that jihadis do not have a sense of ironic humour: that same month they crucified a 14-year-old Christian boy in Basra.

Free, Online MIT Classes

 Nope.  This isn't a joke.  You can watch and see the classes online or you can download the lecture to your hard drive.  It won't give you access to the faculty or give you a degree or certificate, but you can learn a lot.  I'm starting with the physics (of course!) classes.

Link to MIT OpenCourseWare | OCW Home

"Boys are a different species"

-Brett Landsberger, 12, a Campbell Hall seventh-grader on single-sex education.

While I disagree on the species aspect, I do like the idea that some classes be single-sex.  I don't think all classes should be, because then it would be much harder to learn how to interact with each other.  I mean, it's hard enough as it is, right?  Cricket, cricket... (it's not just me, right?)  ANYway, while it may be strange to agree with someone half my age, I believe this statement to be true:

"It's easier to pay attention in math when girls are not there," agreed Reese Wexler, 13.

The real part with this comes down to not gender, but learning style.  Some people learn better with different style of learning.  I tend to learn a little bit better if it is verbal and intuitive, but overall I'm balanced (Yes, that's right, I'm normal and all the rest of you are strange!!) according to this test:

---

 

Results for: Mac


      ACT                          X                      REF
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      SEN                              X                  INT
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      VIS                              X                  VRB
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      SEQ                      X                          GLO
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

          

• If your score on a scale is 1-3, you are fairly well balanced on the two dimensions of that scale.
  
• If your score on a scale is 5-7, you have a moderate preference for one dimension of the scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favors that dimension.
  
• If your score on a scale is 9-11, you have a very strong preference for one dimension of the scale. You may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that preference.

For more details, see this page.

---

If there were a way to match people according to their learning style, I think the education system would be much better.  I'm not saying that everyone would be custom tailored in their education plans, but we should at least attempt for the students to learn the core subjects in their own learning style.  Students should also be taught (not just a one or two hour lecture on) how to realize their learning style and what ways they can improve on their weaknesses and fine tune their strengths.

Maybe I should be an educator when I grow up?

Community College Politics

I attended Pasadena City College, lately famous due to Kerry's bad joke, and served in the student government. I saw many things I disagreed with - nothing in particular was wrong, either ethically or legally - I happened to be on the other side of the political spectrum as some (almost most) of my colleagues. I spoke out and made a difference. As was my duty - I was elected to do so.

But, as someone who served a few years ago in PCCs student government, I can say that the actions of Orange Coast College's student government are nothing new. Our meetings (unlike the Board of Trustees) did not include the pledge of allegiance. A few of the student body VPs had Che Guevara T-Shirts on display in their office.

The trouble was not that the students were less educated, like Adam Carolla likes to say. The trouble is that most of the students at the school could care less about the student government and that conservatives are vacating the area. Out of 30,000 students we would get no more than 700 to vote. I happened to be one of only three conservatives who served in student government - and the other two decided not to run again. Without regular people caring to run or vote, "radicals" will be the only ones running the show.

If anyone needs convincing that not enough people run, this year's PCC student government only had two positions that had more than one candidate. At least when I ran, I had two opponents.

To be fair, most community college students are there to get an educuation and get on with their life. Taking the extra time to serve in student government is expensive - it does affect your grades and ability to take enough classes in a timely manner.

So why the blog on Community College Politics?

I'm really glad that we had several people voting in this mid-term election. I didn't vote (because I didn't register in time for overseas balloting -- I was busy and lost track of time, I know I know, poor excuse) so I can't say much about turnout. I can, however, say that for all those people who are disappointed with the candidates running for office, perhaps they can evaulate if THEY want to run. While the money surely is an issue, perhaps voters would like to see more choices for candidates. I'm sure you could even run a grass-roots-style campaign in '08 that would be based on leaflets/pamphlets that direct voters to internet blogs where they could interact with the candidate and help decide what issues to campaign on.

The minimum ages for national positions are: 25 for the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for the President (and native-born).

Tear is both from the eyes and the hands.

I'm torn. I like the idea of a phonetic spelling -- but at the same time, the etymology of a word is then lost. Similar spellings to root words give clues to derivation, use, and history. All of which are important when understanding the full meaning of a word -- something that a simple definition of a word cannot do.

However, the spellings of words can be quite frustrating, necessitating the use of a dictionary or spell check. Yet, we shouldn't maintain the spelling of a word simply because that's the way it has always been spelled. The reason "because we've always done so" or "tradition" is not a good reason to continue doing so.

So I'm torn. (How does THAT spelling reflect that it came from "to tear" ? And no, not the thing that comes from the eye glands.)

In trouble for reading

Murder is wrong. Making death threats is wrong. Punishing students for reading death threats is also wrong. 20 California Students Suspended Over Web Site. I cannot see how students can get punished for reading a blog on personal computers, off school gounds, on their own time. How can I be guilty by reading material on my own time. It appears that the students were tracked not by posting on the site, but just by visiting it. When did viewing a webpage become a crime?

I understand that a school may have a vested interest in protecting its students. I also understand that minors do not have the same rights as an adult. Yet how can reading a threat be considered complicit with that threat. However, advertising online that you are committing a crime or about to commit a crime is valid means to suspect a crime has been or will be committed. For example, photographing possession of illegal firearms and then showing them to the world is 1) Foolish and 2)Probable Cause.

Blogs are not evil. Nor are they as a whole dangerous. They even can be beneficial, according to a new study. Punishment just for visiting the site is extreme. Now the newsreports do not state whether the 20 students posted in agreement with the initial threat. If they did, well, they were then guilty and rightfully punished. But if it is the case as it appears, the students were guilty of nothing but visiting the site and maybe reading the content (does anyone, by the way, agree with every word I have written on this site? or better yet has everyone read every word I have posted?).

This instance should send warning bells off. George Orwell, anyone?

Judge rules against 'intelligent design"

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

The trouble with this ruling, as well as the coverage surrounding it, is the faulty logic. That logic is most likely based on a bias. Unfortunately, since most people are emotional about religious viewpoints, anything that smells like religion will draw an emotional response.

First to those who believe in creationism-- Intelligent Design (ID) does not prove the Bible, nor does it espouse seven literal or figurative days. ID does not state who the creator is or could be. This is not a way to teach children about the Bible in school. This is not a religious theory and it does not purport to be.

Now, for those who do not believe in creationism-- Intelligent Design (ID) does not prove the Bible, nor does it espouse seven literal or figurative days. ID does not state who the creator is or could be. This is not a way to teach children about the Bible in school. This is not a religious theory and it does not purport to be.

Neither evolution nor ID is a religion, for both are scientific theories. Adoption of either of those theories can lead someone to a religious opinion and anyone can put forth either of those theories. Just because someone who puts forth ID also believes God exists does not make ID religious. Just because someone who puts forth Evolution also believes God exists does not make Evolution religious. The opposites of those statements are also true. But based on most biases, ID = religion. Hence Evolution = religion based on the same argument.

When anyone tries to use ID to promote religion, that leads others to see ID as religious. Hence the judge's ruling. At first I was upset about the ruling, finding it to be wrong. However, after reading the full opinoin, the judge rightfully saw people using ID as a way to teach religion.

Should ID be taught in schools? Yes. Should it be used for sneaking religion in? No. And because people tried to do that, ID and thereby true education, is not being taught to children. Shame on us all.

Revamping Education

Michael Gurian argues the problem -- males aren't doing as well at school as they should be. Kate O’Beirne argues the cause -- the incorrect balance in education, favoring females to males. What will be the solution?

Should we return to single gender classrooms? Should we change the way classes are taught? I think part of the problem is that we are no longer giving young males the proper place to expend the extra energy they build up during the day. Excess energy that should be used constructively -- not used to play video games. Bring back shop class and the arts, have recess, encourage more hands-on learning, such as labs and other different learning-style beneficial tasks. Test scores will improve when the students are educated, not just prepared for a standardized test.

But above all, reintroduce motivation to learn. As a society, the United States is not ready for the new challenges before it. We need more people who are willing to put out the effort for higher education in the math and science fields. The earth won't be saved from global warming, pollution, and depletion of fossil fuels by expounding hot air over the regrets. We need people who can find the solutions. Families need to be more involved in the learning experience. If it takes a village to raise a child, the village should raise the child. No longer can the attitude be "what's in it for me" - it needs to be "what part am I doing."

Lastly, real education is needed. Open debate on opposing viewpoints to the same issue. Not teaching what to think, but teaching how to think. Not teaching a student to pass a test, but preparing a student for life's tests.

Debate is good for education, for science, for life.

Debate, a discussion involving opposing points, is good for education. Simple memorization of facts (or fiction) does not teach how to think or rationalize new ideas. Real education is not memorization. Educators should not be teaching what to think, rather how to think. In the science classroom, opposing views should be taught. I strongly disagree with Kansas Board of Education Member Janet Waugh:

"Why not be honest and say it is a faith issue? I personally believe in the biblical version of creationism, but I don't believe that my beliefs should be taught in a science class."

If you have two valid, yet opposing, views both should be taught in the classroom. Students should be taught to take conflicting theories about the same facts and decide for themselves which they find has more credibility. Anything less than that is not education.

I disagree though, with the Kansas board deciding to change the definition of science to include "supernatural explanations of natural phenomena." That is not science. Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Science cannot establish God or any other supernatural being. However, science can point to a supernatural explanation of the natural phenomena. The key difference is that science is not the study of the supernatural explanation but the study of the natural phenomena.

I don't understand, though, why the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association would revoke copyright privileges if the new curriculum was invoked. Do they want to stiffle debate and thereby stifflng education? Or are they just financially motivated (which would make no sense because they would lose the profits from the book sales)? Further study is needed.

People who haven't learned how to think in school are at a major disadvantage in life. Schools failing to teach that fail at their primary mission: preparing students for life.

Playing Politics with Education

While I don't know what started this, nor how it came about, today brought sad news to the world of science education. Rather than being able to present a valid, yet different, theory to science, the opponents have decided to win the battle by drowning the competition. By showing that those who support 'Intelligent-design' will lose their position on the school board, it forces educators to be silent for fear of losing their jobs. Intimidation and fear factors should not be used to slience valid educational activity.