Izzy

Your description of education above concerning the treatment and selection of information matches my middle school life, but this has changed significantly since the start of high school. Freshmen history, French, English, and World Religions were a joke, but the rest of my classes, while in depth in information, had far more practical purposes and explanations that accounted for how and why things work, rather than "They do, please regurgitate this on the next test." (The latter actually makes me sad, though that had to do in large with the stupidity of *certain* Christians in that class that would stop us every time someone said something they didn't agree with. Once we were supposed to write a creation myth (emphasis on myth), and this dude copied down Genesis. When he read it aloud, I was like "Oh, happy to know you think it's a fairy tale", and.. he's a bit of a jerk.) As of now, the only class I have that is based on information rather than an underlying understanding is French. ..We're baby French-ists, it's expected. A run-down of my day to highlight this: Physics: Playing with fan-powered cars that turn into boats to cement an understanding of acceleration, resistence, etc. (Lawl, later that day I ended up on the science building roof with one of my friends. "I wonder how high up we are?" *me gets out iPod* "Dude, spit, try to keep it completely vertical with no initial vertical velocity. Phhhyyyyyssssics." "That. is. awesome." (33.9 meters, btw. ) English: Myteacherissoawesomesowe'rewatchingmoviesonDawkinsandatheismandscienceandstuff<333333333333. The documentary we just finished watching has to do entirely with getting over ourselves and accept things with reasonable evidence even if we don't like them. AP Lang really is a highever level thinking class, truly. It's not merely reading comprehension anymore, it concerns why something is written the way it is and how the author achieves the effect. French: Napped? World history: We're actually in a process of changing textbooks. Currently, my teacher diverges from the book (Which he's correctly labeled as crap) so he can connect, say, the Aztecs and the Mongols, or show how event x has had impacts in places a, b, and c. Really, you won't pass if you're relying on memorization. His tests questions are written like "What is the irony of Roman democracy?" or "Why did most of the Chinese live in this area?" Obviously, you have to know things to answer these questions, but knowing them isn't enough if you can't connect them to the larger meaning. Pre-calc: Oh. Yeah, we don't really.. do.. much, often. It's a fun class, and sometimes we do these awesome geometrical-esqe activities, not really because they're relevent, but because they're awesome and we're geeks. Stat: *vomit* Chem: <333. I can't describe this class. It's.. just<333. More work than play. The only thing we've had to memorize thus far is element names/symbols and the polyatomic ions that can't be easily derived from the period table. I had a thought today. Is the benefit of grouping by ability possibly outweighed by the potential ill-feelings of students? In elementary, we were all the same grade level, but had drastically varying abilities. Some couldn't read, some read Harry Potter, others read Quantum Mechanics books. In third grade, some people couldn't even add double-digit numbers on paper while in-head double digit multiplation and division of things that came out to be whole numbers were no problem for others. In middle school, people were sorted by ability in math and science classes, but everything else was uneffected. In high school, aside from a stray few, everyone is more or less of the same ability level. Some get better grades than others, but that seems to be a measurement of willingness rather than anything else. Basically, you have all the 0.0-2.0 GPA students together (not purposesly, it just ends up like that because of the classes they're taking), the 2.0-3.5, 3.5-4.5, and then 4.5+. ..If every student feels 'average' because they're not really exposed to the ability of others, then smart ones won't try to excell outside of the class room because of the pessimistic view that it's nothing special, while dumb ones will remain where they are because they're getting the same grades as "everyone else". Iunno. Though, I don't deny the upside. Less distractions and level-appropriate discussions ftw.

No, see, it will probably effect those excelling more. We're crazy competitive as it is, and the sixth day will be seen as another strategy to surpass one another. Teachers will probably be obligated to have lesson plans, and optional labs and assignments will be scheduled. As it stands, kids that don't need to go to tutoring go to tutoring just to get an edge over each other. Teachers like to divulge test answers and crazy help. Some of us have sport and club (MAO, Science Olympiad, and Debate Team) liabilities that make going for technically unnecessary information impossible. Hmm. Mandatory sixth day, absolutely NO homework aside from studying, extra stuff or quarterly projects, but the days go from 7 to 4, leaving enough time for clubs and sports. Once every three weeks, there will be a 2 or 3 day weekend for optimal rest and family time. Thoughts? Hmm. Maybe even mandatory clubs/sports. So, a 7 to 6 day, people will be well educated, home early enough to chill, and involved enough for it to look good. Accommodations provided so freshmen and sophomores don't need to worry about rides home.

Sports could be in the morning, clubs could be in the afternoon, and we could have blocks so that's possible? ...No to the six day week. I only have one day off a week as it is.

*requests ABORT and moves to DC*

Or three 5x5 matrices. But we're done with algebraic review and doing trig again. Recently (in my area at least), there's been a huge pressure to get university professors to teach college in high school. I'm not sure how their salaries measure up, but it's been suggested that they're better than those of normal high school teachers. Three (that I know about) of my teachers have multiple doctorates, and seem to be financially stable, so that might explain why they were able to move down to a high school level. My math teacher last year went to MIT (...and then got a vision from God that told him to become a teacher. Mixed feelings. On one hand, wtf bro. On the other, he's hands down the best math teacher I've ever had and can't wait until next year until he's teaching my level again.) Potential solution would be to identify learning styles early and group students together based on that? (I.. still don't know what I am? I just learn best when the content makes sense. Like 2*3=6 because 2+2+2 = 6 as opposed to "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. (1493, Columbus stole all he could see.) I know I'm terrible self-taught. I took Latin online, and that turned into a huge daily cheating session. >_>) Hiiiggghhhheeeerrr taaaaxxxeeeessss. *glares at Rick Scott* Smaller class sizes, better teachers, better teacher pay. More focus on math and science early on. I know coloring is great and all.. but.. ...Maybe extended school day, but no homework? Personally, I'd rather be at school like 7-6 (the only problem would be sports teams.. ) with no homework than be up until eleven working on stuff I already learned that day. That way poor kids can eat more at school, and won't really suffer from their at-home status. ..Though, it should be optional to drive home for dinner. Meh. *shrug*

Eugh. I'll trade the 5th character for any other aside from the 4th with anyone else working on this?

Oh, wow, those destroyed my hypothesis entirely. ..I guess I'm studying abroad then. Tennessee out of spite?

I request Texas. ..And not just because it's Texas. Maine too.

Dawh, my history teacher refers to the tea party as t-baggers. Talked to my English teacher today (and somehow missed half a class ), and given his other beliefs, I'm pretty sure he's liberal. I hadn't noticed it before, but the room is lined with Noam Chomsky posters, and the ones of Hitchens, Einstein, and Dawkins weren't a false indication. (We're writing an essay about religion's infiltration of politics soon<3.) *pre-post edit* Umm.. There's a two media file limit. So.. instead of three of Alex's commercials, three of Scott's, the below snippet of Scott, and something on Alan Grayson (who is a jerk, but our jerk), there's an Alex Sink vid. and a Scott one. A quick YouTube search will reveal the difference between the two. Sink tends to promote herself and has one commercial (this) incriminating Scott while.. Scott has nothing but videos bashing Alex for being an Obama-liberal. *end pre-edit* Republicans waste so much money on commercials.. Here's a taste of your general liberal adverts vs. Republican ones. *sigh* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPoO_B18tYM Xenophobic f'ucktard? Well, expected. McCollum is a little too Republican for my taste, but he's pretty moderate. If this was a McCollum vs. Sink election, I wouldn't be too upset if the Tories got this. =/ --- Okay, let's go in another direction, but something came up today that we actually haven't discussed yet. What do you guys think of precautions taken to balance the socio-economic status of all people, especially through means like affirmative action? I'll probably post this in the school reform thread (so you'll either have to copy and paste your answers or be twice as creative as the first time ) a little later. In history today, some girl up front mentioned a book that was featured on the Colbert Report, that my history teacher was familiar with. I wasn't paying very close attention at this point, but the general gist of it is that the US scores comparatively low when contrasted with other countries academically. The t-bagger reference was used, and I tuned in. He started with an anecdote. Several years ago when he first started teaching high school, he was desperate enough to take on a summer school class. English, even though he's a history teacher. His first intimation that it wouldn't be a fun time was when the then-principal told the class of 50 that if they didn't cooperate, he could kick them out and that he'd be fully backed by the administration. After the first week, the class of 50 was reduced to 35. After the second, 20. A relatively easy class: remedial English, with only class work. Basically, show up to class, do the work, don't distract anyone, and he'll pass you. After a few days, he realized that almost none of the kids (primarily seniors that needed the credit to graduate) could read. He asked the remaining 20 kids to raise their hands if they were going to go to college. All but two did. He then asked us what we thought illiterate adults could contribute to society. McDonald's? Won't hire them. Dish washer? Maybe, doubtful. Learn to read? Why, they made it 16-18 years without needing it. They look outside and see drug dealers making more money than they can imagine. What's the point for them? There is honestly very little opportunity here. He then looked at us, almost staring. He said he knew what every single one of us was thinking. That the kids were stupid. He hears it in the hallways. The IB kids give the standard kids grief, and the standard kids sure as hell give the IB kids grief. But why is there such a division in the school? Why are all the standard kids failing? Socio-economic division. Well, the zoning of my school is very weird. About 80% of the kids (3200 students, 1200 of which are freshmen. Just imagine the drop-out rate) come from the immediate area around the school. The icky rural city of Sanford. The idea is to get all the poor kids grouped into one school, and then import rich kids from Heathrow so the average income meets regulations. The maybe 10% are imported from the rest of the county and they make up the IB and Health Academy programs. Sanford: houses missing roofs with bars over doors. Heathrow: Lake Mary's Beverly Hills. IB and HA? At the school to hide how terrible the test scores of the standard kids are. Why the division? The school is clearly competent of hiring credentialed teachers or no students would be successful. Considering some teachers instruct a combination of IB and standard classes, it's crazy how much better the IB kids do. There are few lurking variables here. There is a direct correlation between wealth and academic success. I think we really realized it when he asked us who was planning on going on the Epcot field trip, and then was like "See, you've already been divided. 70% of the school is black. There is one black person in here. A $70 field trip is no problem. Half of these kids won't eat anything again until lunch on Monday." Eh, I'm probably rambling at this point. What I'm trying to get at is that it isn't the schools that are failing. Standard classes are a joke, but they have to be because of the people in them. Education is being curved to lower levels so people can understand it, not because of a lack of former education, but because the students don't come from environments where education is a primary concern, considering food and housing is more important at the moment. (Which, by the way, is why countries like China and Saudi Arabia appear to have smarter students than America. We educate everyone; they education their elite and unnaturally talented. I specifically asked what the statistics would be like if we only compared the top 5% of students in all countries, and the answer I got, (*shrug* about the accuracy, but I smiled) was that "Oh, we'd kick their a**.") So, there are two ways to look at this. Do we stop educating people that aren't successful, or do we step up and do something about the home situation, either by increasing welfare, or.. what?

We've.. covered all this. There just isn't much more to say. =/ It depends on the candidates. Alex Sink > Charlie Crist, but they're running for different offices, so *shrug* ..I want to move if Rick Scott wins Florida. I wrote an essay taking the piss out of Bill Buckley yesterday. My teacher is pro-tea party (but not an activist for them, from what I can tell), but also sponsor of the debate club which I am a co-founder of, so we'll see how it goes down.

Yay, but *kicks Framm*.

I agree with this. Though, he hasn't hit the state I actually care about, yet, so I'm not too upset over the losses. Texas was a reasonable trade-off.

Yeah, where's the problem?

Too many cool people live in Michigan. Reprogram your missiles and target New Zealand.

I can't figure out which way to shift. D:

Mmm, so aside from being distracted by the poorest argument against atheism ever while scrolling down this page.. Mmm, so aside from the final lynch of yuiop, what I'm noticing from reading through the final roster is that the goodies only lynched in another team's favor once. That's.. an amazing streak. It's pretty unrealistic to expect it to go that well, yet it did. It seems, even with a run bordering perfection, the goodies still lost. *shrug* I question the balance. Not the undermine the fantastic recovery and eventual victory of the baddies, but.. it really seemed like the goodies deserved to win this one.

Again, thanks for the help, or rather, reassurance. Though, I did use the wrong angle (the above was from the vertical, and I meant to use the horizontal), so the difference between the two methods ended up being only 10ish instead of the kind of scary 65. I had time to fix it though, so it wasn't a problem.

If that's right (which it isn't), the third letter would be N, not P. W comes before X in the alphabet, and N comes before O.

Yeah, that's not it. That was my original answer, but only followed Texas' pattern, and not the overall. I think my second answer.. might be right, but there are some inconsistencies. Especially with Alabama. Phaze has a funny answer.. but.. he might be seeing something I'm not. *shrug*

How do you figure that?

Hey man, any time you want to blow up Texas is cool with me. Then my mother can't attempt to move us there despite my incessant protests. ..*thinks*

The.. numbers.. don't work? Which makes no sense, because they should. We were launching rockets, the following was yielded. Launch angle: 50° Range: 244 ft Time: 3.39 s So, I'm supposed to find the initial speed, initial horizontal velocity, and initial vertical velocity. Easy enough. Since Δy = 0, let's use the range equation: R = ((vi^2)(sin(2theta)/g) Rearrange for vi: SQRT((R*g)/(sin2theta)) = vi Since we're using feet as units, use 32 for gravity (just magnitude), and.. SQRT((244*32)/(sin2*50)) = 89.0 ft/s Good enough so far. Let's break it down into vertical and horizontal components. 89.0cos(50) = x = 52.7 ft/s x-hat 89.0sin(50) = y = 68.2 ft/s y-hat Cool, it looks solved, right? I decided to check my work with Δx = vx*t ... Δx = 52.7 ft/s * 3.39 s 244 ft ≠ 179 ft D:

No, it's terrible. It compromises everyone else's wincons, and we all automatically lose.