Education in the USA

[maasman]

The main issue here is that PS is trying to broadly say that all American schools are liberal/indoctrinating when it's really a case by case basis. The public schools I went to taught me how to think, not what to think. Various opinions were had, and the most heated discussions were never between teachers and students but between the students themselves. I never once saw or heard of a teacher berating a student for their ideas, and I knew of a few teachers who were very much conservative teaching in my high school. I honestly haven't seen much of anything PS is talking about, and I was in public schools for 13 years.

[Nobunaga]

Indoctrination, or the level of indoctrination, depends on the school. I don't believe there is any overt and clearly defined goal to indoctrinate students.

I think it is the case where liberals found themselves in the majority at universities, and kept it that way. Being liberals, and generally superior people with their awesome degrees and titles, they see it as their responsibility to educate their students on the evils of capitalism, the free market, and America in general.

Also being liberals, they accept no counter argument to their ideology.

I honestly do not think it is a specific goal to indoctrinate. It just happens, a lot.

Having really ignorant, very low-information youth is part of the problem.

Public schools K - 12 is another story.

[PLAYER57832]

It's indoctrination. I have went through the system myself. I cannot find a link on the internet that shows my experience where a teacher mentally bullies and brow-beats an entire class into political correctness. I can show you others
.

You are missing the point, one you, ironically enough try to fly in my face on a regular basis. See, your personal experience is not widespread data. That something happened to you, personally, doesn't, in itself mean it is happening all over.

AND.. another clarification. IF, as I often do, you were trying to better explain what you mean, in this case by indoctrination, then an example is quite legitimate. If Lootifer were saying something like "but I don't see how that would work" or "how can that data be said to show that result" an example might be appropriate. You don't do that. You substitute your personnal example for data.

He is not saying that what you describe doesn't happen, he is saying you have not shown it to be widespread. AND, given that there are several other examples, pieces of information that dispute what you say.... he is saying provide more and you have failed.

[PLAYER57832]

Indoctrination, or the level of indoctrination, depends on the school. I don't believe there is any overt and clearly defined goal to indoctrinate students.

Hmm... ever studied why kids are supposed to recite the pledge of alegience? Or why it is that we study what we do about American history?

Note, I am not even saying these are bad things, just that you cannot claim "indoctrination" is only about things you dislike and things you like are "education". Teaching is about thinking, understanding fact from fiction. Character building and teaching societal mores ALWAYS does include some "indoctrination" -- get to the basics of saying please and thank you or more complex matters of understanding our legal system and some of it will, almost inevitably involve indoctrination, even if it is just that one teacher has a specific opinion.

I

think it is the case where liberals found themselves in the majority at universities, and kept it that way. Being liberals, and generally superior people with their awesome degrees and titles, they see it as their responsibility to educate their students on the evils of capitalism, the free market, and America in general.

Also being liberals, they accept no counter argument to their ideology.

Well, as a supposed representative of conservativism, your speech did nicely to show that liberals DO think better -- and more honestly.

I honestly do not think it is a specific goal to indoctrinate. It just happens, a lot.

Having really ignorant, very low-information youth is part of the problem.

Yes. Look in the mirror.

Thankfully, your ideas are not about conservativism. Too bad, you have not been educated enough to really understand that hatred of disputing ideas is not a substitute for thought.

[Woodruff]

It's the norm today, in America, for schools to teach and train students to have anti-American values and indoctrinate them in political correctness.

This is an absolutely retarded statement. And I mean "retarded" in the sense of "stunted growth". Seriously.

Their aim is to teach students what to think, and not how to think.

You're thinking of Texas, where they want to get rid of the concept known as critical thinking skills. That is absolutely not the case for most of America. Rail against Texas if you must, but please don't include the rest of us in their stupidity.

So far I have showed you a lot of clips from the last couple weeks where teachers and schools are putting the entire student body through a bunch of extreme experiences concerning even the mention of the word gun, or biting a pop tart into a gun shape, or pointing a pencil at someone and saying "bang bang", or wearing a second amendment t-shirt. All of those children are learning to be scared of something that is their constitutional right. Those are all great examples of how fear is used to control.

They're also the extreme. Not the standard. Not the norm. That's like my judging all conservatives by what I know of you...that just wouldn't be fair to conservatism.

But that's just a few examples of how they are terrifying students and mind-fucking them concerning the right to bear arms. But it goes beyond that, and every single American value is under attack in our education system, and the narrative in all cases is Leftism.

Have you lost your mind? No, I mean that question in all seriousness and sincerity. Because if you haven't lost your mind, you've suddenly taken a turn for the disgusting in your diatribes.

There is no tolerance for Christianity, but any other religion is protected and even promoted in our schools.

Well this is just flat-out ignorance or lies, Phatscotty. There is no truth to this.

Even asking students to recite the American pledge came under attack and has been removed in a majority of schools.

It was just made the law here in Nebraska this year. How do you figure that?

But wait...I thought you were against the schools doing indoctrination? Isn't reciting the Pledge of Allegience indoctrination of the highest order? Why are you ok with that, Phatscotty?

But if an Islamic group of students wants to recite the pledge, and change the words to "under Allah", it's protected, and even promoted over the loud speaker so every person in the building is forced to hear it.

This really isn't true. You know that, right? You know that this isn't the norm?

The majority of education system promotes anti-Americanism, in every way.

You are a liar. This much bullshit can't be ignorance, so I have to call you a liar.

[Woodruff]

And I can't get over this weird feeling why I am asking these questions to someone who doesn't live in America and has zero experience in America's education system, and why I would.

I feel the same way asking YOU questions about our educational system, because you seem to know less about it than lootifer does.

And I will remind you I only threw common core out there as an example of how the education system is becoming more and more centralized, one size fits all. Concerning indoctrination, that's what would be expected.

That's also what would be expected when standardized test scores are the determining factor for whether school districts get money or not.

[Woodruff]

So, since the national policy goals do not conform with PS' claims, perhaps he should move onto the policies and/or in particular the actions of educational boards within the States.

Texas is a good example (IIRC). Their board mandates Creationism to be taught in all public schools. Talk about indoctrination! (of course, to the Creationists, this isn't indoctrination... <cue ominous tune>).

So, since the national policy goals are 100% the truth and there is no way it's bullshit.....The reinvestment act Lootifer sourced can be anything you want it to be. It's pretty clear by now all it was was a fix to keep states spending money they still don't have in hopes we could ride out the Great Recession without making cuts. I don't see anything in those goals that address homosexuality. But homosexuality in the classroom is part of common core. Tell me, which of those goals does that topic fit into?

BBS, why do you take the national policy goals as gospel? Just because they say those are the goals....those are the goals? Is it at all possible, that even if the goals are not just the standard bullshit everyone has to say when requesting hundreds of billions of dollars to support? Really, all those goals say is "It's for the kids, and it's good" Were those not the goals of no child left behind? What happened? It didn't work? Oh, but they had goals....

Sure we can move to the goals of the states. Can we also move to the goals of the teachers unions?

Why is it you've ignored BBS' point about Creationism? I guess that's "your kind of indoctrination"? Why do you just ignore the points you don't like, Phatscotty? Why do you always do this? You don't want debate...YOU WANT TO INDOCTRINATE.

(Hey...I'm a poet!)

[Woodruff]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

[Woodruff]

I think it is the case where liberals found themselves in the majority at universities, and kept it that way. Being liberals, and generally superior people with their awesome degrees and titles, they see it as their responsibility to educate their students on the evils of capitalism, the free market, and America in general.

Here's my thought on the idea of the majority of college professors being liberal (Phatscotty ignored it in the other thread):
That's probably because the more conservative-minded people focus on making money and the more liberal-minded people focus on degrees. And I don't mean either of those in a bad way (either could be bad). It simply follows along a conservative viewpoint that they would be more concerned with money, as money is a means of security (which is important to the conservative mind). That's not to say that a liberal person isn't going to want money or have it as a focus either (we're all individuals, after all), but it is generally true to be more of a focus of a conservative viewpoint. Whereas the idea of "elite education" is more of a draw for a liberal perspective.

So I really do think that is why collegiate faculty is more often liberal. I certainly don't think it's some sort of a conspiracy by the universities...that just seems dumb.

Also being liberals, they accept no counter argument to their ideology.

This doesn't make sense to me. True liberals are very open-minded to other ideas.

[PLAYER57832]

I think it is the case where liberals found themselves in the majority at universities, and kept it that way. Being liberals, and generally superior people with their awesome degrees and titles, they see it as their responsibility to educate their students on the evils of capitalism, the free market, and America in general.

Here's my thought on the idea of the majority of college professors being liberal (Phatscotty ignored it in the other thread):
That's probably because the more conservative-minded people focus on making money and the more liberal-minded people focus on degrees. And I don't mean either of those in a bad way (either could be bad). It simply follows along a conservative viewpoint that they would be more concerned with money, as money is a means of security (which is important to the conservative mind). That's not to say that a liberal person isn't going to want money or have it as a focus either (we're all individuals, after all), but it is generally true to be more of a focus of a conservative viewpoint. Whereas the idea of "elite education" is more of a draw for a liberal perspective.

So I really do think that is why collegiate faculty is more often liberal. I certainly don't think it's some sort of a conspiracy by the universities...that just seems dumb.

I would say there is a far, far more basic reason. It is only within the past 20 years that what Nobunga labels "conservativism" has been anything but an outlying idea. Up through even the "conservative" 80's, a lot of what he tries to put forward as "liberal" was endorsed by not just the majority, but even a good many who claimed the "conservative" title.

It takes close to a decade to get a PhD. Even the "newest" professors, then were educated at a time when very few people would have considered the ideas Nobunga claims to be liberal really were.

Also being liberals, they accept no counter argument to their ideology.

This doesn't make sense to me. True liberals are very open-minded to other ideas.

It makes perfect sense when you realize that "liberal" has become a slur without real meaning, much like "commie pinko" or "nigger" were used in the past. Any real attention to the meaning was long since lost because the goal is not education, elumination or even debate, it is a "winner takes all" "my ideas are better" mentality.. unfortunately, we ALL lose becuase real thought does take facing opposition.

[thegreekdog]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

To be fair to you, my teacher friends don't fit into the category of "well-informed." Although, to be fair to them, they seem to have picked the right issue to be informed about (teachers' salaries).

[BigBallinStalin]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

Haha, almost everyone is fiscally liberal when they realize that their coffers can be padded by others (through coercion)*.

• *such a dirty word! Shh, let's relax and dream of money from heaven.

I know you're mostly joking, but it's a seriously perverse incentive created and reinforced by democratic institutions.

[BigBallinStalin]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

To be fair to you, my teacher friends don't fit into the category of "well-informed." Although, to be fair to them, they seem to have picked the right issue to be informed about (teachers' salaries).

Right. If costs are externalized (i.e. if other people pay for your whatever, and if their feedback can be easily ignored), then it's only reasonable to inform oneself of direct benefits.

When all voters do this, then we get "democracy in deficit."

[PLAYER57832]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

Haha, almost everyone is fiscally liberal when they realize that their coffers can be padded by others (through coercion)*.

• *such a dirty word! Shh, let's relax and dream of money from heaven.

I know you're mostly joking, but it's a seriously perverse incentive created and reinforced by democratic institutions.

The same can very much be said for most conservatives. People want the system that they feel will most benefit them.

[BigBallinStalin]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

Haha, almost everyone is fiscally liberal when they realize that their coffers can be padded by others (through coercion)*.

• *such a dirty word! Shh, let's relax and dream of money from heaven.

I know you're mostly joking, but it's a seriously perverse incentive created and reinforced by democratic institutions.

The same can very much be said for most conservatives. People want the system that they feel will most benefit them.

It pretty much applies to nearly all voters--whether the profit is monetary (teacher salaries) or non-monetary (makes me feel good to have government transfer wealth from one group and give it to another).

[PLAYER57832]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

Haha, almost everyone is fiscally liberal when they realize that their coffers can be padded by others (through coercion)*.

• *such a dirty word! Shh, let's relax and dream of money from heaven.

I know you're mostly joking, but it's a seriously perverse incentive created and reinforced by democratic institutions.

The same can very much be said for most conservatives. People want the system that they feel will most benefit them.

It pretty much applies to nearly all voters--whether the profit is monetary (teacher salaries) or non-monetary (makes me feel good to have government transfer wealth from one group and give it to another).

And therefore it is senseless to use it as a means of attacking one or the other system.

That said, there IS another set of motivations that actually do drive people. When folks truly are convinced of a common good that will supercede the personal.

During WWII, people really did save things to help support the war effort. Today, people really do donate millions to groups like the American Cancer society.

I would argue that this is the reason why so many people have vested so much in disuading folks from the reality of issues like global climate change... because if people learned and really believed they would act.

[BigBallinStalin]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

Haha, almost everyone is fiscally liberal when they realize that their coffers can be padded by others (through coercion)*.

• *such a dirty word! Shh, let's relax and dream of money from heaven.

I know you're mostly joking, but it's a seriously perverse incentive created and reinforced by democratic institutions.

The same can very much be said for most conservatives. People want the system that they feel will most benefit them.

It pretty much applies to nearly all voters--whether the profit is monetary (teacher salaries) or non-monetary (makes me feel good to have government transfer wealth from one group and give it to another).

And therefore it is senseless to use it as a means of attacking one or the other system.

That said, there IS another set of motivations that actually do drive people. When folks truly are convinced of a common good that will supercede the personal.

During WWII, people really did save things to help support the war effort. Today, people really do donate millions to groups like the American Cancer society.

I would argue that this is the reason why so many people have vested so much in disuading folks from the reality of issues like global climate change... because if people learned and really believed they would act.

Wait, who's attacking what system and how?

[Lootifer]

Indoctrination, or the level of indoctrination, depends on the school. I don't believe there is any overt and clearly defined goal to indoctrinate students.

I think it is the case where liberals found themselves in the majority at universities, and kept it that way. Being liberals, and generally superior people with their awesome degrees and titles, they see it as their responsibility to educate their students on the evils of capitalism, the free market, and America in general.

Also being liberals, they accept no counter argument to their ideology.

I honestly do not think it is a specific goal to indoctrinate. It just happens, a lot.

Having really ignorant, very low-information youth is part of the problem.

Public schools K - 12 is another story.

I value you as one of the smarter Conservatives on this forum Nobunga, but this post dissapoints me.

Take the high road dude. We have pleanty of others covering the liberals-are-evil-and-want-to-brain-wash-your-children mentality.

(if you want a serious response: as Woodruff mentions the underlined bit of your quote is in direct contrast to actual liberal idealogy, that is the whole point of being a liberal is to be open to everyones ideas - dont let people like Professor Bradley (PS posted a clip of him in the other thread, the eco-facist guy) fly the flag for us liberals, you wouldnt let the KKK be a adequate generalisation for Conservatives would you?)

[Woodruff]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

To be fair to you, my teacher friends don't fit into the category of "well-informed." Although, to be fair to them, they seem to have picked the right issue to be informed about (teachers' salaries).

Well I certainly favor spending more on teachers' salaries. <smile>

[Woodruff]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

Haha, almost everyone is fiscally liberal when they realize that their coffers can be padded by others (through coercion)*.

No doubt about it.

I know you're mostly joking, but it's a seriously perverse incentive created and reinforced by democratic institutions.

I agree. I'm not sure there's any way around it or even that we should want there to be...it is, after all, how a democratic society sort of sets its priorities (what the most people want).

[Woodruff]

are fiscally liberal (i.e. more spending, especially on teachers' salaries)

Today I learned I am fiscally liberal. <evil smile>

Haha, almost everyone is fiscally liberal when they realize that their coffers can be padded by others (through coercion)*.

• *such a dirty word! Shh, let's relax and dream of money from heaven.

I know you're mostly joking, but it's a seriously perverse incentive created and reinforced by democratic institutions.

The same can very much be said for most conservatives. People want the system that they feel will most benefit them.

It pretty much applies to nearly all voters--whether the profit is monetary (teacher salaries) or non-monetary (makes me feel good to have government transfer wealth from one group and give it to another).

And therefore it is senseless to use it as a means of attacking one or the other system.

I don't believe BBS was attacking anything. He was simply making a valid point.

That said, there IS another set of motivations that actually do drive people. When folks truly are convinced of a common good that will supercede the personal.
During WWII, people really did save things to help support the war effort. Today, people really do donate millions to groups like the American Cancer society.
I would argue that this is the reason why so many people have vested so much in disuading folks from the reality of issues like global climate change... because if people learned and really believed they would act.

While that is true, there was still a personal incentive for most people. Concerning the war effort, it was obviously in everyone's interest here in the United States that the Nazis not be allowed to rule the world. And I would suggest that the vast majority of folks who donate to things like the American Cancer society do so because they know someone who has that particular disease/situation or they fear they may contract it.

Also, BBS kind of covered that with the "it makes me feel good" aspect as well.

[PLAYER57832]

It pretty much applies to nearly all voters--whether the profit is monetary (teacher salaries) or non-monetary (makes me feel good to have government transfer wealth from one group and give it to another).

And therefore it is senseless to use it as a means of attacking one or the other system.

I don't believe BBS was attacking anything. He was simply making a valid point.

Never said it was an attack, nor was my post.

BBS was commenting on the nature of politics. So was I.

That said, there IS another set of motivations that actually do drive people. When folks truly are convinced of a common good that will supercede the personal.
During WWII, people really did save things to help support the war effort. Today, people really do donate millions to groups like the American Cancer society.
I would argue that this is the reason why so many people have vested so much in disuading folks from the reality of issues like global climate change... because if people learned and really believed they would act.

While that is true, there was still a personal incentive for most people. Concerning the war effort, it was obviously in everyone's interest here in the United States that the Nazis not be allowed to rule the world. And I would suggest that the vast majority of folks who donate to things like the American Cancer society do so because they know someone who has that particular disease/situation or they fear they may contract it.

Also, BBS kind of covered that with the "it makes me feel good" aspect as well.

Your points are valid, but the perception that people act most toward their own self interest primarily is wrong. People often think that is the case, but in many cases will do more for someone else than for themselves.

I heard a commentary/reference to a few studies on this not so long ago, but I am not sure I can dig it up again. I will try... Anyway, its a subject of a lot of study recently, because it has a lot to do with everything from how businesses operate to public policies.

[Nobunaga]

... Too bad, you have not been educated enough to really understand that hatred of disputing ideas is not a substitute for thought.

Typical, personal attack in lieu of argument. The classic liberal deflection.

I have no hatred for disputing ideas, only for the blind faith put in those ideas by people with very selective awareness.

[Phatscotty]

Indoctrination, or the level of indoctrination, depends on the school. I don't believe there is any overt and clearly defined goal to indoctrinate students.

I think it is the case where liberals found themselves in the majority at universities, and kept it that way. Being liberals, and generally superior people with their awesome degrees and titles, they see it as their responsibility to educate their students on the evils of capitalism, the free market, and America in general.

Also being liberals, they accept no counter argument to their ideology.

I honestly do not think it is a specific goal to indoctrinate. It just happens, a lot.

Having really ignorant, very low-information youth is part of the problem.

Public schools K - 12 is another story.

I value you as one of the smarter Conservatives on this forum Nobunga, but this post dissapoints me.

Take the high road dude. We have pleanty of others covering the liberals-are-evil-and-want-to-brain-wash-your-children mentality.

(if you want a serious response: as Woodruff mentions the underlined bit of your quote is in direct contrast to actual liberal idealogy, that is the whole point of being a liberal is to be open to everyones ideas - dont let people like Professor Bradley (PS posted a clip of him in the other thread, the eco-facist guy) fly the flag for us liberals, you wouldnt let the KKK be a adequate generalisation for Conservatives would you?)

We have a serious difference in opinions here. Liberals are hands down the champion of close mindedness. The evidence is their high level of foul attitude and name calling smear attacks any time presented with an idea that does not conform with their ideology. Their favorite strategy is to ignore the issue at hand, and put all energy into making people hate those who disagree through misrepresentation and lies. Also, the KKK is a Democrat group, founded by Democrats, with a long history of fighting against Republicans, so of course the KKK is not an adequate generalization for Conservatives.

and like Bradley is an exception or something? This is the norm in our universities, and there are hundreds of examples that can be shown, and thousands more that we don't know about, impacting hundreds of thousands of students every year. I mean just look, university campus's are some of the most diverse places on the planet earth, so how is it so many students get swept up in anger and hate about "equality" and the lack of it? despite never having stepped foot into the real world...

[Lootifer]

... Too bad, you have not been educated enough to really understand that hatred of disputing ideas is not a substitute for thought.

Typical, personal attack in lieu of argument. The classic liberal deflection.

I have no hatred for disputing ideas, only for the blind faith put in those ideas by people with very selective awareness.

No comment on mine, and others', posts about what being a liberal actually means?

I too could call that a classic something or other...