We no longer educate in the United States of America. No, instead of making to educate our children we emot-ucate them. It's all about our children's tender egos, their vaunted self esteem, their itty bitty feewings. We don't want them to know or understand so much as we want them to "feel good" about themselves. If they don't know during what years the civil war was fought, that's OK as long as they think they are "good people" anyway. If their math skills are substandard, who cares as long as they really like themselves?
The Boston Globe, for its part, seems to agree that everything is better when our students "feel better." As far as real life's lessons go, as far as hard work, good grades, educational standards go... well, not so much. No, it’s "group therapy, "liberation", and "collective defiance" meant to make kids "feel good" that the paper seems to feel is a story worth pursuing.
On April 8th the Globe published a story titled "Wall of rejection letters is teen's group therapy," wherein the Globe celebrates the "defiance" evinced by the kids in Newton South High School who sought a measure of catharsis by posting their college rejection letters on a community bulletin board designated the "wall of shame."
The Globe was pleased to see these kids making themselves "feel" better by each gathering his rejection together with others' and transforming individual failure into a festival of self-pity aimed at mitigating responsibility. "Gosh," the feeling seems to be, "if everyone else is failing too, I must not be so bad after all!"
The truth is, though, if so many others are failing, perhaps there is something wrong with the education these kids are receiving at the High School level? Instead of everyone breathing an undeserved sigh of relief that they are "in the same boat" as others, it would do far more for their futures should they endeavor to find out how to get in a different, more seaworthy boat.
But, look at the delusions these kids are under as described by the Boston Globe.
With each maddeningly thin envelope, each remorseless rebuff from another top-choice college, Kellen Mandehr died a little death. In search of catharsis, the senior at Newton South High School posted the offending documents on the school's "Wall of Shame," a hallway bulletin board blanketed with dozens of college rejection letters.
With each punch of the stapler, each slam of his fist, Mandehr won a small measure of payback. And a large measure of liberation.
"It was definitely a good feeling," he said yesterday, reminiscing by the mural of rejection letters. "I pounded it pretty good."
Payback? Liberation? From what? A successful life? This young student did not win anything here. All this student did was fool himself into imagining that everything was just fine. Sort of like whistling through the graveyard. Its a scary walk, but the whistling does make one feel better despite the gravity of the situation.
Yes, Mr. Mandher got a "good feeling" but he still has no college acceptance letter. But if a "good feeling" was all one needed to carry one through life then all that annoying learning and hard work would be unnecessary.
High school seniors everywhere have traditionally posted their rejection letters as an act of collective defiance against the high-pressure and hypercompetitive college admissions process. But this year, with top-tier colleges rejecting more applicants than ever before, dejected students say they are especially in need of what amounts to a group hug.
No, a "group hug" won't get them the better grades that they need to get into the best schools. It won't make those sought after colleges change their minds and it won't pave the way to a better future, either.
In fact, it will serve to make their drive less effective as they wallow in their self-pity and substandard position in life, or, perhaps, allow themselves to become complacent instead of goaded to higher levels. It makes them settle for less instead of striving for more. These kids should not so offhandedly reveal their failure to the world, but double down and try harder. The school that allows this foolishness and the paper that approvingly reports on it should be excoriating these children not indulging in their excuse making.
Then again, maybe we should also be wondering how bad the education really is for these kids? Maybe the kids at Newton South High are failing because they haven't really been taught what they need to succeed at being admitted to the school of their choice? At least, if a decent grasp of the English language is any indication, these kids are not very well equipped to succeed. Let's review some of the quotes as reported by the Globe.
Mr. Mandehr, we can be reminded, was reported as saying:
"It was definitely a good feeling," he said yesterday, reminiscing by the mural of rejection letters. "I pounded it pretty good."
No, Mr. Mandehr, you didn't pound it "pretty good." You should have pounded it "pretty well."
On this so-called wall of shame one rejection letter had scrawled upon it this wonderful example of grammatical expertise: "Don't worry, I got in other places!" It makes one wonder exactly what was "got" in those "other places"? Perhaps "got into" might have cleared up the matter?
Then the story ends with this bit of inarticulateness from one Daniel Rabinowicz, 17.
"That rejection letter can be tough," he said. "But look at this, and you know you're not alone."
Of course, Danny probably meant "But when you look at this..." instead of just "But look at this."
I certainly hope that these kids didn't speak so badly during their interviews with the college admission boards. If they did, perhaps that might serve to inform them of one of the reasons why they got those pesky rejection letters?
Yet, to the Globe and these seemingly half sentient kids, rejection leads to "acceptance" when it should lead to shame.
Calling the postings the Wall of Shame is meant to be sarcastic, students say. In many ways, posting the rejection letters is a way to find acceptance.
Of the vocabulary that we are teaching our children, shame is one of the worst omissions.
Yes, it's all about the feelings, not the achievement. Along those lines, the Globe gives us this gem to paper over failure.
"It's unifying, and kind of celebratory," said Max Lorn-Krause, who was denied at several schools and plans to study theater at Ithaca College. "It's a rite of passage."
A "rite of passage," Mr. Lorn-Krause? No, a rite of passage is usually a celebratory event. Failure is nothing to celebrate.
Alex Kaufman told the Globe, "There's nothing worse than getting a rejection letter, but knowing you're in the same boat as lots of other people, that definitely helps." It helps? How? By making you "feel" better, maybe, but it certainly does absolutely nothing to fulfill your goals. But, Mr. Kaufman has been taught that "feeling better" is far more important than achievement, so to him posting his failure for all to see "helps."
This is the same empty sentiment expressed by Sofya Rozenblat who said, "It's very therapeutic. Letting everyone know made me feel so much better. I realized that almost everyone gets rejected, so it's one more thing we all have in common."
Such meaningless twaddle.
But it is revealing that for many of these kids failure isn't something they had ever been faced with until a college rejection letter appeared in their mailbox.
"These are kids who are used to getting their way their whole lives," said Newton South college counselor Barbara Brown. "For many, this is their first major disappointment. That can be very difficult, especially in a community like this."
This is no evidence of the brilliance of the kids at Newton South but it is evidence, rather, of the sparsity of challenge they have faced their entire young lives up until that very moment. If it took until their 18th birthday before the shock of failure ever knocked at their door, then it is obvious that the bar had been far too low for them. Oh, it isn't the kid’s fault as much as it is the School's. What is their fault is this obscene sentiment that failure is nothing to get all wound up about This foolhardy dismissal of failure that the "wall of shame" represents is certainly a step in the wrong direction right at a time when they need to be pushed ahead, not coddled.
Instead of the wake up call that their failure should be, the slap in the face that should send them back to the books to work harder to see how they might improve, they wallow in lowered expectations, assemble with other failures, and commiserate with each other, assuring themselves that it's no big deal.
Well, it is a big deal. It should be a big deal. You should be ashamed, not "defiant” – except where that defiance might spur you on to greater effort. Of course, that shame shouldn't stop you from harder work and it shouldn't be a cause for depression. But it is something that shouldn’t be brushed off as insignificant.
But, these are concepts that our schools fail to impart to our children and that failure does none of them any good. For that matter, as more kids every year are belched out of our High Schools without any useful knowledge imparted to them throughout their too easy lives, we endanger our very future.
Our schools are sending more idiots than ever into our greater society. But, the fortunate thing is they "feel good" about themselves.
Hooray for us. We’re number one… for now.













Comments Policy
Cue the three stooges of
April 9, 2008 - 02:26 ET by Warner Todd HustonCue the three stooges of stalking...
[In hushed golf-commentator
April 9, 2008 - 08:57 ET by JasonC[In hushed golf-commentator whisper]: Warner attempts an interesting strategy here. By being the first to comment on his own message board and using said comment to predict the presence of argument against his article, he simultaneously invites such argument and casts it as mundanely predictable. Furthermore, by referring to the few posters who recognize the appalling nature of most of his articles, or at least the tone and attitude taken toward his subjects, as 'stooges of stalking', WTH further throws down the gambit, as any response whatsoever could be construed as simply proving WTH right. As always, nothing but class and professionalism from Huston, especially in this penetrating expose of high school students who not only should be denied 1st Amendment Rights (as established in Huston's previous work on free speech issues in private high schools), but also foretell the ruination of education by engaging in a cathartic gesture of displaying college rejection notices. Let's see what happens....
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Who is trying to curtail first amendment rights here?
April 9, 2008 - 09:05 ET by sarcasmoSheesh. Warner griping about snotty kids is dangerous, and apparently stuff like McCain Feingold political censorship isn't worth comment. Hint: The FEC can make your life more miserable than Warner's most appalling post X10.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
→ good one sarc
April 9, 2008 - 09:08 ET by Cool ArrowJust don't call those snotty kids monkeys.
Obama might think it's a slur.
♣ a seal
Well, it's not like I was all that mature...
April 9, 2008 - 09:13 ET by sarcasmoI burned all my rejections. :)
One thing that's not mentioned much in these stories is that the application process involves large fees these days. When you get rejected, the fees don't get refunded, either. It's a substantial income stream to some schools, but nobody seems to talk about it much.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Those fees go up every
April 9, 2008 - 09:25 ET by JasonCThose fees go up every year. A student who applies to 10 schools, maybe a mix of state and private universities, can expect to drop $700-$1000 in nonrefundable application fees. I know they've got to pay all the administrators and secretaries who deal with all of them, but considering how many schools use online or common forms, and how much work it is to put together a decent application in the first place, it's a real insult added to injury kind of thing for kids who don't get in anywhere.
It also torpedoes the common, snide belief that academia is totally anomalous and detached from the real world. Universities are as capitalistic as any other institution and the sheer volume of people who want in just demonstrates the demand.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Prediction:
April 9, 2008 - 09:34 ET by sarcasmoRalph Nader will NOT agitate for a "full fee income disclosure" law to expose this little-known aspect of academia. "The University of YYYY took in a total of $XXXXX.XX last year off these nonrefundable fees from students we rejected."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
A possible solution
April 9, 2008 - 10:59 ET by DarkCurrentPerhaps students could prepare themselves such that they have a very high degree of confidence in being accepted based on their academic merit and then just apply to 2 or 3 schools (at most).
That's certainly one
April 9, 2008 - 11:02 ET by JasonCThat's certainly one strategy to consider, but unfortunately, academic merit is one of many many considerations. Generally, the safest strategy, financial blow aside, is to really spread out your bets, so to speak. Or just apply to the flagship school of the state in which you reside; unless you're a fundamental failure, they're sort of obligated to take you.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
JasonC, Tremendous
April 9, 2008 - 09:11 ET by LeonJasonC,
Tremendous post. Superior dismantling of WTH's consistent tactics.
Truly hilarious.
Wow....where's Curly?
April 9, 2008 - 09:25 ET by vrwc13...Moe and Larry jumped in right on cue...where's Curly?
v
"V,
You've officially won the award for least value added to Newsbusters." - Leon
And it's V with the
April 9, 2008 - 10:48 ET by JasonCAnd it's V with the devastating rhetorical beatdown! Way to transcend your tagline.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
And it's V with the devastating rhetorical beatdown!
April 9, 2008 - 11:19 ET by vrwc13Always happy to oblige Jason.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
btw: you even have a picture of the three of you on your profile, although it's an early one when Curly had hair! ):
v
Face piles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.
At least you recognize when being called
April 9, 2008 - 11:35 ET by LionKingAt least you responded in predicatable fashion.
Well the whole premise is
April 9, 2008 - 11:56 ET by JasonCWell the whole premise is absurd, of course. I may not have majored in psychology, but WTH is obviously baiting those who criticize his stories to do so. The "here come the stalkers" post is a defense mechanism so that when we inevitably do reply to his outlandish, insulting, poorly-written screeds, he can say "See?"
And surely, you can't expect us to ignore such an inflammatory "story."
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Shocking? Well, not really...
April 9, 2008 - 02:45 ET by UnsaneNot to play the role of the little boy Leon here, but really, is this news?
I have known for a long time now that public schools, as they are now designed, are NOT in existence to educate students. They exist for other reasons:
1) To provide subsidized babysitting.
2) To provide warm, fuzzy self esteem (as noted here).
3) To provide kids a GREAT social environment where they can hang out, participate in endless extracurricular activities (so long as it doesn't involve TEACHING them anything!), and otherwise give them something they can reminisce endlessly about decades from now (all of this is especially true in high school).
How DARE you insist the public schools teach our kids something useful! What next, are you going to insist that schools teach our children to think for themselves and otherwise look at the world with a critical eye?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Don't mean to shock...
April 9, 2008 - 02:48 ET by Warner Todd HustonAnd I don't mean to shock you, but I ALSO think we should fire teachers who fail to teach!
I know, I know. It's beyond the pale.
YOU RADICAL!!!
April 9, 2008 - 03:12 ET by UnsaneWHAT? You can't POSSIBLY be suggesting that people be fired for doing a poor job!
What next, Mr. Huston? Are you next going to suggest that we reward good teachers with higher pay and bonuses? You know, as an incentive???
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I once read a satire about
April 9, 2008 - 07:39 ET by motherbeltI once read a satire about the next "victims of discrimination" group...people who were denied jobs, or fired from jobs, just because they were......stupid. That's not so far-fetched any more!
Regarding the self-esteem push...it's working. There are some studies that show that although education-wise, our kids are way behind the rest of the world, they think they are performing near or at the top.
It starts way back in the toddler years, where children begin to get praised for everything they do. I was once in a public restroom with a mother, who, after they were done at the sink, said to her little daughter, in that sing-song voice we mothers tend to use with our little ones...Thank you...for washing your hands!
I would have to conclude
April 9, 2008 - 03:24 ET by Logic over emotion* But this year, with top-tier colleges rejecting more applicants than ever before...*
Unfortunately this means students from all over the country are less educated then the previous years.
Logic, Considering your
April 9, 2008 - 09:02 ET by LeonLogic,
Considering your name, you should try some.
It doesn't mean students are less educated, it means that more students are applying to top tier colleges.
Ha. Great post!
Leon, Could it
April 9, 2008 - 10:50 ET by BuffNBoneLeon,
Could it be teachers are filling students heads with mush and telling them how good they are, thereby setting them up for failure when they have to compete on a higher plane?
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Could be Buff,But highly
April 9, 2008 - 12:56 ET by LeonCould be Buff,
But highly doubtful considering school's average SAT's and ACTs are public information.
As are their average GPAs and class percentile.
So regardless of what a teacher tells you, you know what the bar is.
I'd imagine the kind of pressure you're talking about comes more from parents than teachers.
As noted in previous
April 9, 2008 - 13:03 ET by BuffNBoneAs noted in previous discussions, prep sessions can raise the scores for standarized testing.
The "bar" at a given school or district may appear to be a reliable reference, but GPAs and class percentiles in a grade inflated environment don't do anyone any favors. In fact they probably contribute to a false perception of the students' abilities.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
This is what we get for allowing the feminization of America.
April 9, 2008 - 04:44 ET by BritcomMany people (you know the ones I mean) think that emotions are more important than reason. If children are not taught to reason instead of emot, they become unable to cope in the world of employment and business.
The trouble with emotions is that they equate to instincts in lower animals and are counter productive in modern man-made world (as opposed to the days when cavemen and cavewomen lived like animals in the wild). They were designed to guide humans through life, but that prehistoric wild life no longer exists. When we give in to emotions, we become like animals, and humans who act like animals end up in a cage (i.e. prison).
Mammalian instincts must be suppressed by logic and morality if we are to maintian a civilised society. The failure of that leads to crime, murder and war; as we now see.
Some people don't undersand that if emotions were allowed to run wild, we would devolve into lawless Gaza.
We need a separation between emotion and State.
Religion did not create morality. Our past failures did. Our rejection of morality is the same as a dog returning to eat his own vomit.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
"Some people don't
April 9, 2008 - 07:18 ET by Indiana Joe"Some people don't undersand that if emotions were allowed to run wild, we would devolve into lawless Gaza."
Good point. That could apply to the whole Islamo-fascism movement.
I agree, this is old news,
April 9, 2008 - 07:16 ET by Indiana JoeI agree, this is old news, with a new face on it. This is merely the logical result of the direction public education has been headed in this country for years.
It's why I knew in 1997 that my yet-to-be-born son would attend Catholic school. And I STILL had to counter the AGW propaganda they feed him. I say "had" because he now knows it for what it is, and just nods and "talks the talk" for the sake of his grades. But at least he's not in the "feel good failing" public school system.
Who was that Al Franken character from SNL, back when he was still a comedian? Something-Smalley? "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and darn it, people like me."
Must be our SecEd.
"I pounded it pretty
April 9, 2008 - 07:59 ET by Ruths husband Ben"I pounded it pretty good."
Therein lies the problem. Sport, if you had spent more time studying and less time "pounding it pretty good" you might have made it into one of the top tier schools (with better vision too, I might add).
“There’s nobody (white) on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any (other) ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
(parentheticals added for clarity)
RHB, I thought you better
April 9, 2008 - 09:05 ET by LeonRHB,
I thought you better than this. Getting rejected from a college is not necessarily a sign of failure.
Many people get rejected from schools despite having the same exact credentials and accomplishments as those who get in to the schools.
There are so many factors that go into it, that it's hardly fair to call someone that gets rejected, a failure.
Exactly, Leon. Not to
April 9, 2008 - 09:20 ET by JasonCExactly, Leon. Not to mention, Newton is among the richest and whitest of Boston suburbs, so I'm surprised this article isn't about some sort of dastardly, affirmative action-rooted bias against good, clean-cut upper-middle class kids in the admissions process.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
→ Thanks, Jason
April 9, 2008 - 09:24 ET by Cool ArrowI was wondering when a lefty was going to jump in there with their mother hen protectionist condescension.
Y'all done plantin' on the plantation yet?
♣ a seal
JasonC, The affirmative
April 9, 2008 - 09:25 ET by LeonJasonC,
The affirmative action approach would definitely have not been surprising.
It's just so absurd to claim that getting rejected from a college is a sign of failure. It's simply the nature of the beast.
Warner routinely makes arguments based out of his own ignorance and this is a perfect example. What does he think happens in the application process? Everyone who meets a certain minimum gets accepted? If you have a 4.0, you automatically get into a top tier school?
Well, that's not how it works, thus rendernig WTH's entire argument worthless...again.
→ Heeeere's Leon
April 9, 2008 - 09:31 ET by Cool ArrowBut you manage to fill in for Jesse Jackson even though this thread has nothing to do with race.
What was that about staying on topic?
♣ a seal
Yeah, I was being
April 9, 2008 - 09:35 ET by JasonCYeah, I was being sarcastic, pointing out the way that some masthead members and posters will twist a benign story any way they can to malign public education. I call it EDS.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Leon, first, that post of
April 9, 2008 - 09:44 ET by Ruths husband BenLeon, first, that post of mine was intended to be humorous (would a smiley face have helped?). Second, failing to accepted by a college is not necessarily a failure? Aack! What would be a failure then? I think you might be better served saying that failure is not the end of the world that many people make it out to be. For example, there are many successful people who failed and went on to greatness (i.e., Einstein, Emerson, etc.). I could agree with that. The real issue, I think, is that people are afraid to fail. Those who have never failed have never tried.
“There’s nobody (white) on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any (other) ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
(parentheticals added for clarity)
→ RHB on clarity
April 9, 2008 - 09:50 ET by Cool ArrowI'm delighted you have further clarified Barack (redacted) Obama's statement to indicate he was not being disengenuous with his Imus comment.
The technicality that only Whites can be racist was obviously in play when the comment was made.
♣ a seal
Thanks. My humble desire
April 9, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Ruths husband BenThanks. My humble desire is to help translate the higher musings of Senator Obama to the low-life right wingers on this site so they can appreciate the true genius that he is. If not for my efforts they might be lost in their conservatism forever.
“There’s nobody (white) on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any (other) ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
(parentheticals added for clarity)
Cheap shot, RHB...
April 9, 2008 - 10:14 ET by JerCheap shot, RHB...but funny, nevertheless.
However, it sounds as if you could be speaking from personal experience. How's your eyesight?
Jer
I wear contacts and
April 9, 2008 - 10:16 ET by Ruths husband BenI wear contacts and glasses. At the same time.
“There’s nobody (white) on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any (other) ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
(parentheticals added for clarity)
WTH,This is a post only
April 9, 2008 - 09:10 ET by LeonWTH,
This is a post only someone who never went to college could write.
You clearly have no understanding of the application process, which can be highly subjective. People routinely get rejected who have the same credentials and accomplishments as those who get accepted. Top Tier universities can't accept everyone that acheives a certain level. Any moron knows this.
Furthermore, your utter disdain for these highschool students is frightening. Ugh. It's disturbing to watch a grown man attack like this.
I would respect your criticism of the education system much more if it wasn't rooted in your own personal academic failures.
Good stuff, Hust! Maybe if
April 9, 2008 - 09:46 ET by wiwfGood stuff, Hust! Maybe if the high school students received education and not emot-ucation or indoctrination, then they wouldn't be failing to get into community colleges so much... it makes sense. Plus it's a waste of school dollars to put on a program like this. Just do what sarc did: burn them, or be creative!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Right, Good stuff:
April 9, 2008 - 10:48 ET by iveseenitallKeep up the good work, Hust. Denial is part and parcel of the "liberal" game. Nothing is a "problem" unless THEY say it is. We are in an educational mess due in part to "liberal" denial of what is going on. Admitting there is a problem is the first step toward doing something about it. Sticking your head in the sand ( for your own ends) obviously doesn't work. You are right about "feel good" education, Warner. It's a failure.
Read Michelle Obama's "thesis" from Princeton. It's poorly written,"liberal" tripe from an affirmative action gal. But I'll bet she really "feels good" about it.
BTW, IMHO Warner's larger point is being ignored (deliberately?). What does this posting of rejection notices teach and encourage in young people? Bad "feelings"? Hatred? What good does it do?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
"People routinely get
April 9, 2008 - 10:19 ET by NL207"People routinely get rejected who have the same credentials and accomplishments as those who get accepted. Top Tier universities can't accept everyone that acheives a certain level. Any moron knows this."
People also get routinely rejected who have credentials superior to others who were admitted. This happens all the time. It happened when Harvard University admitted Ted Kennedy, whom it later expelled for cheating. It happens because of patronage. Since 1972, it has been happening routinely because of misguided government and university policies which assign value to the racial, gender and ethnic charactersitics of applicants. The Government and Universities call this policy "Affirmative Action". People with any intelligence call this policy "Racism, Sexism and Bigotry".
Top tier universities that evaluate the merits of applicants according to race, creed, and gender are guilty of racism, bigotry and sexism. Any moron can see this.... at least any besides Leon.
Huh? Leon didn't even
April 9, 2008 - 10:25 ET by JasonCHuh? Leon didn't even bring up affirmative action; in fact, the only person who did was me, in jest. Any moron who reads this thread can see that...
But since you make a pressing point with your affirmative action remarks, let me ask you this: should the kids who get rejected, in favor of less-qualified but demographically-desirable candidates, be considered failures? Some people here seem to think so, and your post, despite its intent to malign Leon, actually just solidifies his case.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Exactly Jason, If a
April 9, 2008 - 10:46 ET by LeonExactly Jason,
If a student with a 4.0 gets rejected b/c he was competing for the same acceptance slot as another applicant who has a family history of alumni from that university, should he really be considered a failure?
Again, to reiterate, acceptance is subjective. When I was recruited by several Ivy League schools for sports, one of the first things they told us is that they have a certain number of slots for athletes who could not otherwise get accepted due to low grades or poor SATs.
So the act of getting rejected is not necessarily a failure. There are many factors aside from academic achievement that go into the acceptance process.
This article is just another clear example of Warner tackling subjects he knows nothing about.
"This article is just
April 9, 2008 - 13:21 ET by NL207"This article is just another clear example of Warner tackling subjects he knows nothing about"
What's the big deal about that? It never stopped you!
Touche NL, Good one for
April 9, 2008 - 13:23 ET by LeonTouche NL,
Good one for you. Very clever.
I'm also don't make my living pretending to be a journalist.
A Gentle Kick In the Ribs
April 9, 2008 - 13:33 ET by CGatton"I'm also don't make ..."
So which response do I settle on, "could have fooled me," or, "clearly." :o)
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
"should the kids who get
April 9, 2008 - 13:19 ET by NL207"should the kids who get rejected, in favor of less-qualified but demographically-desirable candidates, be considered failures?"
I think I was suggesting the rejecting institution itself was a failure.
Glad to see you lefties are still so sensitive to the mentuion of A-A. That's a strong indication that even you characters believe A-A is racial, sexual and ethnic discrimination and therefore contrary to the moral and legal principles of America.
It's problematic, that's
April 9, 2008 - 13:30 ET by JasonCAh, but demographic acceptance standards (aka Affirmative Action) are not necessarily set by the college itself. Or if it is, it's the result of a lot of issues concerning funding, alumni pressure, etc.
It's problematic, that's for sure. And just another reason why rejection from a college is not necessarily a failure on the applicant's part.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Wow...It's almost like both sides agree with me that
April 9, 2008 - 13:31 ET by sarcasmoBarry Goldwater was right way back when about government enforced racial preferences in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nah! Couldn't be! There must be some mistake! ;)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Theater major?
April 9, 2008 - 10:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberScott: And now over to Kent Brockman for some grim economic news.
Kent: Scott, things aren't as happy as they used to be down here at the unemployment office. Joblessness is no longer just for philosophy majors. "Useful people" are starting to feel the pinch.
Barney: I haven't been able to find a job in six years.
Kent: Hmph. And what training do you have?
Barney: Five years of modern dance, six years of tap.
Rog...Barney is obviously a
April 9, 2008 - 10:44 ET by JerRog...Barney is obviously a Democrat. All of the Republican tap dancers have a job in the Bush administration.
Jer
Ar Ar Ar
April 9, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Roger the ShrubberAr Ar Ar
Spongebob? Or is that Mr.
April 9, 2008 - 11:09 ET by bassndudeSpongebob? Or is that Mr. Crabs?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"Barney is obviously a Democrat"
April 9, 2008 - 11:34 ET by needleYou may have something there:
A) Anyone’s natural reaction would be that such a person as Barney in this little exchange is your standard issue Democrat.
B) But statistically, out every dozen or so million Republican there is likely to be a flaky tap dancer. And assuming that is the case, it is a fair bet they all have jobs.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
A job as a "flaky tap dancer"?
April 9, 2008 - 11:43 ET by JerA job as a "flaky tap dancer"? Does it pay well?
Jer
Only if it's
April 9, 2008 - 11:45 ET by sarcasmo"Exotic." :)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I'm really creeped out by
April 9, 2008 - 11:26 ET by KillgraveI'm really creeped out by this "wall of shame". Probably for the first time these kids are competing as individuals, and risk being "rejected" as individuals.
So what happens when they get rejection letters? They run to the soft, warm collective for solace. An individual's rejection letter gets lost in a generic collective.
I pin 90% of the blame to leftist intellectual bankruptcy. But WTH labels of "failure" and "shame" strikes me as a bit too German. These kids are under a tremendous amount of stress, and are certainly facing tougher competition then those of us 20 or more years ago. Though I agree 100% that these kids shouldn't be encouraged to indulge in leftist sour grapes, we shouldn't be hacking on them so hard, either.
I suspect the willingness
April 9, 2008 - 11:57 ET by DarkCurrentI suspect the willingness to accept and even celebrate failure has a lot to do with why they end up rejected. I doubt very many individuals who were determined to be successful and made every effort to ensure that they were ended up posting rejection notices on the wall of shame.
Wow, Warner...you really
April 9, 2008 - 11:36 ET by JerWow, Warner...you really busted [or should it be "burst"] those kids over their incredibly grotesque mangling of the English language. Really...scrawling "got in" instead of "got into" on a bulletin board; saying "pretty good" instead of "pretty well"; and, finally, omitting the word "when" while uttering a casual remark. Oh, the horror! To what depths have our institutions of learning sunk when such moronic, uneducated blather flows from the lips of our children?
I believe it was the departed SportPolitics who, when confronted with yet another grammatical irregularity, would scream: "This is a freakin' blog comment...not an English thesis!" I think a similar point could be made with respect to the context in which these students' remarks were made.
Warner, I suspect a competent English grammar authority could even locate a fair number of usage, syntax, and context errors in this blog of yours...and you write good!
Jer
"I think a similar point
April 9, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Killgrave"I think a similar point could be made with respect to the context in which these students' remarks were made."
Passive Voice!
This might be the
April 9, 2008 - 11:40 ET by balboaThis might be the singularly most moronic story ever posted on NewsBusters.
feelings...blah, blah, blah
April 9, 2008 - 11:44 ET by LionKingWe're sorry you feel that way. Liberals allow feelings and emotions to control their decisons often devoid of facts.
Get it!!!???
I don't feel it; I know it,
April 9, 2008 - 12:27 ET by balboaI don't feel it; I know it, with every fiber of my logic center.
So you're saying a story
April 9, 2008 - 12:05 ET by KillgraveSo you're saying a story about kids wallowing in collectivist sour grapes is pretty stupid? I agree.
"Liberals"
April 9, 2008 - 13:08 ET by iveseenitallMore proof here. NOTHING is important to a "liberal" accept what the "liberal" thinks is important. The educational system in America is a mess, a disaster! Deny it as much as you wish to deny it. Refuse to see the big picture. Go ahead. Warner's piece demonstrates a symtom of a larger problem. "Liberals" wish to be blind to it do it for their own personal reasons. It's the narrow world of "liberalism". It's the "liberal" mentality as demonstrated here by the trolls. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Warner's piece demonstrates
April 9, 2008 - 13:12 ET by balboaWarner's piece demonstrates a symtom of a larger problem.
Yes it does.
Warner's piece demonstrates
April 9, 2008 - 13:15 ET by JasonCWarner's piece demonstrates a symtom of a larger problem.
It's true. There are problems in education, particularly public. But 'education' is not just some massive public interest group; these problems, and the responsibility to fix them, are on the shoulders of students, teachers, parents, politicians, lawyers, and the general cultural climate. Warner's problem is his attempt to critique these problems with a sledgehammer. High school kids having a sense of gallows humor and camaraderie in the face of huge disappointment concerning something they've worked hard towards (yes, just applying to a top-notch school is a lot of work) may not be worth a Globe story, but it's not indicative of a damn thing. But it sounds silly, and has all the necessary ingredients - Academia! Failure! Lazy, enabling teachers! - and so Warner fumbles at it in his inimitable way. And even comments on the message board to pre-empt/bait any potential criticism.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Warner's presentation
April 9, 2008 - 13:28 ET by iveseenitallSo it's Warner's presentation that you object to. There are ways to criticize that. You just demonstrated one. But to attack the message, as many did in this case, is wrong.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
No, I'm attacking
April 9, 2008 - 13:50 ET by JasonCNo, I'm attacking everything about it. There are problems with public education, but WTH makes clear he doesn't even know where to begin discussing them if this is his critical vehicle.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
"But 'education' is not
April 9, 2008 - 13:33 ET by NL207"But 'education' is not just some massive public interest group"
You're right! It is a massive PRIVATE interest group consisting of the NEA, AFT and tenured faculty everywhere, greedy and influential labor organizations whose primary goals have nothing to do with the proper education of any students at any level from K --> Phd and everything to do with the enrichment of educators.
NL207
April 9, 2008 - 13:39 ET by iveseenitallSo right, NL207. And until that problem is addressed honestly, nothing will change. The difficulty is, as with our political system, it may be too late. Too many special interests. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Well Jason, c'mon, some
April 9, 2008 - 13:57 ET by futbolisgreat1Well Jason,
c'mon, some of you can be quite predictable. Besides, he baited you and you took it, right? why? you should have let it go, correct?
I don't think that at any moment did the author of the article above said, "This is THE problem with education..." I believe he was pointing to ANOTHER problem with our educational system.
Furthermore, parents are fixing the problem, by sending kids to private school or homeschooling them, right? Now, shouldn't the teachers and schools step up? Sorry, it doesn't take a village, it takes a few individuals, sometimes ONE person to fix the problem. Look at how many politicians are against vouchers. How too many of them love choice when it comes to murdering an unborn baby, but hate choice when it comes allowing a family to choose where they want to send their children to school. why? care to explain?
The self-esteem problem is but one aspect of the complete and total failure of our public educational system. I see this day in and day out. I see students who are homeschooled to be 100% more respectful, better educated, better prepared over all to start a univeristy than those that attended either a public or private school. Obviously, like in everything else, there are exceptions.
Just to tell you a short story....I was born in Venezuela and went to schools in Venezuela for many years, I attended both, private and public schools in Venezuela. (by the way, same here in the USA, public, private AND homeschooled). The biggest difference that I saw back before the monster Hugo Chavez took power, between the American system and the Venezuelan system was that schools and teachers did as the parents wished, not the other way around like it is too frequent the case in the United States. In the USA teachers and schools believe that the schools and teachers know better how to raise a child than his/her own parents.
The other difference was that in Venezuela there was and still there isn't this self-esteem stupidity. Finally, students in Venezuela take 7 to 10 courses a year and these are not home-economic courses, rather, World History, Algebra, English, Spanish literature, Sciences, etc, etc, etc.
Schools today, in the USA, want to make their students feel good about themselves, so instead of challenging children, they water down curriculms in order to make sure that the student doesn't fail.
Look at England, how they have banned the use of red pens to correct exams. Look at how many schools in the USA don't allow teams to keep score during sport matches. So that the team that loses doesn't feel bad about themselves.
Yes, this whole self-esteem issue plays a huge part of why our educational system is garbage.
Believe it or not, I am
April 9, 2008 - 14:29 ET by JasonCBelieve it or not, I am very much in favor of homeschooling when it is done well. However, the majority of families haven't the time, resources, or know-how to properly do it.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
JasonC, Question, how do
April 9, 2008 - 14:39 ET by futbolisgreat1JasonC,
Question, how do you know the majority of families don't have the time, resources or know-how to do it well?
c'mon, you are generalizing about an awfully lot of people and families.
This statement is like the statement that Liberals attack when any Conservative generalizes by saying, "All Liberals..." or "All Democrats..."
I think you are falling into a Liberal mind thinking that parents do not know better than schools.
I 100% disagree with you on this.
Millions of kids are homeschooled today, most of them are enrolled in some type of homeschooling system, like Seton, that mails parents books, exams, materials, etc, etc.
Furthermore, there have been studies done on individuals that were homeschooled in the late80s and through the 90s. They are compared to their counterparts who went to public and private schools at the same time. What was found was that people that were homeschooled were on average way more succesful in all aspect of their lives work, family, etc than those that went to public and private schools
If it is true what you are saying, how come the facts don't agree with your statement?
This is just common sense.
April 9, 2008 - 14:49 ET by JasonCThis is just common sense. I do think parents know better than public schools what skills and values they want their individual children to have, and if core academics can be taught through vetted materials, then fine.
But...
Between the number of households with only one parent, or in which both parents work, or in which the parents aren't skilled at teaching the material, or in which the parents start teaching it and then sort of lose interest...and on and on with potential problems. Your last large paragraph is preaching to the choir, but it's wholly impractical, bordering on delusion, to think you can convert the US to a country of homeschoolers.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
JasonC, 1) what? when
April 9, 2008 - 14:58 ET by futbolisgreat1JasonC,
1) what? when the hell did I ever say I want to convert the USA into a country of homeschoolers? don't put words into my mouth my friend. I have my own feelings about homeschooling, I haven't expressed them here, I have only stated facts. Don't claim that I am bordering on being delusional when you obviously didn't read my posts thoroughly.
2) Well I am glad that we can agree that parents know better than schools what their own children should be taught. However, your problems with homeschooling are the same exact problems that are found in the public school system. How many incompetent teachers do we have today teaching? WAY too many. how many teachers teach a subject they know nothing about and who are completly bored with the subject, way too many.
3) Just so you know, i am no fan of homeschooling, I am not. I know the statics, but I will not homeschool my children. However, I will not send them to a public school either. They will go to a private school. However, the statistics about homeschooling stand there. What I plan to do is complement, what the school teaches. My wife and I will not use a school as a private babysitter, rather a place that helps us teach our children. Get it? I think this is the best of both worlds.
Sorry if I misread, fut. I
April 9, 2008 - 15:05 ET by JasonCSorry if I misread, fut. I guess I assumed that since you were claiming public schools are basically a mess, a general shift toward homeschooling was desirable. Do you concur with my list of reasons why it's untenable for so many families, at least?
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
JasonC, 1) I do believe
April 9, 2008 - 15:15 ET by futbolisgreat1JasonC,
1) I do believe that the public school system is a complete failure.
2) Just because I believe this, it doesn't mean that I believe homeschooling every kid in America is the answer.
3) While I agree to a certain extend that the problems you present about homeschooling exist, the same problems and more exist in the public school system.
Fut, This post is
April 9, 2008 - 14:49 ET by LeonFut,
This post is absolutely hilarious considering the amount of generalizations being thrown around in your post at the bottom of the thread.
You consistently generalize about everything. Re-read your post below and then read this post to Jason and tell me you don't see any hypocrisy.
Thanks for the laugh again.
Leon, How predictable of
April 9, 2008 - 15:01 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
How predictable of you. Instead of engaging in the debate, showing your side of the story, you make a feable and pathetic attempt at attacking those you disagree with
grow up. Try to mature a little bit, ok?
now say something meaningful that adds to the debate or just move along. Stop wasting internet space.
Fut, You should re-read your
April 9, 2008 - 15:02 ET by LeonFut,
You should re-read your original post. Nothing but unfounded generalizations.
Sorry champ.
Leon, Sorry champ?!
April 9, 2008 - 15:17 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Sorry champ?! talk about an arrogant person.
Leon, please do yourself and your side a favor, grow up.
If you can't add something meaningful to the debate, shut-up and go away.
Be nice Bal, Can't you
April 9, 2008 - 12:55 ET by LeonBe nice Bal,
Can't you see Warner's just trying to change the world one worthless blog post at a time?
Rome wasn't built in a day you know.
Barack
April 9, 2008 - 13:22 ET by iveseenitallOh, I thought it's Barack and Hillary who want to "change " the world. Now it's Warner who wants to change the world ---and that's a BAD thing. See what I mean -- "liberals" want it all their way. Sad.