[jonottawa]

The 'problem' as I see it is insoluble because the 'problem' is that people who are in no position to financially or emotionally care for their offspring are producing offspring in great numbers. And there is no societal or legal impediment to doing so or prospect of creating one that most people would be okay with. And there is no way to 'punish' such behavior without negatively affecting the innocent offspring.

(And for the record, I was born to an unwed teen mother, so hopefully I can speak to the issue without being demonized. And I'm referring not only to young unwed poor people but also to older married people (many quite financially successful) like the Santorums.)

[phil_20686]

 jonottawa, on 2012-September-13, 10:50, said:

The 'problem' as I see it is insoluble because the 'problem' is that people who are in no position to financially or emotionally care for their offspring are producing offspring in great numbers. And there is no societal or legal impediment to doing so or prospect of creating one that most people would be okay with. And there is no way to 'punish' such behavior without negatively affecting the innocent offspring.

(And for the record, I was born to an unwed teen mother, so hopefully I can speak to the issue without being demonized. And I'm referring not only to young unwed poor people but also to older married people (many quite financially successful) like the Santorums.)

I am unclear what you are saying? Why do you think that the santorums are unfit parents?

[jonottawa]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 11:07, said:

I am unclear what you are saying? Why do you think that the santorums are unfit parents?

I'm saying that women (like Karen Santorum) who have kids at 48 without being prepared to terminate the pregnancy if testing indicates severe genetic abnormalities are just as reckless and worthy of scorn as any young unwed mother is. Bella

[billw55]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 10:39, said:

This is a very complicated question. I am not ideologically "pro small government" or "pro large government", I believe that governments should try to do the things that governments can do well, and avoid trying to do things they do badly:

I think governments can do the following things well:
(1) National defence and foreign policy
(2) Providing universal education.
(3) A single payer Health service.
(4) Creating a functional legal system that constrains the ability of money to buy influence.
(5) Constructing transport infrastructure.

I might add a couple things, such as basic utilities and fire protection.

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 10:39, said:

(1) The ACA. While a national health service has my unqualified support, I think that the current law will likely enrich the insurance companies at the expense of the consumer, and without any significant increases in patient care. I predict it will be much more expensive than is anticipated when insurance companies use the mandate as an excuse to raise premiums, even among the low paid.

Of course. This is the only kind of law that the insurance industry will allow. For all their liberalism in principle, democrats are just as beholden to their big money supporters as republicans are.

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 10:39, said:

(3) Infrastructure: The US has allowed its transport infrastructure to reach an appalling level of disrepair. This should have been fixed in bits and pieces over the last decade. As a large country with lots of land, you have an ideal situation (like,say France) to build a world class rail and road network which would significantly reduce the cost of travel for the next several decades. Why haven't you done it already!!!

Agree in general. Not specifically about passenger rail, but our roads and especially bridges do need a lot of work.

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 10:39, said:

(5) The fact that American bank regulators still allow shops and banks to charge debit card fees, even though using debi cards has zero marginal cost. But checks are free, even though they do have a significant cost. Bring on the cashless society.

Disagree this time, this is a simple market process. If waiving fees was such a great idea, some banks would do so, stealing the customers of those who don't. Unless the banks are colluding, which is something that should be stopped, but that is a different issue from regulation. Banning these fees amounts to outright setting prices, which is not something we generally support over here.

[PassedOut]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 10:39, said:

This is a very complicated question. I am not ideologically "pro small government" or "pro large government", I believe that governments should try to do the things that governments can do well, and avoid trying to do things they do badly:

I think governments can do the following things well:
(1) National defence and foreign policy
(2) Providing universal education.
(3) A single payer Health service.
(4) Creating a functional legal system that constrains the ability of money to buy influence.
(5) Constructing transport infrastructure.

I agree with both your principle and your list. Both major US parties share the blame for our being so far off the mark, as do we voters who've put them in office. That's why I'm an independent voter.

It seems that the best we can do here is to vote for people who will advance a bit in the right direction (or to vote against those who will move us away).

I do believe that massive improvements in our educational system would slowly put us on the right track, but there is a lot of opposition to that for a number of reasons, some practical and some ideological.

[cherdano]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 10:39, said:

Most of all, I am opposed to the incompetent execution of good ideas. And that is what I see every day from government. I am more familiar with the UK, but lets consider a few things that I regard as massive incompetency by the US government over the past few years:

(2) The FOMC. It is a little known fact that Obama has filled six of the seven seats on the Federal reserve board, as well as a number of seats on the FOMC. Not one of his appointments has ever voted for monetary stimulus. WTF. How can you fight for fiscal stimulus while appointing board members who are voting against monetary stimulus. This is a cock up of almighty proportions.

(3) Infrastructure: The US has allowed its transport infrastructure to reach an appalling level of disrepair. This should have been fixed in bits and pieces over the last decade. As a large country with lots of land, you have an ideal situation (like,say France) to build a world class rail and road network which would significantly reduce the cost of travel for the next several decades. Why haven't you done it already!!!

(4) The debt ceiling debate. I mean, wtf, I saw senators on tv who didnt know what the debt ceiling even was. Or what the consequences of raising it even were. It was completely bizarre. I generally hold a low opinion of British politicians, but they are leagues more savvy than your average US senator. I imagine I could hold a productive conversation with at least half of the front benches of British politics.

Agree strongly with all of this, although your timing for (2) could have been better.

Something to add to (3) is that when the US does undertake big infrastructure projects, they are always quite a bit more expensive than in other countries. I don't know the reasons, though all of the following contribute:
- "Buy American" laws.
- The need to regionally diversify the firms getting contracts, in order to appease as many members of Congress as possible.
- Members of Congress voting for what's best for their district, rather than for what is reasonable.

[jonottawa]

As to the off-topic discussion (to which I have no objection, fwiw) I mostly agree except to the extent that it creates a false equivalency between the relative culpability of the two parties. (It's also worth noting that similar thinking from Ralph Nader voters in 2000 got us into this mess in the first place.)

Republicans represent the 1% and have saturated the airwaves (FoxNews, talk radio) to spread their lies and propaganda. They celebrate ignorance. They celebrate religious extremism. When they're not lying, they're demagoguing. They are morally bankrupt. In 8 short years they brought America from 'sole superpower' to broke banana republic.

Democrats mean well, but are beholden to certain interest groups in a manner typical of virtually all major parties in all democracies. I think that many Democrats would LIKE to engage in constructive problem solving, but they know from experience that any attempt to candidly address the serious issues facing the country gets met by charges of 'death panels' or 'Willie Horton' or 'stealing $700B from medicare' or 'reefer madness' or 'weakening the military' or 'betraying Israel'. So the can gets kicked down the road.

That being said, I'm for Gary Johnson this go round. That would be a more difficult decision if I lived in a swing state. If America is going to hell in a handbasket, it's only right that it be under a Republican.

[Bbradley62]

 jonottawa, on 2012-September-13, 12:14, said:

(It's also worth noting that similar thinking from Ralph Nader voters in 2000 got us into this mess in the first place.)
<<snip>>
That being said, I'm for Gary Johnson this go round. That would be a more difficult decision if I lived in a swing state.

For consistency, you should blame only the 2000 Nader voters in Florida; those in other states were safe based on the same logic that makes you (and me) safe to vote for Johnson this time.

[Cthulhu D]

Why doesn't the US implement some sort of prefences system for presidential elections? I think you guys call the concept Instant Runoff Voting.

[Bbradley62]

retracted

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2012-September-13, 19:22

[VMars]

 jonottawa, on 2012-September-12, 08:54, said:

I'd never heard of Khan, but it's pretty cool. Brushed up a little on my calculus last night and even learned a couple of new tricks. (Are there only quizzes for math or am I doing it wrong?)

One criticism I have would be that the narrator of the videos I saw was 'graduate assistant at state school' level and not 'oh my god best professor ever' level.

As to fast clicking and not learning, I'd think that could be easily fixed if it was set up to penalize errors more harshly.

I just wish something like that had been around 30 years ago.

I agree that it's pretty cool to use as a review, and I utilize it for that extensively.

The other problem is that it does not do error-analysis. For example, if a student makes a wrong answer, it would be nice if the student got feedback on why that answer is incorrect, rather than "try again". This frustrates students who have a lot of trouble catching all their errors, but actually understand something. It's rather draining on them because they keep getting wrong answers, and don't know why, and feel "dumb" (to quote them), and give up.

[VMars]

Now imagine that you were a Calculus teacher with those same students, who are sorely deficient in math literacy. Do you want your effectiveness to be rated in how well these students (who come in woefully underprepared) do on Calculus standards?

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 06:59, said:

Then the world is a crap place, since you do not have to look very far to learn that



The detroit federation of teachers thinks that 47% of adults in detroit are `functionally illiterate'. Ill just let that sink in for a while.

I did one year's teaching* at a university, where I found that the level of mathematical literacy was abysmal. And I taught physics, at a reasonable university. I think anyone who doesn't think our education system is seriously deficient is bonkers. And these were three-A students! A third of all pupils in the UK fail to get five C's in gcse. And getting a C in gcse is not by any means a gold standard. In my school, which was not selected on ability, there were no D's at all. That means, that every single student, even those with serious dyslexia, got at least 9 C grades. I cannot reconcile these facts except by inferring that a huge quantity of British schools are deficient.

* strictly speaking I only did marking and a few seminars. Then I gave it up because it was too depressing.

[VMars]

 billw55, on 2012-September-13, 07:29, said:

Also, agree strongly with Ken about students having a responsibility to learn. When they don't care to or outright fight against (due to their life environment and/or upbringing), there is much less that a teacher can do.

But on the other hand, many of these students who seemingly don't care (at least in HS) have basically had a history of being dumped on in elementary/middle school. I had a student I brought to our teachers meeting, who basically broke down crying, thanking all of us for our persistance in not letting her check out, and is now checked into 11th grade, with straight As. She had a horrible history, including verbal and emotional abuse by teachers in her past. If we hadn't reached out to her, she would be a HS drop-out. She's now on a path to college.

[phil_20686]

 VMars, on 2012-September-13, 20:36, said:

Now imagine that you were a Calculus teacher with those same students, who are sorely deficient in math literacy. Do you want your effectiveness to be rated in how well these students (who come in woefully underprepared) do on Calculus standards?

I would like to be evaluated on how much they improved from the tests they took when they entered my class, and the tests they took when they were leaving.

You are imagining I am in favour of poor metrics. Collect the data first, and when we have done so we will be able to construct reasonable metrics, and reasonable error estimates, and all of the other things. Asking us how we should develop the metric that weights the relative and absolute improvements, the effects of poverty and marital status, and geography, etc, before we have collected the data, is absurd. And seems to be where the teachers unions are.

Their claim seems to be that use of this data will not improve teaching standards, as if, when the principal looks at the data for a "good teacher" and its not so good one year, they will insta-fire them. In reality, what will probably happen is that they will use it as an excuse to fire the teachers that they think are bad. Imo, principals should already have the right to get rid of teachers who they believe are under performing.

Moreover, part of constructing good metrics is creating good tests, which should really be done on a school by school basis, rather than standardised, as not all students will be at the same place at the beginning and the end of every year.

[phil_20686]

PS: Besides, the establishment always thinks their years of experience will trump data and intelligent metrics. In my experience, they are always wrong. Think moneyball!!! Or pundits vs nate silver. Or traders vs algorithms. Computer models vs old style weather forecasting.

In all cases I have ever seen, data+metric based rules, beats humans at forecasting results. And that is essentially the business we should be in, forecasting which teachers will have the best results in the future.

[phil_20686]

 jonottawa, on 2012-September-13, 11:51, said:

I'm saying that women (like Karen Santorum) who have kids at 48 without being prepared to terminate the pregnancy if testing indicates severe genetic abnormalities are just as reckless and worthy of scorn as any young unwed mother is. Bella

I think you are crazy.

[phil_20686]

 billw55, on 2012-September-13, 11:55, said:

Disagree this time, this is a simple market process. If waiving fees was such a great idea, some banks would do so, stealing the customers of those who don't. Unless the banks are colluding, which is something that should be stopped, but that is a different issue from regulation. Banning these fees amounts to outright setting prices, which is not something we generally support over here.

In every other country in the developed world, using debit cards is regarded as being equivalent to cash. Ie its free. The US is a huge outlier. I have no specialist knowledge of this particularly, but I assume it is something to do with the regulatory environment.

In the UK, the banks tried to get rid of checks entirely as a legal form of tender, because they are expensive and subject to fraud compared to chip and pin cards. And we long since got rid of the idea that you swipe your card and sign the receipt. It was only a pensioners revolt that kept checks, they will be gone in another decade I am sure.

[Cthulhu D]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-14, 02:15, said:

I would like to be evaluated on how much they improved from the tests they took when they entered my class, and the tests they took when they were leaving.

You are imagining I am in favour of poor metrics. Collect the data first, and when we have done so we will be able to construct reasonable metrics, and reasonable error estimates, and all of the other things. Asking us how we should develop the metric that weights the relative and absolute improvements, the effects of poverty and marital status, and geography, etc, before we have collected the data, is absurd. And seems to be where the teachers unions are.

Their claim seems to be that use of this data will not improve teaching standards, as if, when the principal looks at the data for a "good teacher" and its not so good one year, they will insta-fire them. In reality, what will probably happen is that they will use it as an excuse to fire the teachers that they think are bad. Imo, principals should already have the right to get rid of teachers who they believe are under performing.

Moreover, part of constructing good metrics is creating good tests, which should really be done on a school by school basis, rather than standardised, as not all students will be at the same place at the beginning and the end of every year.

No-one has successfully developed metrics that separate good teachers from bad ones in a way that can be usefully administered on a large scale that are not overwhelmed by the socioeconomic background of the students and random noise from sample sizes. Additionally, no-one has managed to successfully show that coaching that improves your scores on standised tests results in improved employment outcomes which is the actual objective.

The problem here is that all the metrics are poor. To use a baseball analogy we're still ascribing walks to the pitcher and using RBIs not wRC+, and we're only measuring players over 30 plate appearances rather than 300. Additionally, some guys are making their 30 plate appearances against Walter Johnson, and some guys are appearing with A. J. Burnett on the mound, and this isn't being controlled for.

The teacher's union might be okay with good metrics, but the metrics actually proposed don't control for socioeconomic factors, let alone anything else.

[billw55]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-14, 02:31, said:

In every other country in the developed world, using debit cards is regarded as being equivalent to cash. Ie its free. The US is a huge outlier. I have no specialist knowledge of this particularly, but I assume it is something to do with the regulatory environment.

In the UK, the banks tried to get rid of checks entirely as a legal form of tender, because they are expensive and subject to fraud compared to chip and pin cards. And we long since got rid of the idea that you swipe your card and sign the receipt. It was only a pensioners revolt that kept checks, they will be gone in another decade I am sure.

Yes, the difference in the regulatory environment is we have less. In particular, as I said, we rarely have government setting prices (including at zero).

I agree about checks, I wish they were gone. It can be so frustrating to be in a hurry and end up in line behind an elderly citizen, who seems to take all day opening the checkbook, seeking out a pen, asking about writing it over the amount .. all before actually writing anything, which seems to go at about ten seconds per letter. aarrrrrgh

So, if you don't swipe card and sign, what *do* you do? Many stores here no longer require a sig below a certain amount, but no place I know of has dropped it entirely.

[Cthulhu D]

 billw55, on 2012-September-14, 06:49, said:

Yes, the difference in the regulatory environment is we have less. In particular, as I said, we rarely have government setting prices (including at zero).

I agree about checks, I wish they were gone. It can be so frustrating to be in a hurry and end up in line behind an elderly citizen, who seems to take all day opening the checkbook, seeking out a pen, asking about writing it over the amount .. all before actually writing anything, which seems to go at about ten seconds per letter. aarrrrrgh

So, if you don't swipe card and sign, what *do* you do? Many stores here no longer require a sig below a certain amount, but no place I know of has dropped it entirely.

Contactless + pin or insert smart card and pin.