Semesterly Smackdown!
While a few of the kids in my class are growing on me, most of them are growing like an out of control foot fungus. Where's the Tough Actin' Tinactin?? Here are some of those emails I wish I could write:
To the dullard in the back row: If I find you catching flies with your mouth again, I am personally going to pop a paper wad into the yawning vacuum!
To Ms. M: You make me uneasy. Maybe it was the fact that you came up and shook my hand and said "Thank you" on the first day of class. Weird. Maybe it's the fact that your head nods yes and your mouth smiles after everything I say when your eyes so very clearly yell, "I don't get it!" I am strongly suspicious that you will become that student at the end of the semester who argues so passionately and so unconvincingly as to why your B+ is really an A.
To the row of future fast food managers: Aggressive apathy does not equal participation. Nor will resentful glares at both me and the material help you understand either thing. It will, however, make you a wonderful middle manager when you decide in about a year that college just isn't "your thing." Dudes.
To A: I find it a sad omen of things to come that when I lobbed you the softball of writing an introductory assignment using your own opinion, you promptly went and plagiarized an entire web page. This does not bode well. However, dropping the news to you in a cheery and enthusiastic voice in order to watch the color drain from your face when you were oh-so busted was quite delightful.
Repeat Offenders: I don't know why some other instructor failed you the first time (or two) around. But I can certainly posit why I probably will. When you can't manage to come to class when class has barely even begun, giggle at your fellow losers, chew on your pencil instead of applying it to page, talk in a loud mock whisper as though I can't hear, and/or sleep in class....well, you get the picture. You obviously have already framed some of them from previous semesters. Get ready to add one more photo to your Album of Failure.
Geez. Is it winter break yet?
-- Virgil
posted by contemplator at Saturday, September 01, 2007
20 Comments:
hmmm...it does make me wonder what my teachers thought of me....
Ever be tempted to yell at any of them?
I'm sure if you weren't troublemaker, your teachers were delighted. And if your boobs weren't popping out of your shirt or you weren't drooling on your desk, they probably found you very pleasing as a student.
Yes, I've wanted to yell at a few of them. Especially the sleepers, just to watch them jump. Sometimes a couple of them get under your skin quick, and it's all you can do not to yell "Shut up!" or something like that.
BTW, Husband recently described one of the students in his class as a "leaned-over tennis shoe".
I understand completely.
Hilarious post! You made me choke on my coffee. Watch out for that Uriah Heep character - one of those had her parents call the Chair to argue about that B+. You know, the one she got only because she started to pull it together toward the end of the semester...
Ah sounds like your classes would've been fun....I dare ya to yell just when everyone's fallen asleep...
As for the B+ student - I knew someone who was a straight A student, until the few times she got Bs. She harassed the teacher day in and day out to get it raised to the A she felt she deserved. It was fun watching it happen. The teacher would see her walking down the hallway, and would actually turn around and walk away.
My teachers probably thought I was a swot...mind you I did once hand in (accidently..) a german piece of homework that was...interesting. It was meant to be about your favourite food. On a dare, I wrote my favourite food was blood (from a Vampire's point of view), as well as the proper one. I handed in the wrong homework.....My teacher never quite saw me in the same way again......
It's quite obvious that college students today are overly spoiled and take their college education for granted. I think a major cause of the problem is the easy scholarships, grants and loans that so many students get.
I'm sure if the students had to conjure up their own money for schooling, they would have much better attitudes.
I know an old man who told me that he was in the army for 5 years, just so he could get together enough money to go to college. Something tells me that he was a far better student than most of today's brats.
The problem with students shelling out their own money is that universities become a business.
In the UK, students have to pay tuition fees, and there's a bit of a worry that if universities are allowed to choose their own tuition fees, home students will be priced out in favour of international students.
Additionally, students are more willing to argue over grades and suspensions. Take for example a recent case I heard about whereby the student plagarised from a website and was suspended. She appealed against this decision - the reason for the appeal was she felt that as she was paying for the course, she should have more rights awarded. Interestingly she won her appeal and was unsuspended.
"The problem with students shelling out their own money is that universities become a business."
That would be a wonderful thing. I hate dealing with the Soviet Bureacracy "I dont wanna" mentality that currently exists at schools. Acting like a business means that they have to go out of their way to impress me, and make sure they don't screw up.
When you deal with a private business, you get "HELLO SIR/MADAM! How may I help you? How would you rate my performance? Would you like me to carry this out to your car for you sir/madam?".
When you deal with a government bureaucracy, you get "Meh, I'll help you after my next coffee break...", "Oh, I made a mistake? Too fucking bad", "HEY! You used the wrong color of pen on that form! Start from scratch!"
Holy Ron Paul, Batmite! There's some kind of libertarian anarchist commentin' on this here blog! Let's make education completely a business! Cause once it's a business, it'll be accountable to supply and demand! MARKET EQUALITY, BY GAWD, MARKET EQUALITY!
Cause nothin's more fair than the danged old market!
Competition! Woo Hoo!
Got news for you, Genius. Education USED to be a business. In many ways it still is. Universities existed LONG before public scholarships. Federal and state scholarships are a relatively recent invention.
Now we've got us a history lover! Who thinks Kitush is a Genius! What a compliment!
Holy Affirmative Action, Batmite! I never knew that there was a time when only the people who could PAY for school got to GO to school. That must have been a danged wonderful time!
Thanks for the lesson, History Lover!
HISTORY, BAH GAWD, HISTORY!
Ah, yes. The bad old days when an education meant you were part of the upper crust, because they were the only ones who could afford it.
My how we all miss the aristocracy.
With all due respect, I thought you said that you were an economist. Maybe I am mixing you with someone else. By every measure, college costs have gone UP when the federal and state government have subsidized education. College was actually at its CHEAPEST before the federal government stepped in, even taking inflation into consideration.
Making College More Expensive: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Tuition Aid
As Congress debates the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it should heed Friedrich Hayek’s warning that democracy is “peculiarly liable, if not guided by accepted common principles, to produce over-all results that nobody wanted.” One result of the federal government’s student financial aid programs is higher tuition costs at our nation’s colleges and universities. Basic economic theory suggests that the increased demand for higher education generated by HEA will have the effect of increasing tuitions. The empirical evidence is consistent with that—federal loans, Pell grants, and other assistance programs result in higher tuition for students at our nation’s colleges and universities.
The diversity of objectives, resources, and types of governance among the thousands of colleges and universities makes it difficult to adequately measure the exact amount by which tuitions rise in response to federal student assistance. Therefore, estimates of the amount vary in the literature. Congress can at best know that its policies increase tuitions and that some portion of the federal assistance ends up being captured by state governments and by the colleges and universities.
Also, when large numbers of students begin to rely on the federal government to fund their higher education, and the federal government uses this financing to affect the behavior of state and private institutions, we should be concerned about how the resulting loss of independence of our colleges and universities affects the ability of voters to form opinions about public policy that are independent of the government’s position.
Rather than expand the current system, Congress should consider a phase-out of federal assistance to higher education over a 12-year time frame. As the federal government removes itself from student assistance, we should expect several things to happen. First, sticker tuition prices should decline. Second, the private market should respond to the phase-out of federal assistance. That response would likely take three forms: additional private-sector loans, additional private scholarship funds, and perhaps most importantly, the expansion of human capital contracts. Human capital contracts, first suggested 40 years ago by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, would allow students to pledge a portion of future earnings in return for assistance in paying their tuition.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3344
Logically speaking, if you want students to have an easier time paying for college, it only makes sense to have the government step OUT.
I've also read Karl Marx, honey, but that doesn't make me a Communist. Eyeroll. I read all kinds of things and I evaluate what they have to say. Ayn Rand's philosophy, while it has its valid points, is not the be all end all of human interaction and economics.
Everything costs more now, not just college. You're entirely missing the purpose of Pell grants and other gov't aid. It's to aid those persons who can't pay for it themselves. College costs more, sure. But students aren't always footing that bill. Sure, a lot of them are getting into long term loans. But many of them don't need to be in college in the first place. The costs come in when you factor in supply and demand.
That's your ground rule for economics, sweetheart. More demand for services leads to higher supply costs. You'd learn that in Econ 101.
I have a degree in Economics. I do not consider myself an "Economist". That's for people for whom Economics is a life's work. It's just my hobby.
Okay, so why should we be paying for the John Belushis of the world to go to college? Why should the USA taxpayers have to pay for some nitwit who drinks all day, smokes pot, sleeps in class and is just there to get laid?
Does this make any sense? How can this be remotely construed as fair?
See, if we do things my way, the schools will end up with more George McFly's and fewer Biff Tannen's. Teachers like you benefit because you would not have to dumb your lessons down so much. There would be fewer liars, cheaters, punks, plagiarists.
If some person who has less money is truly serious about going to college, assuming there was no financial aid available, wouldn't that determined poor person find a way to raise money, even if it takes him/her a few years? Another upside from that poor person raising the money (READ: getting a job at Staples/McDonalds/WalMart/Kinkos/Home Depot/landscaping/etc, or even faster joining the army) is that the same prospective college student will be far more mature and prepared for learning at the age of say, 23 than they are at 18.
"But many of them don't need to be in college in the first place."
EXXXactly!!! Exactly!
"The costs come in when you factor in supply and demand."
Yes! And with more students receiving federal subsidies, the demand is increased, supply reduced, which drives up the cost.
In other words, the costs of college are artificially raised due to the market distortions caused by our dear old Uncle Sam.
If some person who has less money is truly serious about going to college, assuming there was no financial aid available, wouldn't that determined poor person find a way to raise money, even if it takes him/her a few years?
Ah, the good old "boot strap" argument, usually made by people whose boots were already pulled up for them. Study poverty and inequality between income brackets. You'll find that far from the majority of people being lazy, pot smoking welfare users (although some of those people do exist), poverty usually exists because in a totally free market capitalism, the rich take care of their own. It's not "let the best person/company win". Anyone who suggests otherwise clearly has not studied economic history or the psychology of being rich. There are studies done on such things.
Expecting people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is all well and good if you have boots with straps to be pulled up, and there is definitely a measure of responsibility that goes along with education. Pell grants and state aid are not given to the middle class. They're intended for and given to poor people. If a poor person is trying to save money to go to college, how do you expect that person to pay for rent, food, transportation, utilities, their own medical expenses, and still find a way to sock back thousands of dollars from a job (or two) at a place like Home Depot?? That's absurd. How many years would it take the average family to sock back a year's worth of tuition? What about enough for a bachelor's degree? No amount of good ol' Yankee bootstrapping can provide that kind of money, and to suggest otherwise is to reveal how much you don't know about what the world costs to live in.
The idea that the market would be "perfect" if Uncle Sam didn't interfere is a very, very nearsighted one. Rich people have almost always sheltered their money. Why on earth would a rich man give a contract to a stranger at a cheaper price, when he could enrich his brother-in-law? It has worked that way since people started stockpiling things and needed interchangable symbols like money in order to carry out transactions, instead of carrying chickens around to trade. Gov't laws are usually reactions to things that are going on in "free" market capitalism. Take nonprofits, for instance. When rich people started sheltering their money in nonprofits (Allan Mollihan is a recent example from my state), they started "granting" their tax free money to projects to enrich their friends and family members. So the gov't had to step in and set rules about fair bids and nepotism, and tracking your grants in order to continue to receive your tax free status. The gov't wasn't in the business of regulating nonprofits until the rich started abusing the system.
Why should you care about subsidizing education? Maybe because if we have an educated workforce our country improves overall. Maybe because if we force our kids to be ditchdiggers instead of doctors, we'll deserve what becomes of our nation.
There is no perfect society. You are not going to find a bunch of perfectly groomed, mannered college kids who are there 100% of the time to learn. You are going to find abusers of the system. That's human nature. But you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it is often quite anti-social in terms of society. We have to live together. As such, we have to figure out the best way to live together to make sure society is healthy. If you don't care about a healthy society, then don't bitch when crime rates shoot up, drug and alcohol abuse runs rampant, people are stupider than they were before, and the road system starts falling apart. People are not islunds unto themselves. You can't be healthy and sustainable all by yourself. Taking away or not promoting access to education is about as stupid as a society can get.
I'm willing to consider other points of view, but you are neither thinking before you write nor digesting what you read. This conversation is fruitless and becoming quite boring.
OOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one, Virgil! Tell our morally absolute friend how it is!
Don't feel bad Evilcapitalist, we all have to take our lumps sometimes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1H8KUXnq4c
COME GET YOUR WHOOPIN' CHARLEY, BAH GAWD, COME GET YOUR WHOOPIN'
"Ah, the good old "boot strap" argument, usually made by people whose boots were already pulled up for them... "
Bullshit. There are many poor people who have made their way in the USA, using hard work and ambition. The notion that you need a big government to take care of the people is quite a myth. In fact, to see the fastest risers, look at the immigrants. I know a guy from Bulgaria who worked his way up. Now he has a top of the line job and a luxury car. You should also look at the Mexican and hispanic populations. Despite having come from nations of squalor, they are advancing faster than everyone else.
And guess what? They have 'universal healthcare' in Mexico and Cuba, but those people still come over here in droves. Yes, they even come from Europe. Betcha didn't hear about that. So many of them come here, that I hear that they often exceed immigration quotas.
You want me to tell you why some of the white and black locals live in poverty, year after year, decade after decade? Because they bought into the lies of the 'New Deal' and the 'Great Society'. They bought into the notion that the government has to take care of them. They bought into the notion that they can live off of welfare and its no big deal. You ever read "To Kill A Mockingbird"? Well let me tell you, there are a lot Ewells out there who have no intention of changing. I bet they're looking forward to Universal Healthcare too. The only reason that puts a smile on my face is because I know that the government would step in there and force them to live healthy lives, mandating what kind of diets they are allowed to eat. It would be suitable punishment for being lifelong parasites.
I suggest you look up a place called "Hong Kong". It is almost completely free market, has the world's lowest poverty rate, an extremely low unemployment rate, the world's fastest economic growth. And yet, it has the lowest amount of government involvement anyplace. It is a demonstration that John Locke was right all those years ago, and that Thomas Hobbes was a fraud, as well as a sadistic fascist.
Another demostration of the greatness of capitalism and freedom is the State of New Hampshire. I'm sorry, I meant to say the GREAT state of New Hampshire. Of course, with our federal government, it can never be as good as Hong Kong. Despite this, New Hampshire has no income tax, no sales tax, low taxes on everything else. It also has a booming economy, and can even afford to pay for good roads and police and other things. "Live Free or Die" is truly a noble motto. To top it off, New Hampshire is a BEAUTIFUL vacation spot. I remember driving up there, and seeing quite a series of top quality boating houses, motels, great outdoors, well maintained towns, ski areas and crystal clean lakes. It is no wonder why so many democrats and liberals and Nanny-Staters and especially Vermonters hate that place. Because it refutes all their lies.
A few years ago, the city of Anaheim, California decided to allow anyone to use the land in downtown for any purpose. They also significantly lowered the tax rate, as well as eliminated many franchise fees. The result? Businesses poured in. People and businesses became creative with their homes and buildings. As a result, the city looks majestic and futuristic. The local economy is booming. It would probably do even better if it were not for the parasites in Sacramento and Washington D.C.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110008189
I have even more examples, but I'm not interested in writing a book. I know you care about poverty. I know you care about economic stagnation. But it is pretty clear that usually the cause of poverty is caused by abusive governments who get in the way of people following their dreams, who decide to get greedy and take advantage of other people's success. Who take money that is not theirs and give it to their politically connected friends. The truth is, most people who get in government are some of the most vile, ruthless, power-hungry, criminal, backstabbing individuals on this entire planet. It is almost as if though they were a bunch of puppets, being controlled by Thomas Hobbes.
I know that you think that most people would not be able to afford college without extensive scholarships, but you should ask yourself WHY those colleges are so expensive in the first place, with costs rising faster than the rate of inflation. You should probably find out what colleges USED to cost before certain politicians stepped in.
You know "one" Bulgarian guy out of how many immigrants in this country? I'm the one calling bullshit on this one. And as far as Mexicans go, plenty of them work 14 hour days for peanuts while living in an apartment where people sleep in shifts so they can save costs. Were you unaware of this?
I know about poverty. It is my job to know about it. You don't, as your misplaced arguments demonstrate. I'm not accepting any more dissertations on my blog about your poorly researched beliefs. Take it somewhere else.
Post a Comment
<< Home