Sure Bill gives a lot but he sure as hell could give a lot more so don't think he is god like so many people do!!!!

bo shemmy3337;701708 wrote:Sure Bill gives a lot but he sure as hell could give a lot more so don't think he is god like so many people do!!!!

Gate certainly isn't god, but you cannot argue with his success. Oh wait...that's right. There are plenty of lefties out there who despise personal success and who believe that the wealth of eeeevil rich people like Gates should be confiscated and redistributed.

believer;701711 wrote:Gate certainly isn't god, but you cannot argue with his success. Oh wait...that's right. There are plenty of lefties out there who despise personal success and who believe that the wealth of eeeevil rich people like Gates should be confiscated and redistributed.

I am not saying that he has to give his money up nor that I do not think he is successful, I am just saying he could give a lot more than what he does and he would never notice the difference.

stlouiedipalma;699574 wrote:It would be nice if Bill had a plan for school districts to buy a program for teaching classes by teleconferencing, using a computer. Then we could consolidate districts and many classes could be taught by one computer operator. That would really save money. Just imagine, you could eliminate most of the overhead and, with the consolidation, eliminate many administrative positions as well.

Your thinking is not unlike many university presidents and school district superintendents.

Karl Marx talks about how technology and capitalism will get to the point where they replace so many people with machines and essentially become so efficient it undoes itself because so many people are out of a job and the wealth is concentrated with the select few in power. I had a professor suggest that teachers were the next profession to fall to technology, as video and computer interfaces will allow large class sizes to learn. I can already look at youtube videos and relearn all of the high school math I forgot, without ever consulting a teacher. It's equally marvelous and terrifying, in my opinion.

What will you do when your trade is replaced by a machine? Cling to the idea that one must get more education to become valuable in today's society, or realize today's society may have a serious communist tsunami on the horizon (read: within fifty years).

I say this as a guy who was a die-hard Republican and remains a member of the economic "upperclass." (merely pointing out I'm not a big-government Democrat) I simply wonder what happens when the purest form of free market undoes itself.

bo shemmy3337;701715 wrote:I am not saying that he has to give his money up nor that I do not think he is successful, I am just saying he could give a lot more than what he does and he would never notice the difference.

As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity

He gives an estimated 48% of his wealth

Have separate schools for the real students and the clowns who choose to be disruptive. Strict behavior rules would need to be in place and enforced. This would give students the opportunity they deserve and it would give the disruptive students the environment they seek.

Prescott;701743 wrote:Have separate schools for the real students and the clowns who choose to be disruptive. Strict behavior rules would need to be in place and enforced. This would give students the opportunity they deserve and it would give the disruptive students the environment they seek.

There are plenty of students who are "disruptive" that are brilliant.

I'm not brilliant, but I was certainly smarter than many of my high school teachers. I was disruptive as hell and the leading scorer on the quiz bowl team. Suck on those disruptive nuts.

A talented and gifted coordinator would tell you that many of the disruptive kids are simply bored. However, I would agree with you that the policy of educating everyone equally is severely flawed. Talented kids deserve more. Not everyone can be a mathematician or scientist, yet in the spirit of the "American Dream" we try. It's a bit silly.

ccrunner609;700326 wrote:who gives a fuck how things are typed on the internet. Its a fucking message board not a college thesis paper.

You play the way you practice.

QuakerOats;701832 wrote:You play the way you practice.

Did you just tell a gym teacher that? Touche.

believer;701706 wrote:Arrest and/or fine the parents?

In all seriousness it's NOT John Q. Public from Dover, Ohio's responsibility to cough up his hard earned cash to "educate" Danny Disruptive or Candy Crackhead from Cleveland despite their parents' apparent absence or indifference.

While it is true that eventually John Q. Public ends up paying the price somewhere along the line, for those low-income kids who DO want an education, I say let Danny and Candy take their chances on the street.

Would you rather pay for school or prison?

If we're going to end up paying somewhere I'll choose school everytime because even if it's a small amount of those kids some of them do genuinly want to learn so they can have a better life. Putting more people in jail only hurts us all as when they come out they have that massive social stigma on them, feel like criminals, and have a hard time getting a job. Those people tend to continue being criminals.

QuakerOats;701832 wrote:You play the way you practice.

ok lay off.

bo shemmy3337;701708 wrote:Sure Bill gives a lot but he sure as hell could give a lot more so don't think he is god like so many people do!!!!

bo shemmy3337;701715 wrote:I am not saying that he has to give his money up nor that I do not think he is successful, I am just saying he could give a lot more than what he does and he would never notice the difference.

I believe Mr. Gates has pledged almost his entire fortune to charity by the time he dies. So I am not sure where you are coming up with these statements.

I Wear Pants;701842 wrote:Would you rather pay for school or prison?

The idea that it must be one or the other is absurd.

There are plenty of students who are "disruptive" that are brilliant.

If they are brilliant they probably will be smart enough to understand the rules as well as the consequences for breaking the rules. Brilliant or not , they do not have the right to disrupt the education of others.

I am not saying that it would be one strike and out, but repeated disruptive behavior should have dire consequences and the rules should be strict.

Would you rather pay for school or prison?

I'm already paying for both. I just want my money spent on kids who want to learn.

It's a very simplified dichotomy yes.

But I think the idea of "screw the kids with bad parents/who grow up in bad environments" is equally absurd.

But I think the idea of "screw the kids with bad parents/who grow up in bad environments" is equally absurd.

They are screwing themselves and , unfortunately, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Prescott;701880 wrote:They are screwing themselves and , unfortunately, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

Mandates for 90% school attendance rates being tied to welfare amount, and if performance lacks, tie it to a nascent after-school tutoring program.

You essentially forfeit your right to be a terrible parent if you're living on the taxpayer dime, in my opinion. I know I've said it before on here, but after high school I got a job on the football and track staffs at Toledo Libbey High School, I'll always remember one of my OL saying he had to leave practice early to go babysit his little sister, he was an honest kid so I believe him, but I asked him "are your parents working late?" and he just sorta looked at me and said "no my mom doesn't have a job." WELL, WHAT THE FUCK IS SHE DOING NOT BABYSITTING THEN!?!

To aid your point though, Libbey did a great job of forcing the "bad apples" (read: worst apples, there were still plenty of crack babies and fuck ups walking through the halls) to attend the charter schools (most often Phoenix Academy). Their attendance rates went from ~60% to ~92% in a matter of years, although the same number of kids were in each classroom.

What happened? Grades went up substantially and real progress was made.

...then the state and district school board deemed that because too few kids went there they would just shut the school down and, you guessed it, save money. The drive to rid the classrooms of the disruptive losers ruined the school's future. A bit ironic in my opinion.

Prescott;701880 wrote:They are screwing themselves and , unfortunately, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

They aren't only screwing themselves they're screwing all of us. If people being terrible in school and then not getting good jobs and such only hurt themselves then I'd be more okay with it. But it hurts us all and I'm not going to let them screw themselves and me as well.

I Wear Pants;701898 wrote:They aren't only screwing themselves they're screwing all of us. If people being terrible in school and then not getting good jobs and such only hurt themselves then I'd be more okay with it. But it hurts us all and I'm not going to let them screw themselves and me as well.

I concur.

I'm not going to let them screw themselves and me as well.

They are doing it now.....Are they going to screw us down the road?? Probably, but we are spending good money and not getting much in return. If they don't want to take advantage of the learning opportunity before them , you can't force them to learn. They have to want to learn. If they don't want to learn , they become disruptive and lessen the opportunity for a child who is in school to learn. Why screw those kids??

Where did I say we should do the same thing we are right now?

Where did I say we should do the same thing we are right now?

What is your solution??

I proposed one.

Bring back this:



and this:




Problem solved!!!