Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Why Johnny can't reed gud


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed6.html

Not trying to start another outsourcing discussion (though I'm sure it will). I'm posting this for those of you out there who are parents. Get involved in your schools. Find out if they have councils or boards you can serve on. Share this article.

Our kids aren't getting stupider - that's genetically impossible. What *is* happening is that we're not challenging them. Education is seen as an entitlement, not a privilege, and we're becoming indolent. "They" aren't displacing "us" because they're smarter - it's because they work harder and realize you must earn that which you seek.

If nothing else, teach your kids work ethics. Or to quote Lazarus Long: "Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy."

Philo

Philo
Friday, September 05, 2003

It’s tough to impress a healthy work ethic on children when the world around them is governed by a liberal body where mediocrity is king....

apw
Friday, September 05, 2003

We are challenging them:

(1) "Go to public schools - and don't get shot."
(2) "Finish high school - Taco Bell is always looking for talent."
(3) "Go to college - the Army will pay - and you will pay back in Iraq."
(4) "Get a decent degree - interest rates are as low as never before!"

Philo, do you really think you're the right person to utter such accus ... err: motivations? Sorry, but this sounds lame beyond belief. Just make a visit to East L.A. and tell them what you've written here.

You write "our kids", "we're not challenging them", "we're becoming indolent". Do you really mean "we"? Do you really believe you are holding the same stance as those you've described? No, of course not. You've made it. You've posted enough in here to draw a nice picture of yourself: educated, smart, employed, "getting things done". What you really mean is: "No, it's not that I've been privileged from birth on. No, it's not that I've been getting support my whole life. No, it's not that I've had all the chances. I'm a self-made man. And everyone who is suffering right now ... does deserve it! Everyone who looses his job to some Indian guy ... deserves it! You knew it would happen, but you've been just too lazy! Wake up! Everyone can make it! Just look at me!"

Still Unemployed
Friday, September 05, 2003

Life is harder in East L.A. than it is in India?

Incredulous
Friday, September 05, 2003

The atricle's crap! And what it says has been said every decade sonce the 1790's.

You get loads of foreingers doing research here because the facilities are better in their hpme countries (thank robber barons such as Rockefeller for that) and because they have LESS CHOICE here than the average white American. The money is not in universities or doing research; it provides a liveable income, but as Albert points out in another thread, less than real estate, medicine or law, and probably less than Blackjack. But you need contacts for medicine, real estate or law and you need verbal skills.

Also the comparison is not fair; the comparison isn't between Johnny from the ghetto who's dyslexic, and Suresh who read the Wall Street journal while he was being potty trained, but between Johnny and Dinesh from a village in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar. who went to school for six months and can't read at all. The immigrants taking up positions in US universties are not the wetbacks crossing the Rio Grande to work in meat packing or agriculture, they are the upper Middle class of the other countries, It's called the brain drain.

Stephen Jones
Friday, September 05, 2003

Still Unemployed -

What course of action do you propose?

Hardware Guy
Friday, September 05, 2003

It doesn't matter if Johnny can read good. It only matters that he is confident that he can read good.

It's not okay to demonstrate to him that he actually cannot read good. That would make him feel bad and he would lose his confidence. Then we would have to rebuild his confidence.

Actually teachning him to read might be hard for him and make him feel bad.

doobius
Friday, September 05, 2003

What do you expect?  We're a melting pot.  If the quoted lists of spelling bee and math olympiad winners were full of Smith's and Jones', you'd hear cries of racism, or at the very least, calls for an investigation.

median joe
Friday, September 05, 2003

"And everyone who is suffering right now ... does deserve it!"

I never meant to imply that. What I'm saying is I think that manymany children in the US are going to schools molded by people who think that competition is bad, every child should be rewarded, grades can hurt self-esteem, and if your kid can't get into college they're being discriminated against.

And I think that most people raised like that will lose out to people who are raised with a philosophy of "if you want something, you have to work your ass off to earn it"

Philo

Philo
Friday, September 05, 2003

Considering what a ridiculous waste of time the National Spelling Bees are the fact that there are no WASPs among the winners rather suggests that maybe the 19th century theories of "Caucasian" racial superiority were not too far off the mark :)

Stephen Jones
Friday, September 05, 2003


In Ontario they recently phased out grade 13. This had the unintended and, amazingly, unforseen consequence of dumping TWO years worth of graduates into the university system. They call it the "double cohort".

Anyway, the university system is naturally stressed. Classes are large, and many graduates can't get in. Oh, the wailing and moaning.

In Canada, university education has long since ceased to be a privilege. It is now an expected continuation of your high school experience. Yet, even that's not enough. Every year there are student demonstrations to lower fees. My brother went to a U.S. school. They should see his bill.

I think a highly educated populace is a good idea. I'm just a little uncomfortable with the sense of entitlement that is starting to creep into the entire system.

anon
Friday, September 05, 2003

"Classes are large, and many graduates can't get in."

That depends on the class.  I recently took some classes at the local community college to complete my undergraduate work.  The three classes to which I needed to sign up were statistics, physics & psychology.

Statistics = 10 people enrolled.
Physics = 7 people enrolled.
Psychology = 40 people enrolled, 12 on waiting list.

I think the article makes a good point.

Jeff MacDonald
Friday, September 05, 2003

Fred Reed is making the erroneous assumption that just because Johnny's last name is Prakish then he is from India (or another country).  He very well could be second or third generation US.

Seems like he's offended that we aren't all of Anglo-Saxon descent.

On the other hand he is right about one thing, people from what we woudl consider to be rather pooe countrys are willing to work harder to get ahead (generally).  You see, that's the thing, we're trying to stamp out poverty, starvation and disease here in the good ole US of A, but they're such darn good motivators for the rest of the world.

Steve Barbour
Friday, September 05, 2003

Dammit, I was sure I fixed those typos!

Steve Barbour
Friday, September 05, 2003

I didn't read the whole article, however, I will comment on it anyway. :-)

I believe this author is oversimplifying the situation. There are many reasons why there are lots of people of Asian and Jewish descent working in scientific and academic professions within the United States.

Imo, the biggest problem in the United States is not our education system it is our value system! Management, financial, service, and sales fields in this country are currently over emphasized. Also, the people working in those type of fields are currently too richly rewarded compared to other professional fields such as science and engineering.

It seems to me that not a lot of Caucasian Americans (the article calls these people Smith and Jones) want to work in a field that:

* Pays poorly but requires a lot of effort
* Has a high barrier of entry
* Is under appreciated by society in general

Instead everybody wants to get rich quick by taking advantage of those individuals who actually do want to work in those type of fields. During economic downturns, I bet more engineers and scientists lose their jobs than sales or management types.

From the article, "... American research, and graduate schools in the sciences and engineering, would be crippled. "

In some areas this would be a big deal in others it wouldn't. For example, most computer scientists contribute very little to what I do for a living. That being said, University professors are sometimes involved in leading-edge research and think-tank developers at Xerox PARC, AT&T Labs, and similar environments have produced some of our country's best software/hardware technology.

Finally, education is more than just math and science. I think astronomy is an interesting discipline. However, if the U.S. magically lost all of its astronomers one day (optical, radio, etc.) would anyone really notice or care?

One Programmer's Opinion
Friday, September 05, 2003

Track down the footage of George Bush doing nothing after hearing that the WTC has been hit. He's sitting in on a reading session in a school room. Look a the way these kids are learning to read. They're like drones, it's frightening.

www.marktaw.com
Friday, September 05, 2003

"It doesn't matter if Johnny can read good. It only matters that he is confident that he can read good."

That should be "read well". Things are "good" processes or actions require "well"

$$
Friday, September 05, 2003

If you are in Ontario (as opposed to merely reading the media hype), you ought to know that the double cohort and the "space" issue at universities had a lot in common with y2k. Universities found it a good way to get tax dollars to improve their grounds, residences and buildings.

Interestingly, now that the cohort has finally arrived, we are started to get articles that have noticed how beautifully our universities exploited the Tories... (For example: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.asp?id=5857C7F6-339A-404E-B495-DE0E9CFA2637)

Furthermore, I have no patience with people outside of the system who blow off tuition increase concerns as "whining".  The fact that the US tuition costs more is as irrelevant as the fact that Belgian tuition costs nothing...

US health care "costs" more too.  The real problem is that during the last five years, tuition fees at Carleton (engineering) have increased ~62%.  And that's a smaller % increase than at other universities! At the same time, the quality of education has decreased dramatically.  The tax percentage, however, has not really decreased all that much (no matter the whining at the administrative level).  This is particularly true given the billions pumped into the system for Super Build.

People were up in arms about the "increased" price of electricity after the deregulation farce, despite the fact that we pay less for electricity now than we did in the 50s, taking inflation into account.  But, with the exception of the student segment - most people seem to see the price of tuition as a "justified" increase.

The logic escapes me, especially since you can control how much electricity you use much more easily than a student can control how much their education "costs". Furthermore, the "costs" are often grossly inflated.

For instance, a couple of years ago there was a big campaign at our local university to prevent a $350,000 landscaping project at the front entrance. The campaign was unsuccessful.  The university ended up with two small walls, dead evergreens (they didn't survive the winter), a bigger sign and some flood lights.  It could just be me, but I sympathized with the students, especially since I thought that $350,000 was rather excessive in the first place.

Phibian
Friday, September 05, 2003

"... we're trying to stamp out poverty, starvation and disease here in the good ole US of A, but they're such darn good motivators for the rest of the world. "

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.

sedwo
Friday, September 05, 2003

There was a very interesting series here in the UK on channel 4: That'll Teach 'Em.

It took some star pupils who had finished cumpulsory education with top grades and put them through 4 weeks of 1950s style education.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/teachem/index.html

Ged Byrne
Friday, September 05, 2003

[Furthermore, I have no patience with people outside of the system who blow off tuition increase concerns as "whining".  The fact that the US tuition costs more is as irrelevant as the fact that Belgian tuition costs nothing...]

Um, maybe that's because tuition was ridiculously low in the first place? And why is US tuition irrelevant? Is there some reason to suspect that their costs are higher than in Canada?

So, basically, I am blowing it off as whining.

anon
Friday, September 05, 2003

You claim that it is "genetically impossible" for our kids to be stupider than we.  (I assume you mean stupider on average.)  Not only is that false, but it's easy to argue that in modern American society, natural selection does not particularly favor intelligence.

Rob Mayoff
Friday, September 05, 2003

Giving this more thought, I think that things may have improved.

What we have is Selective vs Inclusive education.

With Selective education the idea is to skim the cream of the crop.  Find the top 5% and push them to excel.

With inclusive education you want to push all to excel.

It is very easy to point to selective education as being superior because the exams are so much harder.  Look, these questions are really hard so you must have been much cleverer to achieve them.

Its like when you read a victorian novel, or shakespear, you say 'This is really hard to read, and it has really big words.  They must have been so much cleverer then.'

Except back in victorian england the majority of the population were illeterate!

In an economy it is better to have many people achieving their best than just the elite.

If you doubt the wisdom of this, draw a graph of the progress made in all fields.  In the last centuary, the centuary that has seen a move to inclusion rather than exclusion, the advances in all areas is exponential.

Ged Byrne
Friday, September 05, 2003

I spelt illiterate wrong.  How ironic.

Ged Byrne
Friday, September 05, 2003

Rob - I'd be interested to see a cite that supports genetic drift via breeding over just five generations. ;-)

Philo

Philo
Friday, September 05, 2003

Ged, you also spelled several other words incorrectly, and you have improper capitalization sprinkled throughout your post.

I just thought since you were picking on yourself, I'd hop right on that bandwagon.

Dave
Friday, September 05, 2003

There are a couple of statiscal observational flaws in the article link posted.

Besides aren't we all Americans.

Perhaps the best cases for discussion are that the USA is attracting the best talents in the world. Were there not rants about Nasa being run by German in the sixties.

Many of the industries and companies started in the US are by immigrants - this has mostly been forgotten over time.

Immigrants take more risk - they have less to loose.

Also many of the better paying jobs such as Management and sales are held by anglo-saxon backgrounds. This is because it is harder to take a crack at this if you do not have the connections. Gotta invest in the country club membership and keep it in the family for two or more generations.

BTW - maybe I was overly sensitive. Was the article a tad anti-semitic?

Ram Dass
Friday, September 05, 2003

---"Except back in victorian england the majority of the population were illeterate!"---

Err, no. Exact figures are difficult to come by, and Google isn't much help here, but by the end of the nineteenth century, literacy, as measured by the ability to sign one's name in the marriage register, was 97%

Functional literacy was probably much lower, but it is generally reckoned that over half the population of  England in 1850 was able to read and write.

And of course Dickens was frequently read out loud, so even the illiterate understood him.

Bear in mind that many words we find difficult now were not necessariy difficult or uncommon at the time the novels were written.

Stephen Jones
Friday, September 05, 2003

Get a copy of "Gattaca". What does it tell?

(1) It's not in our genes.
(2) But they might help us reaching our goals.
(3) Reaching the highest goals might require some trickery.

Translated to our world:

(1) Indians are not smart because of their superior genetic pool. That's just one impression because there are so many Indians who immigrate into the US. In England there's lots of Indians and Pakistani, but the latter are unlikely to make it. Why? It comes down to social concepts and belief: men do not work, women do; women do not learn, men do; life on earth is just a passage to paradise. So Pakistani society is paralyzed by lots of conventions and restrictions. You want to argue against liberal concepts? Then go to Glasgow, you will find lots of friends there.

(2) Having a father who studied medicine and a mother who is a successful attorney will not automagically raise you into the next Einstein, you might as well turn out as a beggar under the bridge. Having an unemployed mother and no father most certainly will increase the probability that you won't make it past lower-middle-class.

(3) Look at corporate America.

Still Unemployed
Friday, September 05, 2003

Dave,

Also, it should be "I've spelt", not "I spelt".

Stephen,

Yes, Victorian England was a bad time point to use.  General education had already started to lower the standards of education by this time.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/teachem/criticising.html

Ged Byrne
Friday, September 05, 2003

"If Chinese citizens and Americans of Chinese descent                  left tomorrow for Beijing, American research, and graduate schools in the sciences and engineering, would be crippled."

Why would "Americans of Chinese descent" leave for China tomorrow?  Many of them may not even speak Chinese, let alone be comfortable in Chinese culture.

"Americans of Chinese descent" are AMERICAN.  One of our problems in the U.S. of A. is we emphasize too much the "of ... descent" part and not enough the American part.

Do other racially diverse countries have this problem of emphasizing ethnicity over citizenship?

Jim Rankin
Friday, September 05, 2003

Yes, Germany for instance.

Johnny Bravo
Friday, September 05, 2003

Yea. but I thought in Germany it was pretty well impossible for unterMenschen to get citizenship anyway.

Stephen Jones
Friday, September 05, 2003

If you're born in Germany, you can apply for citizenship quite easily, it just takes some time (1-2 yrs) and money. It's impossible if you've just arrived as a fugitive w/o work, or have been convicted for drug trafficking.

Johnny Bravo
Friday, September 05, 2003

"BTW - maybe I was overly sensitive. Was the article a tad anti-semitic?"

How?  By saying Jewish people have achieved much more per capita than white Christian people?

Jim Rankin
Friday, September 05, 2003

Stephen,
you probably intended to be humourous, but I did not find your remark very funny (and I'm not even German). I hope you don't mind.
Anyway, though it was difficult to become German, the citizenship law has been changed three years ago :

http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/reform_of_germany_s_citizenshi.html

GP
Friday, September 05, 2003

"I'm a self-made man. And everyone who is suffering right now ... does deserve it!"

Everyone who's suffering right now deserves the same opportunity to become a self-made man or woman.

Jim Rankin
Friday, September 05, 2003

Anybody else intrigued by the results of the best in education and centuries of selective breeding:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3150649.stm

Ged Byrne
Friday, September 05, 2003

As Harry is intent on pursuing a career in the Army, perhaps we'll be seeing him in Iraq soon?

Jim Rankin
Friday, September 05, 2003

"[Bush is] sitting in on a reading session in a school room. Look a the way these kids are learning to read. They're like drones, it's frightening."

So the problem with the education of children these days is that dubya is their reading teacher?

Jim Rankin
Friday, September 05, 2003

The high proportion of foreign technical post-grads derives from deliberate policies of the NSF and universities, according to analysis by Matloff and others.

From the early 1990's on, and perhaps earlier, large numbers of overseas students were courted to ensure sufficient numbers of cheap TA's and research assistants in academia. This strategy worked, but it also served to discourage American students from those less-well paid roles.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, America's education system tries to educate 100 percent of the population, and statistics take account of significant proportions of immigrants with poor language skills. By comparison, India's education system discards signficant proportions of the less capable.


Friday, September 05, 2003

This entire thread is stupid.

astute observation
Friday, September 05, 2003

BTW: Where are those WMD?

Bumphrey Hogart
Friday, September 05, 2003

Unwanted babies should be aborted.

Reginald J. Troll
Friday, September 05, 2003

Actually I found the thread quite interesting.

I don't have the answers though.

Part of the problem  though is that everybody is out for number 1, and with so many conflicting issues, why would'nt you be? So the circle continues...

Realist
Friday, September 05, 2003

anon sputtered: "maybe tuition was ridiculously low in the first place?"

Personally, I don't buy that. That's like saying, "maybe the consultants on the gun registry project lowballed the project".  (Um.  No.)  Just think what could have happened if we in Ontario had decided to spend the billion dollars we spent on double cohort preparation on something other than empty buildings that will require maintenance, heating, cooling etc once the double cohort has passed through in five years!

Also, don't forget that although tuition fees for students is higher in the States, in Canada, students only pay a small percentage of the "cost".  This is because higher education is severely subsidized in Canada, much like how we subsidize health care.  Furthermore, the "cost" per student also includes research costs (although these are increasingly subsidized by industry, a discussion in itself).  It's hard to argue that research costs ought to be carried entirely by the students, while the rest of society enjoys the benefits, yet that is essentially the argument being made.

The cited reason for tuition increases these days is often government "downloading".  Somehow though, although the percentage of subsidy has decreased (somewhat) - the amount we pay in taxes hasn't decreased a corresponding amount.  Nor have we exactly seen dramatic service improvements anywhere else.  In Ontario, the general feeling is one of things falling apart, although just like the double cohort "problem", the "falling apartness" is somewhat exaggerated for political purposes.
 
Health care is in disarray.  Services like getting marriage certificates etc etc take longer.  We've talked about affordable higher education or increasingly lack thereof.  Maintenance and books are becoming a real problem at the elementary and high school levels (tennis balls are now a standard school supply, to protect the floors...).  Public servants are unhappy.  More people than ever are apparently defrauding the welfare system, while at the same time legitimate users are anecdotally turned away.  Food bank usage is at a record high.  Unemployment levels are rising. Hydro is a half-deregulated mess.  About the only thing that I know of that has improved on a provincial level are the provincial websites.

So tell me again why tuition costs to the student ought to be going up?  Whether the cost goes up, down or stays the same, the tax payer is unlikely to pay less and other services are unlikely to improve. 

Although I'm always hopeful that past performance is not an indication of future returns, well, let's just say this has panned out better for hockey than it has for my tax bill (Up 6.5% last year, but who's counting?). It's the governments tend to use all available money theory in action. (And what is with the strange phenomenon whereby government services miraculously increase in cost in conjunction with the improvement in the housing markets, eh?)

If you are a Canadian, and particularly if you are in Ontario, I hope you are paying attention!  Do some research before spouting off inane falsehood like "the government cut grade 13 and now there aren't enough spaces" when really there are thousands more spaces than we actually needed.  The poor schmuck students are going to end up paying for these, as are we tax-payers - directly in subsidies, and indirectly in social support.  If the percentage you pay decreases, you should know where is it going, so that when Oct 2nd rolls around you can make a choice based on how you wish your money was allocated, rather than flipping a coin. 

Finally, the US price/cost thing really is irrelevant, because although it is not always obvious, we are in fact separate countries, with separate budgets, priorities and social policies.  This is why my taxes subsidize Shawinigan rather than Iraq.

The fact that US universities have higher tuition than Canadian universities is like comparing the amounts we pay to get copies of birth certificates.  Kind of interesting trivia, but not terribly relevant to the point, which is that tuition costs have increased at least 68% in Ontario in the last five years, although our taxation level has not decreased, services in other areas have not improved, inflation isn't wildly out of control and the decreases in government funding doesn't come close to the increased amount.

Phibian
Saturday, September 06, 2003

SALAD CREAM!

(Somebody had to say it...)

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Saturday, September 06, 2003


[So tell me again why tuition costs to the student ought to be going up?]

1) Despite your colorful language, the fact remains that tuition was ridiculously low in the past. My tuition, in the mid 80's was < $2000 per semester. This was at a good, mid level university. Hell, it was a joke back then how low the costs were.

2) You said yourself that costs at Canadian university's were subsidized. Those subsidies are being reduced, right? That alone should be enough to explain why costs are going up. Or did you miss the fact that we have a $500B deficit?

3) U.S. university costs are incredibly relevent, if you would just get your mind off silly cultural comparisons for a moment. This has nothing to do with culture. This has everything to do with the fact that the U.S. shares a number of factors such as salary expectations for professors, cost of living, costs for land, buildings. Do I really need to go on? Basically, it would be reasonable for me to assume that U.S. and Canadian universities are pretty much the same except for funding.

U.S. universities have to be much more self-sufficient than Canadian ones do. That's obvious, I hope. They also have to turn a profit (which I'm less concerned with). By that reasoning, it's reasonable to assume that U.S. tuition fees more accurately reflect true costs of education on this continent. Unless you are going to try to claim that U.S. universities have a 90% markup.

You can claim U.S. costs are irrelevant until you are blue in the face, but it's just not true.

This all begs the question of whether or not education should be subsidized or not. I'm not against it. Hell, I benefitted from it. But there's a difference between subsidizing post-secondary education and having everyone EXPECT it and whine (yes, whine) about shouldering some of the true costs.

anon
Saturday, September 06, 2003

I think this link is an interesting addition to the discussion:

http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

Most Americans of Asian or Indian descent don't worry about being dubbed nerds; they are expected, after all, to be the brains of the class.
Even more important, this whole social structure is alien to the rest of the world. Only the hopelesly weird (like me) are so grossly abused as the typical unpopular American kid.

The Analyst
Saturday, September 06, 2003

"aren't we all Americans"

Thankfully not.


Monday, September 08, 2003

I found Stephen's comment funny, GP, and I happen to live in Germany. Maybe it is because I see racism here every day.


Monday, September 08, 2003

I've been giving this some thought. 

Apparantly the education system of a couple of generations ago was excellent.  A golden age of teaching when children were taught right.

So, the question is:

Why did this wonderful education system churn out thousands of people incapable of figuring out how to set the clock on their VCR?

Ged Byrne
Monday, September 08, 2003

"A couple of generations ago" - let me see:

(1) Black and white people were separated in the U.S.
(2) The Germans killed more than 6 million people in Europe.
(3) Women were not allowed to vote in Great Britain.

I'll leave you with the rest of the world as an exercise.

Johnny Bravo
Monday, September 08, 2003

I a Chinese family lives in Manhattan (China Town), buys only from his fellow Chinese, eats Chemise food, practices Chinese, and maybe even writes Chinese signs on his store front. But, using American Dollar and paying tax as an American.

Is that family considered Chinese or American???

Some Sam
Monday, September 08, 2003

Dear Johnny,
                    You have a strange idea of how long generations are! Women were giiven the vote in the UK just after the First World War. That makes a generation forty-two years long.

Stephen Jones
Monday, September 08, 2003

Dear Stephen,
From the context of his assertions I don't think Ged implied exactly two (2) generations when he talked about "a couple".

Johnny Bravo
Monday, September 08, 2003

I was thinking of the 1940s/1950s, my Grandparent's era.

I get the impression that everything was supposed to have gone wrong in the sixties.

Ged Byrne
Monday, September 08, 2003

Regardless of where they live, who they buy from, what they eat, or even what language they use on their store front, a family is considered American if they are American citizens.

Why? Because being American means that in exchange for being a contributing, law abiding member of society, you get the freedom to do what you want, including the right to live where you can want, buy from who you want, eat what you desire, speak in any language you care to learn, and open shops catering to people who may share any language your choosing.

Michael Mata
Tuesday, September 09, 2003

---"I get the impression that everything was supposed to have gone wrong in the sixties." ------

Strange - I always was under the impression that everytning started to go right in the 60's !

Stephen Jones
Tuesday, September 09, 2003

(Sadly the Germans, among others, killed much more than 6 million people in the 40's. )
Anyway, I've read that the theme of school decline can be traced back to Plato (I wish somebody could give the  quotation).

GP
Tuesday, September 09, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home