Remedial problems in college
A story in Sunday’s paper showed that as more high schools inflate students’ grades, kids enter college lacking basic English and math skills.
As a result, these high school graduates take remedial college classes to learn what they failed to master in high school.
Students must pay to take these classes, which often don’t count toward the credits they need for a college degree. This increases the amount of time – and money – needed for college.
The article focuses on grade inflation as the culprit for this problem, but it is not the only factor.
Could it be that some students aren’t in the right college?
The mantra elected leaders and school officials repeat is that students should be prepared to attend post-secondary education after high school. That could include four-year, two-year and technical colleges.
But it seems as if most kids are pushed into four-year programs, regardless of whether it is the right fit.
What else do you think is causing an increase in the number of college students needing remedial classes? What can be done to fix this problem?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
102 comments Add your comment
APalli
May 4th, 2009
9:07 pm
For the last three years our system had been run by an elementary school principal/superintendent who looks teachers staight in the eye and says that all students can learn and if all your students are not successful, look at what you are doing wrong. I thought my 90% pass rate for the EOCT was pretty good. However,the only concern was the 10% that failed. If they are sleeping, be more engaging, if they are cutting up, use more positive reinforcement, if they dont do homework, give them time in class. For goodness sakes dont give them below a 65 because that will crush them. If the fail a test make sure they understand that the failure is not really their fault and they can take the test as many times as they need to until the teacher simply gives them a 70 in order to avoid having a breakdown. If they refuse to do what they are asked, it is because they are frustrated so give in to them ” on the little things” so the frustration won’t make them GASP…… drop out or quit coming. Our students could be classified as mentally ill because of all the delusions we have allowed them to develop. Imagine their shock when the boss fires them for sleeping, being lazy and not following instructions. How cruel that the real world usually only provides one chance to get it right. Last week when I was monitoring an EOCT test, an 11th grader(not one that I teach) asked when they could have remediation for the test if they failed. When I explained that there was no remediation or do-over on an EOCT test, they did not understand what I was talking about. In their world, a failing grade is not the reality. I feel better. Sometimes venting is better than therapy or booze. All of us at my school that have been teaching more than twenty years, thought that our superintendent’s phrase, kid-friendly schools, was her vision. Reading all the responses makes me realize that it is the new state vision for the Georgia school and a new superintendent won’t change anything.
Dr. Craig Spinks /Evans
May 4th, 2009
10:16 pm
Who should be surprised about the necessity of expensive remediation programs in Georgia’s public colleges when there is a dearth of effective remediation programs in the secondary, middle, and elementary schools of our state’s public school system?
dbow
May 4th, 2009
10:19 pm
Senator Jane Nelson of Texas has introduced a bill in her state to outlaw minimum grading policies. No more 50’s, 60’s or in some districts 70’s just for showing up. ZAP(zeroes aren’t permitted)policies all over the state of Texas(and here in Georgia)are failing our students and frustrating teachers. Heaven forbid we hurt the kid’s self esteem. I always tell it like it is with my students. Sometimes you’re a winner and sometimes(GASP)you’re a loser. They look at me like I’m nuts. I’ll tell a kid today you’re a loser, but that should make you try harder the next time! It usually works. Imagine that, honesty working with kids. I also tell them I’m not responsible for building their self esteem. It comes from setting goal for your self and working hard to achieve those goals. Sometimes you meet those goals and sometimes you don’t. The key is to work harder the next time. We’ve been pushed around by these liberal wacko principals that have their priorities all screwed up and these kids think everything’s going to be handed to them on a silver platter as a result. My principal forces every new idea she reads about that sounds good on the staff. It creates nothing but confusion and frustration until she finds another book that sounds good. Next year, she’s opening advanced classes to any student that wants in. No teacher input. No tests. No criteria whatsoever. Just if the kid wants to be in it. She read it in a book. She has no kids of her own, so I guess she figures she’ll just mess with other people’s kids for a while.
Is Kathy being honest?
May 4th, 2009
10:25 pm
How can Kathy have a convesation on this topic WITHOUT ONE WORD about the pressure teachers face to inflate grades?
One question the AJC, if it were doing its job would ask. Did Doc Neese “kowtow to low expectations” or was he railroaded for having high expectations?
But then what else to you expect from someone who was willing to destroy the integrity of the state science curriculum by kowtowing to those who would remove the word evolution from the curriculum?
ScienceTeacher671
May 4th, 2009
10:46 pm
Dr. Spinks, apparently the state won’t FUND remediation at the high school level…but they seem to in the colleges.
Dr. John Trotter
May 4th, 2009
10:47 pm
Laura: This article must have hit a nerve. I actually did not think that my above post was published. I just saw it. Thanks for publishing it. The grade-give-away program is a universal problem, but very acutely so in the metro area. I talked to one of our attorneys tonight about an up-coming hearing, and he, not knowing anything about your article, said that Dr. [Name Withheld by me]’s only “sin” was that she refused to just give the kids grades when they did not deserve them. Wonder of wonders…she has standards. (Kathy Cox…are you listening? By the way, Kathy, I attended the Fayette County Board of Education meeting tonight [your ole stomping grounds], and I do not think that this school system has sunk to the depths of DeKalb and Atlanta yet. I hope that it maintains its standards. My children live in Fayette County.) Where does Dr. [Name Withheld by me] teach? You guessed it…at a high school in “Premier” DeKalb. I re-read what I hastily wrote earlier today and posted. I saw three glaring typos. Sorry. Next time, I will proof my posts better…I hope. Good job, Laura. Teachers in Georgia definitely need a sounding board. To “Old School 1″ and “Old School 2,” keep up the posting.
Nikole
May 4th, 2009
10:51 pm
I teach 1st grade. It is extremely difficult to fail a student, the SST process is full of paper work that I have no time to complete if I am going to actually teach, and summer school is no longer for our students, even if they did fail. It is only for those that need to retake and pass the CRCT to move on to the next grade level. The end result, is high school students not prepared for college or the working world.
Metro Economics Teacher
May 4th, 2009
11:31 pm
I teach Economics at one of the high schools listed in that very long chart and I can tell one very important reason for the lack of correlation between passing EOCT scores and passing grades. Simply put, I’m not allowed to have students fail. If my students are failing it is my fault and I am brought before administration to explain why.
If I show the 0’s in my grade book due to work not being done, I am not challenging my students enough, otherwise they would be happy to do my work. If the work is challenging, I am too hard and should scale it back. I should also not assign homework because realistically students today don’t learn from homework.
If I try to explain material, I lecture too much. If I do projects, my rigor is too low. If I were more entertaining or exciting my students would be delighted to learn Economics.
Really? Have you taken an Economics class? Is it that entertaining? I am passionate about it (I wouldn’t have taught it for so many years otherwise) but even I know it can be dry at times and is not for everyone. However it can be learned even if you don’t like it. Just like anything else in this world.
We are so afraid of AYP in today’s schools that we will do anything to pass… anything. We are afraid of law suits so we don’t want to be too challenging or fail too many. We don’t want to look like failures so we can’t have low graduation or passing rates. Don’t want to deal with parents? Pass the student. Don’t want to hurt their feelings? Give them an “A” for effort. After the last article on this subject came out, administrations in many schools glossed over it and didn’t want to talk about it. Why? Because they knew they were guilty of the offense too and did not want to examine that reality.
Do you honestly think students don’t learn all this? They really aren’t stupid, they can figure all of this out and pass the information on to their peers. Students learn to work the system as much as anyone else and they can and do it every day and WE as schools hand them the tools to do it. Truthfully, as frustrating as it can be as a teacher, why should I blame them? We’ve encouraged them to act this way and designed a system that rewards them for lack of effort.
Oh and don’t forget that we all must be on the same page at the same time. If you teach the same subject, you must be on the same topic each day regardless of whether you teach AP, ESOL, so called college prep or small group special education. If you are going to fast you need to slow down, don’t worry if you can’t cover everything that might be on the test as long you cover some of it really well – of course don’t have your students actually fail the test, because that is a reflection on you (I once had an administrator say those exact words to me). If you are too slow, you need to speed up so that you are on pace with everyone else – if your students need more time to learn, that is your fault and no one else’s. Some readers might think I am joking but teachers know the reality of this idea.
Students end up in classes that say “it’s ok you can take all semester to turn in work.” “Oh you put your name on it? Great you get at least a 50 for trying”. I’ve spent years listening to people say “teach the standards” and I say “ok I’ll do it”. Now Kathy Cox is saying “we’ve kowtowed to the low expectations”. I’d like her to tell me what to do? How do I grade by standards? If I say a student should know how money income flows from businesses to households and back in the form of payments, am I allowed to fail them on that standard if they can’t explain it? If I offer extra help and they don’t take it? Because right now, I’m not and I don’t know any more what to do.
And let’s be honest… how many parents will let us change the system? Will you agree to it if it is your child who fails? If it is your child who does not go to the college of his or her choice?
I really don’t know the answer anymore and the reasons why are so large and so complicated that any one person or group can not take responsibility. We as a society have created this mess and until we are willing to admit that the whole thing is messed up we will never recover.
Metro Economics Teacher
May 4th, 2009
11:46 pm
I have to add one more thing though. In defense of the students, as one other reader mentioned, we have standards because some students were not learning basic skills and students in different socio economic areas had different opportunties to learn. The wealthier your area the better your chances. Also some people should not be in teaching at all or at least any more. Every teacher can point to at least one person in their school who should never have been a teacher or should have retired long ago.
The problems do not lie only with parents, students, administrators or teachers. It is a combination problem that we have created and no one can agree on how to fix.
freemarketeducator
May 5th, 2009
3:34 am
Here are some free-market SOLUTIONS to government school failures:
1. Teachers, vow that you will never work for a government school monopoly, but only a free- market school. START a private school in your area if one does not exist. Offer Internet courses in your specialty for a fee (see WriteAtHome.com). Get creative! If you remain in a sub-standard school, compromising your standards, yet continuing to take a taxpayer supported paycheck, YOU are part of the problem!!!!
2. IF NO ONE COMES, THEY WILL NOT BUILD IT!
Want to save billions in tax dollars by NOT building schools? Parents, pull your kids out of failing, debt-ridden schools and home school them or find a private school. Churches should start more private schools and offer reduced tuition.
3. K-3rd ARE THE MOST CRITICAL YEARS IN EDUCATION! Reading, writing, and arithmetic lay the foundation for all other academic pursuits. Studying the Bible gives the child a firm moral foundation and a standard by which to evaluate behavior, literature, and philosophy. Why do you think the government schools have such moral chaos? The students have been turned away from this Biblical foundation.
WROTE LEARNING IS THE BEST METHOD FOR THIS AGE GROUP. Their brains are geared for it. As they get older, their capacity to memorize decreases, and their logic skills increase.
WROTE MEMORIZATION OF ALL ADDITION, SUBTRACTION, MULTIPLICATION, AND DIVISION FACTS SHOULD BE MASTERED BY 3rd grade. Because he has done this, my EIGHT year old can do long division and multiple digit multiplication. He can also manipulate fractions and uses origami to build various polyhedra.
PARENTS, PLEASE MAKE YOUR CHILDREN MEMORIZE THOSE FACTS!
Here is a FREE website with a great no-nonsense math fact drill. Their math curriculum is a good supplement for helping students VISUALIZE math.
http://www.mathusee.com/drill.html
MANY CHILDREN CAN BE TAUGHT TO READ AND WRITE BY AGE 4!
ALL BY AGE 5. If the child has learning disabilities, it may take longer.
HOW? Again, WROTE memorization of PHONICS opens the door to decoding. Also, reading aloud to children and having them “narrate” in their own words, increases reading comprehension and vocabulary. Handwriting should be taught with phonics. Teach the sound of consonants and how to write them first. Only after they have MASTERED them, teach short vowels. Next teach consonant -vowel blends such as SA, SE, SI, SO, SU. Next, add a consonant and your child can read three letter words. Let them practice, practice, practice. Teach the long vowels in the same manner. Now, this is the big leap. Teach the two vowel rule: When there are two vowels in a word, the first one is long and the other is silent. Now your child can read a whole new group of words- enough to read a basic reader. None of this guessing and looking at pictures to figure out the word! Begin working on three consonant blends like “str”. Next, teach compound words and sounding out by syllables. Finally, using wrote chanting, memorize spelling irregularities such as “or” in sailor, “ir” in bird, and “ur” in nurse. This method teaches your child to spell as he learns to read. This is a brief overview of one of the most successful reading/spelling/phonics programs.
This curriculum can be found in an inexpensive little book called “The Handbook for Reading” (sorry, I don’t know how to underline) at https://www.abeka.com/AbekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=94927&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
4. Parents, if you currently have no choice but to use the government schools, don’t settle for curriculum that doesn’t work for your child. The homes chool free market has produced hundreds of alternative curricula and methods at a reasonable cost. Most can be purchased used. Check out home school reviews on the web and visit home school book fairs. Many offer video teachers. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PREPARE YOUR CHILD FOR THEIR FUTURE. DON’T SQUANDER OTHER’S MONEY BECAUSE OF SLOTHFULNESS. IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE. HELP ABOUNDS!
Ernest
May 5th, 2009
6:59 am
Doesn’t this somewhat confirm why standardized test are used/needed? Grade inflation is not new. Standards may be different for each school district regarding what is an ‘A’. Instruments such as the ITBS ‘ignores’ grades and simply measures what each student knows and allows comparisons to other students across the country.
jim d
May 5th, 2009
7:04 am
Fraid not Ernest. What it does confirm is a tremndous need for common sense, something sorely lacking in education for the past 40 years.
Old School
May 5th, 2009
7:11 am
Some of our school’s most successful students came from CTAE programs. Some in danger of dropping out graduated because of CTAE. Others who be successful anyway learned skills that opened new doors (example: future engineers who got hands-on training in addition to AP academics).
The documented successes just weren’t good enough though. Our instructors were forced to adopt teaching techniques that are more paper-based than skills-based. We are required to teach reading and writing…a challenge for instructors on extended day with no planning time except after school (unless there’s a meeting and those are plentiful). And the writing is in journals where students are to share their concerns and worries and we are to respond (in writing) to each of them. How many auto mechanics are trained to do that? Carpenters? Welders? Yet respond we must.
Add to that the dearth of basic math, reading, reasoning, and thinking skills; the composition of our classes (grades 9-12, varying skill and ability levels, included special need students, etc) and our instruction can become very compromised. We are scrutinized just as hard as academic teachers (7 evaluations this year alone) yet students are pulled from our classes for remediation with little thought of the important information they will miss (Shop safety was an area hit pretty hard this year by this. A repeat performance just isn’t the same.)
Fault me if you like because I’m an industry hire and view things differently. I’m also a classically trained educator lucky enough to get that education when things still made sense and students were responsible for their learning. I put down my broad brush a long time ago and am working as hard as I can to help fix our problems right here at home. Maybe if someone starts to listen locally, real change will trickle up.
Proud Parent
May 5th, 2009
7:40 am
When our son was in high school we attended one of the DeKalb touchdown club dinners. When the players who were being recognized that week were announced, they gave the GPA and the SAT score for each one. It was amazing the number of straight A students with an SAT score (old version 1600 max) in the mid 800s or low 900s. I told my husband there was something seriously wrong with those pictures. I know some students who are smart and work hard have trouble with standardized tests, but there were way too many of these to attirbute it to poor test taking. I was shocked and dismayed. Our son was at St. Pius and was held accountable for his work and behavior (he too said his classes in college were easier than high school).
My son went on to college and is about to graduate (on time). He talks about the number of kids who register for a full load to get Hope, then drop any class they aren’t doing well in to make sure they keep the Hope scholarship. They can’t graduate in 4 years this way and are taking 5 or even 6 years in many cases. Eventually Hope does stop paying, but in the meantime the colleges love it – more revenue for them, but it’s doing a disservice to the current students and the potential students who may not be able to get Hope funding.
jim d
May 5th, 2009
7:58 am
Old School,
I fear we may be fighting a no win battle. Yet the answer is relatively simple. It only requires the will to act.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31638
Old School
May 5th, 2009
8:44 am
freemarketeducator May 5th, 2009 3:34 am: The correct term would be ROTE.
AP Teacher
May 5th, 2009
8:45 am
freemarketeducator – I agree with many of your ideas, but, it is “ROTE” (used in the context of memorization), not “WROTE”!!!
Old School
May 5th, 2009
8:59 am
Main Entry: (2)rote
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English
Date: 14th century
1 : the use of memory usually with little intelligence
2 : mechanical or unthinking routine or repetition
I actually believe that rote memorization has its place. Remember reciting multiplication tables? It seems to “fix” it in your head. Information must be held in short term memory for a particular length of time before it becomes part of long term memory. That’s why I repeat phone numbers over and over while searching for my misplaced cell phone.
If more of our students had this “old-fashioned” method of instruction and less time with calculators and computers, they just might build a solid foundation upon which to craft a successful educational career.
Lee
May 5th, 2009
9:15 am
Well class, what have we learned today?
Only that teachers and administrators, who profess to be “professional educators”, simply follow the path of least resistance and pass students from grade to grade irregardless of whether or not they can do the work.
I don’t understand, don’t they have professional standards and a Code of Ethics that forbid such practice?
Yes they do. Unfortunately, it seems that the GOVERNMENT body that is supposed to administer said standards and ethics is little more than a paper tiger. Tell me, when is the last time you heard of the PSC revoking someone’s certificate because of grade inflation? That’s right, never.
I thought the NCLB law was supposed to address some of these issues such as grade inflation.
Yes, that was one of the reasons cited for enactment of this law. But think about it this way, the NCLB was a GOVERNMENT solution for a GOVERNMENT induced problem. Is it any wonder NCLB turned out to be a clusterf#@k?
In all seriousness though, I really should thank you fellow bloggers. Once again, you validated my decision to spend $17k / yr for private school.
Harper's Mama
May 5th, 2009
9:16 am
All of these are really good responses. So why are we not copying and pasting our “vents” into letters and sending them to the congressmen, senators, and state superintendents?
She/they really need a daily dose of reality.
Gwinnett Parent
May 5th, 2009
9:37 am
I do not disagree with having a rigorous curriculum. However, it seems as if the curriculum for my daughter’s kindergarten class is not in touch with reality. The children are expected to do word problems, have several equations to solve the word problems(connections), add 3 digits, find missing variables, perimeters, combinations, book reports, and, know different voices and audiences(i.e.argumentative). Half of these kids can’t read. Sometimes my daughter comes home with an hour of homework. I go along with it and help her. It does not leave much time for balance(extra activities and friends). Thankfully, she is very bright and has a college degreed parent that has time to sit down and help. I wonder how the other kids in the class are doing. I bet there are alot of parents doing homework. The school needs to test the kids day 1 and separate them based on skills.
Everyone talks about being globally competitive. If we want continue to be a nation of entrepreneurs, it is important to for kids to be well rounded, not just a group of note takers and academics. We are also so concerned with these tests that our children are missing out on foreign language classes in the elementary years. If our children can not communicate in another language, how will they compete in a global economy?
Metro Economics Teacher-You’re wrong. Econ. is fun! I took 3 Econ classes in college and enjoyed every one of them. How can it be dry? Every day we have something new to add to the textbooks.
teacher three
May 5th, 2009
10:35 am
Are we forgetting about the graduation test? Even if students ARE being passed along from grade to grade due to grade inflation, etc., they still have to pass the graduation test to graduate. That test is supposedly based on mastery of the standards. So maybe part of the problem is with the graduation test. No teacher can graduate a student who hasn’t passed that test. No amount of grade inflation will allow a student to pass that test and graduate.
AP Teacher
May 5th, 2009
11:03 am
teacher three – Guess what! They also have Graduation Test Waivers! I’m not joking! Read all about it here –> http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/tss_learning.aspx?PageReq=TSSLearningWaivers
Clueless
May 5th, 2009
11:10 am
teacher three, according to the State’s 2008 Testing Newsletter, a student has to be reading at a higher level to get “Pass Plus” on the 6th grade CRCT than to get it on the GHSGT…page 18 of the testing newsletter found on the Testing page of the DOE website.
Looks like Kathy Cox and the rest of the DOE are “kowtowing to low expectations”, doesn’t it?
DB
May 5th, 2009
11:40 am
My children spent their entire childhood in a private school. When my son hit college (it’s a top 15 national university) he was shocked at the number of people in his freshman class that had no clue how to study and how to organize themselves. He marveled at a rant from a friend who had a professor who refused to accept a paper two weeks late and gave him a zero (thus flunking the class that he was too late to withdraw from). He had fraternity rush, didn’t he understand that was more important? He was also bemused by the number of people who would stop by his room and ask to “borrow” his notes for a large lecture class just before finals – turns out they hadn’t been to class in a month. He always gently refused, saying that he needed them to study, himself. One class — sure. A month’s worth?! Forget it.
Students would value their high school diplomas more if it were worth something. It’s like a twist of the old W.C. Field saying: “I wouldn’t belong to any club that would have me!” Kids know that a high school diploma from most high schools does not represent effort — basically, it’s a “hey, you showed up award” — and sometimes, not even that.
Vince
May 5th, 2009
11:59 am
And what does a free market education get you? It gives you someone who thinks rote memory and rote learning are wrote memory and wrote learning. Egad!
Ernest
May 5th, 2009
12:37 pm
I spoke to a MS teacher today that was somewhat frustrated with some of the comments. Why? She acknowledged the ‘no zero’ policy coming from the principal. She also indicated it probably came from the central office. She went a step further and indicated the central office probably heard concerns from board members. Who do board members listen and react to? Members of the community. So it becomes a vicious cycle of the ‘blame game’ with everyone pointing fingers at one another.
Erin
May 5th, 2009
12:41 pm
I agree 100 percent with Metro Economics Teacher (and I actually really enjoyed econ when I took it in college, by the way).
I also wanted to add that while I actually did consider going into teaching for some time about 12 years ago, I decided that wasn’t what I wanted to do. After following this blog, I am REALLY glad I decided against teaching. The stuff teachers have to deal with, the inept bureacracy, the failure to actually set standards and STICK to those standards … no way would I want to deal with that, day in, day out, for 25-30 years of my life.
Having said that, I absolutely applaud those who do go in there, try their best and teach, regardless of the rampant stupidity they have to deal with every single day.
Ernest
May 5th, 2009
12:41 pm
JimD, the point I was making was that an instrument such as the ITBS can be administered the same to all takers.
Maybe too many of our schools suffer “The soft bigotry of low expectation”. I want to believe teachers would like to grade based on a standard however may ‘kowtow’ to the powers above them.
Joy in Teaching
May 5th, 2009
3:39 pm
The powers that be in my county have come up with so many creative solutions to help us make AYP that it isn’t even funny. They make all these elaborate proclamations that kids WILL be retained if they fail this test or that test, blah blah, but then turn right around and create so many loopholes that very few end up being retained.
My principal is estimating that at least 100 8th graders in my building may not pass the math portion of the CRCT test. There are plans underway to create a “math bootcamp” for the last week of school were these students are pulled out of ALL classes for the and immersed in math in an effort to help them pass the test on the retake.
Now, I’m not a betting woman, but if I were, I’d imagine that spending 50-60 hours a week on math on the LAST WEEK OF SCHOOL is not that high on the list of priorities for a 14 year old. Who is going to bet with me that more than a few of those will not pass that test?
And to make things even more wonderful, we also use what is called the “Lights Retention Scale” to determine whether or not students should be with held. Never mind that it isn’t supported by more than a few studies, is contradictory, and that it actually blames genetics for part of a kids failure in school.
And people wonder why most teachers drink.
jim d
May 5th, 2009
4:42 pm
Ernest,
Wow–thats exactly the point i was making when i said common sense.
V for Vendetta
May 5th, 2009
6:17 pm
Sometimes I just can’t help myself. Freemarketeducator, you would do well to practice some of what you preach. Besides your ridiculous misuse of the word “rote,” you assert that “studying the Bible gives the child a firm moral foundation and a standard by which to evaluate behavior, literature, and philosophy.” It would seem to me that REASON is what underscores a child’s evaluative abilities, not the hocus pocus mumbo jumbo found in the Bible. Furthermore, nearly all human morals and ethics can be derived logically from rational behavior. For a detailed analysis of such a concept, I would refer you to Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness.
Where are the critics?
May 5th, 2009
8:21 pm
I notice that none those who want to criticize MACE offered a rebuttal to the points made by Dr. Trotter. Maybe they are too much like the truth. Maybe they are so much like the truth, that they are the reason that members of the AJC editorial staff, when challenged directly to meet Dr. Trotter for a debate, refused to do it.
One thing isn’t a maybe, and that’s that one of those two organizations has had a disasterous drop in patronage in recent months. Hint. It isn’t MACE. Seems like credibility, or the lack thereof, is catching up with the AJC.
freemarketeducator
May 6th, 2009
1:27 am
To all:
I’m sorry I wrote wrote when I meant to write rote
However, my 8 year old can write rote just right! (He had phonics; I had Dick and Jane.)
dbow
May 6th, 2009
10:17 am
Hey, Joy for teaching! Do you work in Forsyth County? My principal is doing the same bogus thing here at my school!
freemarketeductor
May 7th, 2009
12:48 am
vendetta,
Why don’t you use your reasoning skills and equally apply your spelling critiques to all educators’ posts? I admit, my post was a “rough draft”. I know how to spell “rote”, but I post very late at night, and sometimes the old brain slips into automatic mode and spells with the most frequently used spelling. Perhaps my “look/say” public school education contributed to this mishap, yes?
As for selfish Ayn Rand vs. God, I’ll deal with it tomorrow. It’s late.
V for Vendetta
May 7th, 2009
12:33 pm
freemarketeducator, I’m waiting . . . .
freemarketeducator
May 8th, 2009
12:21 am
vendetta
For starters, you might not want to use your “hocus pocus mumbo jumbo found in the Bible” anti-semitic/anti-christ hate speech in the classroom. Check this out:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Judge-Rules-Against-SoCal-Teacher-in-Creationism-Case.html
But, I digress.
I have never been interested in reading Rand’s (a.k.a. Alisa Rosenbaum) work, although I have certainly heard of her novels. After researching her philosophy on the internet, I was even less impressed. However, I did find an interesting blog which considers her to be a Russian Communist subversive. It is interesting to note that Alan Greenspan was once part of her inner circle of influence.
Tell me what you think of this:
http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-ayn-rand-and-trust.html
freemarketeducator
May 8th, 2009
12:50 am
This is just a test. Let’s see if anyone at the AJC is actually reading the posts late at night, or if they just use a robot reader to recognize certain “hot” words which results in a hold on one’s comment. This is just a test.
freemarketeducator
May 8th, 2009
12:56 am
This is just a test. Let’s see if anyone at the AJC is actually reading the posts late at night, or if they just use a robot reader to recognize certain “hot” words which results in a hold on one’s comment. This is just a test.
anti-christ
V for Vendetta
May 8th, 2009
9:21 pm
freemarketeducator, so your argument amounts to little more than hot air and threats. You haven’t read any of her work–aside from researching her philosophy on the internet–an you’ve provided me with a link that is (supposedly) meant to frighten me into not speaking anything contrary to the Bible. I guess I wouldn’t even call that an argument. It would be like two people attempting to debate the Pythagorean theorem when one of them can’t count.
I read the blog to which you linked. (A blog? Seriously?) If that is one of your “sources” on Ayn Rand, you have been sadly mislead. Ayn Rand was never a member of the Communist Party nor was she a communist sympathizer. The idea that she “. . . taught selfishness and disregard for humanity. She opposed charity and objected to any governmental assistance for those without means. She wanted to place America on the ruinous Gold Standard” is patently absurd. I instantly dismiss anyone who brings up the negative use of the word “selfishness” in regards to Ayn Rand because it’s immediately clear that they have not read her work and fundamentally misunderstand her philosophy of Objectivism. She was also NOT opposed to charity; however, she DID oppose governmental assistance for those without means–as do I. She considered man a “heroic being . . . with reason as his only absolute.” Religion considers man to be a sinful being, an evil being, or, at best, a lackluster copy of a supreme being, with faith and mysticism being his means for interpreting the world around him.
As for the “ruinous Gold Standard,” I would direct you to the works of Milton Friedman or Ludwig von Mises for an argument extolling the virtues of laissez faire capitalism, Austrian economics, and the Gold Standard. You could also read Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, but I’m sure you’d prefer not to. You are correct that Alan Greenspan was once a member of her inner circle–dubbed “The Collective” as a private joke among its members–but I would say that Greenspan’s willingness to let the government meddle in the economy is evidence that he has not held true to his former beliefs.
I’ll leave you with a quote from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged that sums up my opinion on the matter:
“What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.”
freemarketeducator
May 11th, 2009
2:52 am
Vendetta,
I must say, your response is driven by emotion rather than reason. I did not threaten you. I merely warned you of consequences based on legal precedent (whether I agree with the ruling or not) for exactly the type of speech you made on this blog. This is a current ruling. I was just trying to keep you out of trouble in the classroom. My kids aren’t in public school. I don’t have a dog in this fight.
But I digress.
Now, let’s rationally analyze the following statement you made:
“I instantly dismiss anyone who brings up the negative use of the word “selfishness” in regards to Ayn Rand because it’s immediately clear that they have not read her work and fundamentally misunderstand her philosophy of Objectivism.”
First, let’s get a rational and objective definition of “selfish”.
According to Webster, 1. too much concerned with one’s own welfare or interests and having little or no concern for others; self-centered 2. showing or prompted by self interest.
Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one’s own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others. Selfishness is the opposite of altruism (selflessness). (Wikipedia)
The Webster version is copyrighted 1982 (predating Wikipedia) and by definition, selfish is defined as a negative trait because of the use of “too much concerned with”. Rand was using classic Soviet brainwash methods by taking a well-defined and broadly understood word and redefining it to mean something entirely different or opposite. The Bible succinctly addresses this practice,”Woe unto you who call evil good and good evil.” There is no “negative view” of “selfishness”. It is what it is. If Rand were a true and honest philosopher, she would have created her own word for her ideas on “positive” self-worship. The blogger’s critique was accurate according to the proper use of the word “selfish”. Creating confusion is part of the subversive’s strategy.
Here is another blogger’s critique of Rand’s “Immortal Robot” argument:
“Some Objectivists oppose or are at least skeptical of indefinite human life extension on the grounds that immortal human beings would be akin to the “immortal, indestructible robot” Ayn Rand described and alleged cannot have any values. Mr. Stolyarov argues that it will never be possible for human beings to be completely indestructible, even if they progressively eliminate various causes of death. The absence of death does not imply the absence of the possibility of death, even for so simple a reason as that human beings can always choose (however foolishly and irrationally) to commit suicide. Moreover, even if there existed an immortal, indestructible robot with otherwise human properties, Mr. Stolyarov argues that such a being can have values, because the threat of being destroyed is not a conscious entity’s sole motive for acting.”
The full YOUtube video critique here:
http://progressofliberty.today.com/2008/12/31/eliminating-death-7/
I have more to write tomorrow.
Cere
May 11th, 2009
8:58 am
Let’s take grade inflation to it’s outermost result – we now have Judge Marvin Arrington pushing a viable thug along through college at Morehouse. Take grade inflation, add rage, and attempted murder and mix in a judge who thinks that this young man doesn’t need punished, he simply needs a college degree! I mean, how far do we push education entitlement?
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/05/10/morehouse_shooting.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
““We’ve got this young man who’s coming back to Morehouse now, he’s close to graduation,” Thompson told Arrington. “Sending him to state prison for two years, I don’t think that would be in the state’s best interest. Hopefully, this will be the lesson he needs.”
In the hearing, Arrington opined Norris “needs to have a curfew. He needs to be in a dorm where you can get some study time. Take organic chemistry and physics. Make him some A’s.”
Later, he said: “All of them got cars. Don’t need no dern car. They need a MARTA card.”
V for Vendetta
May 11th, 2009
2:08 pm
freemarketeducator, I thank you for including the definitions of “selfishness” in your post. You are helping me to prove my point. The second definition provided by Webster’s states that selfishness is “showing or prompted by self interest.” I don’t find anything at all negative about that assertion nor do I find anything negative in the definition you provided from Wikipedia: “Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one’s own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others. Selfishness is the opposite of altruism (selflessness).”
As a morality of altruism is inherently evil because it requires a person to willingly and inarguably sacrifice himself to others, I find the Wikipedia definition to be quite positive. Since when is a rational self interest evil or negative? You say it is defined as a “negative trait because of the use of ‘too much concerned with,’” but that is in relation to only one meaning of the word. I would argue that the definition you quote denotes irrational selfishness while the second denotes a more rational view. The Wikipedia definition seems skewed more to a rational definition as well. I don’t think you need to use “Soviet brainwash methods” to understand that.
What you’re doing is known in philosophy as “begging the question.” You’re assuming you are right because you are assuming “selfishness” to be negative and only negative. Your use of the “succinct” Bible quote supports my assertion. I’m not “creating confusion” in order to be subversive; I’m simply pointing out facts.
Once again, you refer to a blogger who doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp of Objectivism or Objectivist ethics. Rand’s immortal robot argument was an attempt to explain the non-identity of a supreme or eternal being by its very (supposed) nature. It seems that Stolyarov is missing the point. Rand’s argument centers on an understanding of Aristotle’s law of identity (A is A), i.e., an entity cannot possess more than one identity. It argues that reality is explicit and knowable and cannot possess contradictory features. Though he is correct in (hypothetically) assuming that the immortal robot could be destroyed, he is consequently missing Rand’s point: Because the robot is not living, it cannot value the same things a living entity values. The concept of a supreme being violates the law of identity because such a being is outside the realm of human perception, immortal, omniscient, yet somehow maintains a humanistic value system.
The reason god has a humanistic value system is because WE have a humanistic value system.
freemarketeducator
May 12th, 2009
12:19 am
Vendetta,
You missed my point with Webster’s definition. When Rand was writing her opus magnum, Webster’s first definition was the commonly accepted one by society (pre-1982) Selfish was a negative adjective BY DEFINITION. Wikipedia def. was written by a “Randite” post 1982 Webster. True, the original meaning represents a Biblical moral concept, but that is how it is defined. Rand rejects God and worships the god of self. Instead of honestly stating her doctrine, she purposefully uses an inaccurate word, “selfish” and redefines it, WITH THE PURPOSE OF DISPLACING THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Her “hidden” philosophy directly challenges the doctrine of original sin, and claims that man is born perfect (evil does not exist) such that his mere thoughts (REASON) are completely trustworthy. Rand believes that each man is his own measure and that there is no objective Truth. Her philosophy has the same problem as Sartre’s; because both are based on evolutionary materialism, there is neither true meaning nor purpose in life. Sartre “solves” this enigma by claiming that the absurd can give faux meaning to life, and that that is sufficient. Rand fills the void with unfettered greed and materialism via evolutionary capitalism. By comparison, Biblical capitalism restrains selfishness via empathy and charity, with the goal of repentance and faith in God.
More tomorrow: The Lesson of the Robin
V for Vendetta
May 12th, 2009
10:33 am
freemarketeducator,
Wow. Just . . . wow. So, your pragmatic view of definitions holds that the “commonly accepted” definition was the ONLY definition of “selfishness” pre-Rand? And that the Wikipedia definition (cited by YOU, I might add), was obviously written by a “Randite” with the intention of “displacing Biblical theology?” I’m also having trouble understanding how Rand’s philosophical opinion of man’s fall was “hidden,” as you say–considering I quoted it in one of my first responses to your earlier posts.
Furthermore, what is your definition of “objective Truth?” Since you capitalize the word “truth,” I’m assuming you are somehow implying that the the Bible is “objective truth.” Considering you’re fond of using definitions in an attempt to support your points, allow me to use a definition in support of mine. “Objective,” as defined by Merriam-Webster, means ” relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.” It’s second definition is grammar related, so I’ll skip to the third: “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.”
It would seem to me “objective” is the opposite of “faith.”
In that case, Rand absolutely believed in objective truth. She thought that man was a capable being and that his mind was his means for interpreting reality. Man’s purpose in life is LIFE. He needs no higher purpose to justify his existence because HE EXISTS. His ethics, goals, and morals stem from his rational pursuit of his own existence. (The Bible is not the originator of morals, by the way. Morals can be logically derived from objectivity and reason–see Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness.) Rand felt that capitalism was the only proper economic system because it rewards men based on their ability and vision; it eschews a morality of altruism. The idea you proposed of “Biblical capitalism” is a negation of logic and a contradiction of terms: How can any sort of altruism exist in a free economy? Charity should not be forced nor expected.
I would also point out that I am making a concerted effort to respond to the entirety of your posts while you seem content to focus on a detail and attempt to exploit it to your advantage. I suppose, though cannot prove, that your knowledge of Rand is limited to secondhand sources and religious polemicists who dream up conspiracy theories that are not based in any sort of reality, history, and/or science. Until you find something more concrete with which to continue this debate, I would implore you to spare me the blog sources, online articles, and anecdotal tales.
freemarketeducator
May 14th, 2009
2:44 am
I’m short on time. Here’s a response to the dictionary topic:
Question: Which person lived during the “Gay Nineties”?
1. Elton John
2. Benjamin Harris
3. Abraham Lincoln
A “millennial” would have guessed # 1 and wondered who Benjamin Harris is. A “boomer” would have guessed #2 and laughed at the joke.
Do you think my comment is far-fetched? Here is a current quote on Wikipedia at “gay nineties”:
“The phrase has nothing to do with the term “gay” to refer to homosexuality, a usage that long postdates the phrase.”
Here is another interesting dictionary story:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98022
Also,
Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary (the standard in America at that time):
SELF’ISHLY, adv. The exclusive of a person to his own interest or happiness; or that supreme self-love or self-preference, which leads a person in his actions to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power or happiness, without regarding the interest of others. Selfishness, in its worst or unqualified sense, is the very essence of human depravity, and it stands in direct opposition to benevolence, which is the essence of the divine character. As God is love, so man, in his natural state, is selfishness.
Maybe I’ll have time for the bird story tomorrow.
freemarketeducator
May 14th, 2009
2:54 am
Another oops! Make that Benjamin HARRISON. Yes, they would wonder who Harris is. My bad.
V for Vendetta
May 14th, 2009
10:40 pm
freemarketeducator, on a side note, how long will this go on before Laura puts the lid on it?
Anyways . . . .
I think your adherence to the argument concerning the definition of the word “selfishness” is not the battle you should be waging. It doesn’t matter, really. Your attempt at linguistic analysis is marred by the context in which you’ve found your definition of the word. It makes absolute sense that the definition of “selfishness” would have a negative connotation in Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Webster was a devout Christian who considered education “useless without the Bible.” This quote perfectly encapsulates the inanity of Webster’s religious conviction and its inherent conflict with classical education: “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed . . . .” Under a free government? Free for whom? Christians?
Your argument could also be perfectly applied to religion itself. For instance, if you were born five thousand years ago, you would read Sumerian epics such as Gilgamesh, believe in gods such as Anu, and know that the hero of the flood story was Utnapishtim; if you were born three thousand years ago, you would read Greek epics such as The Illiad and The Odyssey, believe in gods such as Zeus, and know that the hero of the flood story was Deucalion; if you were Hindu you would believe in Vishnu and know the hero of the flood story was Manu; if you were born in the past two thousand years, you would believe in God and know that the hero of the flood story was Noah. The list goes on. In fact, the mythological deluge stories can be traced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica. Their common link is thought to be fossilized fish and crustacean imprints found inland, suggesting to ancient cultures that the entire world must have at one time been covered by water; however, geologists, biologists, and archeologists now know that this is and was impossible.
You’re absolutely right, freemarketeducator. Many things are a matter of perspective!
freemarketeducator
May 14th, 2009
11:52 pm
vendetta,
In answer to your second point on “objective Truth”, I’ll quote the Bible:
“Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.” Romans 3:4b (God has reality independent of man’s mind)
also, “…what may be know of God is manifest in them (men), for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…” Romans 1:19-22
Assumptions underlying Rand’s philosophy:
1. Man is the highest form of intelligence.
2. Survival is the ultimate goal of life.
4. Man is the product of random events, and has no more importance than a rock. Life and nonliving objects are on a continuum.
5. There is no outside moral standard by which to judge man. Each individual is his own standard and all are equal. Therefore, all behavior is acceptable.
6. Man’s senses give him perfect information.
7. Man has no free-will because there is nothing to choose. All “choices” are equal.
8. Death is the end because mind and senses cease to function.
9. Death and life are equal, so her claim that the only meaning of life is Life, is false. It could be death.
10. If all the matter in the universe were gathered into one place, it would explode and emanate light and organized mathematical geometries and forces. (Could you please explain to me then, why we have black holes?
11. The origin of the matter CANNOT be an intelligent being.
12. There is no explanation for the origin of the matter.