8:21 am May 4, 2009, by Laura Diamond
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?
Your source to discuss and learn about education in Georgia and the nation and share opinions and news.
About Maureen DowneyVacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
102 comments Add your comment
freemarketeducator
May 15th, 2009
12:22 am
Vendetta,
Your “definition argument” doesn’t hold water. Selfishness is a BIBLICAL word. Rand attempted to usurp the word and change its meaning, AS A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE BIBLE! She was a Russian Jewess who had rejected her Biblical roots. One account said that she lived in affluence in Russia during a time when many Jews were segregated and poor. Her father was a chemist and enjoyed Communist support in his “intellectual circles.” They did not live the typical restricted collectivist life. This is why I am suspect of the real reasons for her choice to immigrate to the U.S. Those who wholeheartedly opposed communism were Christians! If you want to understand what was going on in Russia during this period, read GULAG ARCHIPELAGO by Alexander Solshenitzin.
V for Vendetta
May 15th, 2009
2:27 pm
So, let me get this straight:
To refute my definition of selfishness and explanation of (your) use of the word “objective” and its dictionary definition, you use a quote from the Bible? Am I missing something here? It seems to me that you’re doing what most slavish biblical devotionists do in this situation–create an argument that travels in circles because you have no OBJECTIVE ground on which to stand. The only “proof” you can claim comes from a book with no proof behind ANY of its claims–only FAITH. It’s hard to argue from faith.
I must say, some of your “assumptions underlying Rand’s philosophy” are just plain insipid, and I shudder to think that, based on your blog name, you teach children somewhere. I’ll point a few of them out for you:
2. “Survival is the ultimate goal in life.” Of course it is! To assume otherwise is to assume that this life means very little. To assume otherwise is to have a very poor opinion of man and to think of man as a pet or a slave. To assume otherwise is to worship a morality of death.
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.” That’s anarchism, not Objectivism. Man’s mind gives him the power to think rationally and further his self interests in a rational way. No behavior that infringes on another man’s right to exist and pursue his own existence is acceptable, i.e., moral.
7. “Man has no free-will because there is nothing to choose. All “choices” are equal.” This is a non sequitor, i.e., a negation of logic and a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is a volitional act. Man chooses to rationally pursue his interests or to negate them and perish. Since the results of his choices can vary, it is impossible to say that all choices are equal.
8. “Death is the end because mind and senses cease to function.” Death IS the end. To think otherwise is to be arrogant and irrational. There is no reason to think that there is any existence beyond mortality (irrational), and there is no reason to think that we DESERVE any existence beyond mortality (arrogant). That’s akin to saying we deserve to live, which is fundamentally untrue. We must work to live.
9. “Death and life are equal, so her claim that the only meaning of life is Life, is false. It could be death.” This is just Kantian nonsense. Life cannot be death. Death, by its very nature, is an absence of life.
11. “The origin of the matter CANNOT be an intelligent being.” An Objectivist would never say that because it’s not inherently proven. A true Objectivist would say, “It’s PROBABLY not an intelligent being.” The opposite of your statement would be to say, “It IS an intelligent being,” which is also impossible to prove.
As for your biographical information about Ayn Rand, I must continually question your sources and their motivations. It seems to make little sense that a woman born in Russia, who lived through the Bolshevik Revolution, would embrace the political upheaval that left her middle class family’s business government owned and operated–causing them to escape to the Crimea. Also, it would defy logic that a college graduate would flee to the United States (after the University of Petrograd would taken over by Communists) if her secret communist ties would have allowed her to live in relative luxury in Russia. Furthermore, Ayn Rand has produced an enormous amount of philisophical writing, not to mention her four works of fiction, and none of them contain any viewpoints even remotely communist, collectivist, socialist, statist, Marxist, or altruistic. Your “sources” amount to little more than conspiracy theories and uneducated nonsense espoused by those who know as much about Ayn Rand as they do about Quantum Mechanics.
Once again, unless you plan on debating a topic without begging the question or relying on invalid “sources,” I will consider this a conversation not worth having.