From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:56:32 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov12.004800.30444@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: In <1992Nov10.001336.13963@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>: >No I don't, as a matter of fact.  And seeing as how "good citizen" is a value
>: >judgement, I'd like to know how YOU define it.  Are you willing to tell me?
>: 
>: Examine your beliefs on how a libertarian world would work and then
>: you tell me, John.

>Why should I tell you what YOU think?  You're the one who introduced
>the "good citizen" concept.  I'd like for you to define the term, please.

Well, I meant for you to tell me what YOU think one would be, but
never mind.  You seem to be asserting, since I "introduced the term"
that there is no such thing.  Given that, there doesn't seem to be a
lot of common ground for discussion of the issue.  However, just to
satisfy you, John, my idea of a 'good citizen' would fit in very well
in your idea of a libertopia.  He (or she) would be self-sufficient,
believe in taking care of themself and taking responsibility for
themself, be informed about what is going on around them, how things
work, and where the people they have the opportunity to vote for stand
on the issues, believe in standing up for themself and what they
believe, and quite a number of other things.  I find it interesting
that this is such a foreign concept to you that you don't even
understand the term.

>: I don't think extra-curricular football is of sufficient benefit to
>: society (who are paying to run the schools and such) to warrant the
>: costs,

>But you support it anyway for the passing students.  Is that just to provide
>behavioral leverage, or do you think there are other benefits to
>society?

Well, try looking at it as a model of the free market, John.  Things
have associated costs, and the cost of doing extra-curricular
activities is adequacy at the curricular ones.  What you seem to
support is a sort of 'welfare' within this model, where the
extra-curricular activities 'come free'.  What is it you don't
understand or find so upsetting about this situation?  Are you also
appalled at the idea of having to pay for what you get out here in the
'real world'?  Well, schools are the training grounds for the 'real
world'. 

>: including the adverse impacts on the academics for all the
>: other students.

>This is the fatal flaw in your argument.  You have not shown that other
>students are adversely impacted.  All you did was issue a stereotypical
>assumption.

Just apply a little simple logic, John; a commodity that seems to be
in fairly short supply in this thread.  Take a class of 20 in which
everyone is at least passing.  Is it your contention that I can toss
in 10 people who AREN'T getting the material and who are flunking and
that that has no impact at all on the amount of time that the teacher
can give to each student (the poor ones require more time), the speed
at which material can be presented (the poor ones require you to go
slower), and any number of other things?  

It would be REAL handy if you would try reading what I write instead
of trying to make it fit what you want it to say, John.

>: If you agree that 'an educated populace is to the benefit of society'
>: and that for that reason we can reasonably be expected to have to fund
>: it (rather than just educating our own kids),

>I remain unconvinced -- particularly at the secondary level.  I see a
>diminishing rate of return in any case.

Hmmm.  Ok.  Give me back my money and you can let them play football
to their heart's content.  I can spend the money on ammunition and
shoot the little bastards when they come to rob me because they have
no skills or experience at learning any (except football).

>: I'm afraid you're going
>: to have to explain to me how paying for someone to play football for
>: four years, learn nothing,

>Presumably they learn how to play football better at least.  That's not
>"nothing".

Well, somewhere along the line they probably also learn at least part
of the alphabet, the numbers up through 10 or so, and how to tie their
shoes.  There's just not a huge market or need for 'how to play
football'; hence, that's 'nothing'.

>: and hold back others by their presence at
>: the same time fits into that argument.

>There's that fatal flaw again.

There's that unwillingness to apply simple logic again.

>:                                                       Time after
>: school spent in football practice and time spent playing takes up time
>: that could be spent working harder on the material they aren't
>: getting.

>Yes, but will it be?  How are you going to enforce that?

You don't.  You just provide the extra time, and if he (or she) elects
not to make use of it, you eventually flunk them out.  However, I
think it makes just a bit more sense to have a number of different
levels of 'sanction' rather than to just toss them out immediately. 

>: Silly me.  Obviously if someone is getting good grades they
>: are learning SOMETHING, even if it's only how to get over on tests.

>Or how to cheat, or how to bribe the teacher, or ...

I'm curious, John.  What would your reaction be if I wrote the way you
have been?

>: >I think that negative reinforcement is counterproductive.
>: 
>: Then we should do away with prisons and penalties for violating the
>: laws as well, right?

>I don't think it's productive for the motivation to learn to be based in fear
>of punishment.  I don't understand your prison analogy.  Would you beat your
>children for getting bad grades?

But you think free market forces can work?  What do you think the free
market operates on; sugarplums and pixie dust?  Everything has prices
and consequences.  If you don't like the negative consequences, then
it isn't worth the 'price' to you to 'consume' it.  Why do you not
understand the SAME REASONING applied to this situation?

>: I sure hope you don't have any dogs, because you
>: will NEVER housebreak them with that attitude.

>I don't have dogs, but I don't want to treat other people like dogs.

Oh, very cute, but somewhat disingenuous, to say the least.  So tell
me, how would YOU raise children?  I'd be willing to bet that you
would wind up using a mix of various levels of reward and punishment
(or you would wind up raising children that the rest of us would get
to support behind bars for a good part of their lives).  So why do you
once again not see the same thing in this situation; simply because
you don't want to?

>: >I'm not particularly interested in you foisting your "puritan work ethic" upon
>: >the masses.  Weren't you one of the people opposed to teaching ethics in
>: >public schools?
>: 
>: Who's teaching ethics?  Hit the books or hit the road.  Is that an
>: ethical position?

>You want children in the public schools to be taught the principle of "having 
>to do 'work' before you have 'fun'".  That is an ethic.

No, I simply want to 'charge' them curricular adequancy in exchange
for allowing them to 'purchase' extra-curricular activities.  A simple
free-market system.  Happier?  It's all the same thing.  They make
their choices and they live with the consequences.  I've simply made
the 'costs' a bit more immediate, since immature human being tend not
to be very good at recognizing long-term costs and consequences.

>: And what do you propose when they can't earn a living and decide to
>: make it by taking stuff from me?  Let them?  That's supporting them.
>: Stop them?  That requires arresting them or shooting them (which
>: requires burying them).  If you have another alternative, I'd like to
>: hear it.

>Why do you have to bury them?  If their families think it's necessary to plant
>them in the ground then they can come get the body.  I can think of lots of
>alternatives.  Sell the body to the zoo to grind up and feed to the animals,
>sell the body to medical schools or organ banks.  I'm sure they would pay the
>costs associated with removing the body.

Gee, paint us some more of this wonderful world you espouse, John.  So
far, I don't like it much.

>: Please respond to what I actually write and not your preconceptions about
>: where I seem to be coming from.

>I DO respond to what you write.  You keep invoking this nebulous "libertarian"
>set of doctrines, which you never define, and you argue against that instead
>of what I'm writing.

Perhaps that's because the bulk of what you're writing in this thread
is rhetoric and verbal gymnastics and there just isn't much there to
respond to? 

>: Gee, did all the remedial classes go away?  John, they teach reading
>: and basic arithmetic WHERE I WORK.

>When did you stop building killing devices and start working in a public high
>school.  If you haven't, then what's the relevance?

The relevance is that you said that teaching these things stopped in
elementary school.  It doesn't.  It continues through high school and
on out into the workforce.

>: They had classes for them in high
>: school (for folks who didn't get it earlier), too.

>Not in my high school.  Is this pervasive in Texas?  Do they make all failing
>football players take remedial reading and arithmetic, or just the ones who
>are disrupting all the other classes?  What if they fail that too?  Make them
>go to bed without dessert?

Once again, very cute.  Not particularly constructive to the
discussion, but very cute.  And then you wonder why I don't seem to
'respond to what you write'?  If I did, you've have napalm inbound by
now, what with all the flame bait you seem so set on larding your
notes in this thread with.  However, I just consider that a sign that
you don't have any REAL arguments on your side, and that since you
realize that you try for flames in response instead.

However, let me respond to the 'non-flame bait' bit.  I couldn't speak
for how pervasive remedial classes are in Texas, since I didn't go to
school here.  The state where I went to school had BOTH remedial
courses (for everyone, not just for football players) for those who
had failed to get the material earlier and who had been passed on
anyway (for some reason or other) AND an understood 'no pass / no
play' policy.  If someone 'fails' remedial courses, they start
spending more time in them after school, in the evenings, during the
summer, etc., until they either DO get the material or they are old
enough to drop out.

Oh, speaking of which, I'm curious.  What explanation do you have for
the lower test scores and higher drop-out rate in Texas?

>: You have some evidence that there is something to be gained by letting
>: these kids play football for four years while flunking all their
>: classes?

>Something to be gained by who?  By the kids themselves?  It's certainly
>possible.

What are the odds?  Certainly the kids can't compute them, since
they're flunking math.  This question, by the way, was intended as
part of the thread that argues, "Well, if we don't let them play
football, then they won't have any reason to want to come to school
and they'll just drop out."  So the question is aimed at just what
having them there ONLY to play football does insofar as furthering the
purpose of a high school education?  If the answer is that it does
nothing and that this is just a way to try to keep the drop-out rate
down while letting them EFFECTIVELY 'drop out' while still attending
school (so that someone's paperwork will look good), which is what I
suspect, then there IS no point.  They've lost the target and are
aiming at the metric.

>: Yes, but in any free market there are costs, risks, and rewards.  You
>: want to eliminate that and just let them pick any old thing for four
>: years and pass or fail as they please, with no costs, risks, or
>: rewards involved until well downstream.

>But the downstream risks are the real ones.  You're setting up artificial
>risks in order to limit people's choices about their own lives.

No, 'I' (hardly just me, since schools are for learning, no?) am
building into that educational system something that gives them
shorter-term rewards and costs.  Since school is a 'model' anyway, and
since it's purpose is to educate, why do you object to injecting a
little of the rules of the 'real world' into it, particularly given
that humans at that age are generally bad at taking the long-term
view.  Where do you propose they learn it; after they graduate?  THAT
will sure make for a fun and interesting world, won't it?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics