From: davem@reagan.cs.umr.edu (Dave Mentis)
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:54:26 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1784@wtcp.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> pleeper@wtcp.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Paulette Leeper) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov19.134059.16342@umr.edu> davem@reagan.cs.umr.edu (Dave
>Mentis) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov19.000618.19319@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com
>(markbr) writes:
>>>
>>>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
>>>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting, 
>>>and one on relationships.
>>>
>>I suspect these tests will soon be brought to a neighborhood
>>near you by the same fine people who gave us voter qualification
>>tests in the past (that a US Supreme Court Justice couldn't pass
>>if (s)he weren't of the right race).
>
>WHOAA!  Slow down here a minute.  No one said anything about mandatory
>TESTING. 


True. For the moment...

>The original poster (see above) is an advocate of mandatoy
>COURSES. 

ok. Actually there are 3 things that I can readily see that can be mandatory:

1) Course availability is mandatory.
2) Course attendance is mandatory.
3) "Successful" course completion is mandatory.

'markbr' suggested 2).

Which implies 1). Or does it ??
Who gives these courses -- the government I assume ? And what if
after spending millions of dollars to set these up there just isn't
enough money to offer a course near you ? You just drive 50 miles
to the nearest center ? And what if you're too ill ? Too busy ?
Too poor ? Too ...   Too bad!

Now what's going to be in these courses and who decides content ?

"You should {always/never} spank your child ..."
"You should only leave your child with "qualified" daycare if
  you intend to work"
"Qualified means ... ?? only a parent ? only female ? only
  licensed daycare ? only {fill in something you don't believe in
  and/or can't afford}"

(I think you get my point here. I've thrown out only 2 of 1000's
of topics that come up on m.k, and those 2 topics alone, in just
a few weeks each time they come up here, have generated more flames
than lots of newsgroups do that we've all read for years (if not decades)).

So, ok. We're big boys and girls. I can just tell the instructor
to take a long walk on a short pier. I showed up and I'll do
my time and sit in the back quietly reading a novel, right ?

I doubt it. The government isn't about to spend millions of $$
just to have me thumb my nose at them.

Next thing you know the requirement will be that I show up for the
hour(s) AND "pay attention".

Funny thing. With the attitude problem I've got, I never seem to
be able to "pay attention" well enough to please an instructor.

But of course we could resolve this dilemma if only we had an
OBJECTIVE measure of my "paying attention".

Hey. I know. We'll give a short quiz at the end and see if I can
regurgitate (uh, recall) just the basics of what was covered.

And then that'll be the end of it -- no changes to the quiz.
No improved methods of seeing that I get my tax dollars" worth...

For those that believe those last lines, please send email to
swamp_land_for_sale@shaft.o.matic.com

"We guarantee you'll get everything you deserve. (tm)"   :-)




>The more information available to people contemplating 
                      ^^^^^^^^^
>marriage and/or parenthood, the better, in my opinion.  
>


Agreed!

  -- davem@cs.umr.edu
-- 
 There is no magic catapult to propel them back; they must   
 boost themselves over the wall of terror.                  
                                                           
 -- La Vergne Rosow; Phi Delta Kappan, 10/92, Vol 74, #2