Swingman wrote:

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Not exactly ... there is none of the hierarchy, of a "theory being
elevated to a law" in all scientific disciplines that you imply with
the above statement:

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

The way I learned it corresponds to the following:

"Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and
'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might
say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may
not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is
accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly
misused terms."

Specifically:

* A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a
hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more
observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

* A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that
have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as
there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.
Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the
hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One
definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

* A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no
exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but
they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to
ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. (E.g., Newton's
Law of Gravitation)

See:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm

In other words, "theory" is as close to facts as one can currently get. You
can take it to the bank. You can start a religion based on it. You can let
your sister marry it.

In science, the word "theory" does NOT mean a guess, speculation, or even
mere possibility.

That's my theory.

Han wrote:

Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific
terminology.

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

OK, ok, I used theory where I should have used hypothesis.
I apologize.

No apology necessary. It's just that a word can have different meanings
depending on the venue.

Another word that causes confusion is "prophet." To a Jew and a Christian,
the word has two completely different definitions. Members of the two
faiths, unless they understand the differing meanings, can argue past each
other all day long.

On 2/16/2012 9:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Not exactly ... there is none of the hierarchy, of a "theory being
elevated to a law", in all scientific disciplines that you imply with
the above statement:

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

The way I learned it corresponds to the following:

"Words have precise meanings in science.

snip of preaching to the choir

In other words, "theory" is as close to facts as one can currently get. You
can take it to the bank. You can start a religion based on it. You can let
your sister marry it.

And, as with a "Law", _only_ until evidence is presented that refutes it.

In science, the word "theory" does NOT mean a guess, speculation, or even
mere possibility.

That's my theory.

Yabbut, that is not what you originally said ... and there would have
been no argument had that been the case:

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down."

Hell, you even specified a rough time period that it takes for a
"theory" to become a "law".

The point always being, there is no hierarchy in rank between a "theory"
and "law".

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Mike Marlow" writes:
Han wrote:


Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.

I agree.


To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
such as routers and gateways. None of the factorable (and they used
a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:13:55 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Another word that causes confusion is "prophet." To a Jew and a
Christian, the word has two completely different definitions. Members of
the two faiths, unless they understand the differing meanings, can argue
past each other all day long.

OK, you've got me curious - explain the difference, please.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 2/16/2012 10:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Han wrote:


Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.

To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
such as routers and gateways.

See below:

None of the factorable (and they used
a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.

Been following this on ArsTechnica for awhile.

And with regard to the above, some argue that this distribution of weak
keys is even of greater concern:

quote
"Meanwhile, Hughes, one of the co-writers of the original paper, says he
remains convinced that the weak keys represent a threat to people using
webmail and e-commerce.

"I hate to say it but this does have implications for web-based commerce
because people can mount man-in-the-middle attacks," he said. "People
know, for instance, there have been man-in-the-middle attacks mounted
against websites by foreign countries. Embedded systems matter to
e-commerce because they're the infrastructure that goes between you and
the site you're trying to go to."
/quote

While this could be a case of protecting/justifying your initial
assessment, the fact remains that, as you noted above, many of the weak
keys were indeed embedded in routing equipment.

That ain't good no matter how much you slice and dice it.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

HeyBub wrote:


In other words, "theory" is as close to facts as one can currently
get. You can take it to the bank. You can start a religion based on
it. You can let your sister marry it.

In science, the word "theory" does NOT mean a guess, speculation, or
even mere possibility.

That's my theory.

Good write up HeyBub - thanks for investing that time. So... I'll ask a
question of what you described in your post. If a theory is as close to a
fact as one can currently get, how does that notion resolve with the issue
of conflicting theories? Isn't Big Bang a theory? Yet, if I understand
correctly, there is at least more than one competing theory. If both (or
all...) are legitimate theories, then the statement that a theoryis as close
to fact as one can currently get, does not make sense.

If I could give other currently popular competing theories (rather than the
Big Bang), I'd do so, but I really don't spend much of my life in this area.

--

-Mike-

Scott Lurndal wrote:


To be more precise,

Precise? That is a swear word to "big picture" people...

the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
such as routers and gateways. None of the factorable (and they used
a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were
associated with any major website, or with any key signed by a
trusted certification authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems
the bulk of the bad keys were generated on embedded devices, when
first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't had enough entropy to
guarantee randomness.

Yeah - what he said... I think...

--

-Mike-

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Another word that causes confusion is "prophet." To a Jew and a
Christian, the word has two completely different definitions. Members
of the two faiths, unless they understand the differing meanings, can
argue past each other all day long.

Not sure whether this is completely apropos, but here goes.

Eisenhower and his staff and Montgomery and his staff were having a
highfaluting meeting prior to D-Day. (Oh well, I thought up the names,
but it was a US-UK meeting in 1944. I know, because I was born later
grin.

Well the Brits wanted to table a battle plan, but ran into stiff
opposition by the Americans, who absolutely did NOT want to table the
proposal. After some back and forth, someone made the smoke clear, and
asked let's talk about this battle plan, shall we? And all agreed
because "to table" a proposal haad over the years acquired opposite
meanings on different sides of the Atlantic.

So, gentlemen and others, context is what you should look at it absolute
meaning confuses.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman writes:
On 2/16/2012 10:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Han wrote:


Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.

To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
such as routers and gateways.

See below:

None of the factorable (and they used
a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.

Been following this on ArsTechnica for awhile.

And with regard to the above, some argue that this distribution of weak
keys is even of greater concern:

quote
"Meanwhile, Hughes, one of the co-writers of the original paper, says he
remains convinced that the weak keys represent a threat to people using
webmail and e-commerce.

"I hate to say it but this does have implications for web-based commerce
because people can mount man-in-the-middle attacks," he said. "People
know, for instance, there have been man-in-the-middle attacks mounted
against websites by foreign countries. Embedded systems matter to
e-commerce because they're the infrastructure that goes between you and
the site you're trying to go to."
/quote

While this could be a case of protecting/justifying your initial
assessment, the fact remains that, as you noted above, many of the weak
keys were indeed embedded in routing equipment.

However, those keys were primarily SSH keys, not SSL keys, and were used
to protect the administration interfaces on said routing equipment. Can't
be used for a MIM attack at all, since it is completely orthogonal.

Private keys used for the X.509 certificates used to protect commerce on major
websites are generated by the website (or CA), then used to sign a CSR (Certificate
Signing Request) that is transmitted to the certification authority. The
authority then uses a private key for a certificate in the chain of trust
(starting from a root certificate embedded in all browers) to sign the certficate
represented by the CSR. Thus the certificate is signed by both
the private key of the website certificate and the private key associated with
the "parent" certificate. Given that the corresponding public keys are, well,
public, the public key for the website can be used to verify that the certificate
itself was signed by the websites private key, and the public key for the
signing (parent) certificate can be used to verify the chain of trust for the
website certificate.

The private keys for the certification authorities are kept in SCSI connected
keysigning boxes (tamper proof, BBN, nCipher, et. al.) and are never exposed
in any way outside the box. They're generated with high-quality PNRGs and
highly secure.

The private keys for a website are kept by the website (or escrowed by a certification
authority) and the security thereof is the responsibity of the respective parties.

The private keys used with SSL (i.e. the X.509 certificates used to authenticate
the server (and optionally client) side of the connection) are not used to _encrypt_
any data (aside from the SHA digest in the X.509 certificate), so compromised or
weak private keys can't be used to decrypt encrypted data on the wire.

When the SSL protocol (https handshakes, the protocol first retrieves the X.509
certificate from the server and validates the signatures on the certificate and
compares the hostname in the certificate to the hostname used to connect to the
host, and if they match and the signatures are good and the certificate has not
been revoked (a client can contact the cert authority on-line), the protocol continues to the
next step. If they don't match, or the signatures are faulty, the client software
must notify the user and the user then must decide what to do (most probably don't understand
the warnings and click through them - a problem in and of itself).

The next step is for the two sides to agree on a symmetric (the same key is used for
both encryption and decryption) cipher algorithm and key to use to secure the communications between
the two sides. The client uses the servers public key to encrypt a random number; both
parties generate a key from that random number which is then used to secure the
communications.

Note that here, the key is generated on every connection and its lifetime is limited
to the duration of the SSL connection.

So compromise of a weak private SSL webserver key may allow another host to impersonate
a website (but only if the DNS system for the client can also be compromised to translate
the website hostname to a different IP address). Note that the private keys used to
secure e-commerce websites aren't usually generated on embedded router boxes.

The vulnerabilities with the private embedded keys revolve primarily around SSH access
for configuration and SSL-based web configuration supported by some routers/firewalls;
not e-commerce - which is certainly a problem for the affected organizations, but shouldn't
be an issue for consumers vis-a-vis SSL/TLS.

scott
(ex-verisign)

On 2/17/2012 1:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On 2/16/2012 10:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Han wrote:


Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.

To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
such as routers and gateways.

See below:

None of the factorable (and they used
a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.

Been following this on ArsTechnica for awhile.

And with regard to the above, some argue that this distribution of weak
keys is even of greater concern:

quote
"Meanwhile, Hughes, one of the co-writers of the original paper, says he
remains convinced that the weak keys represent a threat to people using
webmail and e-commerce.

"I hate to say it but this does have implications for web-based commerce
because people can mount man-in-the-middle attacks," he said. "People
know, for instance, there have been man-in-the-middle attacks mounted
against websites by foreign countries. Embedded systems matter to
e-commerce because they're the infrastructure that goes between you and
the site you're trying to go to."
/quote

While this could be a case of protecting/justifying your initial
assessment, the fact remains that, as you noted above, many of the weak
keys were indeed embedded in routing equipment.

However, those keys were primarily SSH keys, not SSL keys, and were used
to protect the administration interfaces on said routing equipment. Can't
be used for a MIM attack at all, since it is completely orthogonal.

snip of much informative stuff

So Hughes is indeed all wet?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman writes:
On 2/17/2012 1:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On 2/16/2012 10:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Han wrote:


Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.

To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
such as routers and gateways.

See below:

None of the factorable (and they used
a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.

Been following this on ArsTechnica for awhile.

And with regard to the above, some argue that this distribution of weak
keys is even of greater concern:

quote
"Meanwhile, Hughes, one of the co-writers of the original paper, says he
remains convinced that the weak keys represent a threat to people using
webmail and e-commerce.

"I hate to say it but this does have implications for web-based commerce
because people can mount man-in-the-middle attacks," he said. "People
know, for instance, there have been man-in-the-middle attacks mounted
against websites by foreign countries. Embedded systems matter to
e-commerce because they're the infrastructure that goes between you and
the site you're trying to go to."
/quote

While this could be a case of protecting/justifying your initial
assessment, the fact remains that, as you noted above, many of the weak
keys were indeed embedded in routing equipment.

However, those keys were primarily SSH keys, not SSL keys, and were used
to protect the administration interfaces on said routing equipment. Can't
be used for a MIM attack at all, since it is completely orthogonal.

snip of much informative stuff

So Hughes is indeed all wet?


Insofar as e-commerce is concerned, yes. However, a successful attack on the
router/firewall can be quite disruptive to either an organization (assuming
they were stupid enough to allow external traffic to configure their infrastructure;
something most are smart enough _not_ to do) or to the internet in general
(say a core backbone router (ATT, L3, Hurricane Electric, et. al) is compromised;
portions of the net could go dark for a short time).

scott

On 2/17/2012 8:56 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:


So Hughes is indeed all wet?


Insofar as e-commerce is concerned, yes.

That's good to know. It now seems to be the general consensus of those
who really grasp the principles as the dust is settling. There were some
pretty sensational lead off's at the beginning, mostly from the
blogosphere click-whores.

Thanks for the informative posts.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

In article , says...

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:15:39 -0600, Swingman wrote:

I'm pretty well convinced that two factors that were in greater supply
in those days are largely responsible for the current decline ...
discipline, and the quality of the teachers.

I agree on discipline, but I don't recall there being a plethora of good
teachers back in the '50s. Maybe one out of 5 of my HS teachers
qualified as good, 3 as mediocre, and 1 as horrible. I remember only one
really excellent teacher.

I hesitate to mention this because it's not P.C., but the rules now force
the teachers to teach the unteachable. Also known as the lowest common
denominator. In my day, if you couldn't keep up after as much extra help
as the teacher could give, you were eventually ignored and given a
failing grade. They can't do that anymore, it hurts the kiddies self
esteem.

It's worse than that, it's now mandated by law. The combination of
"mainstreaming" and "no child left behind" means that the teachers have
to put strenuous efforts into educating the uneducable and let the best
and brightest fend for themselves. Everybody has to pass a standardized
test. The trouble with this is that the best and brightest aren't
expected to do more than pass the same standardized test as the worst
and dullest.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:10:49 -0500, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 2/13/2012 7:59 PM, dpb wrote:
That's why moisture condenses on the tea glass surface--it's below the
dewpoint in the room at a comfortable or even, perhaps, cool temperature.

That is ice tea. Remember there are those on this newsgroup that drink
tea hot.
But seldom from a glass- - - - - -

Unless they're Russian.

In article ,
says...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
accpeted as any kind of a fact.

Well ....

the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a poorly
chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not make a
theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may appear to be.

--

-Mike-


Mike,
I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory virtually
a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman stated.

It's close enough to "fact" to be used for engineering design,
interplanetary navigation, and other such purposes.

In science, the word "hypothesis" is used to describe what in ordinary
conversation is called "theory". And "theory" is used to described a
model that has passed every test anyone has been able to concieve for
it. Physics doesn't use "law" anymore, however it's been grandfathered
for things like Newtonian mechanics. And there is a different usage in
mathematics, where "theory" is an internally consistent system which may
or may not have anything at all to do with reality.

The trouble with climatology is that a lot of people are treating
climatological hypotheses like they are theory.

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:15:39 -0600, Swingman wrote:

I'm pretty well convinced that two factors that were in greater
supply in those days are largely responsible for the current
decline ... discipline, and the quality of the teachers.

I agree on discipline, but I don't recall there being a plethora of
good teachers back in the '50s. Maybe one out of 5 of my HS teachers
qualified as good, 3 as mediocre, and 1 as horrible. I remember
only one really excellent teacher.

I hesitate to mention this because it's not P.C., but the rules now
force the teachers to teach the unteachable. Also known as the
lowest common denominator. In my day, if you couldn't keep up after
as much extra help as the teacher could give, you were eventually
ignored and given a failing grade. They can't do that anymore, it
hurts the kiddies self esteem.

It's worse than that, it's now mandated by law. The combination of
"mainstreaming" and "no child left behind" means that the teachers
have to put strenuous efforts into educating the uneducable and let
the best and brightest fend for themselves. Everybody has to pass a
standardized test. The trouble with this is that the best and
brightest aren't expected to do more than pass the same standardized
test as the worst and dullest.

I'm sorry but this is just flat out wrong - at least where I live. I have
one daughter and one daughter-in-law who are teachers in NY. Both of them
will set you straight on this urban legend. Yes - they do work harder on
the slower kids, but there is no legislation, nor are there any school
policies that require to teach to the lowest common denominator. None. In
fact - NY is aggressively grading schools on the caliber of the student they
produce. The lowest common denominator in NY is the same - or nearly the
same standard that we experienced in the 60's and 70's. Those were and are
quite high standards. There are many schools - mostly urban that fail this
standard, and they are under a lot of pressure to correct this. All of
which says "Bull****" to the commonly thrown about notion (from those who
usually don't even really have any understanding...) that there is some
lowest common denominator thing going on.

The foolishness of the above statement is that it creates the notion that
the standarized test are at the lowest common denominator - translated to be
simple - or stupid. It then goes on to state that the brightest are left to
their own devices to achieve this level. Now think about that for just a
moment...

I will admit that my perspective today is somewhat limited by what I hear
from my daughter and my daughter-in-law, but that is at least very
reflective of the world of education today. Neither would tell you of
"strenuous" efforts, or of letting the brightest fend for themselves.

All of this from a guy who is not pro-teachers. We homeschooled our kids.

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:14:02 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Yes - they do work harder on
the slower kids, but there is no legislation, nor are there any school
policies that require to teach to the lowest common denominator. None.

What are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:09:56 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:14:02 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Yes - they do work harder on
the slower kids, but there is no legislation, nor are there any school
policies that require to teach to the lowest common denominator. None.

What are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.

Um, someone tell Mike about the No Child Left Behind laws. They're
what predicated the change to LCD teaching. And someone find the
persons responsible for putting more money into the architecture of
school buildings, the sports programs, and the administrator salaries
than that of the teachers. And make them pay for their crimes against
humanity.

My neighbor's son was a high school Principal and tried to save
teachers after funding cuts by removing the funding for the athletics
department. The -state- jumped in and said he _must_ fund the dept.
This was not the PE classes, but the -volunteer- sports programs. He
thought that if enough parents wanted the sports, they could fund 'em
themselves. The state told him differently. thud

Sports are more important to some people than their child's education.
Go figure.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:14:02 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Yes - they do work harder on
the slower kids, but there is no legislation, nor are there any
school policies that require to teach to the lowest common
denominator. None.

What are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.

I don't know the answer to that Larry, because I don't follow it. But - I
know that from the reported pressures on various schools in the area to meet
the new (and increasing) state standards, that more are not failing, than
are. My personal experiences - being those of my daughter and my
daughter-in-law are indeed very valid experiences. They live the life.
Their input on such things as teaching to the lowest common denominator,
pushing kids through just to get rid of them, and other similar topics that
pop up in forums like this from time to time, is far more credible than the
input from a bunch of us that are completely removed from the matter.

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:


Um, someone tell Mike about the No Child Left Behind laws.

Show me the No Child Left Behind Law that specifies that all students will
be taught to the lowest common denominator. What are the penalties for
violating this law?

They're
what predicated the change to LCD teaching.

Go back and read what I wrote again. I stated that this whole LCD thing
does not exist in my area, as it is thrown about in forums like this.
Perhaps things are different where you live - I never spoke to anything but
the area where I live.

And someone find the
persons responsible for putting more money into the architecture of
school buildings, the sports programs, and the administrator salaries
than that of the teachers. And make them pay for their crimes against
humanity.

We would not disagree too much on that point, but that's pretty much the way
it's always been. Teachers who have been at it for a while though, do make
very good money around here. My daughter-in-laws parents were both teachers
and both retired at over $100K. They weren't hurting for compensation. My
DIL started right off at $45K - not a bad starting pay for 9 months worth of
work.


My neighbor's son was a high school Principal and tried to save
teachers after funding cuts by removing the funding for the athletics
department. The -state- jumped in and said he _must_ fund the dept.
This was not the PE classes, but the -volunteer- sports programs. He
thought that if enough parents wanted the sports, they could fund 'em
themselves. The state told him differently. thud


That is what's criminal.


--

-Mike-

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:39:50 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

What are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.

I don't know the answer to that Larry, because I don't follow it. But -
I know that from the reported pressures on various schools in the area
to meet the new (and increasing) state standards, that more are not
failing, than are.

Mike, 51% passing is more than 49% that aren't :-). All I was trying to
do was to get a quantifiable answer.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Um, someone tell Mike about the No Child Left Behind laws.

Show me the No Child Left Behind Law that specifies that all students will
be taught to the lowest common denominator. What are the penalties for
violating this law?

They're
what predicated the change to LCD teaching.

Go back and read what I wrote again. I stated that this whole LCD thing
does not exist in my area, as it is thrown about in forums like this.
Perhaps things are different where you live - I never spoke to anything but
the area where I live.

And someone find the
persons responsible for putting more money into the architecture of
school buildings, the sports programs, and the administrator salaries
than that of the teachers. And make them pay for their crimes against
humanity.

We would not disagree too much on that point, but that's pretty much the way
it's always been. Teachers who have been at it for a while though, do make
very good money around here. My daughter-in-laws parents were both teachers
and both retired at over $100K. They weren't hurting for compensation. My
DIL started right off at $45K - not a bad starting pay for 9 months worth of
work.

Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.


My neighbor's son was a high school Principal and tried to save
teachers after funding cuts by removing the funding for the athletics
department. The -state- jumped in and said he _must_ fund the dept.
This was not the PE classes, but the -volunteer- sports programs. He
thought that if enough parents wanted the sports, they could fund 'em
themselves. The state told him differently. thud

That is what's criminal.

Amen! I guess the state thinks that parental donations directly to
the school and/or the sports programs more than make up for the lack
of teaching and teachers, somehow.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On 2/24/2012 1:09 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
at are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.

In Indianapolis Indiana there are several High Schools in Indianapolis
Indiana, where only about 20% of students entering into the high school
will graduate from high school.

Where are the parents? Teacher can not punish the kids when they miss
behave. Parents who try to punish their kids get pulled into social
services.

Isn't our nanny society great.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:39:50 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

What are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.

I don't know the answer to that Larry, because I don't follow it.
But - I know that from the reported pressures on various schools in
the area to meet the new (and increasing) state standards, that more
are not failing, than are.

Mike, 51% passing is more than 49% that aren't :-). All I was trying
to do was to get a quantifiable answer.

Understand that, but like I said - I do not have that answer. Let me turn
this back (for the sake of conversation...) - why do you ask? Do you either
have evidence, or even a suspicion that those numbers may be closer to par,
or even sub par?

The only thing I can speak to is that NY has set standards for graduates.
Minimum scores on state tests, etc. Not LCD stuff - real knowledge. We
used to lead the nation in our graduate knowledge and the state is trying to
get back there after some years of "new age education" that resulted in
producing a bunch of dummies. This is what schools are being individually
measured by. More than that, I probably can't speak to, since like I said -
I don't keep up with this stuff. What I can say is that "move them out"
does not work in this state anymore. LCD has never been a policy and it
certainly is not one now.

So - I'll ask you - can you provide the type of evidence that you have asked
of me, that would show that LCD is even alive in NY, let alone the norm?

--

-Mike-

On 02/24/2012 06:32 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:39:50 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

What are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.

I don't know the answer to that Larry, because I don't follow it.
But - I know that from the reported pressures on various schools in
the area to meet the new (and increasing) state standards, that more
are not failing, than are.

Mike, 51% passing is more than 49% that aren't :-). All I was trying
to do was to get a quantifiable answer.

Understand that, but like I said - I do not have that answer. Let me turn
this back (for the sake of conversation...) - why do you ask? Do you either
have evidence, or even a suspicion that those numbers may be closer to par,
or even sub par?

The only thing I can speak to is that NY has set standards for graduates.
Minimum scores on state tests, etc. Not LCD stuff - real knowledge. We
used to lead the nation in our graduate knowledge and the state is trying to
get back there after some years of "new age education" that resulted in
producing a bunch of dummies. This is what schools are being individually
measured by. More than that, I probably can't speak to, since like I said -
I don't keep up with this stuff. What I can say is that "move them out"
does not work in this state anymore. LCD has never been a policy and it
certainly is not one now.

So - I'll ask you - can you provide the type of evidence that you have asked
of me, that would show that LCD is even alive in NY, let alone the norm?


Jay walk? ;-)


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above paragraph? Note
also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should have made sense in the
context of retired teachers making double that.




Amen! I guess the state thinks that parental donations directly to
the school and/or the sports programs more than make up for the lack
of teaching and teachers, somehow.

I guess we are lucky here - though parents think sports are oh-so important,
the state and the districts do no place the same importance on them. Sports
are quickly cut here and we've had years where parents "suffered" pay to
play. Good for that plan!

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above paragraph? Note
also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should have made sense in the
context of retired teachers making double that.

I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
Salaries are a bit different in the two places.


Amen! I guess the state thinks that parental donations directly to
the school and/or the sports programs more than make up for the lack
of teaching and teachers, somehow.

I guess we are lucky here - though parents think sports are oh-so important,
the state and the districts do no place the same importance on them. Sports
are quickly cut here and we've had years where parents "suffered" pay to
play. Good for that plan!

Agreed!

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
that.

I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
Salaries are a bit different in the two places.

Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant... BTW - how much
can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:07:18 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
that.

I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
Salaries are a bit different in the two places.

Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant...

The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.


BTW - how much can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...

Right now I'm worth about a plugged nickel. Halvsies?

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:07:18 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
that.

I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
Salaries are a bit different in the two places.

Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant...

The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.
================================================== =========
You don't really believe that, do you?

Larry Jaques wrote:


The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.

That's what so many people think - until they see the area. Oh - we are
very rural here. My "lot" that my house sits on is 20 acres and it's all
woods. When I first built my house my nearest neighbor was 1/2 mile up the
road. Not so now, but... Grew up on 400 acres of dairy farm - though those
things are pretty much a thing of the past now. To the contrary, I've never
been urban - or even suburban for that matter.



BTW - how much can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...

Right now I'm worth about a plugged nickel. Halvsies?

Sure - no sense getting greedy. Found money is found money.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:24:17 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
That's what so many people think - until they see the area. Oh - we are
very rural here. My "lot" that my house sits on is 20 acres and it's all
woods. When I first built my house my nearest neighbor was 1/2 mile up the
road. Not so now, but... Grew up on 400 acres of dairy farm - though those
things are pretty much a thing of the past now. To the contrary, I've never
been urban - or even suburban for that matter.

To me, rural means not having the amenities of the city nearby. How
far away (distance or traveling time) is your "lot" from city
conveniences?

Perhaps something more pertinent to the conversation. How far away in
distance or traveling time is your "lot" from a major hospital? An
airport? A major grocery store?

To me anyway, those things are the "city".

Dave wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:24:17 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
That's what so many people think - until they see the area. Oh - we
are very rural here. My "lot" that my house sits on is 20 acres and
it's all woods. When I first built my house my nearest neighbor was
1/2 mile up the road. Not so now, but... Grew up on 400 acres of
dairy farm - though those things are pretty much a thing of the past
now. To the contrary, I've never been urban - or even suburban for
that matter.

To me, rural means not having the amenities of the city nearby. How
far away (distance or traveling time) is your "lot" from city
conveniences?

Nearest city is Syracuse - about 30 minutes drive down the interstate.


Perhaps something more pertinent to the conversation. How far away in
distance or traveling time is your "lot" from a major hospital? An
airport? A major grocery store?

To me anyway, those things are the "city".

Major hospitals are in Syracuse, so driving time is 30-ish minutes. Airport
is on the north side of the city, so travel time to the airport is about
that same time. Grocery stores - well the day and age of Wal Mart and some
of the larger chain stores have changed what things look like in America in
that respect. Nearest Wal Mart is pretty close - within 15 minutes.
Nearest major grocery is closer in to Syracuse - 20 to 25 minutes.


--

-Mike-

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:54:08 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Nearest city is Syracuse - about 30 minutes drive down the interstate.
Major hospitals are in Syracuse, so driving time is 30-ish minutes. Airport
is on the north side of the city, so travel time to the airport is about
that same time.

Honestly, I'd have to question your "rural" designation, at least by
my "time" criteria. With the frequent traffic congestion of any
moderately sized city, thirty minutes traveling time is entirely
acceptable. Quite possibly, the bulk of your travel time might be past
fields and farms, but most anything you might need is apparently
readily available if and when it is needed. "Rural" is supposed to be
isolation in most every sense of the word, at least the way I view it.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:24:17 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.

That's what so many people think - until they see the area. Oh - we are

I was back there in '98 with a buddy, doing a PM on a gamma camera up
on Lon Gisland. (Massapequa, IIRC.) We drove from there to D.C. and I
saw all the forests between. Talk about tunnel vision on a really dull
trip. BORING! Anyway, I know it's not one big city, but the density
there is much higher than here in the West.


very rural here. My "lot" that my house sits on is 20 acres and it's all
woods. When I first built my house my nearest neighbor was 1/2 mile up the
road. Not so now, but... Grew up on 400 acres of dairy farm - though those
things are pretty much a thing of the past now. To the contrary, I've never
been urban - or even suburban for that matter.

Geeze, neither you nor CW caught the Demolition Man reference. sigh
Hmm, I missed the Blade Runner and Double Dragon references myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Angeles


BTW - how much can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...

Right now I'm worth about a plugged nickel. Halvsies?

Sure - no sense getting greedy. Found money is found money.

The Czech is in the male.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:57:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:07:18 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
that.

I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
Salaries are a bit different in the two places.

Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant...

The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.


But New York covers a lot of land that is FAR from the "east coast"
and about as "rural" as you could get. Real "hill-billy country" -

BTW - how much can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...

Right now I'm worth about a plugged nickel. Halvsies?

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:08:19 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:24:17 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.

That's what so many people think - until they see the area. Oh - we are

I was back there in '98 with a buddy, doing a PM on a gamma camera up
on Lon Gisland. (Massapequa, IIRC.) We drove from there to D.C. and I
saw all the forests between. Talk about tunnel vision on a really dull
trip. BORING! Anyway, I know it's not one big city, but the density
there is much higher than here in the West.


very rural here. My "lot" that my house sits on is 20 acres and it's all
woods. When I first built my house my nearest neighbor was 1/2 mile up the
road. Not so now, but... Grew up on 400 acres of dairy farm - though those
things are pretty much a thing of the past now. To the contrary, I've never
been urban - or even suburban for that matter.

Geeze, neither you nor CW caught the Demolition Man reference. sigh
Hmm, I missed the Blade Runner and Double Dragon references myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Angeles


BTW - how much can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...


from:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/J...ralAmerica.htm

The term €œrural€� conjures widely shared images of farms, ranches,
villages, small towns, and open spaces. Yet, when it comes to
distinguishing rural from urban places, researchers and policymakers
employ a dizzying array of definitions. The use of multiple
definitions reflects the reality that rural and urban are
multidimensional concepts, making clear-cut distinctions between the
two difficult. Is population density the defining concern, or is it
geographic isolation? Is it small population size that makes it
necessary to distinguish rural from urban? If so, how small is rural?
Because the U.S. is a nation in which so many people live in areas
that are not clearly rural or urban, seemingly small changes in the
way rural areas are defined can have large impacts on who and what are
considered rural.



'Rural definitions based on the administrative concept start with the
Census Bureaus list of €œplaces.€� Most places listed in the 2000
Census are incorporated entities with legally prescribed boundaries
(e.g., Peoria City), but some are locally recognized, unincorporated
communities. Rural is defined as territory outside these place
boundaries, together with places smaller than a selected population
threshold. For example, USDAs Telecom Hardship Loan Program defines
rural as any area outside Census places of 5,000 or more people.

Rural definitions based on the land-use concept most often start with
the Census Bureaus set of urban areas, consisting of densely settled
territory. Rural as defined by the Census Bureau includes open
countryside and settlements with fewer than 2,500 residents. Urban
areas are specifically designed to capture densely settled territory
regardless of where municipal boundaries are drawn. They include
adjacent suburbs that are outside place boundaries and exclude any
territory within places that does not meet the density criteria.

The most widely used rural definition based on the economic concept
consists of the 2,050 nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) counties lying
outside metro boundaries. Metropolitan (metro) areas are county-based
entities that account for the economic influence of cities. The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) defines them as:

Core counties with one or more urban areas of 50,000 people or more,
and;

Outlying counties economically tied to the core counties, as measured
by the share of the employed population that commutes to and from core
counties.
Using these criteria, urban entities are defined as countywide or
multicounty labor market areas extending well beyond their built-up
cores.

Prior to 2000, the land-use concept (Census urban areas) and the
economic concept (OMB metro areas) were not applied to urban entities
below 50,000 people. In 2000, the Census Bureau added urban areas
ranging in size from 2,500 to 49,999 (labeling them urban clusters to
distinguish them from the larger urbanized areas that had been defined
since 1950). OMB added a new micropolitan (micro) area classification,
using the same criteria as used for metro areas but lowering the
threshold to 10,000 people. These modifications greatly increase the
flexibility of researchers and administrators to tailor rural
definitions to different target populations.
Counties are often too large, especially in Western States, to
accurately represent labor market areas in all cases. Thus, metro and
micro areas often include territory that is legitimately rural from
both a land-use and economic perspective. ERS Rural-Urban Commuting
Area (RUCA) codes provide an alternative, economic classification
using census tracts rather than counties. Although relatively new,
these codes have been widely adopted for both research and policy,
especially in rural health applications.

RUCA codes follow (as closely as possible) the same concepts and
criteria used to define metro and micro areas. By using the more
detailed census tracts, they provide a different geographic pattern of
settlement classification. While counties are generally too large to
delineate labor market areas below the 10,000 population threshold,
RUCA codes identify such areas for towns with populations as small as
2,500. Additional information and files containing the codes are
available in the ERS Measuring Rurality Briefing Room.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:32:21 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Mike, 51% passing is more than 49% that aren't :-). All I was trying
to do was to get a quantifiable answer.

Understand that, but like I said - I do not have that answer. Let me
turn this back (for the sake of conversation...) - why do you ask? Do
you either have evidence, or even a suspicion that those numbers may be
closer to par, or even sub par?


My suspicion is that a more students flunked out when I went to school
than do now. But numbers are hard to come by. When I try to look up
failure rates over time I get numbers that count dropouts, boasts about
some new technique that lowers failure rates, etc.. But nothing that
says x percent flunked in this year, y in this year, etc..

One could suspect that the NEA doesn't want those numbers readily
available :-).



So - I'll ask you - can you provide the type of evidence that you have
asked of me, that would show that LCD is even alive in NY, let alone the
norm?

No, I don't. I've lived in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Idaho, California,
and Washington. I have no knowledge of the NY school system. But if you
have the nirvana you describe, you're very lucky.

I think most people over 50 who come in contact with today's high school
graduates would declare it obvious that standards have fallen since they
went to school. But even that opinion can be challenged on the grounds
that maybe some of those graduates actually weren't.

I do remember seeing claims that a 4-year college degree today is
equivalent to a high school diploma of past times. Anyone have that data
available?


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:58:38 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:

In Indianapolis Indiana there are several High Schools in Indianapolis
Indiana, where only about 20% of students entering into the high school
will graduate from high school.

But how many of those flunked as opposed to the ones who dropped out?


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw