Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,507
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SnowHabit
    Newest Member
    SnowHabit
    Joined

Summer Banter & General Discussion/Observations


CapturedNature

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Damage In Tolland said:

2.5% :lol: 

That means 97.5% go to school and realize the importance of social interaction 

Home schoolers do well socially and academically.  To make the commitment, parents have to make a monumental effort.  Kudos to teachers-very underpaid and often overworked at least during the school year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I remember back when homeschooling was still in the early stages of being widely adopted, my high school English teacher would point out the false dichotomy of "social interaction" in home school vs. public. Students typically interact with the same handful of friends and talk about the same things day in and day out for years—not exactly a stimulating social environment. Most of society's hermits and outcasts went to public school so there's little to no correlation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Juliancolton said:

I remember back when homeschooling was still in the early stages of being widely adopted, my high school English teacher would point out the false dichotomy of "social interaction" in home school vs. public. Students typically interact with the same handful of friends and talk about the same things day in and day out for years—not exactly a stimulating social environment. Most of society's hermits and outcasts went to public school so there's little to no correlation. 

I'm not downplaying it. To each their own. No one is saying they aren't smart or successful . But they miss a huge aspect of their childhood.  Its  very important for kids to play sports, to be involved in activities with larger groups of kids to understand how to compete and to interact with society. Most of them are not involved with travel or premier sports or clubs . Note I said most. It's great people believe that strongly in it and more power to them. But there's also a reason the masses don't do it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:

I know you have a very hard time understanding alternative life styles so some facts. CT is among the top ten states for rapidly growing numbers of families homeschooling. there are over 2.5 million kids home schooled nationwide. CT has 2.75% of its kids home schooled. We get lots of home schooled kids visiting here. They tend to be better behaved and more inquisitive. I love the fact most are learning through experience as well as classroom. 

Thanks for saying that.  That's one of the reasons we decided to homeschool.  It gives us a chance to go down a lot of rabbit holes of learning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

2.5% :lol: 

That means 97.5% go to school and realize the importance of social interaction 

 

20 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

I'm not downplaying it. To each their own. No one is saying they aren't smart or successful . But they miss a huge aspect of their childhood.  Its  very important for kids to play sports, to be involved in activities with larger groups of kids to understand how to compete and to interact with society. Most of them are not involved with travel or premier sports or clubs . Note I said most. It's great people believe that strongly in it and more power to them. But there's also a reason the masses don't do it 

lol...You really have no idea what you're talking about.  Homeschooled kids do all the same things that regular schooled kids do, including group activities and sports.  They are some of the most social kids out there.  The fact that they interact with people of all ages and not just kids their own age.  They are usually involved with a number of large groups of kids, not just in sports.  Most homeschoolers participate in coops as well as things like Scouting.  While most kids have to spend most of their day with kids their own age, homeschoolers are out in the real world interacting with people like they will when they get a job in that same world.  Then there is the additional play time that they get - I'll bet they get more of a childhood than most kids.

If I were you, I'd do some research before making a claim like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MetHerb said:

 

lol...You really have no idea what you're talking about.  Homeschooled kids do all the same things that regular schooled kids do, including group activities and sports.  They are some of the most social kids out there.  The fact that they interact with people of all ages and not just kids their own age.  They are usually involved with a number of large groups of kids, not just in sports.  Most homeschoolers participate in coops as well as things like Scouting.  While most kids have to spend most of their day with kids their own age, homeschoolers are out in the real world interacting with people like they will when they get a job in that same world.  Then there is the additional play time that they get - I'll bet they get more of a childhood than most kids.

If I were you, I'd do some research before making a claim like that.

Like I said to each their own. 

And also LIS.. there's a reason why the population doesn't practice it.

Hopefully it works out for you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't know. I would guess homeschooling isn't available to most populations, especially lower income, which makes up a fair portion of the population, whether we acknowledge it or not.

I guess if you're wealthy, you can throw a ton of resources into it though. 

I went to a large public school that had a graduating class of 500+ and the school itself served over 2k kids. I wouldn't trade it for the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

I'm not downplaying it. To each their own. No one is saying they aren't smart or successful . But they miss a huge aspect of their childhood.  Its  very important for kids to play sports, to be involved in activities with larger groups of kids to understand how to compete and to interact with society. Most of them are not involved with travel or premier sports or clubs . Note I said most. It's great people believe that strongly in it and more power to them. But there's also a reason the masses don't do it 

2 of my grandkids are home schooled and play soccer, ski club and do everything else with friends. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding. Lol they don't spend all day with their parents. Social interaction with a diverse group rather than cliques is perhaps a greater benefit. Other grandkids have traditional schooling so to each his own. The reasons the masses don't do it is because they probably have to work or lack the knowledge to teach complex subjects. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

2 of my grandkids are home schooled and play soccer, ski club and do everything else with friends. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding. Lol they don't spend all day with their parents. Social interaction with a diverse group rather than cliques is perhaps a greater benefit. Other grandkids have traditional schooling so to each his own. The reasons the masses don't do it is because they probably have to work or lack the knowledge to teach complex subjects. 

 

Or they don't have the $$ to actually do it. It's probably out of reach just based on that for a lot of people 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:

It's not expensive? Less than 1k per year, average public school is 10K of taxpayer money per pupil

I think he means that someone would be staying home and probably not work, so less home income

My wife and I are both public school teachers and we see the potential benefits to home schooling. I have worked with kids who were home schooled who were academic and/or social disasters and those who were very gifted in both. Pretty much in the same ratios as their school attending peers.  You get out of it what you put into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Interesting tidbit about the deer in the Allagash...that would definitely be in contrast to the populations over a good chunk of the rest of the northeast including a lot of NY State. I wonder why the numbers have not exploded over western Maine versus other areas.

Deer were not present in northernmost Maine until European invaders began to clear the forest and plant crops; probably were scarce to absent in the western mountain as well.  Thus their hold on those habitats is somewhat tenuous, and dependent on dense tall evergreens, to reduce siniing depth in the snowpack and modify the coldest nights.  The spruce budworm epidemic in the 1970s-early 1980s killed perhaps 25 million cords of fir and spruce, and landowners responded with accelerated harvests of those species, probably another 15 million cords above what would've been cut w/o budworm.  Those events drastically reduced the amount of softwood cover, and research has shown that when snow is restrictive (18" deep or greater), deer will choose shelter over food, which can lead to heavy mortality if the winter runs long.  Northern Maine had a few big snow winters in the 1990s, but it was the pair of back-to-backs that really clobbered the deer herd there.  Dec. 2003 brought 50-60" for that area, and though the rest of the winter was about average, the clock for restrictive snow had started early.  Then 04-05 finished with 5-6 big storms in Feb-March.  2007-08 brought record snowfall and depths there, and while 08-09 was only somewhat AN for snow, it was much colder and the snow was fluffier.  The 1-2 punch became a 3-4 combo, and the herd has done little to recover there.  The number of any-deer permits has risen quite a bit over the past 2 years thanks to mild temps and modest snowpack in southern Maine, but the northern (and downeast) management districts still get zero permits.

I had 6.5" per hour in that one...not quite the max that just northeast of me had along 495 (Ayer-ASH belt) where someone reported 8" per hour and you yourself recall 7.5" in an hour.

I'm always amazed at such rates from synoptic events, as I've never experienced an hour that brought even 4", though I've seen that rate for shorter times in squalls.  Closest was probably the 2/22-23/09 storm, when I had 9.0" in 2:45, or 3.3"/hr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:

It's not expensive? Less than 1k per year, average public school is 10K of taxpayer money per pupil

I doubt my daughter and son-in-law spend even that much.  They both have teaching experience and are good at cobbling up materials from stuff around the house, and using hand-me-downs for the younger kids just like with clothes and toys.  Of course, any homeschool expense is additional, as they pay taxes the same as those with kids in the public schools.

I'm glad to read all the thoughtful counter-comments above.  The idea that homeschool kids are some kind of weird hermits or social outcasts is a product of unawareness, or perhaps NEA propaganda.

Back to autumn:  8th day with minima 37-45, and maxima 62-71.  No records set, but about 4 weeks ahead of when that would be average.  GYX has pulled back from Sat AM frost; they see the wind staying up for too long.  We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tamarack said:

Deer were not present in northernmost Maine until European invaders began to clear the forest and plant crops; probably were scarce to absent in the western mountain as well.  Thus their hold on those habitats is somewhat tenuous, and dependent on dense tall evergreens, to reduce siniing depth in the snowpack and modify the coldest nights.  The spruce budworm epidemic in the 1970s-early 1980s killed perhaps 25 million cords of fir and spruce, and landowners responded with accelerated harvests of those species, probably another 15 million cords above what would've been cut w/o budworm.  Those events drastically reduced the amount of softwood cover, and research has shown that when snow is restrictive (18" deep or greater), deer will choose shelter over food, which can lead to heavy mortality if the winter runs long.  Northern Maine had a few big snow winters in the 1990s, but it was the pair of back-to-backs that really clobbered the deer herd there.  Dec. 2003 brought 50-60" for that area, and though the rest of the winter was about average, the clock for restrictive snow had started early.  Then 04-05 finished with 5-6 big storms in Feb-March.  2007-08 brought record snowfall and depths there, and while 08-09 was only somewhat AN for snow, it was much colder and the snow was fluffier.  The 1-2 punch became a 3-4 combo, and the herd has done little to recover there.  The number of any-deer permits has risen quite a bit over the past 2 years thanks to mild temps and modest snowpack in southern Maine, but the northern (and downeast) management districts still get zero permits.

I had 6.5" per hour in that one...not quite the max that just northeast of me had along 495 (Ayer-ASH belt) where someone reported 8" per hour and you yourself recall 7.5" in an hour.

I'm always amazed at such rates from synoptic events, as I've never experienced an hour that brought even 4", though I've seen that rate for shorter times in squalls.  Closest was probably the 2/22-23/09 storm, when I had 9.0" in 2:45, or 3.3"/hr.

Interesting info on the Maine deer....thanks for the detailed response.

 

As for the synoptic rates...it's probably tougher to get the huge synoptic rates (>3" per hour) once you are inland a bit that far north without some aid from terrain (like a E or SE flow into the Mahoosucs)...the moisture is beginning to run a little thinner being further removed from the gulf stream and running deeper into those Cp airmasses....a chunk of the moisture probably gets robbed out by the CF to your southeast...I've seen those Maine coastal towns go gangbusters sometimes.

Not that 4 or 5" per hour is common down here, but it definitely happens probably 2-3 times per decade in a point location. Personally, I've seen it in December '96, April '97, Dec '97 (great stretch there BTW...3 times very close), then had to wait until Dec 9, 2005....then saw it again in February 2013 on the northern extent of the famous CT deathband...then most recently I saw 4"+ per hour in the January 2015 blizzard.

 

I came quite close several other times...Dec '92 was 3" per hour at the best point from my memory (around 8-9pm the first evening), February 2001 came close here...but we didn't get into the max like they did in the CT River Valley out near Springfield...January 2005 was close here...but no cigar....they of course achieved I think 6-7" per hour on the upper Cape in that one. A sneaky one that came close was actually February 7, 2003...that was around 3 inches per hour at the peak. Closer to Scooter on the south shore, I believe they did get 4 inches in an hour as Blue Hill managed over 16 inches in a storm that lasted only 6 hours or so. The south shore also had 4"+ per hour in the Feb 15, 2015 event...and a lot of the rest of E MA. Also came quite close on December 16, 2007...had about 8.5" in 4 hours on the front end thump but the peak was around 3 inches per hour. I'm probably forgetting some other ones that came close...a lot of times a heavy storm might just be several hours of 1-2" per hour, which is very heavy snow...but it is distinctly different than 4" per hour stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Raw day with NW flow rain squalls and temps 45-55F at the mountain.  

This feels like fall.  Full pants, jackets and hats for the final day of August.

Half expecting to see graupel mixing in above 3000ft this afternoon.

I love it raw!

(You guys do this **** all year 'round, huh?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...