• Member Statistics

    15,771
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    jensenburnett
    Newest Member
    jensenburnett
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Yankees29

Climate Change, Today's Students, and Anything Else

Recommended Posts

To catch up, on the topic of climate change I made the point that the freshmen I teach (mostly) follow blindly what they're hearing (and have heard) in various classrooms.  Weatherpruf pointed out that the students he sees today are the brightest he's seen in over 3 decades.  My response was: 

It's not a function of intelligence. The issue is knowledge (they're being preached to from the time they set foot in a school).  What they lack is the interest / ability (?) to think outside the box - to ask themselves the question, "How do I know what (I think) I know?"

So.. dive in if you like but let's keep it civil, to the point, and with no pejoratives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Yankees29 said:

To catch up, on the topic of climate change I made the point that the freshmen I teach (mostly) follow blindly what they're hearing (and have heard) in various classrooms.  Weatherpruf pointed out that the students he sees today are the brightest he's seen in over 3 decades.  My response was: 

It's not a function of intelligence. The issue is knowledge (they're being preached to from the time they set foot in a school).  What they lack is the interest / ability (?) to think outside the box - to ask themselves the question, "How do I know what (I think) I know?"

So.. dive in if you like but let's keep it civil, to the point, and with no pejoratives.

This could be true for any subject in the entire world. 

Why don't they challenge that 2+2=4? Why don't they challenge that the earth revolves around the sun?

Let's take it a step further. Why dont they challenge the ideas of "manifest destiny" that the white colonists were "destined" to conquer the natives? Maybe this is too uncomfortable for some, and only certain ideas should be challenged?

Why dont they challenge the idea that democracy is the best form of government for all peoples? 

Why dont they challenge the essence of religion, explore the motivations for religion, the similarities between ancient religions and the monotheistic religions? 

The truth is, if students were REALLY challenged to think "outside the box", 90% of what they know from a historical, religious, political and social perspective will be turned upside down.

I agree students should think outside the box and see where they end up. The truth does prevail in the end of the day, and after the dust settles, those who are in favor of progress are usually correct. 

Think about those who feared the end of slavery. It would decimate the country. Turns out, after the Civil War, we grew and eventually became the worlds superpower. Those who seek cling to the past are often left behind, as the progressives views are often based in fact. Look at gay marriage. As an attorney who practices in constitutional law, there is NO doubt that the constitution mandates equal protection for all peoples, regardless of sexual orientation. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage being between a man and a woman, and progressives had this one correct. The conservative Supreme Court agreed, and the right side won. This sequence of events, in my opinion, will go on to include climate change, and the conservatives, once again, will be on the wrong side of history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Will - Rutgers said:

all kids wanna do is play fortnite on their cell phones and install LED lightbulbs in their Teslas all day smh

Yup, just like my generation played playstation and xbox. And the Gen Xers played nintendo and watched MTV all day. and the Boomers smoked grass and listened to records all day...

Its always been those "Damn kids" :shakes fist in air: "Get off my lawn!"

Some of the comments on this board are funny

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, psv88 said:

Yup, just like my generation played playstation and xbox. And the Gen Xers played nintendo and watched MTV all day. and the Boomers smoked grass and listened to records all day...

Its always been those "Damn kids" :shakes fist in air: "Get off my lawn!"

Some of the comments on this board are funny

OP refused to take penicillin until he ran his own FDA study demonstrating its efficacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, psv88 said:

This could be true for any subject in the entire world. 

Why don't they challenge that 2+2=4? Why don't they challenge that the earth revolves around the sun?

 

That's the point (of my message to my students) t-h-i-n-k for yourself.  Don't just jump on any bandwagon that floats by just because everyone else is on it.  But the the big issue isn't climate change.  About that there is no debate - of course climate changes.  The debate is about what is being proposed to stop it, change, or somehow to influence it.  And what's being proposed is a governmental push toward massive controls on industry, increased taxes, and having the UN control it all.  And all that is based on CO2 emissions?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Yankees29 said:

That's the point (of my message to my students) t-h-i-n-k for yourself.  Don't just jump on any bandwagon that floats by just because everyone else is on it.  But the the big issue isn't climate change.  About that there is no debate - of course climate changes.  The debate is about what is being proposed to stop it, change, or somehow to influence it.  And what's being proposed is a governmental push toward massive controls on industry, increased taxes, and having the UN control it all.  And all that is based on CO2 emissions?!

Massive controls on industry and heavily increased taxes on carbon and fossil fuels sounds great.  Construction of new coal plants in the United States should also be banned and every one of them should be scheduled for decommissioning along with the institution of complementary plans to replace lost baseload and peak energy needs via nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal energy.  Rooftop solar should be mandatory for all new construction.  ICE engines should be phased out entirely unless they have some use for which they are absolutely irreplaceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankees29 said:

That's the point (of my message to my students) t-h-i-n-k for yourself.  Don't just jump on any bandwagon that floats by just because everyone else is on it.  But the the big issue isn't climate change.  About that there is no debate - of course climate changes.  The debate is about what is being proposed to stop it, change, or somehow to influence it.  And what's being proposed is a governmental push toward massive controls on industry, increased taxes, and having the UN control it all.  And all that is based on CO2 emissions?!

What if your students thought for themselves, and came to a conclusion which was uncomfortable to you personally. How would you react? Would you respect their conclusion? Or find another excuse to dismiss it? And if you accept their position, how does that impact your own viewpoints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankees29 said:

That's the point (of my message to my students) t-h-i-n-k for yourself.  Don't just jump on any bandwagon that floats by just because everyone else is on it.  But the the big issue isn't climate change.  About that there is no debate - of course climate changes.  The debate is about what is being proposed to stop it, change, or somehow to influence it.  And what's being proposed is a governmental push toward massive controls on industry, increased taxes, and having the UN control it all.  And all that is based on CO2 emissions?!

We do not have nearly enough controls on industry as it is. Regulations designed to protect the public are being rolled back at a frightening pace; career scientists are quitting government in disgust. Some common sense, modest restrictions on the finance industry have been attacked as overreaching. There are people wanting to bring back asbestos, a known carcinogen, and a substance even the ancient Greeks knew made miners sick. The commons do not belong to the private sector, and they cannot just do whatever they want to them. As an angler, I have watched with disgust how GE has tried to avoid cleaning up the mess it made in the Hudson River. And for this crime Welch was called a genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, psv88 said:

What if your students thought for themselves, and came to a conclusion which was uncomfortable to you personally. How would you react? Would you respect their conclusion? Or find another excuse to dismiss it? And if you accept their position, how does that impact your own viewpoints?

I always respected my students, even when they supported criminal politicians who were outright war criminals. Because they were young and I did not want them to buy my ideas hook line and sinker. I wanted them to draw their own conclusions. If they argued a case well, they got an A. Even if I disagreed with it. I wasn't there to teach politics, but writing. However, I did not allow the entertainment of denial of facts on things like the Holocaust. Historical denial is something every educator at any level must confront when it comes up. To do otherwise is malpractice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Will - Rutgers said:

Massive controls on industry and heavily increased taxes on carbon and fossil fuels sounds great.  Construction of new coal plants in the United States should also be banned and every one of them should be scheduled for decommissioning along with the institution of complementary plans to replace lost baseload and peak energy needs via nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal energy.  Rooftop solar should be mandatory for all new construction.  ICE engines should be phased out entirely unless they have some use for which they are absolutely irreplaceable.

I do wonder what they are going to replace jet engines and outboards with; will the alternatives have the needed power? An engineer I'm not; I am not afraid to admit what I do not know. That is why I defer to experts. It's why I take my blood pressure medicine and do regular exercise, because an expert advises it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, weatherpruf said:

I do wonder what they are going to replace jet engines and outboards with; will the alternatives have the needed power? An engineer I'm not; I am not afraid to admit what I do not know. That is why I defer to experts. It's why I take my blood pressure medicine and do regular exercise, because an expert advises it.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/all-electric-jet-firm-eviation-announces-us-airline-as-first-customer.html

Not that I've done any kind of deep dive into electric jets but evidently they're possible and companies are actively working on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To catch up, on the topic of climate change I made the point that the freshmen I teach (mostly) follow blindly what they're hearing (and have heard) in various classrooms.  Weatherpruf pointed out that the students he sees today are the brightest he's seen in over 3 decades.  My response was: 
It's not a function of intelligence. The issue is knowledge (they're being preached to from the time they set foot in a school).  What they lack is the interest / ability (?) to think outside the box - to ask themselves the question, "How do I know what (I think) I know?"
So.. dive in if you like but let's keep it civil, to the point, and with no pejoratives.


As a high school social studies teacher in the area I have to disagree with you. At this point in my career I have taught 9-12th grade as well as regents, honors, AP, and other college level courses. Claims, evidence and reasoning is drilled into them during middle school, sometimes it sticks and other times it doesn’t. We continue and elevate that at the high school level with a focus on analysis. Some really get it and it is apparent with where they continue their education. I would say that social promotion is an issue and there is a small percentage of students who are being pushed through.

On a side note if we are talking about issues with our education system we should point out how many colleges have become predatory institutions that accept anyone and charge absurd tuition to students that should not be there. Sign the dotted line and you can get yourself 60k a year on a variable interest rate. There are many students that are much better suited for vocational schools but are being told that a bachelors is the only way to go. Many of my wealthiest friends own their own plumbing or electrical business. This issue here isn’t the students. There are still tons of bright, talented, hard working students!


.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of my pet peeves is noaa smoothing monthly averages lower than the actual average for the same period...calling it normal...then comparing it to actual numbers...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MikeStorms said:

 


As a high school social studies teacher in the area I have to disagree with you. At this point in my career I have taught 9-12th grade as well as regents, honors, AP, and other college level courses. Claims, evidence and reasoning is drilled into them during middle school, sometimes it sticks and other times it doesn’t. We continue and elevate that at the high school level with a focus on analysis. Some really get it and it is apparent with where they continue their education. I would say that social promotion is an issue and there is a small percentage of students who are being pushed through.

On a side note if we are talking about issues with our education system we should point out how many colleges have become predatory institutions that accept anyone and charge absurd tuition to students that should not be there. Sign the dotted line and you can get yourself 60k a year on a variable interest rate. There are many students that are much better suited for vocational schools but are being told that a bachelors is the only way to go. Many of my wealthiest friends own their own plumbing or electrical business. This issue here isn’t the students. There are still tons of bright, talented, hard working students!


.

 

Kudos to you and your district.  Sounds like heads are on straight from the top down.  Unfortunately, at the college where I teach, the PC mantra is alive and well and drives all else.  There are some profs who will grade on whether or not a student toes the “party line”.  Since I teach math I don’t have too much opportunity to address issues that you can address, but if I had that opportunity I do believe my job would be in jeopardy for any hint of questioning the “facts”.  When I taught hs, the environment was much more in keeping with what you’ve described. 

The bottom line is that students are all individuals and painting them with a broad brush is inaccurate.  My observation – though broad brush in nature – really reflected a small sample size (my class) but a larger climate, i.e. the university.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yankees29 said:

Kudos to you and your district.  Sounds like heads are on straight from the top down.  Unfortunately, at the college where I teach, the PC mantra is alive and well and drives all else.  There are some profs who will grade on whether or not a student toes the “party line”.  Since I teach math I don’t have too much opportunity to address issues that you can address, but if I had that opportunity I do believe my job would be in jeopardy for any hint of questioning the “facts”.  When I taught hs, the environment was much more in keeping with what you’ve described. 

The bottom line is that students are all individuals and painting them with a broad brush is inaccurate.  My observation – though broad brush in nature – really reflected a small sample size (my class) but a larger climate, i.e. the university.

What pisses me off is that the right wingers assume that any student who went to a university and comes to liberal conclusions was brainwashed. The right wingers are incredibly hypocritical in this regard, as they do the same thing they accuse liberals of doing, stating a preference for political viewpoints. They simply cannot accept that many students simply agree with liberal policies. 

For example, students who may not have known about the restrictions historically placed on the ability of minorities to vote, such as the poll tax, will change their views on voter suppression after learning about same. The idea that voter restrictions are about "voter fraud" dates back to the Jim Crow era, but without education about the Jim Crow era policies (which have been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), young people would not understand the origins and dangers of voter suppression. Unfortunately, voter suppression has become a left-right issue, and clearly the left has the high ground here. So in this instance, education leads to the more "liberal" viewpoint. This is how education works, students learn about the fundamentals of our country, and are then able to analyze current events and form an opinion. Trump's mantra that he "loves the uneducated" is proof that the right wingers are scared about young people learning about the past, so their decisions can be more informed. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, psv88 said:

What pisses me off is that the right wingers assume that any student who went to a university and comes to liberal conclusions was brainwashed. The right wingers are incredibly hypocritical in this regard, as they do the same thing they accuse liberals of doing, stating a preference for political viewpoints. They simply cannot accept that many students simply agree with liberal policies. 

For example, students who may not have known about the restrictions historically placed on the ability of minorities to vote, such as the poll tax, will change their views on voter suppression after learning about same. The idea that voter restrictions are about "voter fraud" dates back to the Jim Crow era, but without education about the Jim Crow era policies (which have been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), young people would not understand the origins and dangers of voter suppression. Unfortunately, voter suppression has become a left-right issue, and clearly the left has the high ground here. So in this instance, education leads to the more "liberal" viewpoint. This is how education works, students learn about the fundamentals of our country, and are then able to analyze current events and form an opinion. Trump's mantra that he "loves the uneducated" is proof that the right wingers are scared about young people learning about the past, so their decisions can be more informed. 

Very good piece.

Today, there are elected officials who recognize that the public already rejects what they are offering or who are fearful that an increasingly diverse electorate will reject their policies/agendas. Those insecure elected officials embrace and advocate voter suppression initiatives that they deceptively package as efforts to prevent voter fraud. In reality, there is little empirical evidence that a significant voter fraud problem exists.

Those unscrupulous elected officials understand from trends in exit polling data that they are confronted by deteriorating competitiveness in an environment where broad voter participation exists. They fear an increasingly diverse electorate, young voters, and college-educated voters. They are desperate to preserve their hold on office, even if fundamental rights of citizens need to be abridged to achieve that end. Cynically, some of those political officials and those who support them describe themselves as "Constitutionalists" despite their decidedly anti-constitutional views.

Voters and broad voter participation are not the problem. Those elected officials are the problem. Their declining political competitiveness is a direct consequence of the growing gap between their policy ideas/solutions and the needs/expectations of the electorate.  They seek to avoid accountability at the hands of the electorate.

In a market-setting, where all transactions are voluntary, when companies don't satisfy consumers' needs and preferences, consumers shift their purchases to competitors. However, from the perspective of those seeking to suppress voting, the consumers, not companies providing inferior value, would be to blame. Their remedy would be to impose restrictions that curtail consumer choice.

That's really what voter suppression initiatives are. They seek to deprive voters of full and free choice and preclude those who might vote 'the wrong way' from participating. To the extent that such initiatives succeed, they undermine the fundamental rights of all citizens. They divert the nation's course away from the pursuit of the "more perfect Union" envisioned in the Constitution's preamble.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

 

some of those political officials and those who support them describe themselves as "Constitutionalists" despite their decidedly anti-constitutional views.

 

Can you give us the name or names of these politicians? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Torch said:

Can you give us the name or names of these politicians? 

Here's one example and the sponsors' names are shown. This law was ultimately struck down in court.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2013/2013R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=sb2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Torch said:

Okay thanks. So get me up to speed. As it stands down south, voting without identification is in fact legal and constitutional?

Here's a link: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

And here's a court ruling on the type of laws I'm criticizing. Page 10 and afterward (.PDF) is informative:

https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Torch said:

Does that mean that the many states that do require strict I.D. are technically unconstitutional?

Not necessarily. Those that create barriers e.g., de facto poll taxes, to obtaining such IDs or make it difficult for people to obtain them would be unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Not necessarily. Those that create barriers e.g., de facto poll taxes, to obtaining such IDs or make it difficult for people to obtain them would be unconstitutional.

Are these barriers hidden or can I research state by state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Torch said:

Are these barriers hidden or can I research state by state?

You will need to research them and related court cases.

One example from NC (for which the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to intervene):

And here's a court ruling on the type of laws I'm criticizing. Page 10 and afterward (.PDF) is informative:

https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, psv88 said:

What pisses me off is that the right wingers assume that any student who went to a university and comes to liberal conclusions was brainwashed. The right wingers are incredibly hypocritical in this regard, as they do the same thing they accuse liberals of doing, stating a preference for political viewpoints. They simply cannot accept that many students simply agree with liberal policies. 

For example, students who may not have known about the restrictions historically placed on the ability of minorities to vote, such as the poll tax, will change their views on voter suppression after learning about same. The idea that voter restrictions are about "voter fraud" dates back to the Jim Crow era, but without education about the Jim Crow era policies (which have been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), young people would not understand the origins and dangers of voter suppression. Unfortunately, voter suppression has become a left-right issue, and clearly the left has the high ground here. So in this instance, education leads to the more "liberal" viewpoint. This is how education works, students learn about the fundamentals of our country, and are then able to analyze current events and form an opinion. Trump's mantra that he "loves the uneducated" is proof that the right wingers are scared about young people learning about the past, so their decisions can be more informed. 

You're dealing with what for me is a slippery slope.  On the one hand the abuses, the prejudice, the evils committed in the past are reprehensible to me.  On the other hand I am strongly opposed to the idea  that I have responsibility for my "grandfather's" sins.  Re: voter suppression, clearly wrong and needs to be stopped, however, requiring proof that one is in fact a citizen of this country is absolutely proper as long as there is not a restrictive covenant to voting involved.  Finally, it is a mistake to use broad-brush labels such as "right-wingers", leftists, et al as if to suggest that all members of any group -- political or otherwise -- all feel the same way about every issue.

As far as students coming to a liberal conclusion -- fine - -as long as they have all the facts and are not intimidated by their profs as is the case at my university.  Do you think that students are presented with, or are asked to comment about the blatant contradiction when liberals say "No one is above the law," when dealing with Trump's impeachment while they support sanctuary cities?  Sanctuary from what?  Oh yeah, the law.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yankees29 said:

You're dealing with what for me is a slippery slope.  On the one hand the abuses, the prejudice, the evils committed in the past are reprehensible to me.  On the other hand I am strongly opposed to the idea  that I have responsibility for my "grandfather's" sins.  Re: voter suppression, clearly wrong and needs to be stopped, however, requiring proof that one is in fact a citizen of this country is absolutely proper as long as there is not a restrictive covenant to voting involved.  Finally, it is a mistake to use broad-brush labels such as "right-wingers", leftists, et al as if to suggest that all members of any group -- political or otherwise -- all feel the same way about every issue.

You're "responsible" for your grandfather's sins in the sense that you are the product of the past and all that has taken place before you. Disavowing the past while doing nothing to help correct the current outcomes of abuses you say are reprehensible effectively means you're ok with those abuses.

2 hours ago, Yankees29 said:

As far as students coming to a liberal conclusion -- fine - -as long as they have all the facts and are not intimidated by their profs as is the case at my university.  Do you think that students are presented with, or are asked to comment about the blatant contradiction when liberals say "No one is above the law," when dealing with Trump's impeachment while they support sanctuary cities?  Sanctuary from what?  Oh yeah, the law.

 

This is a contradiction only so long as you are parsing the argument literally. Now, I can't speak for the hypothetical people you're referencing re impeachment and sanctuary cities, but the difference here is a support of justice versus a support of law. One certainly has to do with the other, but they are not strictly synonymous. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Minenfeld! said:

You're "responsible" for your grandfather's sins in the sense that you are the product of the past and all that has taken place before you. Disavowing the past while doing nothing to help correct the current outcomes of abuses you say are reprehensible effectively means you're ok with those abuses.

This is a contradiction only so long as you are parsing the argument literally. Now, I can't speak for the hypothetical people you're referencing re impeachment and sanctuary cities, but the difference here is a support of justice versus a support of law. One certainly has to do with the other, but they are not strictly synonymous. 

 "Product" of the past... no.  Influenced by it, of course.  I don't "disavow" the past.  I do quite a bit to deal with injustice - in the present.  The problem with (as is now the case) trying to legislate to "correct" the past is that it creates injustices in the present.  Injustice must be viewed as it applies to individuals, not to groups.  To apply it to groups (racial, ethnic, or otherwise) will, of necessity create injustices for individuals in the present.  Then how do we fix those in the future?  Look, very little pisses me off more than the racial history of our country.  Trying to fix that in some way is unfortunately not possible, but creating more injustice isn't the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.