Election Methodologies Discussion WARNING: HERE BE DRAGONS!!!

[Karro]

Heh.... well....again, how is the current system any different/better? People still tend to vote for people that they like based on personality(or the effectiveness of the opponents negative adds really), not based on what the persons political goals are. Ultimatly, being rich does not nessisarily make one better qualified by default to lead the country, nor does education a leader make. Of course, I would feel a bit better about a candidate who built their own wealth, especially one who had created wealth and lost it for some reason and rebounded, than someone who was born into wealth.

There's the catch-22. The current system pretty much is full of holes and generally sucks, but it's proven profoundly difficult to find an alternate system that isn't also full of holes or sucks in whole new and different ways. And even if we could, since there is no political will to enact change, it would be profoundly difficult to institute such change. (I read an article today that referred to the U.S. Senate as "the place sweeping reform goes to die", and suggested that this is exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be... I think it's right on both counts.)

But yeah, I agree, I'm no big fan of the idea of the people who run our country being little more an unofficial aristocracy of inherrited wealth. That's the barely concealed reality, generally, but it still rankles. The American dream is one of self-made wealth and prosperity. It still happens, but it's getting harder to make it happen all the time.

no child left behind, in fact slows the learning of the children who can compete.. we need more of a specialization in our schools..

Now I cant personally blame the schools for my actions, but as I went through school, the way they had it set up, was 75% of your final grade was the end of grade (or EoG) test, and I knew this, so I didn't do any of the work during the year, because I already understood it, and it bored me.
I made perfect 4's on the EoGs, and therefore passed.
However when I got to high school, the End of Course (or EoC) tests were only worth 25% of the final grade, and my work ethic was so skewed by that point, that I failed many of my classes.

Now if there had been more of a specialization for me at a younger age, I wouldn't have gotten bored with my work, and I would be in a college right now under a good scholarship, on my way to doing something great, but instead, here I am stuck in a backwoods town, perhaps for the rest of my natural life.

I was lucky enough to get through my public schooling, and finish college, before NCLB came along. And even though I went to a small, backwater college in a backwater town (after graduating from a backwater high school), simply by virtue of the fact that the U.S. Universities are generally so stellar, even my crappy State University provided a decent education.

But most of my graduating high school class probably knew less coming out of High School then they knew going in.

[jfrazierjr]

But most of my graduating high school class probably knew less coming out of High School then they knew going in.

lol. It's amazing to see that 3rd grade Standardized tests kids are generally staying the same or getting better, while the 8th grade tests are generally falling when compared to other countries. It's like the longer you go to school, the dumberer you get. Don't get me wrong(I am a college drop out, which I attribute mainly to ADD now that I have been diagnosed at the age 35), I have several teachers(Mother, cousin, one deceased aunt, another aunt) in my family and I don't blame them, I blame the buttinskis in the "administration" who basically handcuff them the ability to actuall do their job with any success. It's almost like those in charge want them to fail , and are lowering the bar every year(hmmm perhaps I should go find my tinfoil hat ).