CDZ Should college education be available for free to anyone who qualifies academically?

Should a college education be available for free to all who qualify?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • No

    Votes: 17 81.0%

  • Total voters
    21
320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

Red:
Say what?....
  • In your mind, is the theme of this "99%" discussion about the rate of graduation or about the share of average-intelligence (or higher) high school students who receive a high school diploma also mastering reading at a 10th grade level?
    • I absolutely thought this "99%" discussion is about the latter.
    • I really don't care what a school's graduation rate is; I care what the level of accomplishment is for the students who graduate and receive a diploma. I care that the diploma any student receives, be they an "average IQ" or higher student or a "below average IQ" student, reliably means the student has demonstrated a given set of abilities at a given level of proficiency.
  • Do you view receiving a high school diploma as something that occurs as a consequence of one's merely going to school?
    • I don't. I see being awarded a high school diploma as something that happens upon one's having successfully demonstrated a set of scholastic skills and abilities, among them being able to read with some quantifiable adroitness. To that end, oldsoul has proposed that one of those skills be reading at a 10th grade level. In other words, when one who is of at least average intelligence leaves high school as a result of receiving a diploma (graduating), one must have demonstrated one's reading comprehension skill is that comparable to what's expected of a 10th grader.
      • If we want to set lower a standard, say third grade reading level, for students who are not at least of average intelligence fine. In setting that standard for them, I would nonetheless expect that 99% of the folks to whom the lower standard(s) applies meet that standard
      • If that means for, say, Year 1, the school graduates only 30% of its students who were temporally eligible for graduation (i.e., they reached either the terminal grade or terminal age permitted for being in the school), well, then so be it, provided there's nothing suggesting that the instruction they received was adequate.
      • I don't care what students take a given class together. If intellectually below average students are in the same class with average and higher students, then it will fall on the teacher to apply the standard(s) as befits the student's classification. My long dead aunt taught in a rural one room school having some 30 or so kids.

        oneroomschool.jpg


        I know damn well she didn't apply the same learning standards and have the same learning objectives for every student in the room/school. I think if she could apply differing standards for her students, teachers today can do the same thing. In fact, I expect they do for the learning disabled students who, as you describe are taught in the same room as "mainstream" students and who quite simply lack the mental acuity to achieve the proficiency levels expected of "mainstream" students.
Blue:
If a student drops out of school, fine. They don't get a diploma. Remember, I've referring to students who actually do receive a diploma. People who drop out of school may be able to read at a 10th grade level, or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they fail to receive a diploma (or GED), they have nothing indicating that the rest of us (e.g., potential employers) have any way of knowing whether they do or not.

If dropping out and not obtaining a GED/diploma is what they want to do, well, it just is. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I certainly wouldn't grant them a diploma or GED if they haven't demonstrated they deserve one by, among other things, mastering 10th grade reading.
I think that you and I agree on more than it may seem in this thread. I personally am fine with not having a 99% rate of graduation if this is because a reasonably high standard is set. What started this tangent to the OP was the suggestion of having a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% reading at a 10th grade level of higher. Since a high schools graduation rate is based on all its students, not just those likely to meet the educational objectives, all I've been doing is pointing out that achieving both goal collectively is as you put it a pipe dream.

I think you are correct.

TY for the clarification and reminder. I'd forgotten about the 99% graduation rate component of oldsoul's proposal. I realize what you were getting at re: the inversely proportional relationship between ever increasing performance standards and "absolute" graduation rates. Truly, I was asking myself, how could it be, assuming the "99%" standard is in effect, that fewer than 99% of the students who do receive a diploma could do so and not be able to read at a 10th grade level?

I see how now. I assumed/inferred the standard oldsoul sought was "99% of the average or higher intelligence students who graduate (i.e, who receive a high school diploma) have demonstrated they can and do read at least at a 10th grade level." I see now that isn't how you interpreted the proposal, or at least that you didn't make the same inference about it. I maybe should not have either, and I definitely should not have be it that he meant an absolute graduation rate rather than a qualified graduation rate of the nature I've described above.
 
320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

Red:
Say what?....
  • In your mind, is the theme of this "99%" discussion about the rate of graduation or about the share of average-intelligence (or higher) high school students who receive a high school diploma also mastering reading at a 10th grade level?
    • I absolutely thought this "99%" discussion is about the latter.
    • I really don't care what a school's graduation rate is; I care what the level of accomplishment is for the students who graduate and receive a diploma. I care that the diploma any student receives, be they an "average IQ" or higher student or a "below average IQ" student, reliably means the student has demonstrated a given set of abilities at a given level of proficiency.
  • Do you view receiving a high school diploma as something that occurs as a consequence of one's merely going to school?
    • I don't. I see being awarded a high school diploma as something that happens upon one's having successfully demonstrated a set of scholastic skills and abilities, among them being able to read with some quantifiable adroitness. To that end, oldsoul has proposed that one of those skills be reading at a 10th grade level. In other words, when one who is of at least average intelligence leaves high school as a result of receiving a diploma (graduating), one must have demonstrated one's reading comprehension skill is that comparable to what's expected of a 10th grader.
      • If we want to set lower a standard, say third grade reading level, for students who are not at least of average intelligence fine. In setting that standard for them, I would nonetheless expect that 99% of the folks to whom the lower standard(s) applies meet that standard
      • If that means for, say, Year 1, the school graduates only 30% of its students who were temporally eligible for graduation (i.e., they reached either the terminal grade or terminal age permitted for being in the school), well, then so be it, provided there's nothing suggesting that the instruction they received was adequate.
      • I don't care what students take a given class together. If intellectually below average students are in the same class with average and higher students, then it will fall on the teacher to apply the standard(s) as befits the student's classification. My long dead aunt taught in a rural one room school having some 30 or so kids.

        oneroomschool.jpg


        I know damn well she didn't apply the same learning standards and have the same learning objectives for every student in the room/school. I think if she could apply differing standards for her students, teachers today can do the same thing. In fact, I expect they do for the learning disabled students who, as you describe are taught in the same room as "mainstream" students and who quite simply lack the mental acuity to achieve the proficiency levels expected of "mainstream" students.
Blue:
If a student drops out of school, fine. They don't get a diploma. Remember, I've referring to students who actually do receive a diploma. People who drop out of school may be able to read at a 10th grade level, or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they fail to receive a diploma (or GED), they have nothing indicating that the rest of us (e.g., potential employers) have any way of knowing whether they do or not.

If dropping out and not obtaining a GED/diploma is what they want to do, well, it just is. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I certainly wouldn't grant them a diploma or GED if they haven't demonstrated they deserve one by, among other things, mastering 10th grade reading.
I think that you and I agree on more than it may seem in this thread. I personally am fine with not having a 99% rate of graduation if this is because a reasonably high standard is set. What started this tangent to the OP was the suggestion of having a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% reading at a 10th grade level of higher. Since a high schools graduation rate is based on all its students, not just those likely to meet the educational objectives, all I've been doing is pointing out that achieving both goal collectively is as you put it a pipe dream.
May I remind you that a little over a hundred years ago, putting a man on the moon was a "pipe dream", fifty years ago, cell phones where a "pipe dream", heck the computer you are using was once a "pipe dream". Yet all of these things, and more, have come to fruition. If we can accomplish those things, I am confident that with the proper motivation, and diligence, we can accomplish the goal I proposed. It may take 25, 30, even 100 years, but we will prevail, if we set our collective minds to it.
 
320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

Red:
Say what?....
  • In your mind, is the theme of this "99%" discussion about the rate of graduation or about the share of average-intelligence (or higher) high school students who receive a high school diploma also mastering reading at a 10th grade level?
    • I absolutely thought this "99%" discussion is about the latter.
    • I really don't care what a school's graduation rate is; I care what the level of accomplishment is for the students who graduate and receive a diploma. I care that the diploma any student receives, be they an "average IQ" or higher student or a "below average IQ" student, reliably means the student has demonstrated a given set of abilities at a given level of proficiency.
  • Do you view receiving a high school diploma as something that occurs as a consequence of one's merely going to school?
    • I don't. I see being awarded a high school diploma as something that happens upon one's having successfully demonstrated a set of scholastic skills and abilities, among them being able to read with some quantifiable adroitness. To that end, oldsoul has proposed that one of those skills be reading at a 10th grade level. In other words, when one who is of at least average intelligence leaves high school as a result of receiving a diploma (graduating), one must have demonstrated one's reading comprehension skill is that comparable to what's expected of a 10th grader.
      • If we want to set lower a standard, say third grade reading level, for students who are not at least of average intelligence fine. In setting that standard for them, I would nonetheless expect that 99% of the folks to whom the lower standard(s) applies meet that standard
      • If that means for, say, Year 1, the school graduates only 30% of its students who were temporally eligible for graduation (i.e., they reached either the terminal grade or terminal age permitted for being in the school), well, then so be it, provided there's nothing suggesting that the instruction they received was adequate.
      • I don't care what students take a given class together. If intellectually below average students are in the same class with average and higher students, then it will fall on the teacher to apply the standard(s) as befits the student's classification. My long dead aunt taught in a rural one room school having some 30 or so kids.

        oneroomschool.jpg


        I know damn well she didn't apply the same learning standards and have the same learning objectives for every student in the room/school. I think if she could apply differing standards for her students, teachers today can do the same thing. In fact, I expect they do for the learning disabled students who, as you describe are taught in the same room as "mainstream" students and who quite simply lack the mental acuity to achieve the proficiency levels expected of "mainstream" students.
Blue:
If a student drops out of school, fine. They don't get a diploma. Remember, I've referring to students who actually do receive a diploma. People who drop out of school may be able to read at a 10th grade level, or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they fail to receive a diploma (or GED), they have nothing indicating that the rest of us (e.g., potential employers) have any way of knowing whether they do or not.

If dropping out and not obtaining a GED/diploma is what they want to do, well, it just is. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I certainly wouldn't grant them a diploma or GED if they haven't demonstrated they deserve one by, among other things, mastering 10th grade reading.
I think that you and I agree on more than it may seem in this thread. I personally am fine with not having a 99% rate of graduation if this is because a reasonably high standard is set. What started this tangent to the OP was the suggestion of having a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% reading at a 10th grade level of higher. Since a high schools graduation rate is based on all its students, not just those likely to meet the educational objectives, all I've been doing is pointing out that achieving both goal collectively is as you put it a pipe dream.
May I remind you that a little over a hundred years ago, putting a man on the moon was a "pipe dream", fifty years ago, cell phones where a "pipe dream", heck the computer you are using was once a "pipe dream". Yet all of these things, and more, have come to fruition. If we can accomplish those things, I am confident that with the proper motivation, and diligence, we can accomplish the goal I proposed. It may take 25, 30, even 100 years, but we will prevail, if we set our collective minds to it.
In the future we may have a population that is genetically engineered to be more intelligent and more motivated. So perhaps we should also have the goals of a 99% graduation rate and that 99% of the graduates will be proficient in calculus.

Lookout rubber tree plant!
 
320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

Red:
Say what?....
  • In your mind, is the theme of this "99%" discussion about the rate of graduation or about the share of average-intelligence (or higher) high school students who receive a high school diploma also mastering reading at a 10th grade level?
    • I absolutely thought this "99%" discussion is about the latter.
    • I really don't care what a school's graduation rate is; I care what the level of accomplishment is for the students who graduate and receive a diploma. I care that the diploma any student receives, be they an "average IQ" or higher student or a "below average IQ" student, reliably means the student has demonstrated a given set of abilities at a given level of proficiency.
  • Do you view receiving a high school diploma as something that occurs as a consequence of one's merely going to school?
    • I don't. I see being awarded a high school diploma as something that happens upon one's having successfully demonstrated a set of scholastic skills and abilities, among them being able to read with some quantifiable adroitness. To that end, oldsoul has proposed that one of those skills be reading at a 10th grade level. In other words, when one who is of at least average intelligence leaves high school as a result of receiving a diploma (graduating), one must have demonstrated one's reading comprehension skill is that comparable to what's expected of a 10th grader.
      • If we want to set lower a standard, say third grade reading level, for students who are not at least of average intelligence fine. In setting that standard for them, I would nonetheless expect that 99% of the folks to whom the lower standard(s) applies meet that standard
      • If that means for, say, Year 1, the school graduates only 30% of its students who were temporally eligible for graduation (i.e., they reached either the terminal grade or terminal age permitted for being in the school), well, then so be it, provided there's nothing suggesting that the instruction they received was adequate.
      • I don't care what students take a given class together. If intellectually below average students are in the same class with average and higher students, then it will fall on the teacher to apply the standard(s) as befits the student's classification. My long dead aunt taught in a rural one room school having some 30 or so kids.

        oneroomschool.jpg


        I know damn well she didn't apply the same learning standards and have the same learning objectives for every student in the room/school. I think if she could apply differing standards for her students, teachers today can do the same thing. In fact, I expect they do for the learning disabled students who, as you describe are taught in the same room as "mainstream" students and who quite simply lack the mental acuity to achieve the proficiency levels expected of "mainstream" students.
Blue:
If a student drops out of school, fine. They don't get a diploma. Remember, I've referring to students who actually do receive a diploma. People who drop out of school may be able to read at a 10th grade level, or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they fail to receive a diploma (or GED), they have nothing indicating that the rest of us (e.g., potential employers) have any way of knowing whether they do or not.

If dropping out and not obtaining a GED/diploma is what they want to do, well, it just is. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I certainly wouldn't grant them a diploma or GED if they haven't demonstrated they deserve one by, among other things, mastering 10th grade reading.
I think that you and I agree on more than it may seem in this thread. I personally am fine with not having a 99% rate of graduation if this is because a reasonably high standard is set. What started this tangent to the OP was the suggestion of having a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% reading at a 10th grade level of higher. Since a high schools graduation rate is based on all its students, not just those likely to meet the educational objectives, all I've been doing is pointing out that achieving both goal collectively is as you put it a pipe dream.
May I remind you that a little over a hundred years ago, putting a man on the moon was a "pipe dream", fifty years ago, cell phones where a "pipe dream", heck the computer you are using was once a "pipe dream". Yet all of these things, and more, have come to fruition. If we can accomplish those things, I am confident that with the proper motivation, and diligence, we can accomplish the goal I proposed. It may take 25, 30, even 100 years, but we will prevail, if we set our collective minds to it.
In the future we may have a population that is genetically engineered to be more intelligent and more motivated. So perhaps we should also have the goals of a 99% graduation rate and that 99% of the graduates will be proficient in calculus.

Lookout rubber tree plant!

As an aside....I recall to this day sitting in calculus class and thinking, "This is much easier than Alg2-Trig/Precalculus. Why in the world they don't just teach this instead is beyond me." Of course, I was just a kid at the time. Be that as it may, it's still not clear to me why calculus isn't a required course for all "mainstream" high school students.

I say that because I found calculus more interesting not entirely for the math skills of calculus itself, but rather for the the things I learned about the subject matters to which it applies. For example, I didn't think economics was particularly interesting as a discipline until I was in calculus class taking derivatives of non-linear demand/supply curves.

Calculus was the first time in my studying math that the "word problems" I had to solve seemed like things one would actually want to know. In algebra, we'd get questions like "Jane spent $42 for shoes. This was $14 less than twice what she spent for a blouse. How much was the blouse?" I distinctly recall thinking, "Who cares? It's her money, and she spent it on both of them. She knows what the blouse costs. You want to know? Call Jane and ask her. Why do I need to know?" In calculus, by contrast, I was presented with questions like, "If a producer faces a given set of supply, demand, revenue, and total cost curves, how many widgets should he produce in order to maximize profit? How much should he sell them for? How much more or less would he earn if "this or that curve" shifts (up or down) by so much?" That stuck me as questions for which one would actually have a very good reason for wanting to know, particularly if one is the producer.

Though economics appealed to me more so than other applications, calculus applies to lots of disciplines -- biology, computer science, and physics, for example. The thing I found in each area was that consistently, calculus provided a means for answering questions that (1) made sense to ask and (2) for which being able to determine the answer for oneself was worthwhile. Of course, I understand and recognize the importance/facility of the applications of algebra and trig in "the real world" too, it's more that the majority of the questions those disciplines allow me to answer, at least as they were presented in middle school and high school, aren't ones for which the answer struck me as something I thought was particularly interesting to discover.

The point I'm making is that calculus makes a wealth of other disciplines interesting. Taking calculus spurred my curiosity about all sorts of things that no other math class before did. I think that deferring calculus until one enters college is a disservice to young, developing minds. People often say, rightly, to college students, "Study/major in whatever interests you." Well, I didn't actually know for sure what truly interested me until I took calculus. I suspect, seeing as the human condition isn't unique, I may not be alone in that regard.
 
320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

Red:
Say what?....
  • In your mind, is the theme of this "99%" discussion about the rate of graduation or about the share of average-intelligence (or higher) high school students who receive a high school diploma also mastering reading at a 10th grade level?
    • I absolutely thought this "99%" discussion is about the latter.
    • I really don't care what a school's graduation rate is; I care what the level of accomplishment is for the students who graduate and receive a diploma. I care that the diploma any student receives, be they an "average IQ" or higher student or a "below average IQ" student, reliably means the student has demonstrated a given set of abilities at a given level of proficiency.
  • Do you view receiving a high school diploma as something that occurs as a consequence of one's merely going to school?
    • I don't. I see being awarded a high school diploma as something that happens upon one's having successfully demonstrated a set of scholastic skills and abilities, among them being able to read with some quantifiable adroitness. To that end, oldsoul has proposed that one of those skills be reading at a 10th grade level. In other words, when one who is of at least average intelligence leaves high school as a result of receiving a diploma (graduating), one must have demonstrated one's reading comprehension skill is that comparable to what's expected of a 10th grader.
      • If we want to set lower a standard, say third grade reading level, for students who are not at least of average intelligence fine. In setting that standard for them, I would nonetheless expect that 99% of the folks to whom the lower standard(s) applies meet that standard
      • If that means for, say, Year 1, the school graduates only 30% of its students who were temporally eligible for graduation (i.e., they reached either the terminal grade or terminal age permitted for being in the school), well, then so be it, provided there's nothing suggesting that the instruction they received was adequate.
      • I don't care what students take a given class together. If intellectually below average students are in the same class with average and higher students, then it will fall on the teacher to apply the standard(s) as befits the student's classification. My long dead aunt taught in a rural one room school having some 30 or so kids.

        oneroomschool.jpg


        I know damn well she didn't apply the same learning standards and have the same learning objectives for every student in the room/school. I think if she could apply differing standards for her students, teachers today can do the same thing. In fact, I expect they do for the learning disabled students who, as you describe are taught in the same room as "mainstream" students and who quite simply lack the mental acuity to achieve the proficiency levels expected of "mainstream" students.
Blue:
If a student drops out of school, fine. They don't get a diploma. Remember, I've referring to students who actually do receive a diploma. People who drop out of school may be able to read at a 10th grade level, or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they fail to receive a diploma (or GED), they have nothing indicating that the rest of us (e.g., potential employers) have any way of knowing whether they do or not.

If dropping out and not obtaining a GED/diploma is what they want to do, well, it just is. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I certainly wouldn't grant them a diploma or GED if they haven't demonstrated they deserve one by, among other things, mastering 10th grade reading.
I think that you and I agree on more than it may seem in this thread. I personally am fine with not having a 99% rate of graduation if this is because a reasonably high standard is set. What started this tangent to the OP was the suggestion of having a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% reading at a 10th grade level of higher. Since a high schools graduation rate is based on all its students, not just those likely to meet the educational objectives, all I've been doing is pointing out that achieving both goal collectively is as you put it a pipe dream.
May I remind you that a little over a hundred years ago, putting a man on the moon was a "pipe dream", fifty years ago, cell phones where a "pipe dream", heck the computer you are using was once a "pipe dream". Yet all of these things, and more, have come to fruition. If we can accomplish those things, I am confident that with the proper motivation, and diligence, we can accomplish the goal I proposed. It may take 25, 30, even 100 years, but we will prevail, if we set our collective minds to it.
In the future we may have a population that is genetically engineered to be more intelligent and more motivated. So perhaps we should also have the goals of a 99% graduation rate and that 99% of the graduates will be proficient in calculus.

Lookout rubber tree plant!


FWIW, I don't necessarily think that one need to be especially adept at calculus, not in the same way I think one needs to master reading comprehension and writing. Understanding the concepts and principles of calculus' applications is important to get under one's belt, but at the end of the day, math is a language that is used to communicate to greater and lesser extents in various fields. In contrast, one's must use one's spoken language to communicate in every field. I think far too many people view the evolutionary nature of language as exculpating them from being adept at using the spoken/written word as precisely as they'd use an equation to communicate about the behavior of a falling apple or the placement and angle of a line.
 

Forum List

Back
Top