Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Thanks AN, does the carp make good soup if the chunks have been stored in the freezer or does it have to be fresh?[/quote]Obviously, fresh is better. But if you freeze, it’s up to you to decide whether the meat is still good enough or not (I’m not picky so I think so), but at the very least, you can you to fish itself to make the soup base. Then, if you think the meat isn’t good enough, you can use shrimp as another seafood to go into your soup to eat.
ParticipantWhen we eat fish, we don’t filet the fish. We tend to just cook the whole fish in the pot of soup. Either cook the whole thing or chop it up into 3-4 chunks. Then you can pick at the meat as you eat. I prefer eating fishes with tough bones vs small wimpy bones. Much less likely to choke on the bones.
ParticipantCarp fish soup is good. Also, deep fried fish with rice is great too.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=AN]
Neither. Most criminals don’t work.[/quote]You know what the eff she meant.
Do most employed persons who commit crimes work in the public or private sector.
If you want to get technical, I would submit that virtually every person alive has broken the law at some point. Making us all criminals. And most of us work.
[img_assist|nid=17992|title=What Day Is It|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=500|height=500][/quote]
wow, someone got their panties in a bunch.ParticipantHe’s not a designer, but he does have pretty good ideas.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=no_such_reality]
Although we can just had her to the list of bad behavior by those stringently hired and ‘qualified’ gub’ment workers.[/quote]Ba-zinga :-D[/quote]Do you think most criminals come from the private sector, or the public sector (proportionally)?[/quote]
Neither. Most criminals don’t work.Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
Although we can just had her to the list of bad behavior by those stringently hired and ‘qualified’ gub’ment workers.[/quote]Ba-zinga 😀Participant[quote=CA renter]AN, since you seem to think that unions and teacher tenure are the problem, can you point to any studies that compare outcomes from schools where teacher tenure/union is the rule vs. schools where teachers are at-will, non-union employees with no rights to due process?
Remember, the key is to compare apples to apples, so variables regarding student/parent demographics/SES, and teachers’ resources must be held constant.
————
Edited to add:
Let’s even assume that we would want to get rid of teacher tenure. This would mean that teacher turnover (already very high, especially among newer teachers) would rise even further. Do you have any evidence to show that if you were to fire 100 experienced (but supposedly deficient) teachers that the pool of 100 new teachers would be any better? Again, it’s very well known in education circles that new teachers have a very steep learning curve and that most new teachers are deficient when compared to experienced teachers.[/quote]I don’t know of any study, but I’ve seen “Waiting for superman” and the “Rubber room” was brought to my attention. There’s no guarantee that the teachers who replaces the teachers in the “rubber room” will be any better, but it can’t be any worse. So, it’s a upside with no down side. Why do you have to replace experienced teachers w/ new teachers? Why can’t you replace them with other experienced teachers?
But really, I’m not all that bothered by tenures and teachers union. I’m just bothered that they’re preventing competition and choice. The fact that the teachers’ union are as strong as they are, what they say goes. Especially in a state like CA. That’s where my beef is. If we have voucher system, then I don’t mind if the teachers’ union exist and there’s tenure for public school teacher. If those tenure teachers are really superior, then there’s really nothing to worry about.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Parents DO have all of these options now, and most of them are funded publicly (including homeschooling, if one chooses to go that way). Teachers and their unions are not opposed to choice. They are opposed to having public money going toward private enterprises that are often not held to the same standards as public schools. Again, the right to a public education means that students have a right to an education at a public institution; it does NOT mean being able to use public money for whatever you want to do with it.[/quote]This is exactly why I have beef with the public school teachers’ union. CAR, we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. I think all parents should be able to choose how their kids are educated, regardless of private or public. We don’t need to draw such a line for education. As long as it’s a good education for the same money. You and the teachers’ union obvious do want to draw that line, so we’ll just leave it here.
Participant[quote=paramount]May be time to exit the market and get into cash.[/quote]I did just that. except I went to the negative instead of sitting on cash.
Participant[quote=flu]Wow. What a shithole day to cap off a shithole week…
Not that it was really a surprise….
Next week should be fun… Volatility that is…..[/quote]Volatility is fun. Just make sure you have stop loss in place.
Participant[quote=CA renter]The argument from those who are opposed to tracking is that you “force” students in a direction, as opposed to letting them have a choice. While I agree that this is true, I feel that as long as students are given an option (like JC), then it can work in a way that is beneficial to almost everyone.[/quote]I don’t think we should force them into a track and that they have to be in one track through 18 years of age either. If after a year or two, they’d like to switch, I would want to have a way for those student to switch. Obviously, they have to prove that they have the desire and the ability to keep up with other students as well. They shouldn’t have to wait till 18 to use JC to change their mind.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, if you don’t mind my asking, aren’t you raising your kid(s) in the exact same (or adjacent) neighborhood as the one you grew up in (so your family can have extended family nearby)?
If so, what exactly is your beef about the public schools there? Are any of YOUR old teachers still there to teach your kid(s)? Don’t the schools in your attendance area have pretty high API scores?
I mean, YOU turned out okay and made it into a UC and graduated, right??[/quote]I turned out fine. But it’s not about me. I’m talking about public schools in general. I’m not saying all public school teachers are bad. Actually, most of the ones I had were good or great. So, it’s not about me specifically or where I live. But as a taxpayer and a parent, I want to get more for our tax $. I view that class size is hugely important. With this said, as I stated, for similar $/student, private school teacher to student ratio is a lot smaller. So, that’s where my beef is, class size. I want to see 10-1 for pre-K and K, I want to see 12-1 for 1-3rd grade, I want to see 24-1 for 3-12 grades.
My send beef is choice. I want more choice for ALL PARENTS, not just those who could afford it. I want parents to have options to private schools, charter schools, regular public schools (any public school), etc. I want to put the power in the parents hands in term of choice. They know their children best and they know how they want to raise their kids. I feel that the more we encourage involvement from parents, the better the results will be. I feel that there’s no 1 teaching method that works for all students. Some work well in a montessori environment, while others need more structure like a regular public/private school, while other thrives in a home school environment, while other needs even more structure, like a boarding school type of environment. As long as we set a fixed $ amount we, as a society, want to spend per student, I want to have the $ follow the student. My beef w/ public teachers and the teachers’ union is they’re gungho against this idea.
Participant[quote=CA renter]The problem, once again, is that a disproportionate majority of the university track students would be white/Asian (and wealthier, in general), and the vocational track would be black/Hispanic (and poorer, in general) if they tried to replicate this system in the US. How do you respond to accusations of racism?[/quote]Easy, when it start, just tell those doubter that it’s no different than it is today. Just look at the demographic of those who are being incarcerated and the demographic of those who are in higher education and the demographic of those blue collar workers. Then hopefully, 5-10 years from now, you can show that there will be less incarcerating due to the fact that people have the skills needed to work. If they work, they’d have less time to commit crime. If they work, they’ll pay more taxes and we spend less $ incarcerating people.
The elephant in the room is, the teacher’s union. Do you think they’ll go for such a drastic change? This would most likely reduce the amount of teachers needed. At least academic teachers. We would need more vocational “teachers”.
[quote=CA renter]But I would never advocate for it unless we had a third way that would enable these students and “late bloomers” to move to the university/college track. We would have to really strengthen the community college system (one of the greatest components of our educational system, IMO) so that kids and young adults could shift over if/when they want to do so.[/quote]What’s wrong with our current community college system? I think they’re great. If the demand increase, we can also expand them and hire more teachers. Today, anyone can sign up for classes to JC. So, anyone can change career quite easily. -
AuthorPosts
