slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Twitter seems to be freaking out over aggregate campaign donation limits being struck down, but the practical impact of the decision is not much. Few people hit the aggregate totals and those who do would run out of things to give money to in the chunks currently allowed pretty quickly.

That's my initial thought, I was going to read the opinion at lunch, but it's 40ish pages so I doubt I'll work up the motivation and will watch SHIELD instead.

EDIT: Maybe I'll just read Thomas' concurrence where he calls to overturn Bucky v. Valeo and wait for SCOTUSblog to do a plain English summary... or I could read the synopsis.

TenuredVulture wrote:Twenty years in higher ed demonstrates to me that if IQ as a measure of some innate quality of intellect exists, it probably doesn't matter much. That is, I don't think there's anything like "innate ability" or "intelligence" or "talent" that underlies achievement. No one achieves much without effort, and what really seems to be a difference maker is understanding the process, that is knowing how to apply that effort. Persistence and engagement--asking for help, learning from mistakes and applying those lessons all matter a great deal, and I don't know if we're really doing a great job on helping students develop those skills and in some cases we're doing the exact opposite, for instance telling kids that they're just not good test takers as if there's some magic ingredient that enables some to perform well on tests and others less so.

I do worry that pushing more high level skills at younger ages is really such a great idea. I know I wasn't expected to learn to read until I was almost 7, and I wonder what might have happened if someone thought I need to learn to read at 5. I don't really see the advantage of pushing reading skills to pre-k, and see tons of disadvantages--specifically, learning to read before the child is ready is likely to establish a negative pattern that's hard to break. In addition, it also means that learning by say playing with blocks and dirt (and I really believe building with blocks does develop important cognitive skills) gets neglected.

On the other hand, I also am intrigued by the idea that the exposure of infants to adults who speak to them often with a sophisticated vocabulary gives them substantial advantages in cognitive development, and there's no remedy if there's a lack of this. There do seem to be cultural differences with how people interact with infants.

dajafi wrote:You should write the WSJ asking them to publish your rebuttal!

pacino wrote:Charles Koch writes an op-ed in the WSJ

it's a must-read. a real glimpse into his mindset. the richest victim you'll ever meet.

pacino wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Twitter seems to be freaking out over aggregate campaign donation limits being struck down, but the practical impact of the decision is not much. Few people hit the aggregate totals and those who do would run out of things to give money to in the chunks currently allowed pretty quickly.

That's my initial thought, I was going to read the opinion at lunch, but it's 40ish pages so I doubt I'll work up the motivation and will watch SHIELD instead.

EDIT: Maybe I'll just read Thomas' concurrence where he calls to overturn Bucky v. Valeo and wait for SCOTUSblog to do a plain English summary... or I could read the synopsis.

Rich people get more speech than you do.

Werthless wrote:Founder of Black Chamber of Commerce agrees with Paul Ryan that there is a culture problem

pacino wrote:a reupblican likes paul ryan. shocking development.

While Robinson and Harris largely disproved that assumption, they did find a handful of habits that make a difference, such as reading aloud to young kids (fewer than half of whom are read to daily) and talking with teenagers about college plans. But these interventions don’t take place at school or in the presence of teachers, where policy makers exert the most influence—they take place at home.

What’s more, although conventional wisdom holds that poor children do badly in school because their parents don’t care about education, the opposite is true. Across race, class, and education level, the vast majority of American parents report that they speak with their kids about the importance of good grades and hope that they will attend college. Asian American kids may perform inordinately well on tests, for example, but their parents are not much more involved at school than Hispanic parents are—not surprising, given that both groups experience language barriers. So why are some parents more effective at helping their children translate these shared values into achievement?

Robinson and Harris posit that greater financial and educational resources allow some parents to embed their children in neighborhoods and social settings in which they meet many college-educated adults with interesting careers. Upper-middle-class kids aren’t just told a good education will help them succeed in life. They are surrounded by family and friends who work as doctors, lawyers, and engineers and who reminisce about their college years around the dinner table. Asian parents are an interesting exception; even when they are poor and unable to provide these types of social settings, they seem to be able to communicate the value and appeal of education in a similarly effective manner.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:a reupblican likes paul ryan. shocking development.

Don't make me find an appropriate Bill Cosby quote.

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:a reupblican likes paul ryan. shocking development.

Don't make me find an appropriate Bill Cosby quote.

bill cosby blows

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:a reupblican likes paul ryan. shocking development.

Don't make me find an appropriate Bill Cosby quote.

bill cosby blows

He's Democrat!