Public Schools And Resources

I am reading several articles recently that reported outrage in unfair distribution of resources.  About how the obscure modern musicians keep saying, ""the schools do not have enough money; there are not enough resources,"" etc.

But wait a minute.  We did not have tons and tons of fancy "resources" back when I was in school.  The most state-of-the-art technology we had in grade schools while growing up was... overhead projectors.

We did not have fancy laser disc players, temperature-barometer scales with glass beads, or any of those other little fancy expensive glamour-curiosities you see on the mail-order shopping catalogues on airplane flights.  You know what I'm talking about, those privileged luxury items like mechanized electronic bird feeders or something.

Other than the overhead projectors, we had chalkboards.  In some classrooms, there were dry-erase boards that used markers to write with in place of chalk.  These showed up as an upgrade in fifth grade.  That was the extent of the technological marvel that teachers had at their disposal, and to which us kids were exposed.  And if I recall correctly the overhead projectors only appeared in high school.  They did not exist in elementary and middle schools.

Hmm...  Wait, maybe the commentators are on to something.  Now that I recall, we did have computers in grade school starting from way back in first or second grade.  We had the little Apple II computers with the green screen!  They were awesome.  We wrote and bound and print little books on them.  I remember now.  They usually displayed a very dark green screen with a neon green text in line-item format.  Once in a while we could go to a different mode/setting and obtain little pictures.  These were on a much lighter shade of green.

It had a separate disk drive thing, now I remember.  It was basically a word processor with a screen.  I don't remember if it had a mouse or not.  We had a unit of Creative Writing in which each student had to write and "publish" a full-length book.  We had to plan pages, illustrate the cover, and illustrate the story.  The stories were then bound and printed like actual books.

In almost every single elementary school I attended, this was the case regarding the computers.  There might not always have been a computer right in the same home classroom, but they were there on campus, perhaps in a computer lab.  (I recall middle and high schools.)

----
Some people are complaining that some school districts receive more money than other school districts, and that this is somehow unfair.  Some school districts are able to spend tons of money on new lockers, freshly painted hallways, new desks, new textbooks.  Whereas other school districts do not have enough computers in the schools or something.

But a small, obscure, hidden-away rare article told the whole story.

This article told of high school football players' parents who were actively involved in their kids' education, in one school district.  So it was a community-wide effort, not just solely the responsibility of the teachers.

Parents of those kids did tons of work to help the teachers and the greater district.  They did not just content themselves with letting the teachers do all the work.  They did volunteer work for whatever the schools needed.  Pitched in with their own efforts if ever the schools fell short.  They spearheaded fundraising efforts.  And if there were still requirements that needed to be met, the parents donated their own hard-earned money towards the schools' needs.  School supplies, classroom supplies, athletic supplies

This was a tucked-away unearthly gem revealed the whole story.  I am guessing the other districts that cried "nofair!" probably did not have nearly as much involvement or contribution from the parents and families.  So, no.  It is *not* "unfair" that that particular school district got more money than other surrounding districts.  Said district did not "get" more money.  They *earned* the money themselves through hard work and determination.

I recall that my own high school district offered AP exams for free.  That meant my district was very well-funded.  Well, who funded it, the fairy godmother?  No, the surrounding communities and neighborhoods which the school district served-- they were the ones that funded and supported the schools.

How to Value Creativity

Wait, what makes you think I don't place great worth in art, music, creativity?  (Because you don't encourg people to study in college.)  Uuh, ok, this is art, music, etc. we are talking about, correct?
The point that we are not [[[corroborating, seeing/meeting eye to eye__]]]] is this.  Sigh.  It is art, music, creativity.  What exactly is there to study?  You like art?  Go do art, then.  You just draw and paint, that's it.  You want to sculpt?  Go sculpt.

Some people might pipe up with the point that there is “technique” to learn.  Ehh...

In terms of covering basics like color blending, shadow, proportions, line weight, these "techniques" are not complicated.  I was blending crayons and colored pencils in pre-K.  I've blended paints.  No one had to teach me to do that.  I simply observed that the palette did not have a color I wanted; therefore I was going to have to make my own.  That's common sense.  I first sculpted pottery using clay in seventh grade.  It was a lot of fun.

Shading, texture, using different surfaces to produce whatever effect you want; a smooth, rough, or burlap feel.  There are methods to add sparkly, brittle-gritty surface to a sculpture.  Yeah, I learned that in elementary school.  It was a lot of fun.  I figured out a lot of other stuff on my own.

This is not particularly difficult to learn.  Even so-called “advanced” techniques are not difficult to master.  There exist art supply stores.  The materials have use-and-care instructions on them.  Modeling clay, too, can be found in art supply stores.  So can pottery wheels.  You just shape it into the shapes you want.  For the pottery wheel, make sure the clay is pliable and wet and squishy enough.  That’s it.

There is an introductory course in studio art, which probably mirrors the Advanced Placement- Studio Art course offered in high school.  They learn pottery-making, sculpture, something like that.  Again, not complicated.  Hmmm... I suppose art students have access to certain equipment that is not available outside of designated art class, like... a kiln.  That’s about it.

You want to write something?  Just write; that's it.  I learned how to be a writer from reading.  All the important aspects of learning how to write were already [[taught, trained instilled in me back in grade school -- elementary, middle, and high school.  In all honesty, college hasn't really taught me anything about writing that I did not already know.  In even more honesty, only about half the [[[stuff, pphhhtt use a fancyr wd, use $1 wrd]]] I learned about writing while growing up was gleaned inside the classroom.  I imbibed the other half of how to be a good writer by being a good reader.  I devoured, consumed books.

It is a creative outlet.  It supposed to be a time to relax, to let out your frustrations with the world.  Let off some steam, express yourself, all that good stuff.  A way to relax___
I think this is my main [[disconnect no concern no___]]]].  As strange as this might sound coming from me, I do not place great importance on "learning" art or music in a rigid and structured setting such as school.  You’re harshing my game, yo; you’re cramping my style, cuz.

It is pure self-expression.  The purpose is to dance and daydream and imagine and be silly.  There is no need to place ((impose) arbitrary rules on a [[purpose?? function no establisent no]]] that is not meant for [[[[rules]]].

Recent Grad Complaints

In the media, recent college graduates are complaining that they cannot get jobs.  The kids say, "there is nothing worse than applying for a job you don't want."

Uh, I personally do not exactly have a lot of sympathy for these recent college graduates.

But let us look into this a little more thoroughly.  I remember even back in high school, the battle cry was, "everyone should go to college!!!"  Even back then I figured out that this doesn't quite make sense.  All college degrees are not created equal.

Back in high school the obscure modern musicians were pushing allllll students to go to college no matter what.  There were these musical-comedy type inspirational videos we had to watch, that promoted the merits of college versus not going to college.  They listed average annual salaries for typical jobs requiring college degrees, versus salaries for typical jobs not requiring college degrees.  Tthe college jobs included accountant
--aerobics instructors.

It was admittedly good (((information, compelling__ evidence, statistics))  But they did not tell the whole truth.  At the conclusion of the videos, they did not state, “Pursue a degree in accounting or other math and science.”  Nope, they just said, “Go to college.”

I was reading some news-ish magazine article that was endorsing college for all high school kids.  And I remember thinking, “wait a minute, why are they promoting]]] ALLL kids to pursue 4-year degrees?  But they most definitely are NOTT specifying exactly which college degrees to aim for?”

All college degrees are not created equal.  What's the point of doing all that work in a college degree if it's all for naught?  You can't major in Philosophy and then expect to get a job in "philosophy" after graduating.

Now I find it even more absurd.

Well, too bad.  It's your own damn fault for not picking a substantial, marketable major.  It's your own damn fault for not looking at the job market, and not accordingly choosing a major that is genuinely employable.  You should have studied the job market carefully, followed trends in the news about which fields have the fastest growth sectors.  You could at least take a gander at news reports that go into minute, infinite detail on which college majors translate best into job security.  Oh dearie me, what am I saying?  If you were any good at studying, you would have chosen a useful major in the first place.

It's your own damn fault for being unrealistic and picking a useless <talkie> major like Philosophy of Art History.  Liberal arts degrees are a dime a dozen.  I have no sympathy for you.  Didn't you ever stop to think that if you have to devote four years of your life, and twenty thousand dollars of your parents' money -- that you should have done something worthwhile with your time?  Yes, it is your parents' money.  They had to co-sign on your student loans.  If you will not be able to pay those student loans back, which you probably won't, then your parents will be stranded picking up your slack.

It never occurred to you that you should have chosen an area of study that actually has a career path?

What, did you think that after getting a college degree, <any> given college degree, that [companies institutions]]] would just magically gift you with a job?  You thought they would be so [[phenomenally]] enamored with your royal presence that they would present you with a supervisory job title with a flourish?  These lib arts kids think they are gracing places of employment with their presence.  Bestowing businesses with their existence.

Science vs. Art, or On the Subject of Passion vs. Science

(A librarian told me she thought that scientists only use the left side of brain and that is why they are not good at art and creative stuff.  I have met quite a few people that are under this impression.
---
They keep saying, "choose something you are passionate about,' 'make sure it's something you really, really want, follow your dreams, show them how much you WANT it,' 'if you follow your dreams, anything is possible.'

There was even specific advice dispensed in a few different places.  "Don't feel obligated to study something just because it will earn money.  Don’t feel like you have to study something just because it is a job you have already heard of. _____
Choose something you are <passionate> about, like art or music or writing.  Or maybe you are passionate about people.  If you are enthusiastic enough, try hard enough, anything can happen, if you let it, you can make it happen.'
(Mentl also art and music programs bei cut from public schools due to funding.  Yet public schools claim they are trying to shore up the science and math curricula because the Russians went to the moon first or something.  It's like a double whammy of bad news that is eating these "passionate" people's shorts.
""Science stifles individuality""

"Strong Woman?" Ehh... Not Quite

Anyone else getting irritated beyond redemption by the media's constant, incessant use of the phrase "strong independent woman in charge of her own life?"

I hear that phrase so often now that I receive it with a mere yawn and an eyeroll.  And then I flip to the next page out of boredom.

Look, magg writers and editors.  You need to understand something about your chosen profession.  It appears you need a crash course on good writing.  You need to stop repeating the same exact phrase inj all of your articles, your answers to letters to the editor, your feature snippets on celebrities or whatever.  This trite, insipid phrase is being over-used as a solution for every possible hypothetical situation.
You're just giving your readers some cliched, rehashed, warmed-over banality, like day-old barbecue sauce that's been sitting out in the sun for the last eighteen hours.  It is usually either this or some very closely-related synonymous permutation thereof.

When that is your answer to everything, to absolutely EVERYTHING, to every possible dilemma and conflict that could confront any reader or any woman, it loses all meaning.  It is the same answer they use for trivial, inane crap, like one time a____  Same with that annoying cesspool of a TV show "seuu and the city."  They also hack this phrase to death, or some variation.

It just trivializes the phrase so that it no longer holds any worth.  It's like, okay, well, they use this phrase so much repeatedly for wildly divergent situations.  Therefore it could not possibly have any actual substance to it.  If a phrase is used over and over again, no matter what the actual subject matter of the article, then said phrase is worn out so much that it has lost any impact whatsoever.

That indicates that it is empty and fake, and it is simply presented for show only.  This is not quality writing.  People are just going to read it and think, oh good grief, that phrase again.

It's not just the phrase, I might add.  It is also the tone -- the harsh, lecturing, infuriatedness (I need a word stronger than “fury”) that conveys a weird emotion from the article writers.  It’s as if you are preemptively accusing anyone that does not agree with you, of being closed-minded and sexist and hating women.  I don't mind lectures in the general sense, but not from someone with an observed mental capacity lower than mine.

They like gardening?  They are a strong liberated woman.  They like masturbating?  They are "".  They moved to a different city recently?  They """".  They bought a lampshade recently?  They are """.  They had a one-night stand at a club with some random stranger dude?  They are """.

I keep seeing that same old, same old, and I roll my eyes in exasperation and boredom.  And I think to myself, oh for goodness' sake.  They're still using that tired, dead old schtick?  Those magazine people seriously need to find a fresh, new, original approach to their business.  This is bad journalism.

Not only that, but I find it incredibly *patronizing.*  It is as if they assume that their readers, or that the average woman, is too stupid to decide for herself whether or not some activity is truly empowering.  Thanks, but I don't need a goddamn glossy fashion mag to make me liberated, empowered, etc.

That is the other tone of the crappy writing that I could not quite place before.  So this is what is meant when an individual or a concept or opinion is patronizing.  Hunh.  It is the laughably condescending attitude that all these women's mags have.  They are furious because they are subliminally saying, "we are telling you what makes you a strong woman or not.  We are telling you what you should and should not be proud of.  And if you don't agree with this, then you are stupid and bad and conservative."  They think they are patting the general readership on the head.  They believe they have to do the thinking because readers do not have the cognitive capacity.

I say "laughably" because I don't buy it for a second.  I already know what is and isn't empowering.  I know from true feminism.  I know from my strong cultural heritage.  I know what makes me happy.  I know from my family and roots.  I already have an identity.  I don't need your pseudo, makeshift, pitiable, sorry excuse for an identity.

And I find it quite pathetic that these silly women's mags have taken it upon themselves to try to tell me what I should and should not have as my sociopolitical opinions.