Bill,

Just curious if you've seen this movie. We just saw it last night and
I thought of you. Julia Roberts plays an art history professor at
Wellesley in the 1950s.

jen

No, hadn't even heard of it. Did it just come out? (If so, that's probably
why). :-)

shinypenny wrote: Bill, Just curious if you've seen this movie. We just saw it last night and I thought of you. Julia Roberts plays an art history professor at Wellesley in the 1950s. jen

OK, I just looked it up on Amazon. It came out in 2003. It does sound
interesting, Jen! I also like several chick flicks :-) I should go see
if I can rent it here - IF I can find it. (But it may be too eclectic for this
western town, LOL).

Bill in Co. wrote: No, hadn't even heard of it. Did it just come out? (If so, that's
probably why). :-) shinypenny wrote: Bill, Just curious if you've seen this movie. We just saw it last night and I thought of you. Julia Roberts plays an art history professor at Wellesley in the 1950s. jen

"Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7rI4c.18984$%06.18761@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... OK, I just looked it up on Amazon. It came out in 2003. It does sound interesting, Jen! I also like several chick flicks :-) I should go
see if I can rent it here - IF I can find it. (But it may be too eclectic for
this western town, LOL).

U.S. mail

http://www.netflix.com/

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WZSdnR_Uv6ruy87dRVn-sQ@comcast.com... "Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7rI4c.18984$%06.18761@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... OK, I just looked it up on Amazon. It came out in 2003. It does sound interesting, Jen! I also like several chick flicks :-) I should
go see if I can rent it here - IF I can find it. (But it may be too eclectic
for this western town, LOL). U.S. mail http://www.netflix.com/

Great service. Netflix rocks.

US Mail - for rentals? I dunno, I can't get into that, for some reason.
Probably because I'm still a "retro".

Jen - I actually found it (Mona Lisa Smiles) here, to my surprise, and will
watch it tonite. Thanks for the suggestion.

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7rI4c.18984$%06.18761@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... OK, I just looked it up on Amazon. It came out in 2003. It does sound interesting, Jen! I also like several chick flicks :-) I should go
see if I can rent it here - IF I can find it. (But it may be too eclectic for this western town, LOL). U.S. mail http://www.netflix.com/

I just watched it ( BTW It just came out on video recently..)

It was ok.. not what I thought it would be..<S>

Kass
"Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BpJ4c.36608$aT1.28915@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... US Mail - for rentals? I dunno, I can't get into that, for some reason. Probably because I'm still a "retro". Jen - I actually found it (Mona Lisa Smiles) here, to my surprise, and
will watch it tonite. Thanks for the suggestion. urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7rI4c.18984$%06.18761@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... OK, I just looked it up on Amazon. It came out in 2003. It does
sound interesting, Jen! I also like several chick flicks :-) I should
go see if I can rent it here - IF I can find it. (But it may be too eclectic
for this western town, LOL). U.S. mail http://www.netflix.com/

OK, I can now say I have seen it, Jen. Thanks for introducing it to me.

My comments: I liked the film, but I didn't really like the [totally
negative] spin on the era, although I have to admit there was some validity to
many of the things that were said there. I'll probably watch it again, to
pick up some more on the second go-around. :-)

Thanks again for calling it to my attention. One thing I have noted is that
several of these films (that try to capture those times) seem to enjoy
satirizing the times, or in other words, making fun of the era.

What was that other film about the era that came out a few years ago, that did
the same thing? You know, the one that had the husband coming back from work
and entering the house with the white picket fence, saying, "Honey, I'm
home...." (and where is dinner?). And everything went from black and white,
to color, when everyone finally saw the light - and became "enlightened".
Again, another classic example of total satire of the times.


shinypenny wrote: Bill, Just curious if you've seen this movie. We just saw it last night and I thought of you. Julia Roberts plays an art history professor at Wellesley in the 1950s. jen

Bill in Co. wrote: OK, I can now say I have seen it, Jen. Thanks for introducing it to me. My comments: I liked the film, but I didn't really like the [totally negative] spin on the era, although I have to admit there was some validity to many of the things that were said there. I'll probably watch it again, to pick up some more on the second go-around. :-)

MLS was released here a few weeks ago and I took my older son and daughter
to see it when their school had a pupil-free day. I quite liked it for a
couple of reasons; the first being that the young women in it were almost
exactly the same age as my mother at the time it was set in 1954. My mother
and father married in 1955, my eldest brother arriving 11 months later -
which was pretty typical of the times.

I also enjoyed the opportunity it gave me to talk to my kids about the
social changes during the war and post war years in western society. They
had thought the advertising material scene to be very funny but exaggerated
and I was able to explain the context of it for them.
Thanks again for calling it to my attention. One thing I have noted is that several of these films (that try to capture those times) seem to enjoy satirizing the times, or in other words, making fun of the era.

I don't think they were making fun of the era so much has using the cultural
differences between then and now as a backdrop to the story.... not that
there really was much of a story! The movie did make the point that despite
the era's scripted life plans for women the young women in the story did
choose their own paths, both traditonal and non-traditional. I enjoyed the
supporting cast's performances very much.
What was that other film about the era that came out a few years ago, that did the same thing? You know, the one that had the husband coming back from work and entering the house with the white picket fence, saying, "Honey, I'm home...." (and where is dinner?). And everything went from black and white, to color, when everyone finally saw the light - and became "enlightened". Again, another classic example of total satire of the times.

"Pleasantville"? Something like that, I think. That one did poke fun at the
times.

Tai

Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: OK, I can now say I have seen it, Jen. Thanks for introducing it to me. My comments: I liked the film, but I didn't really like the [totally negative] spin on the era, although I have to admit there was some validity to many of the things that were said there. I'll probably watch it again, to pick up some more on the second go-around. :-) MLS was released here a few weeks ago and I took my older son and daughter to see it when their school had a pupil-free day. I quite liked it for a couple of reasons; the first being that the young women in it were almost exactly the same age as my mother at the time it was set in 1954. My mother and father married in 1955, my eldest brother arriving 11 months later - which was pretty typical of the times. I also enjoyed the opportunity it gave me to talk to my kids about the social changes during the war and post war years in western society. They had thought the advertising material scene to be very funny but exaggerated and I was able to explain the context of it for them.

They could tell the advertising material scene was exaggerated, even though
they were too young to have "been there"?
Thanks again for calling it to my attention. One thing I have noted is that several of these films (that try to capture those times) seem to enjoy satirizing the times, or in other words, making fun of the era. I don't think they were making fun of the era so much has using the cultural differences between then and now as a backdrop to the story.... not that there really was much of a story! The movie did make the point that despite the era's scripted life plans for women the young women in the story did choose their own paths, both traditonal and non-traditional. I enjoyed the supporting cast's performances very much. What was that other film about the era that came out a few years ago, that did the same thing? You know, the one that had the husband coming back from work and entering the house with the white picket fence, saying, "Honey, I'm home...." (and where is dinner?). And everything went from black and white, to color, when everyone finally saw the light - and became "enlightened". Again, another classic example of total satire of the times. "Pleasantville"? Something like that, I think. That one did poke fun at the times. Tai

Yeah - I think that other one (more satirical, perhaps) was Pleasantville.

I just watched MLS again, and really enjoyed it, despite some of the
exaggerations.

I wonder how Jen feels about it. Did you like it Jen?

"Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2bV4c.37490$aT1.7356@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... OK, I can now say I have seen it, Jen. Thanks for introducing it to me. My comments: I liked the film, but I didn't really like the [totally negative] spin on the era, although I have to admit there was some
validity to many of the things that were said there. I'll probably watch it again,
to pick up some more on the second go-around. :-) Thanks again for calling it to my attention. One thing I have noted is
that several of these films (that try to capture those times) seem to enjoy satirizing the times, or in other words, making fun of the era. What was that other film about the era that came out a few years ago, that
did the same thing? You know, the one that had the husband coming back from
work and entering the house with the white picket fence, saying, "Honey, I'm home...." (and where is dinner?). And everything went from black and
white, to color, when everyone finally saw the light - and became "enlightened". Again, another classic example of total satire of the times.

The movie was Pleasantville. I thought it was remarkable.

Do you think that people do not become enlightened?

Is this the best you will ever be?

"Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fUb5c.21889$%06.1938@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>...
I wonder how Jen feels about it. Did you like it Jen?


I thought it was a so-so movie, but nicely touched upon a lot of
themes I've been mulling over recently.

Julia Roberts' character exemplified the early stirrings of the
societal change that exploded in the 60s. I found it interesting that
she mentioned living through the war and that was the pivotal point in
her life. If you think about it, after WWII ended the returning GIs
started families and these children would have been entering college
in the 60s... they were the rebels and protestors and hippies that
changed the world. So as idyllic as the 50s may have seemed, it was
the gestational and nursery period for later change in the 60s.

What did the GIs see in the war that made them want to come back and
raise their children differently? They saw a madman who misused
authoritarian leadership to kill millions of Jews. It seems probable
to me these same GIs wanted to raise their children to be independent
thinkers who question authority instead of accepting it and following
it like sheep.

I read this article recently in Harvard magazine:

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030494.html

I found this article fascinating. The author surveyed children's books
since the 1960s and found:

Children's books, he explains, have always "both explicitly and
implicitly embodied social views regarding the world generally and
childhood specifically. In the views of parents and publishers,
childhood, over the past several decades, has come to be increasingly
associated with an autonomous, thinking individual who can and should
make decisions of his or her own — as opposed to having his or her
actions dictated by tradition and authority."

Instead of telling a child what to do, children's books since the 60s
approach the child "as an individual with an elaborate interior self
capable of making independent and valid decisions about his or her own
life."

I think this is what scares you, Bill, about modern-day society. To
succeed today, one must be able to make their own decisions. There's
nobody telling you what to do anymore. This is not how you were
raised, and you find yourself at a total loss, ill-equipped to
navigate the world as it is today.

I think also that ideas scare you. We recently played hooky to attend
a conference in which Alan Greenspan was the keynote speaker. He gave
a fantastic speech about the power of ideas, and how ideas have made
our economy great and will continue to make our economy great in the
future. He sympathized with the current uncertainty and fears we all
have about our economy, what with layoffs, but said that this was a
natural consequence of "creative destructionism" - the process of new
ideas creating new jobs, and destructing the old jobs.

He made a big point about how education in our country is designed to
train and produce a workforce of thinkers, creative idea generators,
people flexible enough to change jobs and careers frequently
throughout their lifetime. People who don't sit around and wait for
someone to tell them what to do.

All that materialism you hate so much? It's a sign of how creative
destructionism - ideas - have succeeded at raising our standard of
living ever higher. Affluence (obesity, smoking) is now the leading
cause of death. Maybe you think that isn't progress, and yes I'd agree
with you that there is a downside to affluence. But it is certainly a
downside I'd trade for poverty in a second.

jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0403150642.2ccbfba0@posting.google.c om... "Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<fUb5c.21889$%06.1938@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>... I wonder how Jen feels about it. Did you like it Jen? I thought it was a so-so movie, but nicely touched upon a lot of themes I've been mulling over recently. Julia Roberts' character exemplified the early stirrings of the societal change that exploded in the 60s. I found it interesting that she mentioned living through the war and that was the pivotal point in her life. If you think about it, after WWII ended the returning GIs started families and these children would have been entering college in the 60s... they were the rebels and protestors and hippies that changed the world. So as idyllic as the 50s may have seemed, it was the gestational and nursery period for later change in the 60s. What did the GIs see in the war that made them want to come back and raise their children differently? They saw a madman who misused authoritarian leadership to kill millions of Jews. It seems probable to me these same GIs wanted to raise their children to be independent thinkers who question authority instead of accepting it and following it like sheep. I read this article recently in Harvard magazine: http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030494.html I found this article fascinating. The author surveyed children's books since the 1960s and found: Children's books, he explains, have always "both explicitly and implicitly embodied social views regarding the world generally and childhood specifically. In the views of parents and publishers, childhood, over the past several decades, has come to be increasingly associated with an autonomous, thinking individual who can and should make decisions of his or her own - as opposed to having his or her actions dictated by tradition and authority." Instead of telling a child what to do, children's books since the 60s approach the child "as an individual with an elaborate interior self capable of making independent and valid decisions about his or her own life." I think this is what scares you, Bill, about modern-day society. To succeed today, one must be able to make their own decisions. There's nobody telling you what to do anymore. This is not how you were raised, and you find yourself at a total loss, ill-equipped to navigate the world as it is today. I think also that ideas scare you. We recently played hooky to attend a conference in which Alan Greenspan was the keynote speaker. He gave a fantastic speech about the power of ideas, and how ideas have made our economy great and will continue to make our economy great in the future. He sympathized with the current uncertainty and fears we all have about our economy, what with layoffs, but said that this was a natural consequence of "creative destructionism" - the process of new ideas creating new jobs, and destructing the old jobs. He made a big point about how education in our country is designed to train and produce a workforce of thinkers, creative idea generators, people flexible enough to change jobs and careers frequently throughout their lifetime. People who don't sit around and wait for someone to tell them what to do. All that materialism you hate so much? It's a sign of how creative destructionism - ideas - have succeeded at raising our standard of living ever higher. Affluence (obesity, smoking) is now the leading cause of death. Maybe you think that isn't progress, and yes I'd agree with you that there is a downside to affluence. But it is certainly a downside I'd trade for poverty in a second. jen

Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change.
Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational
cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down
the Soviet Union. :)

shinypenny wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_retrocurmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fUb5c.21889$%06.1938@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>... I wonder how Jen feels about it. Did you like it Jen? I thought it was a so-so movie, but nicely touched upon a lot of themes I've been mulling over recently.

I really am enjoying this movie, despite the obvious satirical moments about
the 50's. I have a couple more days to watch it again before I have to return
it. :-)
Julia Roberts' character exemplified the early stirrings of the societal change that exploded in the 60s. I found it interesting that she mentioned living through the war and that was the pivotal point in her life. If you think about it, after WWII ended the returning GIs started families and these children would have been entering college in the 60s... they were the rebels and protestors and hippies that changed the world. So as idyllic as the 50s may have seemed, it was the gestational and nursery period for later change in the 60s.

Seems probably true. (more below)
What did the GIs see in the war that made them want to come back and raise their children differently? They saw a madman who misused authoritarian leadership to kill millions of Jews. It seems probable to me these same GIs wanted to raise their children to be independent thinkers who question authority instead of accepting it and following it like sheep. I read this article recently in Harvard magazine: http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030494.html I found this article fascinating. The author surveyed children's books since the 1960s and found: Children's books, he explains, have always "both explicitly and implicitly embodied social views regarding the world generally and childhood specifically. In the views of parents and publishers, childhood, over the past several decades, has come to be increasingly associated with an autonomous, thinking individual who can and should make decisions of his or her own - as opposed to having his or her actions dictated by tradition and authority." Instead of telling a child what to do, children's books since the 60s approach the child "as an individual with an elaborate interior self capable of making independent and valid decisions about his or her own life." I think this is what scares you, Bill, about modern-day society. To succeed today, one must be able to make their own decisions. There's nobody telling you what to do anymore. This is not how you were raised, and you find yourself at a total loss, ill-equipped to navigate the world as it is today.

No, that's not what scares me. But more on that, and what does, below.
I think also that ideas scare you. We recently played hooky to attend a conference in which Alan Greenspan was the keynote speaker. He gave a fantastic speech about the power of ideas, and how ideas have made our economy great and will continue to make our economy great in the future. He sympathized with the current uncertainty and fears we all have about our economy, what with layoffs, but said that this was a natural consequence of "creative destructionism" - the process of new ideas creating new jobs, and destructing the old jobs.

But the proof is in the *pudding*. Just how well is that working out here in
the US? Not very well now, not at all, Jen. And many people are unable to
get these more skilled jobs (if you can find them today), unlike in the old
days, when a high school education would suffice. We both know that. How
do you respond to THAT? Just look at our economy, and the number of jobless
today. And yet.....this represent progress? This represents
"enlightenment"? And the loss of the family unit (two parent home, and
preferably with a parent to be with the kids in the early years) represents
progress?
He made a big point about how education in our country is designed to train and produce a workforce of thinkers, creative idea generators, people flexible enough to change jobs and careers frequently throughout their lifetime. People who don't sit around and wait for someone to tell them what to do. All that materialism you hate so much? It's a sign of how creative destructionism - ideas - have succeeded at raising our standard of living ever higher. Affluence (obesity, smoking) is now the leading cause of death. Maybe you think that isn't progress, and yes I'd agree with you that there is a downside to affluence. But it is certainly a downside I'd trade for poverty in a second. jen

As I hinted at above, I think we have deluded ourselves into thinking we have
become so progressive, and so "enlightened". Materialism doesn't exemplify
true progress; it's a superficial coating. Improvements for *society*, the
family unit, neighborhoods, the unemployed, the environment, affordable health
coverage, - precisely the things that are now slipping in comparison to a few
decades ago - now THAT would be progress! But alas, it's not even on the
agenda. It's not even on the radar. Because we have deluded ourselves
into thinking that materialism, and "what's in it for ME", is the end all.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<MZj5c.7524$1g2.7451@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change. Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down the Soviet Union. :)


According to Greenspan, it was education, not television. First there
was the programs for returning GIs to get a cheap education. Then in
the 60s and 70s we saw the rise of community education, which he gave
a lot of credit to rising the standard of living and making education
more widely available.

The movie ties in with that theme. Julia Roberts plays a professor
with ideas considered "subversive" by Wellesley. Her ideas? That
students should be trained to think for themselves. That concept
originated in the 50s and 60s and has since infiltrated down into the
grade schools.

The trouble with teaching students to think for themselves is that
there will always be a certain amount who initially don't know what
the heck to do with that power. And they'll misuse it and make wrong
decisions (like watching endless t.v.). But ultimately it is a very
good thing. The world is better because of it.

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<MZj5c.7524$1g2.7451@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>... Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change. Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down the Soviet Union. :) According to Greenspan, it was education, not television. First there was the programs for returning GIs to get a cheap education. Then in the 60s and 70s we saw the rise of community education, which he gave a lot of credit to rising the standard of living and making education more widely available. The movie ties in with that theme. Julia Roberts plays a professor with ideas considered "subversive" by Wellesley. Her ideas? That students should be trained to think for themselves. That concept originated in the 50s and 60s and has since infiltrated down into the grade schools.

I don't think it has. Though I think grade schools pay plenty of lip
service to that idea, so one might _think_ it has filtered down that
far.
The trouble with teaching students to think for themselves is that there will always be a certain amount who initially don't know what the heck to do with that power. And they'll misuse it and make wrong decisions (like watching endless t.v.). But ultimately it is a very good thing. The world is better because of it.

The whole problem with letting people think for themselves is that they
won't always think what you want! Schools aren't willing to take that
risk. Hell, even parents are likely to hold back from that risk!

I'm not sure what it was. But still, if you get a chance, Jen, maybe you can
reply to my earlier "rebuttal" today. I'd be curious what you think about
what I said in there.

shinypenny wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<MZj5c.7524$1g2.7451@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>... Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change. Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down the Soviet Union. :) According to Greenspan, it was education, not television. First there was the programs for returning GIs to get a cheap education. Then in the 60s and 70s we saw the rise of community education, which he gave a lot of credit to rising the standard of living and making education more widely available. The movie ties in with that theme. Julia Roberts plays a professor with ideas considered "subversive" by Wellesley. Her ideas? That students should be trained to think for themselves. That concept originated in the 50s and 60s and has since infiltrated down into the grade schools. The trouble with teaching students to think for themselves is that there will always be a certain amount who initially don't know what the heck to do with that power. And they'll misuse it and make wrong decisions (like watching endless t.v.). But ultimately it is a very good thing. The world is better because of it. jen

Bill in Co. wrote: Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: OK, I can now say I have seen it, Jen. Thanks for introducing it to me. My comments: I liked the film, but I didn't really like the [totally negative] spin on the era, although I have to admit there was some validity to many of the things that were said there. I'll probably watch it again, to pick up some more on the second go-around. :-) MLS was released here a few weeks ago and I took my older son and daughter to see it when their school had a pupil-free day. I quite liked it for a couple of reasons; the first being that the young women in it were almost exactly the same age as my mother at the time it was set in 1954. My mother and father married in 1955, my eldest brother arriving 11 months later - which was pretty typical of the times. I also enjoyed the opportunity it gave me to talk to my kids about the social changes during the war and post war years in western society. They had thought the advertising material scene to be very funny but exaggerated and I was able to explain the context of it for them. They could tell the advertising material scene was exaggerated, even though they were too young to have "been there"?

No, they thought the material presented was an exaggeration of the
advertisements of the era because it seemed hilarious to them. They do know
from their own experiences that advertising would give an outsider (an alien
from outer space, as one of them put it) a skewed idea of our society
today. I explained it was quite typical of what was seen in the print media
of the times and not only in the USA but in other countries such as our own.
Have you ever looked at the archives of magazines from the 50s or even
newspapers from a hundred years ago?

Then I went on to talk about the end of the austerity years, the effect of
the returning soldiers on the job prospects for women, the perceived need to
repopulate after losing so many young men, the economic boom of the 50s and
60s and the rise of a prosperous middle class in industrialised countries;
to try to give them a better idea of the social and economic context of the
advertisements.

Tai

Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote:> OK, I can now say I have seen it, Jen. Thanks for introducing it> to me.>> My comments: I liked the film, but I didn't really like the> [totally negative] spin on the era, although I have to admit there> was some validity to many of the things that were said there.> I'll probably> watch it again, to pick up some more on the second go-around. :-) MLS was released here a few weeks ago and I took my older son and daughter to see it when their school had a pupil-free day. I quite liked it for a couple of reasons; the first being that the young women in it were almost exactly the same age as my mother at the time it was set in 1954. My mother and father married in 1955, my eldest brother arriving 11 months later - which was pretty typical of the times. I also enjoyed the opportunity it gave me to talk to my kids about the social changes during the war and post war years in western society. They had thought the advertising material scene to be very funny but exaggerated and I was able to explain the context of it for them. They could tell the advertising material scene was exaggerated, even though they were too young to have "been there"? No, they thought the material presented was an exaggeration of the advertisements of the era because it seemed hilarious to them. They do know from their own experiences that advertising would give an outsider (an alien from outer space, as one of them put it) a skewed idea of our society today. I explained it was quite typical of what was seen in the print media of the times and not only in the USA but in other countries such as our own. Have you ever looked at the archives of magazines from the 50s or even newspapers from a hundred years ago?

Of course. And actually I'm old enough to have seen some of it, first hand,
Tai. So I don't need to rely on all those archives, although admitedly, there
was a lot there I hadn't seen (which is probably just as well - LOL).

Nonetheless, the way it was portrayed in the film was a bit exaggerated. By
watching the film. you would come to believe that all women thought about (all
of them) was their ironing boards, always saying the right thing, at the right
time, and keeping their husband's ties on straight. (Give me a break!).
Then I went on to talk about the end of the austerity years, the effect of the returning soldiers on the job prospects for women, the perceived need to repopulate after losing so many young men, the economic boom of the 50s and 60s and the rise of a prosperous middle class in industrialised countries; to try to give them a better idea of the social and economic context of the advertisements. Tai

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0403151227.69608d94@posting.google.c om... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<MZj5c.7524$1g2.7451@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>... Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change. Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down the Soviet Union. :) According to Greenspan, it was education, not television. First there was the programs for returning GIs to get a cheap education. Then in the 60s and 70s we saw the rise of community education, which he gave a lot of credit to rising the standard of living and making education more widely available. The movie ties in with that theme. Julia Roberts plays a professor with ideas considered "subversive" by Wellesley. Her ideas? That students should be trained to think for themselves. That concept originated in the 50s and 60s and has since infiltrated down into the grade schools. The trouble with teaching students to think for themselves is that there will always be a certain amount who initially don't know what the heck to do with that power. And they'll misuse it and make wrong decisions (like watching endless t.v.). But ultimately it is a very good thing. The world is better because of it. jen

Everytime we turned on the TV as kids we got an education of some sort.
Sometimes we just learned what the western deserts looked like through
a Hopalong Cassidy movie. Sometimes we saw our first whales in a Walt
Disney nature special. Sometimes we learned that there were rich people
and poor people and some did not look like us.

Yes Greenspan maybe right in a way.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<MZj5c.7524$1g2.7451@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...

Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change. Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down the Soviet Union. :)

Actually, I thought about this some more. Television did cause one
significant change: we're made to believe things are a lot worse than
they actually are! This is because bad news tends to sell more than
good news.

We live in a country that's safer than it ever was, and yet we *feel*
as if it's not as safe, and getting less safe by the minute. Because
all the news ever shows us is murder, crime, blood and gore.

We live in a country with more educated people than it ever had, and
yet we *feel* the country is getting more illiterate by the second.
Because we turn on the t.v. and see garbage like Jerry Springer.

We live in a country with the lowest rates of unemployment (averaging
around 6% since the 1950s - beat that!) and yet we *feel* insecure
about our jobs. Because we turn on the t.v. and the news reports about
additional layoffs and a ticker displays every minor downturn in stock
prices minute by minute.

Maybe I'm so upbeat and glass-half-full because I rarely if ever watch
t.v. anymore? Hmmm....

jen

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<%Pl5c.41743$aT1.21844@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>...

But the proof is in the *pudding*. Just how well is that working out here in the US? Not very well now, not at all, Jen. And many people are unable to get these more skilled jobs (if you can find them today), unlike in the old days, when a high school education would suffice.

Here's the Greenspan speech I heard. He addresses that as well. It is
a problem, yes, but you're oversimplifying it and coloring it more
negatively than it needs to be.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Speeches/2004/20040312/default.htm
We both know that. How do you respond to THAT? Just look at our economy, and the number of jobless today. And yet.....this represent progress?


Bill, unemployment in the U.S. has averaged around 6% since 1950. This
is better than any other country. This is pretty darn good. Perhaps
the problem is we expect better because we've grown so accustomed to
better? Or (as I said in another post to Urf) the media has played up
the negative to unrealistic proportions in our minds. Because the
numbers don't bear it out, don't match the level of insecurity we all
seem to have in our minds on this particular issue.
This represents "enlightenment"?

Yep, I do. We've got it pretty good here in the U.S., and things have
only got better in the last half century.
And the loss of the family unit (two parent home, and preferably with a parent to be with the kids in the early years) represents progress?

Yeah, that has been a major downside. I see our society in a major
flux, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. I see major reform
coming as people are realizing that dads are getting screwed by the
courts. I see more and more dads opting to get involved with their
kids. Ultimately this is a very good thing. It takes two parents to
raise a child; in the 50s dad wasn't necessarily all that involved.
Today, he is. Today he is just as apt as mom to leave work early to
attend his son's baseball game. I see that in my own company.

As I hinted at above, I think we have deluded ourselves into thinking we have become so progressive, and so "enlightened".

I think most people feel insecure and uncertain. That's a sign we're
in a major transition. However, I see the transition as having a
positive outcome, not a negative one. With change, there is always
going to be some pain. But ultimately our society has continued on a
path of change for the better. Not worse!
Materialism doesn't exemplify true progress; it's a superficial coating.

Ah, but materialism is the grease that keeps the economy growing.
We're a consumer economy, afterall. When people buy a product, it
creates jobs. Do you have a better way of fueling the economy? If so,
I want to hear it!
Improvements for *society*, the family unit, neighborhoods, the unemployed, the environment, affordable health coverage, - precisely the things that are now slipping in comparison to a few decades ago - now THAT would be progress!

Yes and we are so affluent, comfortable, and educated, we have ample
liesure time to debate these issues and formulate solutions to them.
We are not scrambling just to survive - we are surviving quite well,
so now we have the luxury of tweaking the system to make it better.
And the means to implement such changes.
But alas, it's not even on the agenda. It's not even on the radar.

That's not true, Bill. Affordable health coverage, for one thing, is a
big item on the agenda this election year.
Because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that materialism, and "what's in it for ME", is the end all.

But materialism isn't all about what's in it for me... when you buy
something for yourself, your purchase is fueling our economy. Which
creates jobs. Which results in people who can pay taxes. Which
benefits all of us in the end.

jen

shinypenny wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<%Pl5c.41743$aT1.21844@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>... But the proof is in the *pudding*. Just how well is that working out here in the US? Not very well now, not at all, Jen. And many people are unable to get these more skilled jobs (if you can find them today), unlike in the old days, when a high school education would suffice. Here's the Greenspan speech I heard. He addresses that as well. It is a problem, yes, but you're oversimplifying it and coloring it more negatively than it needs to be. http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Speeches/2004/20040312/default.htm We both know that. How do you respond to THAT? Just look at our economy, and the number of
jobless today. And yet.....this represent progress? Bill, unemployment in the U.S. has averaged around 6% since 1950. This is better than any other country. This is pretty darn good. Perhaps the problem is we expect better because we've grown so accustomed to better? Or (as I said in another post to Urf) the media has played up the negative to unrealistic proportions in our minds. Because the numbers don't bear it out, don't match the level of insecurity we all seem to have in our minds on this particular issue.

Jen, in case you hadn't realized, MANY of the jobs are being out-sourced now.
It is NOT working out well for us. We [for all practical purposes] can't
compete anymore (with the cheap labor of every other country) in this *global
economy* as well as we USED to be able to do.
This represents "enlightenment"? Yep, I do. We've got it pretty good here in the U.S., and things have only got better in the last half century.

Nope - not in ALL things. Especially in the societal arena, as already noted.
In technology? Sure. Medicine? Sure.

Family? Nope. Good Parenting? Nope. Number of people in prison these
days? (just increase funding for more prisons - thats our "enlightened"
solution)
And the loss of the family unit (two parent home, and preferably with a parent to be with the kids in the early years) represents progress? Yeah, that has been a major downside. I see our society in a major

"A" major "downside"? (LOL). How much more "major" can one get? Is
there anything even close to being in this league? Not very much... Don't
underestimate its importance. Society is at serious irisk.
flux, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. I see major reform coming as people are realizing that dads are getting screwed by the courts. I see more and more dads opting to get involved with their kids. Ultimately this is a very good thing. It takes two parents to raise a child; in the 50s dad wasn't necessarily all that involved. Today, he is. Today he is just as apt as mom to leave work early to attend his son's baseball game. I see that in my own company.

Yes, dads are more involved - and that is GOOD. BUT - does that make up for
the loss of the two parent home (with nobody there for the kids in the early
days) and high divorce rates, and the fact that it almost REQUIRES two incomes
to be in the middle class anymore (meaning being able to afford a HOME, etc)?
Absolutely not.
As I hinted at above, I think we have deluded ourselves into thinking we
have become so progressive, and so "enlightened". I think most people feel insecure and uncertain. That's a sign we're in a major transition. However, I see the transition as having a positive outcome, not a negative one. With change, there is always going to be some pain. But ultimately our society has continued on a path of change for the better. Not worse! Materialism doesn't exemplify true progress; it's a superficial coating. Ah, but materialism is the grease that keeps the economy growing.

Where? In India? :-)
We're a consumer economy, afterall. When people buy a product, it creates jobs. Do you have a better way of fueling the economy? If so, I want to hear it!

The economy is NOT growing. (Why do you think Bush is on his way out)?
Improvements for *society*, the family unit, neighborhoods, the unemployed, the environment, affordable health coverage, - precisely the things that are now slipping in comparison to a few decades ago - now THAT would be progress! Yes and we are so affluent, comfortable, and educated, we have ample

Not all of us. True, there are more educated now, but it is also true that a
high school education doesn't mean what it used to mean. Furthermore, unless
you are a two income family, making ends meet these days (meaning with a home
et al) is nigh impossible in many, if not most, areas these days.
liesure time to debate these issues and formulate solutions to them. We are not scrambling just to survive - we are surviving quite well, so now we have the luxury of tweaking the system to make it better. And the means to implement such changes. But alas, it's not even on the agenda. It's not even on the radar. That's not true, Bill. Affordable health coverage, for one thing, is a big item on the agenda this election year.

Really? Last I recall, Hillary's Universal Health Plan to bring affordable
coverage to ALL went out the window, years ago. So I'll believe it when I see
it. Do you know how much you would have to pay for basic health coverage if
your company doesn't provide it? (Have you seen the rates)? They are
unaffordable (and never will be again). The best one can do is what Lori has
to do - get catastropic coverage, for around $100 a month - with a $5000
deductible!

And all of this represents progress? I think NOT. True, your glass tends
to be more full than mine, but I also think you're seeing things thru your own
filter (too).

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rl65d5onrc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<MZj5c.7524$1g2.7451@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>... Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change. Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down the Soviet Union. :) According to Greenspan, it was education, not television. First there was the programs for returning GIs to get a cheap education. Then in the 60s and 70s we saw the rise of community education, which he gave a lot of credit to rising the standard of living and making education more widely available. The movie ties in with that theme. Julia Roberts plays a professor with ideas considered "subversive" by Wellesley. Her ideas? That students should be trained to think for themselves. That concept originated in the 50s and 60s and has since infiltrated down into the grade schools. I don't think it has. Though I think grade schools pay plenty of lip service to that idea, so one might _think_ it has filtered down that far.

Really? I notice a huge difference between my grade school experience,
and my daughters' experience.

Heck, when you were a kid, how many kids attended Montessori or other
alternative schools? I knew of no kids who did. Today, probably 25% of
the families I know send their kids to an alternative school.
The trouble with teaching students to think for themselves is that there will always be a certain amount who initially don't know what the heck to do with that power. And they'll misuse it and make wrong decisions (like watching endless t.v.). But ultimately it is a very good thing. The world is better because of it. The whole problem with letting people think for themselves is that they won't always think what you want! Schools aren't willing to take that risk. Hell, even parents are likely to hold back from that risk!

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rl65d5onrc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<MZj5c.7524$1g2.7451@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>... > Maybe it was the introduction of Television that caused the change. > Television, in my opinion, is the single most important motivational > cause of societal change in the entire world. "Dallas" brought down > the Soviet Union. :) According to Greenspan, it was education, not television. First there was the programs for returning GIs to get a cheap education. Then in the 60s and 70s we saw the rise of community education, which he gave a lot of credit to rising the standard of living and making education more widely available. The movie ties in with that theme. Julia Roberts plays a professor with ideas considered "subversive" by Wellesley. Her ideas? That students should be trained to think for themselves. That concept originated in the 50s and 60s and has since infiltrated down into the grade schools. I don't think it has. Though I think grade schools pay plenty of lip service to that idea, so one might _think_ it has filtered down that far. Really? I notice a huge difference between my grade school experience, and my daughters' experience.

Yes, there are huge differences. But many of them are lip service
differences. Children are (for example) offered a choice of any book
on a small list chosen by the teacher. The illusion is that the child
is "choosing" what he or she can read. The reality is that the
teacher has made the choice of a few options, and the child can select
which option. Very different, and I find it insulting to the child
that the teacher then pretends the child chose the book.
Heck, when you were a kid, how many kids attended Montessori or other alternative schools? I knew of no kids who did. Today, probably 25% of the families I know send their kids to an alternative school.

Actually I knew a number who sent their kids to an alternative school.
I know more today, _but_ (and this is a huge but) most of the
alternative schools are onoly marginally alternative. At a local
"alternative" school here, the class is encouraged to choose an
alternative project at the beginning of each term. Sounds great, but
they don't get to decide on the project on their own. The teacher
presents two or three options, and then lobbies (sometimes with some
subtlety) for the one she is willing to do.

Your point was that you believe schools are teaching independence, but
you bring up Montessori schools. I'll point out that although
Montessori schools are genuinely different from traditional schools,
the child is still guided through a narrow range of activities using a
narrow range of toys/learning materials chosen by the teacher (well,
really chosen by Maria Montessori).


In the meantime, what little leeway there is for freedom and variety
in education is being coopted by the "No Child Left Behind Act" whose
primary result is more and more frequent testing on standardized
subjects. Just in the last 5 years our local public schools have all
shifted to a strong emphasis on teaching which is organized around
preparing students for those tests. (Students are doing better on
those tests, but there is no evidence that they are better educated in
any serious way, and students have even less time in the school day
which can be devoted to any activity allowing them to think for
themselves).

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your point was that you believe schools are teaching independence, but you bring up Montessori schools. I'll point out that although Montessori schools are genuinely different from traditional schools, the child is still guided through a narrow range of activities using a narrow range of toys/learning materials chosen by the teacher (well, really chosen by Maria Montessori).

True. The child choses which material to use, but there is a correct
way to use that material. I think you underestimate the amount of
freedom in a (true) Montessori school though. The child can go at her
own rate, learning as fast as she can and wants to. She can spend three
weeks on math if she get into a groove - and it is *amazing* how much
they learn during those spurts. *Years* worth of math gets just gobbled
up. Our younger daughter learned to read at three. No one was pushing
her, at home or at school, but her big sister could read and she
wouldn't rest until she could too. Watching that changed my opinions
about children and education forever. Child led learning is an amazing
thing.

Montessori schools provide large block of uninterrupted time to the
children, which is a huge gift. People think kids have really short
attention spans, but it isn't true. If they get to pick something they
are interested in , they can easily work hard at it - diligently,
quietly - for hours. Kids work really hard and push themselves, if the
environment is set up to encourage it.

While everyone does a "space project" they all do different ones (they
pick , but I'm sure there is some sort of approval process), and so my
daughter is now an expert on black holes. She also knows a bit about a
lot of other space subjects, because the other kids present their
projects, but kids in a Montessori school do not all come out knowing
the same things. They all know a lot and they know how to educate
themselves and explore their interests, but each kid has had a different
education.

My kids are in a Montessori school, but it is a public school, so there
is more structure than there would be in a true Montessori school. They
have to have spelling tests, for example (though even there, they learn
at their own rate. Miss three-year-old reader is the "spelling queen in
her class). But it is still light years better than my education was.

OK, I'll stop now. Obviously I get enthusiastic about Montessori. I'll
be very sad when our older daughter leaves next year for middle school.
There are a lot of choices in Boulder, but no Montessori middle schools.

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Your point was that you believe schools are teaching independence, but you bring up Montessori schools. I'll point out that although Montessori schools are genuinely different from traditional schools, the child is still guided through a narrow range of activities using a narrow range of toys/learning materials chosen by the teacher (well, really chosen by Maria Montessori). True. The child choses which material to use, but there is a correct way to use that material. I think you underestimate the amount of freedom in a (true) Montessori school though. The child can go at her own rate, learning as fast as she can and wants to. She can spend three weeks on math if she get into a groove - and it is *amazing* how much they learn during those spurts. *Years* worth of math gets just gobbled up.

This much I know. It makes you realize how terribly inefficient
traditional education is. But as far as encouraging independent
thinking, I don't find a significant difference between the
traditional approach of telling kids what to learn, and the Montessori
approach of telling kids what to learn, but letting them learn it at
their own speed. (That isn't to say one isn't better than the other;
I think Montessori _is_ better, as long as you aren't being dishonest
with the children about how much freedom they have. Just that one
isn't truly teaching more independence.)
Our younger daughter learned to read at three. No one was pushing her, at home or at school, but her big sister could read and she wouldn't rest until she could too. Watching that changed my opinions about children and education forever. Child led learning is an amazing thing.

Yep!
Montessori schools provide large block of uninterrupted time to the children, which is a huge gift. People think kids have really short attention spans, but it isn't true. If they get to pick something they are interested in , they can easily work hard at it - diligently, quietly - for hours. Kids work really hard and push themselves, if the environment is set up to encourage it.

I'd go further than thatt. Kids work really hard and push themselves,
as long as the environment isn't set up to _discourage_ that.
Traditional schools tend to discourage it in a number of ways. One of
the ways that the traditional approach discourages this is, as you
mention, by breaking up time into small intervals, and forcing all the
children to move on to the next task even if they are still interested
in what they are doing.
While everyone does a "space project" they all do different ones (they pick , but I'm sure there is some sort of approval process), and so my daughter is now an expert on black holes. She also knows a bit about a lot of other space subjects, because the other kids present their projects, but kids in a Montessori school do not all come out knowing the same things. They all know a lot and they know how to educate themselves and explore their interests, but each kid has had a different education. My kids are in a Montessori school, but it is a public school, so there is more structure than there would be in a true Montessori school. They have to have spelling tests, for example (though even there, they learn at their own rate. Miss three-year-old reader is the "spelling queen in her class). But it is still light years better than my education was. OK, I'll stop now. Obviously I get enthusiastic about Montessori. I'll be very sad when our older daughter leaves next year for middle school. There are a lot of choices in Boulder, but no Montessori middle schools.

It is good you have a school that you and your children like. And I'm
not trying to knock Montessori per se; my children have never been in
such a school, but it certainly seems better than the traditional
model.

My main point is that I don't believe education has changed in the way
that jen says it has. That is, I don't believe there has been real
change with the goal of encouraging children to think for themselves.
There is a lot of lip service paid to this goal, and there _has_ been
a real change in something which is superficially related: it used to
be taken for granted that we school children because it is good for
them, and it isn't important that they enjoy the process. Now most
schools have the goal of doing things in such a way that kids enjoy
school as well. I think this is good, as far as it goes, and as long
as it is honest. I _don't_ think it is good when a school or teacher
is trying to convince the kids that they choose what they do when it
isn't really true, in part because I think that dishonesty actually
_undercuts_ the ability to think for oneself.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mcF5c.24573$JL2.276271@attbi_s03>...
Yes, there are huge differences. But many of them are lip service differences. Children are (for example) offered a choice of any book on a small list chosen by the teacher. The illusion is that the child is "choosing" what he or she can read. The reality is that the teacher has made the choice of a few options, and the child can select which option. Very different, and I find it insulting to the child that the teacher then pretends the child chose the book.

Ah, I *think* I see what you're saying (maybe not, but here I go
extrapolating anyway....)

The way I look at it is that schools are doing a much better job of
teaching kids independence within a framework of *also* fulfilling
obligations and responsibilities we all have to do to fit into in this
world. This is a constant ongoing discussion at our house. Let's see
if I can come up with an example.

Okay, for example, early on DD11 figured out that she has a different
learning style than most people. She learns best through her ears, not
by sight. She long struggled with things requiring visual memorization
like times tables and spelling, until she discovered that if she
spelled out loud or heard the equation she could get it much faster.
She then whined that she wanted to be able to talk during her spelling
and math tests! She wanted to be able to say the math equations out
loud! Well, we had a little chat about how it's wonderful she's
discovered what works, but that in the real world to fit in you need
to be able to take tests quietly, in a room full of other students! So
she has taught herself to say the equation to herself, in her head,
then moved on to training herself to solve the problem visually (which
is much quicker).

No - the world did not change to fit *her* needs. She was required to
accomodate to fit into the world's way of doing things. I think this
is a valid lesson to learn *along with* independent thinking skills.

It is a valuable skill to think outside the box, but then you must
also figure out how to take your idea and work within the system. If
you don't your idea is sure to fail. (I'm constantly reminding people
of this at work... we have a lot of rebel types there, who get
frustrated when their great ideas fail on the vine).


Heck, when you were a kid, how many kids attended Montessori or other alternative schools? I knew of no kids who did. Today, probably 25% of the families I know send their kids to an alternative school. Actually I knew a number who sent their kids to an alternative school. I know more today, _but_ (and this is a huge but) most of the alternative schools are onoly marginally alternative. At a local "alternative" school here, the class is encouraged to choose an alternative project at the beginning of each term. Sounds great, but they don't get to decide on the project on their own. The teacher presents two or three options, and then lobbies (sometimes with some subtlety) for the one she is willing to do. Your point was that you believe schools are teaching independence, but you bring up Montessori schools. I'll point out that although Montessori schools are genuinely different from traditional schools, the child is still guided through a narrow range of activities using a narrow range of toys/learning materials chosen by the teacher (well, really chosen by Maria Montessori).

Truthfully I don't know all that much about Montessori. :-0

And I'll probably get skewered for saying this, but my impression
(realizing I don't have much exposure to Montessori) is that they
don't necessarily teach the kids the skills they need to succeed in
the real world. IOW, it's all independent thinking and to heck with
meeting the requirements of the real world, like getting a paper in on
time or arriving at school at a certain hour. These skills *are*
necessary and I think it's a disservice to ignore them completely. I
think it's best, as I've said, to strike a balance between independent
thinking and realistic, practical skills. I.e., how do you pursue the
topic you love *and* also meet the deadline? This is what we should be
teaching our kids.

Seems to me there are tons of alternative options today that are
competing with public schools, and this competition is, in my view, a
healthy and positive thing. The public schools are responding. My kids
are in public school and what I see is a balance between the
traditional teaching methods and newer, alternative methods. It's a
balance that works very well, in my opinion.

For example our classrooms are small and kids are broken up into teams
according to their learning pace; each class has a teacher and several
aides to guide the group. This allows them to study the same topic but
in a different way, some taking longer, some going in more depth.
In the meantime, what little leeway there is for freedom and variety in education is being coopted by the "No Child Left Behind Act" whose primary result is more and more frequent testing on standardized subjects. Just in the last 5 years our local public schools have all shifted to a strong emphasis on teaching which is organized around preparing students for those tests. (Students are doing better on those tests, but there is no evidence that they are better educated in any serious way, and students have even less time in the school day which can be devoted to any activity allowing them to think for themselves).

Standardized tests are a touchy subject. I don't object to them.
Taking standardized tests is a skill that my kids will need going
forward as they move on in the educational process. That's just the
way the world works. Frankly, I'm extremely impressed with the skills
my kids are learning at such a young age, especially their writing
skills. So what if they're learning these because they have to take a
standardized essay exam. They can write better than most adults I
know, have a better grasp of grammar, sentence structure, etc.

But then again, I suppose it's also my perspective here, as someone
who's kids are in one of the nation's top public schools. Their grade
school and middle school are model schools. All I can say is, if this
is the model that will be followed by the rest of the nation, there is
a lot of hope for our educational system.

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mcF5c.24573$JL2.276271@attbi_s03>... Yes, there are huge differences. But many of them are lip service differences. Children are (for example) offered a choice of any book on a small list chosen by the teacher. The illusion is that the child is "choosing" what he or she can read. The reality is that the teacher has made the choice of a few options, and the child can select which option. Very different, and I find it insulting to the child that the teacher then pretends the child chose the book. Ah, I *think* I see what you're saying (maybe not, but here I go extrapolating anyway....) The way I look at it is that schools are doing a much better job of teaching kids independence within a framework of *also* fulfilling obligations and responsibilities we all have to do to fit into in this world.

Well, no that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that being allowed to
choose whether to paint a pink cow or a blue cow (as opposed to being
allowed to choose to paint whatever you want or not at all) doesn't
teach people how to think for themselves.

I'm saying that if you _want_ people to learn how to think for
themselves (which is _not_ what everyone wants) you have to allow them
to make choices about things that actually matter to them, and you
have to allow them to make choices which have bad consequences and to
learn from those consequences.
This is a constant ongoing discussion at our house. Let's see if I can come up with an example. Okay, for example, early on DD11 figured out that she has a different learning style than most people. She learns best through her ears, not by sight. She long struggled with things requiring visual memorization like times tables and spelling, until she discovered that if she spelled out loud or heard the equation she could get it much faster. She then whined that she wanted to be able to talk during her spelling and math tests! She wanted to be able to say the math equations out loud! Well, we had a little chat about how it's wonderful she's discovered what works, but that in the real world to fit in you need to be able to take tests quietly, in a room full of other students! So she has taught herself to say the equation to herself, in her head, then moved on to training herself to solve the problem visually (which is much quicker).

Good thinking. The right to make your own decisions doesn't include
the right to bother other people.
No - the world did not change to fit *her* needs. She was required to accomodate to fit into the world's way of doing things. I think this is a valid lesson to learn *along with* independent thinking skills. It is a valuable skill to think outside the box, but then you must also figure out how to take your idea and work within the system. If you don't your idea is sure to fail. (I'm constantly reminding people of this at work... we have a lot of rebel types there, who get frustrated when their great ideas fail on the vine). Heck, when you were a kid, how many kids attended Montessori or other alternative schools? I knew of no kids who did. Today, probably 25% of the families I know send their kids to an alternative school. Actually I knew a number who sent their kids to an alternative school. I know more today, _but_ (and this is a huge but) most of the alternative schools are onoly marginally alternative. At a local "alternative" school here, the class is encouraged to choose an alternative project at the beginning of each term. Sounds great, but they don't get to decide on the project on their own. The teacher presents two or three options, and then lobbies (sometimes with some subtlety) for the one she is willing to do. Your point was that you believe schools are teaching independence, but you bring up Montessori schools. I'll point out that although Montessori schools are genuinely different from traditional schools, the child is still guided through a narrow range of activities using a narrow range of toys/learning materials chosen by the teacher (well, really chosen by Maria Montessori). Truthfully I don't know all that much about Montessori. :-0 And I'll probably get skewered for saying this, but my impression (realizing I don't have much exposure to Montessori) is that they don't necessarily teach the kids the skills they need to succeed in the real world. IOW, it's all independent thinking and to heck with meeting the requirements of the real world, like getting a paper in on time or arriving at school at a certain hour. These skills *are* necessary and I think it's a disservice to ignore them completely. I think it's best, as I've said, to strike a balance between independent thinking and realistic, practical skills. I.e., how do you pursue the topic you love *and* also meet the deadline? This is what we should be teaching our kids. Seems to me there are tons of alternative options today that are competing with public schools, and this competition is, in my view, a healthy and positive thing. The public schools are responding. My kids are in public school and what I see is a balance between the traditional teaching methods and newer, alternative methods. It's a balance that works very well, in my opinion. For example our classrooms are small and kids are broken up into teams according to their learning pace; each class has a teacher and several aides to guide the group. This allows them to study the same topic but in a different way, some taking longer, some going in more depth.

Let me be clear; I'm not saying this isn't a good thing, and I'm not
saying there aren't lots of ways in which schools are better now than
they were a generation ago.

I'm only saying that I don't think schools are at all serious about
helping students think for themselves. In fact our model of
education, which involves (with a small amount of leeway) teaching a
pre-determined set of "skills" to people at a certain age doesn't lend
itself well to helping kids learn to think for themselves.
In the meantime, what little leeway there is for freedom and variety in education is being coopted by the "No Child Left Behind Act" whose primary result is more and more frequent testing on standardized subjects. Just in the last 5 years our local public schools have all shifted to a strong emphasis on teaching which is organized around preparing students for those tests. (Students are doing better on those tests, but there is no evidence that they are better educated in any serious way, and students have even less time in the school day which can be devoted to any activity allowing them to think for themselves). Standardized tests are a touchy subject. I don't object to them. Taking standardized tests is a skill that my kids will need going forward as they move on in the educational process. That's just the way the world works. Frankly, I'm extremely impressed with the skills my kids are learning at such a young age, especially their writing skills. So what if they're learning these because they have to take a standardized essay exam. They can write better than most adults I know, have a better grasp of grammar, sentence structure, etc.

Then your kids are unusual. You may be making the mistake of thinking
that because your kids are doing well at academic things, so are
everyone else's.

Reading, writing and arithmetic skills (as measured by tests like
college boards which have been around for a long time) don't seem to
be improving. But scores on various state benchmark tests are
improving. IMO it is because teachers are learning to teach to those
test, not because students are learning more.
But then again, I suppose it's also my perspective here, as someone who's kids are in one of the nation's top public schools. Their grade school and middle school are model schools. All I can say is, if this is the model that will be followed by the rest of the nation, there is a lot of hope for our educational system.

Let me ask about the average socio-economic status at their school.
This is the single most effective predictor for "how good" a school is.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to ensure that every school in the
nation has students from families in the highest socio-economic group.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
This much I know. It makes you realize how terribly inefficient traditional education is. But as far as encouraging independent thinking, I don't find a significant difference between the traditional approach of telling kids what to learn, and the Montessori approach of telling kids what to learn, but letting them learn it at their own speed. (That isn't to say one isn't better than the other; I think Montessori _is_ better, as long as you aren't being dishonest with the children about how much freedom they have. Just that one isn't truly teaching more independence.)

I actually agree with you. I don't know of any schooling methods except
unschooling that don't involve at least a lot of *guidance* in what the
children learn.

But I do think freedom regarding "when" and "how much" (and some of
"what") does result in more independent children. They are used to
figuring out what to do and doing it, and to learning on their own. I
wasn't a passive kid or anything, but I notice a definite difference in
my kids.

(I snipped the rest because I agreed with it all).

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
This much I know. It makes you realize how terribly inefficient traditional education is. But as far as encouraging independent thinking, I don't find a significant difference between the traditional approach of telling kids what to learn, and the Montessori approach of telling kids what to learn, but letting them learn it at their own speed. (That isn't to say one isn't better than the other; I think Montessori _is_ better, as long as you aren't being dishonest with the children about how much freedom they have. Just that one isn't truly teaching more independence.)

I actually agree with you. I don't know of any schooling methods except
unschooling that don't involve at least a lot of *guidance* in what the
children learn.

But I do think freedom regarding "when" and "how much" (and some of
"what") does result in more independent children. They are used to
figuring out what to do and doing it, and to learning on their own. I
wasn't a passive kid or anything, but I notice a definite difference in
my kids.

(I snipped the rest because I agreed with it all).

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Truthfully I don't know all that much about Montessori. :-0 And I'll probably get skewered for saying this, but my impression (realizing I don't have much exposure to Montessori) is that they don't necessarily teach the kids the skills they need to succeed in the real world. IOW, it's all independent thinking and to heck with meeting the requirements of the real world, like getting a paper in on time or arriving at school at a certain hour.

Yes you are under a misconception about Montessori education. They do
learn those things.

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Truthfully I don't know all that much about Montessori. :-0 And I'll probably get skewered for saying this, but my impression (realizing I don't have much exposure to Montessori) is that they don't necessarily teach the kids the skills they need to succeed in the real world. IOW, it's all independent thinking and to heck with meeting the requirements of the real world, like getting a paper in on time or arriving at school at a certain hour.

Yes you are under a misconception about Montessori education. They do
learn those things.

OK, I finally did it. After watching it almost three times, I bought it (Mona
Lisa Smiles). I really like this film.

Thanks for mentioning it, Jen.

OK, I finally did it. After watching it almost three times, I bought it (Mona
Lisa Smiles). I really like this film.

Thanks for mentioning it, Jen.