dorchadas

> The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle.

It's interesting, and I wonder if this has more to do with who controls the discourse the majority of us see. I lived in and grew up in a deep red area. Like, literally, in 2016 and 2020 the state was called for Trump before voting had even ended across it (multiple time zones). I had to actively hide my leftist views from most people, as I immediately got verbally abused if it comes out (it's often quite funny, as I'm in no way an American 'liberal', but that's what they end up resorting to). As a teacher, I've seen left-leaning students get verbally abused too, not to mention I've seen kids get punched simply because they were homosexual (and this was from teenagers).

It becomes quite easy to see why the left wouldn't want to associate with these people, and would write them off, especially if they've had even half of the experiences I've seen. But it happens the exact opposite way in places where right-wing views tend to dominate. Thankfully, it's made it super easy to give me an excuse to keep any political discussion out of my classroom (and, thankfully, the views among the kids are starting to shift to more reasonable ones).

If you're interested in some of the life and afterlife of Celtic myths, I'd wholeheartedly suggest The Celtic Myths that Shape the Way we Think by Mark Williams. I finished it a few days ago, and it was really good. Went into detail about what we can actually know about Celtic myth (hint: pretty much nothing), what even 'Celtic' means, etc., but also talked about some of the most famous stories, what our sources are, and how they've been adapted since. It was quite an interesting read.

> Life isn't some game of throne that incentivized the creation of bloodthirsty ruthless power mongers except in some of the most dystopian place on earth.

I mean, even in the United States I see people doing everything they can to hold on to power and wealth and accumulate more at the expense of those who don't have it, and who are simply doing their best to survive.

> Economic and technological force might make such attempt at control a pointless exercise, especially since a cure will likely be made public by scientists.

Might. But will the cure be made public by scientists if it's funded by those who don't want it public? And even if it is made public, will the average person have the resources to make it even if the cure itself is available? Will they be allowed to have those resources?

I think this all is assuming that those who have the power to will allow competition to ramp up and the price to come down. I can't help but feel they won't with the cure for aging, as it's in a different category than other medical and technological inventions.

As I said in a reply to a sister comment, maybe I'm just cynical and pessimistic, but this is the one thing I don't see those who have money and power allowing to ever reach those who don't; if nobody had to age, it might threaten their power too much.

> Why would it only be available for the extremely wealthy and well-off?

Why wouldn't it?

> Where do you get the idea that such therapies must invariably be expensive?

Because those with power and wealth will want to keep it from those who aren't as well off, and they control the pricing of it. It seems the logical endpoint to me.

I don't see them working on making it cheaper for the common person out of the goodness of their heart. And I see their desire to keep their power as stronger than their desire to worry about healthcare costs.

Maybe I'm super cynical and pessimistic, but if the cure for aging is found, I don't see it being made widely available, ever, for simple reason of power and politics. Humanity isn't at that point, and likely never will be.

> Once you have the effective cure, it will likely be economically a no-brainer to implement, because a whole lot of illness of old age will just go away. It's essentially a self-funding cure that drastically reduce the cost of healthcare.

Sure, it might be economically a no-brainer, but I don't see this happening. Why would the people in positions of power to implement this give it to the masses when they can have it and keep their power forever while the plebs have to continue to age and die?

I want to take a slightly different approach to this, as someone who thinks it somewhat is 'megalomaniacal' to fight death. I don't think it's because the attempt to overcome it is pure hubris, however. And I fear we will eventually one day succeed.

For me, it's because -- let's face it -- it'll only be available to the extremely wealthy and well-off. It won't be available to the average citizen. This will just further cause our immortal overlords to be able to concentrate power and wealth, even moreso than they're already doing. That's not a good thing. Death is the Great Equalizer (especially if there's a very progressive estate tax), and if it is conquered there's nothing to stop that anymore.

As to why we treat doctors and those who prolong life now differently, well, it's reasonably accessible to everyone, especially in a first world country. Sure, you might not get the cutting-edge treatment the rich and powerful can get, but you can get very good quality treatment and prolong your healthspan for a while based on what we have. And, even if you don't get the treatment the rich and powerful do, they are still going to die one day, so at least there's that.

I see no reason to believe that whoever figures out how to stop aging/death will open it to the public, or that it will ever be accessible to the populace. For me, it's a vanity project of the rich that will only harm the poor, and I think that quite decently fits the definition of megalomaniac.

If you like Honore's talk, he also has a book of the same title. I read that a few years ago, and it really changed my opinion about a lot of things. I try to go slower now on things, though I still struggle a lot. Eating is a big one, though I put that down to 13 years of conditioning on 23 minute school lunches, coupled with 5 years of that while teaching. Such a hard habit to overcome.

Where do you get your mathematics puzzles?

You're missing the entire point, which is that people don't have options because not everyone is privileged enough to be able to take time off to look for a job, or go any time without a paycheck.

Also, a lot of the work with growing food could easily be scaled back and done by people with plenty of time to spare for their own lives, or even partially automated. We're already quite a lot more efficient than before. There's no reason we have to have people suffer shit jobs just to live.

If nobody owes anybody else a job, why are they required to live then?

> The proper reaction if somebody makes you a bad proposal is to reject it. Plain and simple.

What luxury you must have to be able to reject a job. Not everyone has that luxury.

I'd argue it is the reason. I know parents who've had no problem helping their kids with the "right way/new math". But it's because the parents knew numbers, and realized that taking away 20 and adding 3 is the same as taking away 17. The number of teachers I've met who "know" it but don't truly grok it is way too high.

I sadly don't know how to fix it without reworking the entire teacher education system, sadly, but I do believe it's the problem affecting primary schools especially. How many times are you taught to read and the 'importance' of reading by a teacher who doesn't like to read themselves? Or 'science' by a teacher who has no grasp of what science is and just reads the slides (I distinctly remember having to correct my 5th grade teacher becasue the notes she used were so old it said Saturn was the only planet with rings...I was that kid, but at least it was after class!).

We need teachers who have trained in those areas, and then wanted to become teachers. And it needs to go all the way up through middle and high schools, but I truly think the focus should be on primary first. It's why we get so many kids who don't understand multiplication when they get to high school, let alone division -- their teachers don't either and they just give them calculators at a young age! And it all boils down to how teachers themselves are trained.

Back to math at the school I taught at, there are two there who understand it. Funnily enough, they both came out of retirement to teach again (one has been doing it for 15 years, and the other just retired from her VP job a few years ago), and they're related. The older one married the younger one's uncle. It's funny how it stays in the family. The younger one's dad was also a math/chem/physics teacher, and was an amazing teacher until he just got too old. They were the only teachers I know or had at that school when I was there who truly knew math, and it showed in how they taught and the general outcomes of their students -- A "C" student in the accelerated algebra II class made an easy "A" on college algebra when they got there two years later, simply because it had been imparted to them that well.

Not just California. I'm from the South and it's the same.

> Math is a problem for middle school teachers because they often don't understand algebra,

Thank you for saying this. I am/was a high school math teacher and this was always the biggest problem when we got students in. The teachers at lower levels just don't understand it well enough to teach it. And, sadly, the same can even be said to be true for some of my coworkers. Our calculus teacher hasn't retired yet because there's nobody she trusts enough in the math department to understand pre-cal/calculus well enough to teach it (I'm on a leave of absence and have switched to the science department, though I've been asked by her and admin to teach those if I return).

To me, common core math makes perfect sense. It's how I do math in my head. But it's also because I feel like I understand math. If I'm subtracting 26 from something, I'm going to subtract 30 and add back 4. It's just quicker and simpler. That's what I've seen parents struggling with, and even teachers struggle with it too! Because they don't get how numbers work. It's really frustrating and harms the kids. I wish I could overhaul how elementary school teachers are trained as in my state they're not even required to do well in math, or take any upper level math courses, before teaching math.

My personal idea would be 10 years, but renewable. However, it can only be renewed if new copies of a work are made available in decent quantities. For a book, this would mean a print run of, say, over 1000 copies. Same for reprinting a CD. This means that, while it's still copyrighted, there are copies able to buy and be acquired. And if it's popular enough to still be relevant 10 years later, it should still be being reproduced. This can extend indefinitely to life of creator, as long as it keeps being reprinted or reproduced like this.

Basically, as soon as it becomes difficult to get, you lose copyright if another run isn't made. This works especially great for academic texts, in my opinion, as well as certain types of music etc. And if someone has a big hit, well, it'll get another print run anyway.

I'd give a longer term for artwork and things like that that don't get republished in the same way, with no renewal. Or maybe something like two free renewals for these things after 10 years, to a maximum of 30 years or life of author, whichever is shorter.

It's really damn annoying. One of my interests is Celtic Studies/Linguistics and there's a thesis that was written in 1939. It's our one representation of this particular dialect of Irish. I've seen it, it's literally falling apart and the pages are see-through. There's been no digitization of it, and no interest in digitizing it by the University. But I can't check it out for in-library use and make a copy of it myself. When it's lost, it's lost, all because of stupid copyright laws, and won't be in public domain until 2076 in Ireland. It was literally written in 1939 and is our one description of a now extinct part of the language, and will literally be in pieces by then.

Copyright should be no more than 10 years, renewable if there's a sizable re-release (.i. > 1000 copies) to make it constantly accessible at reasonable prices, and only for the original creator's life. That's the only way. If people stop publishing and using stuff, copyright ends.

From my experiences with it, in LibGen you have to search exactly what you want. A simple typo ruins it. Z-library is a better in that regards, so typos don't really ruin the search, allowing you to find stuff more easily.

I hope. I'm waiting for replies from two professors I emailed asking about advice for a PhD and how to pursue it. I even included my proposal and how I'd go about it. One of them, at least, mentioned taking PhD students and the other is at the school that'd be best for it (due to proximity to where I'd be doing field work). Both mentioned a research interest in the topic too. I even emailed from another university in the country's account.

I've also emailed another academic over a month ago about an article he wrote abiut a type of non-profit I'd love to set up, and haven't heard back. Though when I emailed him last year it did take 6 weeks to respond. I just wrote this to say I feel it's very hit or miss, depending on the academic in question.

It's funny, because lockdown actually helped me get out of a funk. I wasn't having to wake up any more to go into work at half five, and was able to get into good sleeping/eating habits, as well as exercise habits both at home and when the gym reopened. Granted, I was blessed to have a job that kept me paid without doing a lot of work, so I had plenty of time to pursue interests and exercise and healthy lifestyle. Going back into the school full-time in August killed me.

I do want to say I completely agree with most of what you have said. Current schools are not capable of handling it. But I don't think there's any possible model of schools that can handle it, except, as you said, keeping kids out of their homes when they're in these situations. That's why I don't think any model of vouchers will work, and will just make things worse for the kids whose parents can't afford or don't want to make things better for them.

Basically, to fix this problem, we need to fix the societal issues in the country, not the schools. That's something I entirely agree with. My disagreement is that I think switching to a voucher system and things like that only makes matters worse for those who can't take advantage of just moving for whatever reason.

> Big players owning the schools also becomes a huge risk since parents can easily just go elsewhere.

You seem to keep assuming this, but it's just not true. Parents with means can go elsewhere, and even then to a limit. But all that does is leave the schools and kids that are left behind even worse off. And the big schools can keep buying up the other schools. There's only so many places within a range where parents can take their kids, not to mention there'd need to be a minimum amount of kids to even justify keeping one open.

> Those big players would have to be doing a very good job to keep everybody, compared with the current situation where most people seem to do it because they have no choice.

No they really don't. We see this all the time with other big companies. I fail to see how privatizing education makes it any different than every other private enterprise out there.

> Where in the world are you seeing a school bus route that goes 2 hours each way?

Rural United States. I had students literally have to be on the bus at 5:30 in order to get to school at 7.30. They also didn't get home until 5:30 or later at night, depending on weather.

> Ideally, the creation of schools a lot closer to those kids would become possible.

Population dynamics prevent it.

> And a transport hub is perfectly normal and even reasonable. It simplifies the entire pickup and drop off process. Who knows, maybe UPS can show us how it’s done?

Sure, if you're willing to have kids commute multiple hours a day, and have to switch buses (maybe several times?) and somehow expect that to not impact their success.

> The real goal is many more small schools.

That's not what will happen, though. What'll happen is you'll get big players owning most the schools, all teaching the same way and same stuff (and if there's no oversight, they can also teach anything, even creationism). Capitalism won't allow this to happen.

> Even with larger schools and bus routes, the solution is to create hubs where you can get off one one bus and hop on the one that goes to your school.

This sounds awful, and absolutely won't work for rural areas. I worked at a school where we already had kids on the bus for two hours each way. They had to wake up before 5 sometimes to prep for school. Imagine expanding this so kids can get to their hub and then to another school. That sounds awful.

Really, the only ones who benefit from this system, still, are those who's parents are already borderline being able to send them to private schools or move. It doesn't help the lower socioeconomic groups at all, and, again, will make things worse for them.

I wouldn't say it's just those things, though I agree it's not the schools' responsibilities and that we definitely need a revolution in role models and in our culture.

Reminds me of the Key & Peele sketch 'If We Treated Teachers Like Pro Athletes' [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYOg8EON29Y

I was literally a teacher in a poor school district. I am looking at it from a different perspective, but that doesn't mean my opinion is inherently not valuable. Yes, it might out work great for those kids who can take advantage. But all those who can't are left behind. And actually be left even more behind, especially as all the extra money that would be going to their school flows out. But, hey, they're not your kids right?

The thing is, it only expands the choice to those who are borderline on that group already. It doesn't magically make the choice be available to everyone. For instance, say you're a single parent household and you have to rely on buses. You don't really have 'choice' even within a voucher system. All it does it allow those who can transport their kids to take them elsewhere, making the school that's left behind worse again.

So basically it goes from those 'with a lot of money hav[ing] a choice' to 'those with some money having a choice'. It doesn't fix the underlying problems at all, and would actually make them worse for those who are left behind.

I am somewhat, too. I do think it can be done, but we should look at what causes fatherless households. Is it people having kids too young, and now seeing divorce as an option? Maybe we should stress not having kids until you're ready? Is it because they're jailed? Why are they jailed, etc. It won't be fixed until those things are fixed. Instead of, say, forcing a father to stay around due to societal pressure, we should fix why they'd be absent in the first place.

> I'm sure you put in a lot of hard work to become Valedictorian!

Sadly, no. I hate to sound like one of those 'gifted' people, but a lot of it just came naturally. I never learned how to study; university was a rude awakening, though I still didn't really learn until after graduating there when I started self-studying things.

> Realistically, people like you and I who had a stable upbringing probably would be successful in any reasonable system.

Exactly. I'm thinking now to all my classmates and what they did after. The ones who didn't struggle in school (not necessarily excelled, but they didn't struggle), were all those who had stable households. As far as I'm aware, minus a few who got into opioids (rural America!), most are doing well for themselves. It really does impact a lot.

> I personally attended a poor middle school and didn't learn algebra until 9th grade, but still managed to end up as a mathematics postdoc at a very nice place.

Awesome! Mathematics is what I've started self-studying (I did physics, now dong a physics/applied mathematics masters), and it's super interesting. Just proving stuff is so much fun.

> I cannot wrap my brain around the reluctance to make changes to the system in the face of statistics like the one I mentioned elsewhere and have observed with my own eyes (that is, there are very, very few African American PhDs in mathematics).

Exactly! Part of me thinks it's because it forces us to look behind the curtain, so to speak. If we look at why, we realize it's because of the socioeconomic factors, and then we have to look at what caused that, etc.

> although you can teach college without knowing any formal pedagogical methods,

Sadly, I sometimes wonder the validity of education research. Formal pedagogical methods certainly helped me (I did a MAT while teaching, and there was a noticeable difference), but I really didn't become a decent (wouldn't say I'm good yet) teacher until I had a coworker who really was great and took and interest in explaining things and working with me. It really changed my whole outlook on teaching.

> And I've come to the conclusion that backing away from homogenized curricula most hurts 1) bad teachers and 2) textbook companies.

Absolutely. I'm a huge proponent of public schools, but part of me has really wanted to start a charter school. There would be one major requirement when hiring: the teachers have studied the subject. So your math teachers all have math degrees, English teachers have literature degrees, etc. I think this would really work for lower levels, as you get teachers who are interested in it (instead of being taught math by a teacher who isn't a 'math person', which rubs off on the kids), but because they also understand it at a deeper level and can hopefully find new approaches to it. No textbooks, either. Hopefully it'd be small enough that they wouldn't be needed. Also, at least at a younger level, no homework and let the kids actually be kids and play. I'd argue at least an hour or more recess a day, and a long lunch.

I'd certainly be interested to hear some of your ideas for moving away from the homogenized curricula, and will be looking into those two you mentioned. Thank you!

> Just to explain my point: if a student has worse skills, whatever their reason is, they should have lower grades. That's what a grade is for.

This, I absolutely agree with. Last year I implemented a standards-based system. If you could prove to me you knew the material, you got the points. If you learned it later and proved to me you knew it then, your grade changed.

I did do homework grades (I was required to have one grade a week, and there's no way I could do enough continuous assessment), but it was solely participation and as long as you turned it in and tried (.i. didn't cheat), you got full credit.

Generally, I completely agree you don't want to penalize them for arbitrary reasons; to me, that includes homework. I had to do it, but as long as it was turned in eventually, and honestly attempted, they got full credit (it was like 10% the overall grade). To me, that's how it should be done.

Basically, I completely agree and didn't mean to seem as if I was disagreeing with you!

Is it that we don't value it, or that parents don't have time to actively parent? Or aren't around due to other socioeconomic issues? I taught at a rural school in the States. Less than a quarter of our students lived with both parents at home. And less than 10% lived with families who made enough to keep them off the 'free and reduced lunch program' (thankfully our school gives everyone free breakfast and lunch, and sends food home on the weekends with many). Maybe the issue is these parents would love to parent, but can't because they have to slave away working multiple jobs to just try to make ends meet?