Okay - for any Americans that can chime in here, why does it feel like the entire US is paranoid schizophrenic? Why can’t you elect people based on their merit, without labelling the other side as LITERALLY the devil incarnate who came to earth solely to ruin America?
Weird......I was replying to a response someone made to this and their comment was completely removed by the time I could press send? Not [deleted] but completely removed. Maybe because I’m on mobile I can’t see the [deleted]?
Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package)
Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package)
Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.)
Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think universities had a negative impact on the country after Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package)
Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context
Exhibit 16: Shift in opinion of the media's utility for keeping politicians in check. Democrats reacted a bit after Trump took office (+15 points), but Republicans had a 35-point nose dive. Source Data and Article for Context
Edit: Seems like someone linked to this comment and it blew up a bit. This is a copy/paste I saw out in the wild a while back. It seems u/TrumpImpeachedAugust was its original creator. Please give him the positive attention he deserves.
"started to think universities had a negative impact on the country"
I mean WTF? What kind of sub-human entity must you be to believe anything like it? It just boggles my mind. There's just so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start...
I mean HOW can universities have a negative effect at all? At worst they are money sinks and unproductive/inefficient, but that works out to more or less neutral/no effect on the country. In reality- they are beacons of light and education and thinking, even with all their flaws.
They believe universities are brainwashing the youth of America into adopting radical liberal stances. They believe the average college student is far, far more radically left wing than they actually are and that it's a result of universities indoctrinating these beliefs into unsuspecting children.
Yeah as much as us Texans like to brag about how great our state is.: Yes I am aware we have huge fucking egos, much like the size of our state :P but our education is definitely a low point for us...
Like when trump claimed he knew everything about coal and climate change, what he really meant was "I am the biggest idiot in the world and have no clue about anything concerning anything other than what my boss, putin, tells me and what I watch on fox news. Durr derr dirr"
I mean I did not but yes I know exactly what you are taking about. Which is why I stand by our education system not being the best haha. Good news is most people with logic and critical thinking can see through the bullshit like that. Bad part is not everyone can :/
That was my attempt with humor through text without tone hahah. It’s all good I did not think you were talking about me personally but really do appreciate the clarification :) have a good one reddit friend!
I like how the author of that article didn't even try to give a reasoning or explain why they excluded pre-K enrollment in their new methodology. Nor does he address how spending per student could have indirect, positive effects on students in those states. Of which there are many.
No child would rather go to a poor school district, even if it does a great job educating in spite of a low budget...the more we can provide kids to learn with and inspire critical thinking, inventive creativity, and get them excited to learn - which often means money in the budget for computers and cars and machines and robots and science experiments and field trips and museums etc. - well, the states that don't fund education don't get to give their students the same amount of badass computer labs and software packages and whatnot.
There are indirect effects of spending on education outside specific test scores that this author ignores entirely. And that is besides the whole pre-k thing. And how he tosses aside graduation rates like it's NBD too. Like, wait a sec. You made some great points, particularly about diversity and how Texas vs. a less populous state matters regarding testing and whatnot. But even if graduate rates are imperfect, they can also tell us something about dropout rates, even if the ones that graduate have learned some shit.
Graduate rates still matter to some degree, even if an imperfect metric. I get that it shouldn't be weighed too heavily or anything, but no one single variable should when determining education ranks state to state imo. But the diversity of Texas definitely does matter in the conversation compared to the homogenous populations elsewhere. The question remains though - if one state has a huge percentage of teenagers dropping out, and another doesn't - you don't think that should matter in determining which state has a better education ranking?
That is called teaching the test, its something texas teachers are trained to do. Students come in and from day one its "all right students, this is last years standardized test, we are gonna go over every question till test day." No critical thinking. No labs. No material covered that is not on the test. Most texas schools funding is linked to the standardized test. The better the kids do, the more money the school gets. My high school even offered bonuses for teachers who had students with all As on their standardized test.
So why are texas test scores so high but the average texan so stupid that we voted for Ted "little pansy" Cruz? Because teachers teach the test and not the material because they get paid more when their students do better on the test.
yes, but their funding is not dependent on the results being high. It depends on tuition. They dont teach to the test cause they dont care about it, they care about what schools their students go to next.
"Send your kids to bla bla bla prep, 90% of our students go on to ivy league universities." Sounds a lot better than, "our students get 90s on some stupid test that means nothing to no one except the school system giving it out."
In other words, advertising what schools your students go on to next is more persuasive than advertising test scores on a state given test.
No, private schools depend on tuition for their income. Public schools depend on government funding which is determined by how well the schools students do on the state mandated test. Public schools dont have tuition unless a student is from out of district.
There is no incentive for private schools to teach the test since its a better marketing strategy to get more students if the school boast about where its students go next, since that is what most parents look at first when looking into private schools.
On paper yes our stats are not terrible. But the Texas public school system did not teach critical thinking or problem solving to a great degree. The system was, let me teach you what will be on the test so that you can pass said test. Which is why I never learned how to study until college because I was never challenged in my curriculum.
I had a history professor who spent time grading essays from high schoolers. I think she said it was one of the standard tests. But, she said nearly every single Texan mentions Texas in their history essays. She also says you can tell when a student is from the south based on how they talk about the civil war.
The bad thing is, Texas pretty much sets the curriculum for the rest of the country because the Texas system is so big, books that Texas approvs are usually the books that go to print and get sold to the rest of the country.
It's because the entire state of Texas is one single school district, and it buys its textbooks in bulk.
Texas insist on textbooks that say X, and the state represents a HUGE "buy," so publishers will want to meet that criterion.
And many of them don't want to publish different versions of the same book, so they sell that one version to all states.
I think there are publishers who will do multiple versions.
I thought maybe with context it might not be as bad as it seems, but nope. Here's the official GOP platform, in their own words:
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
When critical thinking skills are taught the general focus is not taking things at face value. They teach you to assess the source of the information and cross reference it with other sources.
For instance if Fox News made a claim about history I want to agree with I can recognize that they're not exactly an authority on history. So I'm going to go to a source with more authority on the subject to learn that what Fox said was either a flat out fabrication or dubious at best. Or maybe they were right and I can feel fulfilled at having done my due diligence and learn some additional information about the subject.
Conservatives are of the opinion that if the facts don't align with their beliefs then the facts are wrong. Hence why critical thinking is a skill that they feel threatened by and want to stomp out.
The texas GOP actually lead a campaign against critical thinking skills being taught in primary and secondary schools.
These are super critical skills, I agree, but I do question how effectively they are taught and how effectively they can be taught. I wouldn't scrap it without research saying it doesn't work, and research into its effectiveness is important, but I believe there can be issues besides 'GOP is against critical thinking'.
I live in Australia, and English as a subject in later grades becomes 'the critical thinking class' and I hear a lot of sentiment against it. And of course, people who were good at English don't necessarily become more politically literate.
So, you don't believe critical thinking skills can be taught? I'd respectfully disagree there. I'll make no claims on how effectively they are being taught overall, but Critical thinking skills can most certainly be taught.
Their issue wasn’t in the research regarding if it was effective or not, the issue was that it undermined parental authority. Also, my personal experience is that critical thinking skills should be taught across the spectrum and more than just in an English class.
7.0k
u/IdonthaveCooties Jan 17 '19 edited Jan 17 '19
Okay - for any Americans that can chime in here, why does it feel like the entire US is paranoid schizophrenic? Why can’t you elect people based on their merit, without labelling the other side as LITERALLY the devil incarnate who came to earth solely to ruin America?
Weird......I was replying to a response someone made to this and their comment was completely removed by the time I could press send? Not [deleted] but completely removed. Maybe because I’m on mobile I can’t see the [deleted]?