the post has an article today that is rather lacking in perspective. the shrill and blaring headline trumpets that 42% of seniors are proficient in economics. but the spin starts int he fourth paragraph:
"While there is clear room for improvement, the results are not discouraging," said Darvin M. Winick, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees policy for the NAEP tests, in a statement before a news conference in Washington this morning. "Given the number of students who finish high school with a limited vocabulary, not reading well, and weak in math, the results may be as good as or better than we should expect."
ridiculous. the soft pedaling of the results is simply weak. to say that abyssmal performance is okay given how dumb all the students are is so ridiculously elitist and indiciative of the way the bourgeoisie view the world. these types of stereotypes are unforgivable. i wonder if the guy had to put down his cognac and cigar and straighten his bow tie before offering this farcical interpretation.
but the real embaressment is the mis-direction involved in the conclusions drawn. yes people, there is a reason that our young scholars who get degrees in economics are awarded a bachelors of arts rather than a bachelors of science. the fact that our young scholars did not provide the anticipated answer is not necessarily proof that they don't understand the world around them. is itnot also possible thta understand the world quite well and can provide answers that so not fit well with the expectations of the mordern, urbane mandarins who are writing the questions?
40 percent determined why industries can successfully lobby for tariff protection
60% likely indicated the truth that ike eisenhower rather bluntly told the nation on January 17th, 1961. corporations get what they want. they are run by mordern day plutocrats, answerable to virtually no one. even the law recognizes a ridiculous amount of rights on their behalf. the fact that we even discuss protecting these entites is actually quite amazing. they feed at the public trough to an extent never before seen, in a symbiotic relationship with legislative leaders. why do corporation get pretty much everything they want? because there is no powerful force in our current society or government that opposes them; effectively providing a check on their power or or a check on the flow of funds to their coffers.
32 percent identified how investment in education can impact economic growth;
the point of education is not economic growth but social change. however, there is also a relationship between social change and economic growth. this is the quesitons that needs to be answered. all the kids know that come the revolution, economic groth will not be a goal that we seek to maximize. it pleases me that 68% of students tested did not conflate these two things automatically.
11% analyzed how a change in the unemployment rate affects income, spending, and production.
many probably could have written eloquent essays on how bicycle ownership and safe avenues for riding and commuting activity affect happiness, and how this happiness affects production. but the byzantine econometric relationships implied, which dismiss critical aspects as externalities, cannot be succinctly explained given the factors offered for discussion. without the social force of revolution and the complex andminfold dynamics of cycling, discussions of production can be superficial at best.
just below the headline, the paper echoes: " 'results are not discouraging' says official ". idiots. of course the results are discouraging. for them. the results are only discouraging to one who's greatest aspiraiton in life is to attend the university of chicago school of economics, and then make dumptruck loads of money of the backs of the serfs you have toil under the ponderous yoke of the global economy. there is a special circle of the inferno for you all.
this is getting my dander up....
-sg