Urban charter school has 100% graduation in first class

[The Grim Squeaker]

Sure. But it is not the school system that starts that cycle.

Actually, it can be. I doubt i'm the only one who didn't need to study at all for anything other than math, physics and electronics up until the last two years of HS finals, and thus got to university without having learned ANY study habits (ADD also certainly doesn't help.
The proposed "Special" track might deal with that (I know the university courses or gifted programs I did take in HS helped push me into studying 2 days before finals instead of the day before ).

[Bakustra]

I addressed this fully in my post to Stas, but I do indeed have a problem with the idea of schools specifically for the top 5% or top 1% or other, tiny fractions, just as I have one with the idea of schools for the bottom 5%. Now, the problem is that by making a school specifically for people who don't care about education, you run a high risk of creating an inheritable condition, as their kids will grow up under those same conditions and likely adopt most of the attitudes of their parents. The same thing would happen with a school solely for the top 5%. Meanwhile, the actual systems in use in Germany and around the world don't use tiny little percentages like these. I'm not railing against the school in the OP because the topic of the thread had drifted from that before I joined. If you really must, I will fill every post of mine in this thread with generalized invective against the very concept of charter schools and magnet schools, but only if you are willing to take the fall if it's considered too spammy. Deal, Duke?

Now you will justify this assertion that it will create such inheritable conditions, or you will shut the fuck up. I'm waiting.

Will, Duke? Will? There was a word that I used. "Risk", it is called. Risk is a condition used to determine the probability of a negative event. My position is that it would increase said risk, not create an inevitable problem. You have decided to take the route of une hypocrite and go up against a strawman of my position, and then threaten me with backseat modding if I do not defend it. See, the problem with demanding evidence is that there is no proof, no studies, because nobody has ever created a school such as the one you're proposing, and it remains solely within the realm of the hypothetical.

The rest of your post is pretty funny. I actually chuckled a little at some of the things you're saying. Unfortunately for you, they're not what you intended to be amusing, I'm sure. See, my little comments about you being an aristocrat wannabe, Duke, were insults. Gibery. Put-downs. Asking people to justify their flaming is only going to make you a laughingstock, especially if you actually applied (or rather, tried to apply) this to other threads. "I demand proof that he's a cocksucker!" "We need evidence that he's a motherfucker!" So, Duke, if you really want this, put up or shut up. Prove that I'm a "little shit". Prove that my name is Jimmy. Prove it, Duke, and I'll prove that you're an aristocrat wannabe and in love with the idea of re-establishing the peonage. Go on. I'm waiting.

Go play in traffic, fucksock, and draw a target on your chest for good measure. There is a HUGE difference between insulting someone, and attributing motives onto them you know they neither have and indeed would find offensive. The former is insulting: the latter, slander. No, I do not have to prove your name is Jimmy, because indeed that is just an insult, and an accurate description of your mindset.

You mean, like calling someone a moron, or a "Limbaugh cocksucker", or any number of insults that you know are not literally true and/or describe someone's mindset in an insulting and potentially damaging? Because you really have not done anything (beyond convincing me that perhaps I was not over-the-top enough with my insults and so I will have to try harder next time) to convince me that this is libelous in nature and that you could initiate legal proceedings against me, Duke. Further, if I do say the honest truth, that I intended them as insults exaggerating your responses to me, then I am afraid that you will claim that I am "backpedaling". What scandal! If you would like a full retraction, Duke, then I want something from you, in a bit of reciprocity. I would like an apology from you for being an overaggressive idiot. I don't expect to get that from you, and you probably don't think it's warranted. Well, that's how I currently feel about this proposed retraction, Duke.

Your last line disproves my analysis of schizophrenic posting. Instead, yours are full-on demented. Do you really think that the German system is accurately described by your tiny-brained "special school for the bottom 5%"? Perhaps you have not been reading any of the actual posts by people describing it, then, save to note that they were apparently disagreeing with me. Keep on trying Duke, someday you'll get it!

Does it matter? We're arguing over the justifications for the system, not the percentages. You really are incapable of debating this rationally without burning a strawman.

You use the percentages constantly and even without the percentages your argument still revolves around segregating out a tiny fraction of the student populace, one that is actively disdainful of education. The percentages, or rather the subgroup they represent, are inherent to your ludicrous system My disagreement is over the implications of that, but your system does not explain how it is like the German system, possibly because you have no clue about the actual German system and what percentage of students go into each secondary school. Read my response to Stas or look it up.

Edit: christ, you would think this little shit would realize that his concerns apply just as well to the grading system as to the two/three tiered school systems. What a tool.

Take a swim or something, Duke, you seem to be melting down over there. In any case, why don't you spell this out, since you're teetering hilariously close to accusing me of soft-hearted hippydom, and I'd downright love to see you fall facefirst into that.

Answer the point, or go to hell

Duke, seriously, you're flaking out on me here. You're losing punctuation. Go take a cold shower today or something. Don't overheat. (This is a joke).

*explanation of my position*

Simon, you fool! What have you done! Surely you too will be condemned to the Axis of Meritocracy-haters with me when Duke reads that! I weep for you, for it is a tragic fate you will share. Truly, the burning of shame never stops.

I fail to see any evidence in Simon's post, so I don't see how his concerns have any merit. Nor does you fearmongering, Little Jimmy.

Are you incapable of understanding humor altogether? My characterization was spot-on, since you have ignored Simon and myself but listened immediately to other posters. I do believe that that is a particularly clever and subtle ad hominem fallacy, crossed with a style over substance for my good self: you are ignoring us because we were debating on vaguely opposite sides. Bad behavior, Duke. Bad behavior indeed.

[Formless]

Will, Duke? Will? There was a word that I used. "Risk", it is called. Risk is a condition used to determine the probability of a negative event. My position is that it would increase said risk, not create an inevitable problem. You have decided to take the route of une hypocrite and go up against a strawman of my position, and then threaten me with backseat modding if I do not defend it.

Then you admit you are just scaremongering? I see. Interesting.

See, the problem with demanding evidence is that there is no proof, no studies, because nobody has ever created a school such as the one you're proposing, and it remains solely within the realm of the hypothetical.

Nonsense. We can look to other countries such as Finland and Germany where similar systems have been tried. Guess you weren't paying attention to the rest of the thread?

You mean, like calling someone a moron, or a "Limbaugh cocksucker", or any number of insults that you know are not literally true and/or describe someone's mindset in an insulting and potentially damaging? Because you really have not done anything (beyond convincing me that perhaps I was not over-the-top enough with my insults and so I will have to try harder next time) to convince me that this is libelous in nature and that you could initiate legal proceedings against me, Duke.

Your accusations that I am a wannabe aristocrat are as laughable as if I accused you of being a racist son of a bitch. I have not once advocated anything remotely like what you attribute to me, just as you have not once advocated anything remotely similar to racism. Only difference is that you seem convinced otherwise.

Further, if I do say the honest truth, that I intended them as insults exaggerating your responses to me, then I am afraid that you will claim that I am "backpedaling". What scandal! If you would like a full retraction, Duke, then I want something from you, in a bit of reciprocity. I would like an apology from you for being an overaggressive idiot. I don't expect to get that from you, and you probably don't think it's warranted. Well, that's how I currently feel about this proposed retraction, Duke.

Hmmm... Howabout you go fuck yourself. When I started this conversation with you I was perfectly polite. You were the one who escalated by accusing me of being a wannabe aristocrat, which was both dickish and stupid. I have nothing to apologize for. Welcome to the real world, asshole.

You use the percentages constantly and even without the percentages your argument still revolves around segregating out a tiny fraction of the student populace, one that is actively disdainful of education. The percentages, or rather the subgroup they represent, are inherent to your ludicrous system

I clarified what I'm after. You refuse to acknowledge that fact and continue to act as if I am advocating Wong's initial proposal in which the "5%" number was used. So yes, that is a strawman argument.

Duke, seriously, you're flaking out on me here. You're losing punctuation. Go take a cold shower today or something. Don't overheat. (This is a joke).

Another attempt to dodge the point. I grow weary of your ad hominims. I repeat:

Edit: christ, you would think this little shit would realize that his concerns apply just as well to the grading system as to the two/three tiered school systems. What a tool.

Are you incapable of understanding humor altogether? My characterization was spot-on, since you have ignored Simon and myself but listened immediately to other posters. I do believe that that is a particularly clever and subtle ad hominem fallacy, crossed with a style over substance for my good self: you are ignoring us because we were debating on vaguely opposite sides. Bad behavior, Duke. Bad behavior indeed.

I know what you are worried about. I don't see how those fears have any validity in light of the very simple solution present. I mean, seriously, how do you think I want to identify high achievers and low achievers? The lottery? By social class? How stupid do you take me for?

And yes, I'm a humorless bastard when the joke is at my expense. Wow, what a shock!

[Bakustra]

Will, Duke? Will? There was a word that I used. "Risk", it is called. Risk is a condition used to determine the probability of a negative event. My position is that it would increase said risk, not create an inevitable problem. You have decided to take the route of une hypocrite and go up against a strawman of my position, and then threaten me with backseat modding if I do not defend it.

Then you admit you are just scaremongering? I see. Interesting.

Hold on, Duke. You think that bringing up a valid concern, one a number of other people are also aware of, is scaremongering? Well, I can certainly see why N&P has degenerated so, if criticisms of your position are construed as scaremongering. Also, I am distressed that you removed the italics from my post, which is a common convention when incorporating other languages within essays and other nonfiction. That was a low blow, Duke, whether you did so deliberately or from an inability to recognize la français.

See, the problem with demanding evidence is that there is no proof, no studies, because nobody has ever created a school such as the one you're proposing, and it remains solely within the realm of the hypothetical.

Nonsense. We can look to other countries such as Finland and Germany where similar systems have been tried. Guess you weren't paying attention to the rest of the thread?

No, you see, those systems are very different from your own, and I explained the differences, in my responses to you, Stas and Alyrium. Gee, I wonder who isn't reading the thread here. I really wonder. Let me reiterate: nobody has proposed a system that segregates out tiny fractions of the student body in the way you are proposing. Special education in some districts does this, but not as a permanent split, but instead at the primary level, and mainly to consolidate special needs students into a school specialized to address those needs. They are still controversial, and parents work desperately to keep their kids out, because of the stigma attached. Gee, I wonder how this could be applied to your modest proposal?

You mean, like calling someone a moron, or a "Limbaugh cocksucker", or any number of insults that you know are not literally true and/or describe someone's mindset in an insulting and potentially damaging? Because you really have not done anything (beyond convincing me that perhaps I was not over-the-top enough with my insults and so I will have to try harder next time) to convince me that this is libelous in nature and that you could initiate legal proceedings against me, Duke.

Your accusations that I am a wannabe aristocrat are as laughable as if I accused you of being a racist son of a bitch. I have not once advocated anything remotely like what you attribute to me, just as you have not once advocated anything remotely similar to racism. Only difference is that you seem convinced otherwise.

You miss my point, Duke. You miss it by a mile. Further, if my insults are laughable (snort), why are you so angry about them, apart from some pathological fear of being labeled as aristocratic, even in jest? But now I know that this was a particularly effective insult, since you're obsessing about it.

Further, if I do say the honest truth, that I intended them as insults exaggerating your responses to me, then I am afraid that you will claim that I am "backpedaling". What scandal! If you would like a full retraction, Duke, then I want something from you, in a bit of reciprocity. I would like an apology from you for being an overaggressive idiot. I don't expect to get that from you, and you probably don't think it's warranted. Well, that's how I currently feel about this proposed retraction, Duke.

Hmmm... Howabout you go fuck yourself. When I started this conversation with you I was perfectly polite. You were the one who escalated by accusing me of being a wannabe aristocrat, which was both dickish and stupid. I have nothing to apologize for. Welcome to the real world, asshole.

So you don't want the full retraction, then? Fine by me.

You use the percentages constantly and even without the percentages your argument still revolves around segregating out a tiny fraction of the student populace, one that is actively disdainful of education. The percentages, or rather the subgroup they represent, are inherent to your ludicrous system

I clarified what I'm after. You refuse to acknowledge that fact and continue to act as if I am advocating Wong's initial proposal in which the "5%" number was used. So yes, that is a strawman argument.

You have continued to use the five percent number, Duke. Everybody can see it, don't even try to cover it up. If you like, I'll even highlight every time you used it after Wong stopped posting, in case you have a memory disorder and legitimately forgot (in which case internet arguing may not be ideal for you). Even without the number, as I pointed out and you ignored, you still are arguing for small schools containing the cream or the chaff, if I may mix the metaphors, and have been.

Duke, seriously, you're flaking out on me here. You're losing punctuation. Go take a cold shower today or something. Don't overheat. (This is a joke).

Another attempt to dodge the point. I grow weary of your ad hominims. I repeat:

A honest, if joking expression of concern is an ad hominem fallacy? Oh, you saw me use the phrase and figured it must be a bad thing, so you decided to use it to characterize something you don't like. My, my. I believe some people might call this the "cargo-cult" approach to debate. That, or your brain is legitimately overheating, in which case I repeat:

Duke, seriously, you're flaking out on me here. You're losing punctuation. Go take a cold shower today or something. Don't overheat. (This is a joke).

Are you incapable of understanding humor altogether? My characterization was spot-on, since you have ignored Simon and myself but listened immediately to other posters. I do believe that that is a particularly clever and subtle ad hominem fallacy, crossed with a style over substance for my good self: you are ignoring us because we were debating on vaguely opposite sides. Bad behavior, Duke. Bad behavior indeed.

I know what you are worried about. I don't see how those fears have any validity in light of the very simple solution present. I mean, seriously, how do you think I want to identify high achievers and low achievers? The lottery? By social class? How stupid do you take me for?

Honestly, I take you for an overconfident individual who gets angry easily and refuses to admit when he's wrong (assuming you are male), meaning that you tend to rush into threads with a dumb argument, get attacked for it, and then angrily defend it, eventually morphing or attempting to morph it into something more reasonable so that you can try and humiliate your opponents. In other words, typical behavior for a hot-headed young individual.

When it comes to this proposal, everybody is calling you on it, and curiously you only respond in this manner to me. You are not actually doing anything to refute my characterization of you. Not one thing. My criticisms are not about the manner of choosing, because I do not think that you are quite that dumb. My criticisms are about the subgroups you are trying to isolate; not the underachievers and the overachievers, but the hostile-to-education and the cream of the crop, respectively. While this could work, with care, the fact that you seem to think a three-tier or two-tier system could work like this. Frankly, you would need at least four or five tiers, and then you would start to run into problems with efficiency and overhead.

And yes, I'm a humorless bastard when the joke is at my expense. Wow, what a shock!

Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery, or so popcultural osmosis of Alcoholics Anonymous has taught me. Hey, you know, if you react like this, then maybe you should become a little more thick-skinned before engaging in a firey debate like those here on SDN?

[Formless]

Hold on, Duke. You think that bringing up a valid concern, one a number of other people are also aware of, is scaremongering?

Worrying endlessly about risks without substantiating them with facts is scaremongering. Or if you would like me to put it in more formal terms, a slippery slope fallacy.

Well, I can certainly see why N&P has degenerated so, if criticisms of your position are construed as scaremongering.

You will notice that paltry few of my posts are in N&P. Nice hasty generalization.

Also, I am distressed that you removed the italics from my post, which is a common convention when incorporating other languages within essays and other nonfiction. That was a low blow, Duke, whether you did so deliberately or from an inability to recognize la français.

Well sorry if copy and paste doesn't save formatting. Are you really so thin skinned that that is a low blow, when calling you a "fucksock" wasn't?

But fine. I'll use the "reply with quote" function if that will make you happy.

No, you see, those systems are very different from your own, and I explained the differences, in my responses to you, Stas and Alyrium. Gee, I wonder who isn't reading the thread here. I really wonder. Let me reiterate: nobody has proposed a system that segregates out tiny fractions of the student body in the way you are proposing. Special education in some districts does this, but not as a permanent split, but instead at the primary level, and mainly to consolidate special needs students into a school specialized to address those needs. They are still controversial, and parents work desperately to keep their kids out, because of the stigma attached. Gee, I wonder how this could be applied to your modest proposal?

Holy fuck, do I have to spell this out to you? I mean, again? I'm not advocating Wong's initial proposal, Little Jimmy. But nooooooooo, keep burning those strawmen. It sheds a lot of light into how you think.

You miss my point, Duke. You miss it by a mile. Further, if my insults are laughable (snort), why are you so angry about them, apart from some pathological fear of being labeled as aristocratic, even in jest? But now I know that this was a particularly effective insult, since you're obsessing about it.

Because they are a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. That is dishonest. I am angry at the dishonesty, not at the insult. See the difference, Little Jimmy?

You have continued to use the five percent number, Duke. Everybody can see it, don't even try to cover it up. If you like, I'll even highlight every time you used it after Wong stopped posting, in case you have a memory disorder and legitimately forgot (in which case internet arguing may not be ideal for you). Even without the number, as I pointed out and you ignored, you still are arguing for small schools containing the cream or the chaff, if I may mix the metaphors, and have been.

You are either illiterate, or a liar:

I see Bakustra never answered my question. What is so wrong about sending the lowest 5% to a trade school that isn't wrong about sending the top 5% to a charter school? Or hell, even the top 1%; the percentage doesn't matter.

Emphasis added. I have long since acknowledged that the 5% number, which was an off the cuff estimate by Wong in the first place, is flawed and NOT what we disagree over. If I were advocating the top and bottom 20% should be separated, or even the better ideal that the percentage should be decided by merits or needs of the population, would you still be attacking the proposal for that?

A honest, if joking expression of concern is an ad hominem fallacy? Oh, you saw me use the phrase and figured it must be a bad thing, so you decided to use it to characterize something you don't like. My, my. I believe some people might call this the "cargo-cult" approach to debate. That, or your brain is legitimately overheating, in which case I repeat: *snip*

I don't give a fuck whether or not the joke is honest. Its your refusal to answer the point like the little fucking turd drinker you are that is the problem. I will repeat:

Edit: christ, you would think this little shit would realize that his concerns apply just as well to the grading system as to the two/three tiered school systems. What a tool.

Honestly, I take you for an overconfident individual who gets angry easily and refuses to admit when he's wrong (assuming you are male), meaning that you tend to rush into threads with a dumb argument, get attacked for it, and then angrily defend it, eventually morphing or attempting to morph it into something more reasonable so that you can try and humiliate your opponents. In other words, typical behavior for a hot-headed young individual.

I'm a guy who can't stand grandstanding, dishonest fuckwads like yourself.

When it comes to this proposal, everybody is calling you on it,

Lie. Alyrium, Edi, and Stas Bush have all defended the same idea that I have. Do you really think that Aly's choice of explanations which included a simple solution to your concerns counts as calling me out? You sure have a very inflated sense of self importance.

and curiously you only respond in this manner to me.

Lesson one: no one likes a dishonest asshole. How long have you been posting on these forums?

You are not actually doing anything to refute my characterization of you. Not one thing. My criticisms are not about the manner of choosing, because I do not think that you are quite that dumb. My criticisms are about the subgroups you are trying to isolate; not the underachievers and the overachievers, but the hostile-to-education and the cream of the crop, respectively. While this could work, with care, the fact that you seem to think a three-tier or two-tier system could work like this. Frankly, you would need at least four or five tiers, and then you would start to run into problems with efficiency and overhead.

If you don't think that at tiered system will necessarily be bad, what the fuck is your problem? No solution is perfect, Bakustra, but that is not grounds for dismissing it.

[Bakustra]

So, Duke, I was asking myself, "Is he really trying to change the argument midway through on me and hope nobody notices", after going back to your "triumphant" second post in the thread and confirming that you were in fact talking about the hostile-to-education branch of teendom, and that you were marginally right; I did use the "lowest five percent" against you first. This is balanced out by you lying about starting out reasonable and nice and me then brutishly verbally attacking you (with my boar-like tusks), of course, but if you weren't, well, you, then we wouldn't be in this situation, now would we?

And then it hit me. You might well be assuming that said branch is actually what the German Hauptschule deals with, and therefore makes up a sufficient percentage of the student body to warrant a school specifically for them. After all, the alternative is that you are blatantly dishonest while claiming that I am, and that sort of hypocrisy and lying is simply impossible, particularly in an argument where emotions are running high (on one side, at least). Simply unthinkable!

Well, if that is the case, (and you're certainly not a liar, are you, Duke?) then I must ask if you really had much contact with other kids in high school. See, I actually knew people within the vocational program, and there was a class that was filled with the types that this argument is about, and oddly enough, the hostile slackers didn't do very well in vocational classes either. Meanwhile, there was (and still is) considerable overlap between the ordinary college-prep track and the vocational classes; not a major overlap, but there are people who take those classes alongside honors or AP courses. Commendable behavior in my book. So pardon me if I find this argument of yours (if you are being fully honest) more than a little unconvincing and suggestive of you not actually having any significant contact with anybody outside of your college-prep circle.

Now, there was a third possibility I considered, Duke, which is that you didn't bother to read through your posts to confirm before running off at the mouth, but I dismissed it. Even you wouldn't do something like that, right? I am justified in having a little faith in your reasoning capabilities, right?

On the other hand, Duke, I do lack faith in your sense of humor, and for good reason. When it comes to the italics line, the point of the joke, which sailed about thirty meters over your head, was to contrast, as you said, your profane insults with this tiny one, and then play up the disparity for, as children's authors might say, laffs. Explaining a joke is never funny, and often tedious, but you felt the need to dissect it as though it was a logical argument, and so I will have my wrath for your cruel mistreatment, and indeed mutilation, of my joke; I have made you read this paragraph. (This was also a joke, but I will leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what the point of the joke is. Happy hunting!)

Now, Duke, the problem with that "three whole people support me" is that Edi never actually attacked any of my arguments directly, Stas has not posted since I clarified my position to him, and Alyrium was kind enough to explain my point to you after you ignored Simon and myself. You are therefore putting words into their mouths, while I will say that the last few posts, apart from our little tête a tête, have consisted of Alyrium and Junghalli explaining my point to you. No need for me to attribute positions to them, but I will note that Alyrium was offended by my assuming that he was defending your argument. In fact, I invite them, if they feel I am being unreasonable, to explain why, because unlike you, Duke, I can handle people disagreeing with me, and even mocking me, while you fly into a rage and start choking on bile.

Your little "this sure reveals a lot about your mindset ohohoho" is truly endearing, like all Internet psychology. I look forward to your attempts to classify into a mental disorder, so that your puny little brain can cope with someone daring to disagree with you by categorizing them as mentally handicapped somehow, therefore providing a nice reassurance that you're never wrong. In short, two can play your little games, Duke. I'll even play another. I've been on these forums three entire years longer than you, you seniority-obsessed nitwit. That is totally unimportant to anything at all, but you did ask, Duke.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is, by taking the bottom X percentile and shoving them away into another school, you stigmatize them, and more than likely those schools will get inferior teachers and inferior funding. This creates a situation where the students will leave and be in low paying positions and resentful of the education system.

This is exactly what I was saying.

This can of course be fixed with an aptitude test which measures a kids ability to learn and enjoy different skills, and then placing them according to that, then not stigmatizing the results.

If it can be done effectively I am very much for it. The catch, of course, is the "not stigmatizing" bit, and I would really like to hear from people in Europe who have experience with such school systems, because they're the ones who actually know how practical it is not to stigmatize the school for the bottom quintile/decile/whatever.

[Bakustra]

The problem is, by taking the bottom X percentile and shoving them away into another school, you stigmatize them, and more than likely those schools will get inferior teachers and inferior funding. This creates a situation where the students will leave and be in low paying positions and resentful of the education system.

This is exactly what I was saying.

This can of course be fixed with an aptitude test which measures a kids ability to learn and enjoy different skills, and then placing them according to that, then not stigmatizing the results.

If it can be done effectively I am very much for it. The catch, of course, is the "not stigmatizing" bit, and I would really like to hear from people in Europe who have experience with such school systems, because they're the ones who actually know how practical it is not to stigmatize the school for the bottom quintile/decile/whatever.

In the case of the German system, the Hauptschule held the majority of students when it first started, and in 1970, for example 87.7% of the West German workforce had graduated from the Hauptschule. (From Here, in German. The relevant graph is on page 38, table 4-2). Nowadays that has changed, but when it started, there was no stigma, because that was the school were the overwhelming majority went. In addition, the amount of money spent per student is roughly the same between the Gimnasium and the Hauptschule even today, (a difference of 100 euros per student, from here in English, with the graph on page 8, Figure B-13) so any stigma has come into being as more people have begun attending the Realschule and Gimnasium.

[Alyrium Denryle]

any stigma has come into being as more people have begun attending the Realschule and Gimnasium.

And that is probably more a result in shifts in the economy than anything else.

[Bakustra]

any stigma has come into being as more people have begun attending the Realschule and Gimnasium.

And that is probably more a result in shifts in the economy than anything else.

Probably. There are still, as I understand it from doing a little research, a number of jobs you can get with a Hauptschulabschluss (Hauptschule grad certificate), like kindergarten teacher, but the trend since the 70's has been to have more and more jobs require a Realschulabschluss (Realschule grad certificate) or Abitur (Gymnasium grad certificate) and so new entrants into the job market primarily have those certificates. The percentage of Realschulabschluss holders has actually dropped in the workforce as a whole from 87.7% to 39.6% (and probably further, since the report I found cut off at 2000) since 1970, which testifies to the significant change in educational patterns.

[Formless]

I like a guy who thinks he's funny and expects people to read blatant flaming as humorous.

This is my first post addressing Bakustra directly. Note the distinct lack of hostility in that post.

Bakustra's first post responding to me. Not the most hostile, but distinctly a strawman as well. I may have defended Darth Wong, but that does not necessarily mean I was defending his idea. Indeed, the reason I got into this thread was because JSF's arguments were just that insultingly stupid

may second post directed at Bakustra. My choice of words-- curt. But then, strawman attacks irritate the hell out of me, and why shouldn't they?

And that is what is so frustrating about this thread. You assert ad nasium that I am advocating something you should know by now I do not actually support. And then try and shift the debate into one of personalities-- acting like it really matters whether or not I have a sense of humor. Who cares? Your criticisms are severely flawed, does that not matter?

I guess not. Because it seems clear that you are not interested in debating-- you just want to one up me. Clearly I am wasting my time. Good day, sir.

P.S. I'm guessing your experience in high school was very different from my own. I'll leave it at that.

[Phantasee]

any stigma has come into being as more people have begun attending the Realschule and Gimnasium.

And that is probably more a result in shifts in the economy than anything else.

Probably. There are still, as I understand it from doing a little research, a number of jobs you can get with a Hauptschulabschluss (Hauptschule grad certificate), like kindergarten teacher, but the trend since the 70's has been to have more and more jobs require a Realschulabschluss (Realschule grad certificate) or Abitur (Gymnasium grad certificate) and so new entrants into the job market primarily have those certificates. The percentage of Realschulabschluss holders has actually dropped in the workforce as a whole from 87.7% to 39.6% (and probably further, since the report I found cut off at 2000) since 1970, which testifies to the significant change in educational patterns.

You mean the percentage of Hauptschulabschluss holders has dropped in the workforce from 87.7% to 39.6% between 1970 and 2000, right? I am looking at your previous post in reply to Simon and seeing this:

In the case of the German system, the Hauptschule held the majority of students when it first started, and in 1970, for example 87.7% of the West German workforce had graduated from the Hauptschule. (

EDIT: lol, nice concession, Formless.

[Bakustra]

I like a guy who thinks he's funny and expects people to read blatant flaming as humorous.

This is my first post addressing Bakustra directly. Note the distinct lack of hostility in that post.

Bakustra's first post responding to me. Not the most hostile, but distinctly a strawman as well. I may have defended Darth Wong, but that does not necessarily mean I was defending his idea. Indeed, the reason I got into this thread was because JSF's arguments were just that insultingly stupid

may second post directed at Bakustra. My choice of words-- curt. But then, strawman attacks irritate the hell out of me, and why shouldn't they?

And that is what is so frustrating about this thread. You assert ad nasium that I am advocating something you should know by now I do not actually support. And then try and shift the debate into one of personalities-- acting like it really matters whether or not I have a sense of humor. Who cares? Your criticisms are severely flawed, does that not matter?

I guess not. Because it seems clear that you are not interested in debating-- you just want to one up me. Clearly I am wasting my time. Good day, sir.

P.S. I'm guessing your experience in high school was very different from my own. I'll leave it at that.

You may be the only person in the world who would use "This." as a response to an argument to defend the person making that argument and not the argument itself. When it comes to humor and a sense of it or not, I'm sorry if you think that insults are meant for some grand purpose. I use them to entertain myself, hopefully the people reading the thread, and goad particular posters. Otherwise, I tend to avoid them. Now, you playing the innocent is amusing, but you are the one who decided to pull the internet psychologist card first. I merely responded in kind. Now, you may well be genuinely penitent and remorseful, thinking that you crossed a line somewhere, but to be honest, it looks to me like you couldn't take what you dish out. Well, I suppose we all have a bit of a glass jaw somewhere.

In any case, I'm glad you found a way to concede without hurting your masculinity. The rest of your stuff, much like your last few posts, is best addressed by pointing to the previous posts in the thread. (PS: It's not one-upmanship to point out that you were wriggling around like a worm on a hook, trying desperately to shift the argument to one you'd be guaranteed of backup on, and one that you suspected I'd agree with.) Finally, I don't think I'm funny, I know I'm funny. Good night, Duke!

Probably. There are still, as I understand it from doing a little research, a number of jobs you can get with a Hauptschulabschluss (Hauptschule grad certificate), like kindergarten teacher, but the trend since the 70's has been to have more and more jobs require a Realschulabschluss (Realschule grad certificate) or Abitur (Gymnasium grad certificate) and so new entrants into the job market primarily have those certificates. The percentage of Realschulabschluss holders has actually dropped in the workforce as a whole from 87.7% to 39.6% (and probably further, since the report I found cut off at 2000) since 1970, which testifies to the significant change in educational patterns.

You mean the percentage of Hauptschulabschluss holders has dropped in the workforce from 87.7% to 39.6% between 1970 and 2000, right? I am looking at your previous post in reply to Simon and seeing this:

In the case of the German system, the Hauptschule held the majority of students when it first started, and in 1970, for example 87.7% of the West German workforce had graduated from the Hauptschule. (

EDIT: lol, nice concession, Formless.

Yes, you're right. My fault. How did I miss that?