Is Pressure Really An Excuse For This
 

Yes, I know that in todays world the pressure on students far exceeds what it did in our days as students. But I don't, IMHO, think it justifies this type of stuff. What happens when they get out and are running the world and don't have anyone to copy from. This is NOT to start an argument but just to hear what others think might help this situation which is fast getting out of hand. And it also makes it hard on the honest students who do work their butts off to do well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081130/...FoNnd_F1ys0NUE

Ron :confused:

In this situation I believe that it is the parents, with their threats to sue if their kid is kicked out, etc......

There is no more pressure today . . . .
 

. . . . than there ever was. It is only "different"

All of the "stuff" that we have developed through technology and science has not made life better or worse, harder or easier, more pleasent or less pleasent, only slightly "different"

Happiness is an intrinsic thing. Stuff does not effect it. We are no more or less happy or stressed than our colonial forefathers, or the Romans or the Ancient Minoans. No Change!!!


.

Stress was when all your daylight hours were spent ensuring you and your family had food,warmth and clothing.

It wasn't all that long ago that this was the norm.

I didn't catch the demographics on the survey.

With the level of anonymity given, perhaps a more honest survey was achieved.

The problem here is what was it in the past? Is it higher or lower than say, three years ago or five years ago?

In other words, is the truth of reality hard to take, or is there a marked increase in young people that think stealing is acceptable?

Maybe I missed it. DID I miss a comparison to the past?

:D :D

Tru,

I can't speak for others, but when I was young and in school stealing of any kind was not acceptable and cheating on a test got you sent to the principals office and than a note to your parents who would then use the razor strap to get their point across. Mind you, this is just from my own personal experiences, but I can't see any way that stealing should be acceptable just because it is a different generation.

They did give a few figures of how much it was up over last year.

Ron

When you had a president who lied under oath and on national tv what do you expect from kids.
joeg

" I did not have sex with that woman"


"That depends on what your definitition of "it" is" !!! :mad:



.

Excellent points.

Ron, I did not see that it was up, thanks for pointing that out.

With the roll models we have, we can only hope they are straightened out in time.

:D

:LOL::LOL: "Roll models" - quite appropriate, actually, when talking about Slick Willie Clinton! :LOL::LOL:

Well sed.....
 

Hey Ron, I spent 32 years (on and off) slaving in the publik hah skoo trenches starting in 1971. I saw that public ejicashun was really one liberal fad after another....and I swear, being a bed-rock paleoconservative (and a veteran to boot) attempting to hold the line against these Trotskyites was like trying to pitch-fork water back up Niagara Falls!

First they destroyed the college campusses, then they took over "power positions" in areas where they could get at the kids (following Trotsky, Rousseau, Mazarin and others), etc.

They started with the "Human Potential Movement" and an attendant assault on All Things Western. Then it moved into an assault on "content" (knowin' stuff), which was to be replaced by "process". In other words, the "facts" we all had drummed into our noggins were abandoned and the teacher became a "facilitator". Which essentially meant the teacher didn't have to know shyte!

When this didn't work and the brilliant "New Math" and "Spelling Doesn't Count" initiatives didn't syphon out their little skulls fast enuff, they started in flagrante (Sp?) indoctrination. This of course led to a whole half-generation of feminizedtree-hugger! One side effect of this denying the importance of "traditional" curriculum was that the kids actually realized they were absolute ignoramusses when compared to their grand-parents (who could fill in a blank world map accurately). So-o-o-o-o to compensate for that, the Orwellian Admin types started the "Self Esteem" movement---essentially convincing the kids they were hot stuff, even though they couldn't do the multiplication tables or employ proper spelling and grammar!

You put all of this into a generations-long blender cycle and you get fat whiggers in baggy half-pants and loose-fitting, flat-brimmed baseball caps, who alternate hugging trees with taking a wild variety of pharmaceuticals and rage in frustration while they try to figure out if Mt. Rushmore is a natural rock formation or a herculean sculpture of those old Beatle guys.....

If you want a pitch-perfect symbol of America's future, check out the wal-Maht "stampedes". Cabbage-Patch doll mania was just a harbinger! Ar-ar-ar-ar-ar!

Carrion, and fer cryin' out loud, let's nuke them gay baby whales!!!!

:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

Gee Buzz,

I never figured you to thank of Clinton as a roll model. Just joking of course. :LOL: :LOL:

Smokingcobra2

When you had a president who lied under oath and on national tv what do you expect from kids.

Would you be so lenient with them if they stole from your house like the guy in Arizona? Just because a president or politician lies or steals is NOT an excuse for the kids to do it. Politicians have been doing that since the beginning of time. I believe that any person no matter their age should take responsibility for their actions and just saying a president lied or stole does not excuse it. Many parents take the responsibility of raising their kids the right way.

Ron :)

Fred, Thankyou. Could not have said it better myself.
:p
I honestly think it starts at the top. Our leaders are Failing us. Whenever you have a society that props up Morally Corrupt people as role models, it bleads down through every generation.

Between our 'pro' athletes (lower case intended) with the rampant cheaters ('roids, gambling on games, etc..) and their Zero Moral Base off-field behavior, our movie stars with only the worst of the worst getting the media attention, and our former president (clinton), with his Zero Moral Base On-field behavior, we are left with a HUGE Sucking Vacuum in the "who to emulate" department.
:confused:
The really sad part is, half the "voting" public thinks billclinton was an excellent president. They said "its his own business what he does in his private life". B-effin-S!!! If you dont think a Morally Corrupt man is gonna Govern from the same 'Moral Tool Chest' that he lives his "privat life" by, You're an 'effin Idiot.
:rolleyes:
Our kids ABSORB this garbage. Some of their parents arent around to deflect it, half of them are pushin' it, and the rest, The Moral Majorty, are fighting it, but it may not be enough anymore. The 'Cancer' is growing.
:(

Dont forget our current DUI-getting, cocaine-abusing, OBL-forgetting, military-avoiding, economy-destroying President Bush.

...

Ron,

It just wouldn't be complete without this classic remark...

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277 (1953).

This passage was very popular in the 1960s and its essence was used by the Mayor of Amsterdam, Gijsbert van Hall, following a street demonstration in 1966, as reported by The New York Times, April 3, 1966, p. 16.

This use prompted Malcolm S. Forbes to write an editorial on youth.—Forbes, April 15, 1966, p. 11. In that same issue, under the heading “Side Lines,” pp. 5–6, is a summary of the efforts of researchers and scholars to confirm the wording of Socrates, or Plato, but without success. Evidently, the quotation is spurious."
Bartleby.com
http://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html

Wes


...