|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I play some Paizo adventures with my son and I have a daughter who likes to dress up as a knight, pick up a bright purple nerf bold shooting crossbow, and go hunting imaginary monsters. (She's 4 but she'll be playing soon.) Love it. Nerd girls are great. I have to be careful though that her lack of the 'princess-gene' doesn't upset her mother. Her mother keeps buying her Barbie dolls and my little nerd keeps feeding them to her dinosaurs.
Not wanting addresses or such but do you guys think the area you live changes this?I certainly think so. Ten years ago me a three friends were hitchhiking in rural Ireland and a jeep pulls over and offers us a ride. I was surprised that the driver was a young woman by herself....picking up three young men in the middle of nowhere. I don't see that happening in the city. When I was about 18, I was hitchhiking through the countryside and a pickup pulls up. The woman behind the wheel is about twice my age but still very attractive in her cutoff denim shorts. After finding out where I was going she says, "I'll take you all the way there, but first you have to come to my place and help me out with a little something." She doesn't tell me what. I agree. We get to her place and, with a wink and a smile, she takes me around back of the house and into one of the barns ... Spoiler:
... hands me a bucket and asks me to slop the pigs and then head over to the stables and shovel them out. Fair enough.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a Paizo fan in spite of this. I intend to order a handful more Paizo products, including some Golarion books, soon. I don't mean to imply that Burnt Offerings, the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, etc. were bad; on the contrary, I loved them. But they're just not right for certain audiences.I completely agree. I love Paizo's products but some of their stuff is not something I would share with children. I would love to see a couple products made with young kids in mind. +1. I love Paizo products. I play some Paizo adventures with my son and I have a daughter who likes to dress up as a knight, pick up a crossbow, and go hunting. (She's 4 but she'll be playing soon.) There are some Paizo products I won't share with them. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I hope though that if Paizo decides to make a Pathfinder Basic set that they keep younger audiences in mind for that line. I thought "Into the Haunted Forest" was a really good one for younger players. I don't recall any more mature players complaining that it lacked anything.
I can understand where Aaron's coming from. There are some Paizo products that I would not share with my son but I certainly enjoy them myself. I'm still hoping for a Pathfinder Red Box/Book that is slightly more conservative so that I could be more comfortable giving him a shot at DMing.
You dismiss the labor and knowledge involved because it is not your own. Liken it to the sweat equity one performs on a house to increase its value. It does have a real value. The tomatoe example has no value to you so you mock it. Yet you pretend that you want to understand another's mindset. That is the real mockery. Sadly, I'm not the least surprised to see it appear in this thread. Are you talking about my post? Why not be specific in your criticisms?
Up thread, it was suggested that the promotion of good health could reduce the costs of health care. Rural towns, already suffering from the rural-to-urban brain drain could benefit, if they were able to argue for the health benefits of fresh air, fresh food, space to play and exercise, lakes, mountains, etc.
Some of my ESL students who were doctors in their home countries have told me that it is easier for them to become recertified in the US than it is in Canada. That should help the American system. Is that true to your knowledge? We lost our favourite pediatrician because she left for the US. She was officially only a nurse here, but our family doctor deferred to her on any health issues related to our daughter because she had worked as a pediatrician in Poland. She was just excellent.
... The tomatoes made perfect sense to me. I disagree with Bitter Thorn, but I understood him. It's just, I've got a lot of cucumbers and I live very far away from Bitter Thorn. I'd like to be able to engage in some kind of exchange, so that we can make a salad. In order to do that, however, I have to be able to ensure that my cucumbers reach him. I've hired a cousin to drive my pickup to BT's place to deliver the cucumbers and pick up the tomatoes. Unfortunately, as we live in a perfect world completely free of government, I have no postal service through which to contact him, no roads to drive the truck on, no police to ensure those roads we don't have are safe, no health care to keep those working at the rest stops healthy and strong, etc. I abhor government inefficiency but I still value government.
If I spend my entire working life making $7/hour (@40 hours per week, that equates to $1750 per year into a retirement account when you take out 2 weeks for unpaid vacation/sick time, etc), I would have over $2 million by the time I retire. Not bad, eh? But our wonderful Social Security system will pay (at most) $675/month, or just over $8000/year in 2010. You'd have to live 250... I think that the 10% is unadjusted for inflation. But let's say your $411k is right. That still means one has to live for 50 years to collect the same amount from Social Security. Not too many 120 year olds running around. And if you were earning $7/hr your entire life, it's really doubtful that you took that great care of yourself anyways. Again, you're not adjusting for inflation. $8000 in 2010 does not equal $8000 in 2060. The amount that social security pays will have to increase accordingly (if the system doesn't go bankrupt first.) I agree with you, however, that many of us would do better if we could invest that money in our own retirement without government help. (Of course, we'd be retiring to a bleak dystopian future where old people without our investment savvy mug teenagers for their lunch money but hey.) My problem with what you are saying is that you are grossly underestimating the amount that a young person should be putting away.
If I spend my entire working life making $7/hour (@40 hours per week, that equates to $1750 per year into a retirement account when you take out 2 weeks for unpaid vacation/sick time, etc), I would have over $2 million by the time I retire. Not bad, eh? But our wonderful Social Security system will pay (at most) $675/month, or just over $8000/year in 2010. You'd have to live 250... How do you figure that? I came up with 411410.38 and that is assuming that you are 40 years from retirement, that your wage (and savings) increases at 4% per year and your retirement account grows at 5% per year. Of course, given this steady inflation, that 400k isn't going to last you very long ... about 4 years if you try to maintain your pre-retirement standard of living. * Note to self: increase retirement savings *
I believe it was stated in another thread not in the PFS section that all scenarios being retired will be clearly marked as that in the Paizo store. What you quoted was also apparently changed, again according to the other thread that I can't find right now, that they will still be for sale, just that you can no longer get any credit for them once they are retired.Should scenarios due to be retired at the end of this month be clearly marked as such? I'd be ticked if I bought something on the 28th to find out I couldn't play it. At the same time, I might want to grab some before they're gone to run as unofficial PbPs. Is #10: Blood at Dralkard Manor still going to be retired in a couple of weeks? It isn't marked as such. Good news about the still available for purchase though.
Should scenarios due to be retired at the end of this month be clearly marked as such? I'd be ticked if I bought something on the 28th to find out I couldn't play it. At the same time, I might want to grab some before they're gone to run as unofficial PbPs.
I think it's okay to appreciate the way some one looks, just make sure you don't lose touch of the fact that they are still a person. I have had male coworkers (and even some management) in the past who treated me as eye-candy instead of a person and it is really demeaning and uncomfortable. I have also had male coworkers in the past who were able to express appreciation for both my appearance AND my opinions. The tricky part is that human communication varies widely between individuals and what is ok with some one is not ok with others. In the workplace, its really best to err on the side of caution. But it's okay if I leer at your avatar, right?
I just improv it depending on the context. If the fumble occurs on a flight of stairs, fumbler falls down the stairs. If the fumble occurs with a centuries old bow in the hands of an undead mummy, fumbler breaks the bow string. If the fumble occurs while throwing a tanglefoot bag, bag pops in fumbler's hand. I try to make it more humiliating than deadly and will usually choose an effect that leads to strategizing and roleplaying not a TPK.
A subject that's not fully objective such as history where grading is frequently essay weighted, could give the student the sense that his grade depends on chiming with the opinion of his mentor. Teachers should be very clear about how they will assess writing and make it clear that students are expected to voice their own opinions. They should model how opinions are formed and developed. Certainly, only the worst kind of teacher would lead students to believe that you will get more marks for agreeing poorly than disagreeing well. A teacher must give freely of his mind, but should open her heart sparingly and with caution. The more clearly and carefully a teacher expresses her opinions, the more developed and nuanced those opinions will be.
Stop being such a ****. And, I agree. I think we are arguing the same thing from different perspectives.
I would rather see a teacher who can discuss their views of Iraq, give reasons for their views, introduce the views of others, and help students feel comfortable disagreeing with them. In fact, looking at American news media and political culture, it seems teachers need to take on the role of demonstrating civil discourse because politicians and pundits aren't going to do it. From where, in America today, are children going to learn that you and I can disagree and it doesn't mean that you're an a#~&%*&?
A history teacher isn't there to teach the kids debate tactics. They're there to teach them history. If, after giving the kids the facts, they wish to engage in a debate or suchwhat, so be it.I imagine that would depend on what state you are in. Here in Quebec, all teachers in all classes are expected to teach students to exercise critical judgement, take and articulate stances, communicate appropriately, etc. So, yes, in this province, a history teacher should be having students debate history. It's a part of the job. Please report yourself to the Godwin thread.
A history teacher isn't there to teach the kids debate tactics. They're there to teach them history. If, after giving the kids the facts, they wish to engage in a debate or suchwhat, so be it. I imagine that would depend on what state you are in. Here in Quebec, all teachers in all classes are expected to teach students to exercise critical judgement, take and articulate stances, communicate appropriately, etc. So, yes, in this province, a history teacher should be having students debate history. It's a part of the job.
Sure. But that's not demonstrating 'neutrality' which is what Wicht was calling foolishness. A teacher who claims to be neutral is doing students a disservice twice: (1) suggesting that an objective, unbiased position is possible and (2) not modelling the communicative skills needed to clearly articulate and defend a moral opinion.
For my part, I respect teachers who are willing to admit their biases from the beginning and who are likewise willing to tell me what they think without telling me what I should think. I think such a practice is more practical and worthwhile than trying to pursue some nebulous neutrality which is itself often a non-neutral, sometimes-thinly-veiled hostility. +1 A teacher who tells you what they think and then very clearly and honestly explains how they arrived at that conclusion enables students to articulate their own views in ways that a teacher claiming a neutral stance simply can't. Even if the teacher were truly neutral, they would not help students to learn how to articulate their beliefs. Teachers need to take and communicate stances and do so respectfully and honestly.
I said if it is going to be taught in schools the curricula should be inclusive of all religions and should be neutral. I am saying that i also would not have any problem with a class solely about a religion (as an elective) being taught if equal time was given to each adn every religion. There's a difference between being inclusive and giving equal time. When I teach an introductory course on linguistics, I don't give equal time to all languages because we would end up spending so much time discussing languages that we never would be able to discuss Language. Is there a difference between teaching Religion and teaching religions? I'm not sure if I understand your vision of what a religion class would look like. I would teach it as a class about what Religion is and how it influences human belief systems and ethics and then, as a teacher, I would draw examples from particular religions. In this case, it isn't necessary that we learn, for example, what every religion says about the death penalty (or some other moral issue), but that we look at how people who share the same religious perspective could have widely varying views on the death penalty. Then, we would help the students to articulate their own ethical views on the subject and discuss how they come to form them. I wouldn't want my children to go to a school in which they are taught specific religions. (I don't trust teachers with something so important.) I do want them to learn about Religion just as I want them to learn about society and politics.
While I think my political and religious views are correct, and I naturally want my children to come to the same conclusions I did, indoctrination of any sort produces weak thinkers. I have no illusions about the fact that my kids are exposed primarily to my own worldveiw but my goal is not to simply tell them what they should believe but to teach them how to reach a conclusion. I don't hesitate to tell them what I think but I strive to make sure, when I can, to try and explain why others might have different veiws. Ideally, my teaching style is not to give an answer but to try and run through the process of obtaining an answer. Thats true in math, science, and theology. I think where a lot of study programs break down is they don't teach the process so much as they teach the result of the process. It is more useful to know why 2 and 2 makes 4 than it is to know the fact that 2 and 2 is four. I agree, and the official curriculum documents here in Quebec agree. My experience, however, is that schools and teachers tend to reproduce society as teachers are afraid of being actively political. I keep telling my students that avoiding questioning the status quo IS a political stance but they look at me funny when I say it.
So yesterday I had my sons reading on Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwengli, none of whom I totally agree with doctrinally. They have read science material written by both creationists and evolutionists. It is my belief that to be well educated it is necessary to know both sides of an argument. I take it you would prefer I didn't let them study religion until they are twenty, or twenty-two perhaps? What is, in your opinion, the proper age to expose a mind to the idea of a spiritual side of life.Then i commend you on being one of the homeschoolers who actually gives their children a proper ("secular" if you will) education rather than a theology lesson every day. How many of your teachers in public school openly challenged the two dominant faiths of the modern age: consumerism and banal nationalism? You may be able to think of a handful but what would that be as a percentage of the number of teachers who have taught you? I find my son comes home from school hearing the same view of the world he encounters on TV. Encouraging him to critique and challenge and question ends up being the job of the parent. Schools aren't designed for that.
We have some families very big into organic foods. Others are heavily into music and the arts. Mine is big into gaming and books. Several are highly distrustful of the state when it comes to maintaining our rights and freedoms, others less so. Even religiously we represent a fairly broad swathe. We have Catholics, Baptists, 7th day adventists, Jewish-christians,... Religiously, that sounds more diverse than my son's current classroom in which he is the only non-Catholic.
I don't understand the argument. Insisting that all students be educated in schools allows the state access to children's minds supports the spread of nationalist ideologies. Public schools have always been about building nations and imparting a sense of nationalism. That's one of their primary roles and purposes and its one of the reason that alternatives (such as homeschooling) are so threatening to some people.
Neil, Jonathan, and I have something on the way. It takes a little more time because we collaborate a great deal.
I admittedly haven't read the full thread, but this jumped out at me. While a homeschooled student may perform better academically, where do they stand socially? Public and private schools unofficially teach interpersonal skills, a respect for diversity, and allow kids to do what they're supposed to do: grow up. Even if a homeschooler goes out of their way to attempt to do this, the fact remains that it will be damn-near impossible to "expose" their children to 30 kids per class 5 times/day. Public and private schools officially teach interpersonal skills, a respect for diversity, and allow kids to do what they're supposed to do: grow up. Unofficially, they teach normative behaviour through turning a blind eye to physical and verbal abuse that goes on between children and that regularly undermines children's self-esteem. Sorry, but I'll wait for some facts on this one before I consider concerns about socialization to be a strike against homeschooling.
These all sound like great ways to help your students gain a deeper level of understanding than many lectures promote. The students who enjoyed your lectures would probably make better teachers because of this experience. How many students in these lectures? One problem that one of my teacher ed. students have pointed out to me though is that there subject specific classes are often lectures with hundreds of students. They need to be able to present the information in high school classes of 20-30 students with an expectation that the lessons involve more interaction. Do education majors get the chance to be more hands-on in any of the science classes at your institution? The student who pointed this out to me made the comment that he could learn a variety of teaching techniques in his education classes but had difficulty applying those to his subject area because he didn't get to see science taught in that way. I told him to stop being lazy and do the intellectual work required to make the translation but I say that a lot because I'm a hardass.
Rather than taking the easy way out and blaming teachers for the problems with schools -- which strikes me as kind of like blaming your accountant for your high taxes or your lawyer for your drug abuse conviction: it may be their fault but there are other factors to consider -- perhaps there is something about the institution of 'school' that makes it a problem. Schools are slow to recognize that sitting in chairs for long periods of times is bad for your health and mental development. Ironically, most people would agree that sitting in front of the TV for hours and hours is bad for young people because they need to move around and be engaged. Schools are one of the few places where one person can physically assault another and it is seldom treated as a police matter. We don't even call it assault, we call it 'bullying' and treat it as an unfortunate aspect of schools. Schools are political footballs in an impromptu game at recess -- everyone kicks them one direction or another but no one seems to have a clear sense of where the goals are. Schools are made responsible for students' performance even when statistical evidence demonstrate that a wide range of factors influence this performance. Schools operate under the premise that building four walls around a child to shut the world out is the best way for them to learn about it. Schools assume that learning can be compartmentalized in subjects, in classes, in semesters, in units, in lesson plans. They assume that learning happens between two bells and can be measured on weekly quizzes. Schools are becoming measured by students' test scores despite the lack of evidence that these test scores demonstrate students' ability to apply knowledge in meaningful ways. Most of us can't even imagine a school without chairs and desks and walls or imagine a school where every child retained all their legal and ethical rights. Most people, teachers included, don't find it objectionable that schools are tasked with reproducing society, but then are blamed when test scores reflect the failings of that society. Most people find it easier to say that students failed the test rather than that a test failed the students but tests fail probably more often than students do.
Works both ways, bub. *snikt* Ouch, that hurts.Oh, you sciency types with your love of anecdotal evidence and intuitive leaps. ;-)In the thirteen years I've been teaching teachers, I've found *snip* Yes, but I wasn't arguing teachers are not in fact dumb. My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours, so we'll need some hard data. Anyone have admissions records to back them up? (I don't.) I'm surprised that you don't see these idiots in your classes in other fields, because I have.I never said I didn't. Reading my text, you'd see that it's a matter of proportion. Education majors (along with aviation sciences, drama, and leisure studies) tend to be weighted towards the lower end of student quality in most major aspects: diligence, punctuality, honesty, attentiveness, etc. Business was a crapshoot. DHM (Design, Housing, and Merchandising, frequently derided as "fashion majors") and HES (Human Environment Sciences [aka "home ec"]) actually tended towards the top, along with history and music majors. The rest were fairly varied over the years, as would be expected. Are aviation sciences students going to be flying planes, because this concerns me! I've taught fashion majors and dance majors. I've been impressed with how hard they worked when you made it clear that you weren't going to underestimate them. I've only taught a few leisure studies majors and they were smart but a bit relaxed. Couldn't quite figure them out. Still, it strikes me as a bit lazy to argue that "school is dumb because teachers are stupid." I made that argument in grade 9 and I realized it was immature even then.A person who is at best ignorant and indifferent to a subject, and at worst fearful and uncertain in the very subject they're teaching should not be in a teaching position. Students pick up far more than what is said aloud; teaching requires being an example. Well, most education majors won't end up in teaching positions, so perhaps that will sort itself out. The best evidence for any lack of intelligence on the part of education majors would be the challenge many of them are going to face finding jobs in neighborhoods they'd want to work after graduation. My point is ... (cont.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
