American Education

Teaching Math at Harvard:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is
4/5 of the price. What is his profit?


Teaching Math at University of Maryland, College Park:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is
4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?


Teaching Math at California State Dominguez Hills:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is
$80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.


Teaching Math at Thomas Edison State College:
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you
think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after
answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the

logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.


Teaching Math at University of Phoenix (i.e. for profit):
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is
$120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60

 

Did your President fail to advise you that the next was is with Irak?

 

It is hard to keep track of all the countries he want to bomb.

 

It's not that difficult.

1) The ones who had a hand in slaughtering 3000 innocent people on 9/11.

2) The ones who would give weapons of mass destruction to #1.

If anyone deserves bombing, it's certainly those two groups.


Bruce

 

We are not getting into the best topic subtopic area here, but we seem to be going where ever he leads, and at this mornings count the only 'blind followers' are Australia and Turkey ... the rest? ... a high level of disquiet, unrest, debate, uncertainty.

The facts about point 2 have been in the hands of Government for a considerable period of time, but are now being presented as 'new' evidence ... and that is concerning to more than a few.

And that is my last contribution on this topic's subtopic, which was a black humour diversion, not the first speakers presentation in a debate

 

One of the great things about George W. Bush is that his first and foremost concern is the United States of America. After all, that's what we (US taxpayers) pay him to do.

We (the United States) don't seek or require the approval of anyone else to defend ourselves against hostile nations and/or groups. If any other nation wants to join us in eradicating terrorist groups, then so much the better.

The last time that many people were killed in one day on US soil (12/7/41), it sparked the biggest war in world history. That would be World War II. You know, the one where Australia was nearly invaded & taken over by Japan.

On behalf of my uncle (a Marine who fought on Iwo Jima) and my wife's grandfather (who served on the USS Yorktown during Midway)......you're welcome.


Bruce

 

Peter,

The United States is a great nation but here is an example of some of the things that should be an embarrassment to any nation:

"One of the great things about George W. Bush is that his first and foremost concern is the United States of America. After all, that's what we (US taxpayers) pay him to do."

Actually, George's first and foremost concern is to promote the concerns of American business (see market deregulation, environmental regulation, drilling in the Arctic, etc., etc.). Ironically, American business tends to pay limited taxes as they utilize off-shore tax havens (see Enron as a current example). Other countries have implored the United States to take action against these off-shore havens, to no avail.

"We (the United States) don't seek or require the approval of anyone else to defend ourselves against hostile nations and/or groups. If any other nation wants to join us in eradicating terrorist groups, then so much the better."

No doubt. However, we would have "fewer" enemies if we pulled our soldiers out of the middle east... but that would impact our "right" to drive big SUVs. It is much easier to enforce our rights by bombing the hell out of any country which might stand in the way or our extracting "Texas Tea".

"The last time that many people were killed in one day on US soil (12/7/41), it sparked the biggest war in world history. That would be World War II. You know, the one where Australia was nearly invaded & taken over by Japan."

Actually, WWII started before Pearl Harbor (I guess this was left out of the Thomas Edison State College equivalency examination). This is also an insult to the many British, French, Canadian, etc., who gave their lives to defend freedom before the U.S. suffered loss and decided to enter the war."

 

What has this got to do with DL education folks!!!

There are plenty of political forums for you to debate your views on.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Bozzy.

BTW Iraq is spelled with a Q not a K.

 

I don't know if this topic is inappropriate. 9/11 has affected Americans in profound ways including some of our D/L plans.
I haven't sent in my course selections to the University of London in part because I feel unsettled about the future. This sounds a little weird, perhaps, but I have the feeling that I ought somehow to be acquiring skills and knowlege that will contribute to a strong United States. I feel in some small way called to support the nation rather than merely pursue my own interests. My earlier ideas seem a little, well, PUNY now.
It took me a long time to realize that we really are at war. I don't trust the Bush administration at all. I agree that the President seems more committed to profit than to the public well being. As a lawyer I am very concerned about potential civil rights abuses in the name of national security but I am also aware that these are extra ordinary times.

Nosborne

 

The war became a true World War when the US entered the fray. Until then, it was primarily a European & Asian conflict.

And, there was no insult to the Brits, French, etc. The simple fact, like it or not, is that the United States bore the brunt of combat operations in the war. Without the intervention of the US, world history would have taken a very different turn.


Bruce

 

Your comments about reviewing your future choices is an interesting one. May people in the US are quite unsettled if my mail and that of my associates is any indication.

We took a lot of Jewish refugees in before the second world war [you know that war? - the one that the US won!] and after that they had to settle in South Africa as we had an exclusionary White Australia Policy that allowed us to not grant you entry if you had one tooth filled [extraordinary! ... and people still don't realise the wording/intent of that policy]. These South African Jews are now resettling here.

The effect of this is that a lot of US Jewish people [my clients in these cases] are seriously considering relocating post Sept 11 and Canada and Australia are on the list. Some are considering shifting entire families and an enormous cost, and for that reason Canada is the cheaper option.

This brings up the question of the portability of their qualifications, and I mentioned this in a previous article under another topic heading. I think that it should enter into the considerations of US students - maybe they will want to relocate or explore the world, [America isn't the world - sorry about that blunt fact!] and a US degree isn't necessarily the best parchment to take around with you. Top 250 RA or Ivy League - not really a problem, but down the track from that, if you are in a profession, you may have a hell of a lot of ground to cover before you get into Law, Accounting, Finance, Engineering etc. So maybe the Univeristy of London degree will have another benefit that you hadn't considered?

Just a thought ... and in the meantime our shortsighted Prime Minister and his friends will continue to believe that we are 'favoured nation status' with the US ... and more and more people will come to realise that we are being sucked into providing canon fodder as previously. It is interesting how short some memories are.......

 

This section is 'off topiQ' spelled with a "Q" not a "C", so if cookbooks are OK, I reckon the stouch between Bruce and me is OK...?

 

Bruce - you don't happen to have any copies of the emails your family sent around the newsgroups at the time of the Civil War do you?

 

Iindeed? Comprising the vast majority of the World's population, to include Europe, USSR, China, India, most of Africa, Australasia, Canada.

I think that would qualify as a world war.

Interesting, since I believe around 90% of German men and material faced east toward the Soviet Union. Could you detail and quantify that statement (that the US "bore the brunt of combat operations in the war")?

Yes, the Soviet Union and the British would have defeated the Nazis. All of continental Europe would have come under Soviet domination. Britain would have been under constant threat of invasion by the USSR. Japan would have consolidated its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, stitching up the Asia/Pacific region. America would have been wedged between a rock and a hard place from which it is unlikely to have extricated itself.




.

 

Aw come on ... can't we stay emotionally irrational, exonphobic and ethnocentric in this stouch?

 

Not likely. The Germans came within a breath of defeating the Soviets while having to worry about a two front war. As for the Brits, there is no way they could have conducted an invasion of France without the US. No way. One of the little-known things about Normandy is that General Rommell was on leave when the invasion occurred, and his deputy was in command. The deputy (his name escapes me at the moment) wouldn't commit the reserve force without Hitler's approval, which couldn't be obtained because his assistant (Martin Bormann) wouldn't wake him up. Even Eisenhower admitted later that had the reserve force (12th SS Panzer Division) been released, the invasion would have been pushed back into the sea. That was with a huge American force, the Brits & others just didn't have the numbers to pull it off.

With no threat of a two-front war, I have no doubt that Germany would have succeeded in defeating the Soviets. That would mean they could then turn their undivided attention to Britain, not a very comfortable position to be in.

Of course, this is just dealing with the European theatre. Hitler didn't want war with the US, but was more or less forced into it by Japan.


Bruce

 

Portable credentials for relocation? Hmm. Well,I hadn't thought of it that way.
The American refusal to accept Jewish, and other, refugees from WWII Europe is a dark, dark page in U.S. history, one that we try our best to forget. The U.S. State Department was pro British, therefore pro Arab, and like the British and the Arabs, anti Semitic in the political sense of the term. There were immigration quotas going unfilled but the State Department simply sat on them, even after Mrs. Roosevelt publicly castigated them for it. The Jews, you see, had no oil.
I can't imagine leaving the United States. I was born here, raised here, served in the U.S. Navy...
Brrr.

Nosborne

 

I like the word "exonphobic." An exon is a coding portion of a eukaryotic gene. So an exonphobe is presumably someone who hates others because of their genes: i.e. a xenophobe. Very nice to learn a new word.

 

I thought "exonophobic" meant "hating oil companies".

Nosborne
who is also Enronophobic