Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Remedial Education: Whose Problem IS It?


Remedial education costs Wisconsin an estimated $107 million according to a new brief by the Alliance for Excellent Education.

The figure represents the cost associated with students enrolled in two- or four-year institutions during the 2007–08 school year who had taken one or more remedial courses while in college to learn basic skills they did not master in high school.

It includes $66 million in direct remedial education costs and an additional $41 million in lost lifetime wages because students enrolled in remedial courses are more likely to drop out of college, according to the Washington D.C.-based group.

My question: why do "colleges" ADMIT students who need "remedial education"?

It's easy to blame (say) MPS for failure-to-educate. But there's no law that says colleges have to spend $66 million to "re-educate" the little darlings, is there?

Or is it just good old-fashioned greed--when more students equal more State money?


Al said...

I am willing to bet that none of those in the remedial programs were homeschooled or went to good private high schools, just public schools.
& it isn't just the state colleges that are doing it.

& yes, greed does play its part.

GOR said...

Agree Dad, on why they are being admitted in the first place. It used to be that you had to qualify to enter college and everyone didn't qualify.

If they are not up to speed it should be their responsibility - not the college's - to bring themselves up to speed at their own expense. Otherwise, forget about college altogether.

John Foust said...

Whew, it's a good thing we're not applying this logic to State highway construction or prison-building or -running.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to rape John Foust.

Anonymous said...

And the person who lacks any moral compass...10:07 a.m. anony! Here to present the award is Dad29.

Lev Nitwicky said...

I don't know who is worse -- the pious asshole or the psycho.

I think they're the same person.

John Foust said...

Anyone care to explain why Dad29's blog attracts such uncivil behavior? Anyone care to guess if this rape-posting Anony is conservative or liberal?

Anonymous said...

"Pious a--hole".

You dare not be talking about Dad29, Lev!

John--The lunatic anony is neither conservative nor liberal. Rather, he/she is subhuman. Basically, an animal.

Lev Nitwicky said...

Is this the same John Foust who was banned from Boots and Sabers, Badger Blogger, Real Debate Wisconsin, and Fairly Conservative for being an annoying pain in the ass?

John Foust said...

Strangely, though, I used my real name, and I was not banned for threatening to rape people or reveal personal details in an odd ad-hominem attack, or making crank calls. Why are you so brave, rape-fascinated Anony? I bet a doughnut you are one of those BadgerBloggers.

Dad29 said...

for being an annoying pain in the ass?

He's upped his game a bit, as you can see, Lev.

I may have to put the combox on 'monitor' and join the rest of the right-o-blogs.

John Foust said...

And I'm not banned at Fairly Conservative.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Dad29, go ahead and start monitoring the comments to ensure all responses fit your world view. It would be no different for those lefty blogs who do the same thing because they do not dare want to deal with constructive, legitimate counterpoints.
Tyranny at its finest.

The only annoying pain in the tuckus is the anony who relishes in the suffering of another human being, and the implicit support of such anony. All I know is that God will judge!

I have nothing to worry about...

Anonymous said...

Foust - TOOL extraordinaire

Anonymous said...

*Not intended to be a factual statement.

Roland Melnick said...

It would appear that John Foust attracts the uncivil behavior, not the blog on which he trolls.

John, increase your self-awareness and ponder that for a while.

John Foust said...

So Roland, it's something I said that caused someone else to make crank calls, swear, threaten rape, lob personal insults, taunt with names of my children, insult my wife... and I'm to blame? Wow. Follow the logic! What sort of words would have that effect?

As far as I can tell, I don't stoop to those sorts of personal insults - you know, the ones common at places like BadgerBlogger or Dad29.

Anonymous said...

Roland, your soul is calling you!

Roland Melnick said...

I'm saying you attract the attention of people like Anonymous 10:07. If it were the blog itself, they would have posted that comment without your presence John.

But isn't the "Victimization of Poor John Foust" nothing more than a contrived ploy on your part? Your modus operandi is really old and tiresome, John. For almost two years, I've seen you go into right-leaning blogs and leave smartass comments. When someone snaps back, you act like a distressed Aunt Bea hearing Opie swear for the first time.

Do you take stands on issues? Not that I've seen. Rather, you sarcastically mock others. As soon as a commenter attacks you, your first reaction is to blame not the commenter, but the blog-owner and assume some contrived position of moral superiority over them because of it. That's weak.

Spare us the act, Aunt Bea!! Or to put it in terms you may better understand: "Shame shame shame shame shame shame!"

Roland Melnick said...

And to further illustrate my point, there is the Anonymous 7:08 comment implying I do not have a soul.

If my agenda was to discredit Dad29's blog, I could join the John Foust/Aunt Bea chorus and decry Dad29 for hosting such a zoo-like atmosphere and pretend that Dad29 advocates what the Anonymous commenter states...but that would be dishonest.

Incivility abounds on the internet. Lefty blogs...righty blogs...newspapers...non-political blogs...everywhere. Don't pretend to be a champion of civility, your outrage is too selective. You merely try to score cheap points against those with whom you disagree.

Bruce said...

Kudos to Mr. Melnick for speaking the truth.

John Foust said...

I guess that explains all those "incivility of the Left" posts we find with such regularity on so many right-winger Wisconsin blogs.

I'm no Aunt Bea for pointing out when someone's rude and incivil. I'll repeatedly ask what your standards are, and how you think people should treat each other.

If you think it's great when people make crank calls, when they lob personal insults, threaten with hopes of discouraging discussion, when they craft quality prose like BadgerBlogger Rawson Schaller's public/private homoerotic circle celebration prose... why on Earth would you get upset about me pointing out when someone it being rude or hypocritical?

Saint Revolution said...

Melnick speaks complete TRUTH.

It is unfortunate that there exists the pseudo-bloggers who (de)ride on the coattails of real bloggers.

These pseudo-bloggers do not initiate blog thread conversations through research, information, and TRUTH. They just seem to, first, decry real bloggers for the sake of decrying, and, second, mimick certain aspects of the more intelligent bloggers.

Dad29 stands proud with non-censorship. I salute wholeheartedly his custodianship of his blog. He allows everyone the right to free speech. Unfortunately, this always attracts the ignorant "gnats" with nothing to say/write and everyone to say/write it to.

To all the Anonymouses of Dad29: do us all a favour and at least stand for SOMETHING.

Bruce said...

">>threaten with hopes of discouraging discussion"

Really, Foust? Check your feigned outrage at the door.

Take a look at your ideological compatriots, and take a look in a mirror, every now and then.

No name-calling. Just reality.

John Foust said...

You tell me what they're trying to do, Bruce. Why does one Anony here threaten to post personal details? Why did the BadgerBlogger(s) who crank-called my office say "your time is up"? What were they trying to encourage or discourage?

Anonymous said...

Roland, you lack no soul because you outright refuse to condemn those behaviors which you claim you find offensive. I would imagine that Foust is also guilty of similar instances, but you had the PRIME opportunity to condemn, for example, the anony who repeatedly advocates sodomy of another human being.

Instead, you place the blame on Foust, saying his actions will result in such comments.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Dad29 by enabling those posts to remain ENCOURAGES uncivil behavior? I thought conservatives hold themselves more accountable than liberals. Apparently, not.

John Foust said...

I think that if the insults were directed at Dad29 or his family or his privacy, he'd delete them in a second.

Dad29 hasn't explained why he leaves them up, or whether this decision comports with his inner or outer sense of propriety.

He seems quite comfortable discussion tiny nuances of theology, but can't quite seem to find the words to explain why it's good or bad for his visitors to post such things. It seems far easier for him to make pronouncements about a distant Bishop's interpretation on an obscure issue.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I don't know.

Courts allow stupid lawsuits all the time. Doesn't mean the courts "support" or "encourage" them, does it?

Anonymous said...

John Foust's Work:

235 South Main Street
Jefferson, WI

John Foust's Home:

123 South Main Street
Jefferson, WI

Anonymous said...

Subtle threats, anony 11:51 a.m., as well as a willingness by the blog host to perpetuate them, are the work of the anti-Christ. Repent for your sins!

Imagine if this unstable anony who has repeatedly advocated sodomy and personal bodily harm had published the home addresses of Dad29 or his children. If Dad29's response would be to immediately remove the comment, why isn't the courtesy extended to John Foust?

John Foust said...

Not only that, but Anony isn't very good at the details. Dad29 must be out of town.