GM President . . . time to electrify and educate

Drinnovation,
I can certainly sympathize with the student who wants science or engineering, but attends a HS that has a retarded curriculum and I understand that student has little choice but to make up classes elsewhere.

I wonder how common that problem is. In the 70's I went to a public HS in CA that mostly drew students from ghetto neighborhoods. While the vast majority of the students were just passing time or getting into gang fights, the school had a cohort of *very* dedicated teachers and an advanced curriculum that included calculus theory for whomever wanted to take it and had passed the prereqs. It seemed to me fairly obvious at the time that any person who wanted to pursue science in college would take the high road of math at the HS, and inability to do well in the class was a clear hint that the student was ill-equipped for that path.

Fast forward to a few years ago, when my children were in middle/HS in the floundering state of New Mexico, mired in NCLB. Still, the schools had tracks for 'accelerated' math and the city district ran a wonderful honors Algebra course for motivated 6th - 8th graders who had the means to get to the class early each morning. That track typically led to calculus in HS, and like your program in CO could also lead to an early combined HS/Uni experience. That is actually how my son ended up staying at the state Uni. So at least in my city of Albuquerque, poor math skills tended to be a student choice.

This leaves me still wondering at students who ignored math for 12+ years, and then choose science or engineering for college. It might be edifying to hear from these failing/backwards students how they self report their math skills and abilities. The severe inflation in grades might be enveloping students in a distortion field that tends to pop in college. I know of way too many students who took calculus in HS, and/or were merit scholarship recipients who flunked out of or are struggling in science at the U of NM -- which is far from being a school that only lets the strong survive.

 

While he contributes to and votes for those who oppose public education while laying off teachers to pay for bail out of....GM, Citibank, AIG etc.

As for Dept of Defense weighing in, how about we take some of the $1T a year we spend on the military and spend on...public education.

Eek!!! The horror!!!

Their hypocrisy is transparent.

 

I think the ego-stroking and grade inflation, can be a part of it. Leading to poor habits. I have a student that received all As in HS, including calculus, and did not pass our campus Math placement exam. (And we are less selective than UNM.. we are the other, other campus of U. Colorado). He is in my class and still struggling. Last assignment, I told them it would take 6-7 hours per person (teams of 2). When his team turned it in, they said they spent 3-4 hours and could not do it all.. They not happy when they saw their grade..

Another is that they were not planning and following what they thought, when they were pre-teens, what they wanted to do. I have three students I'm helping become engineers (all are working for me for $$ to pay for college). One is ex-english (already earned a BS), one ex-psychology (finished AS) and one finished her BS in Business and going back to be an EE. They all are okay at math, but found it uninteresting in middle/HS. Its not that they cannot do math, its they did not really like it. But it turns out they like helping people and solving problems, and now see engineering as a way to do that, and have a decent live doing it.

In each case they were following their parents advice to "do what they love", but of course in HS english, psuchology and business are not really about what the careers would be nor did they really investigate job possibilities and income.
Early on they decided to do what they seemed to like, which took them away from the STEM track in HS. The BS in English major spend 9 months looking for jobs, did an unpaid internship, and realized she did not really like it and as she looked deeper at the career choices she found almost all did it pay well. Luckily she had a housemate who was one of my employees and CS major. In HS, the math was hard and seemed pointless, the english was easier for her. She is now 4 terms into being a CS major and enjoying it. Similar stories for the other two.. the "do what you love" story early on, got them going down a track that made engineering hard to consider. Only the realities of carrer paths and earning potential, plus a friend who helped them see they COULD do engineering, led them to reconsider. Its a hard path back, that only a few will try.

 

Who is the "He" and the "their" to which you are referring. How is this post related to the story behind this thread?

 

This rings a bell.

My kids were also encouraged to follow their noses and interests, with the caveat that they had to take the most challenging math and english available to them, and perform to the limit of their abilities in those classes. My daughter grumbled that she does not like math and is not good at it (and I agree), but she took two classes of calculus in HS, and passed the AP test with a 5/5.

I just do not understand kids or parents who ignore basic skill sets and think problems will not pop up later. Or that they can later successfully jump into tracks that rely on fundamentals that have been ignored.

 

GM President . . . time to electrify and educate

​

GM president (current and past) consistently make the statement about we need better educated kids but they consistently, personally and via the corporate lobbyists, support and vote for people who cut education funding, lay off teachers and attack public education.

Adding injury to insulte, GM required $20B in bailout money while public schools were closing, laying off teachers. Likely better to have kept 350,000 teachers working vs. bailing out a failing business.

The hypocrisy is blatant and transparent.

 

If you add up all the subsidies I think $80B is closer to the mark.

 

Of course the principle of NCLB is actually Marxist: from each according to his ability. But, in Maine at least, they've increased mathematics HS credit requirements and it's led to the problem you indicate: more focus on teaching math to people who struggle with it. This just exacerbates the problem in credit-based HS systems that push students through classes without really learning. Now, there seems to be a shift to standards-based learning which might actually allow for more patient and appropriate teaching in subjects that are heavily dependent on a solid learning foundation.

My story is at the other end of scale: I know of a case where, in order to fulfil the credit requirements, instead of putting students into a higher class, some teachers (not the one I know best ) wanted to put students into a lower class they hadn't taken. This was at the "bottom end" where the main concern is that students graduate from high school, but it's still sad to see.

It also doesn't help that teachers are speaking of a generation of students who lack aspiration and motivation. It's not surprising that these students would eschew the frustrations of problem solving.

 

It would be good if you actually used facts and citations instead of your misinformed opinion.

Current Gm president, Mark Reuss, took over in August 2009, after the bailout was complete. He was in Austrailia (GM Holden) before that.. so really had little role in the bailout.

GM reshuffle shifts Holden head to global product

Can you provide any citations supporting your assertion that Mr. Reuss ever voted for education cuts, or publicly suggested cutting education ? Or is that just your hate for GM leading you to make up stuff?

 

You have to love the continuity at GM. As for GM blaming public education for GM's failure while GM takes billions away from public education, with GM management and directors over the years supporting and voting for people who cut education funding and attack the public education system as Mr. Ruess Jr does...it's old news.

Interestingly Mr. Reuss Sr. got a good public education in public schools, became an...engineer.

 

Once again, your innuendo is presented with NO, Zero, Zip,Zilch facts supporting them. I challenged you to provide facts, and you go all ad hominem and talk about the Guy's dad. Guess you not do will in "critical thinking", as you don't seem to get that you need facts to support your case.

No where in the article did Reuss (or GM) blame education for this past failures. What article supports your wild claims about that?

 

I talked about presidents of GM, past and present. The fact is two were named Ruess, father and son.

Nothing about them personally (aka "ad hominem") simply pointing out that the policies of GM presidents, board of directors, GM lobbyists have consistently supported politicians and policies that have been anti-public education.

That GM itself is a competitor for public funds needed for education while GM blames public education for GM's failure as a business is obvious hypocrisy.

 

Ad hominem attacks include attacks that include irrelevant personal details with respect to the argument... let's analyze your post"

Refering to Mark's father in a negative/sarcastic way that is irrelevent to the argument. Ad Hominem.

Your repeating the same phrases does not make it true. In fact, it makes your argument seem weaker.

If its "old news", then you should be able to provide a link or reference.
Your making a direct statement about Mr Ruess Jr.. (I presume you mean Mr Reuss Jr).. so you should be able to back it up with facts. Let's see them.

Oh look, irrelevant personal information with sarcastic overtones -- its Ad Hominem.

It is even worse, since that statement would seem to make it more likly they would support education.

I'll admit I cannot really comment on GM much before 2007 as i did not really follow them much until they announced the Volt.. but since then I think I would have noted anything negative from them about education. (Since I'm in education). But if there are articles detailing their attack on education, I'd like to know, as I'll publicly take them to task about it.

However, I abhor people that attack others without a factual basis, and so to you I say, put up or shut up.

 

Referring to previous president of GM and his actions and the actions of GM under his direction is not ad hominem attacks. Nothing about him personally which is what ad hominem attacks are by definition.

Ruess Sr was a failure even by GM's low standards as Ruess Sr was dismissed for GM decline and problems under his administration. Ironic that Ruess Jr succeeds him exactly 20 years later after GM's bankruptcy caused in no small measure by Ruess Sr and GM's previous management.

As for Ruess Jr's comments lamenting the state of US public education as a reason for GM's failure as a company, it is instructive to point out that GM's corporate policy over the last 20 years under the direction of Ruess Sr. and now Jr. has been in support of politicians who have attacked US public education. They did this to try and defeat things like mileage standards, mass transit, safety equipment on cars etc., they really did not care about the collateral damage to public education just wanted continued government subsidies and protective policies for their business.

That this occurred while GM lobbied, as it has done since its days of killing US urban mass transit, for massive subsidies for the auto industry in general and GM in particular, taking public funds that are sorely needed in US public education, that is the height of hypocrisy.

 

+ 1

 

You would be wrong.

 

I take that to mean you don't know what ad hominem arguments are. I suggest you at least check definitions before you use "by definition"


The statement "You have to love the continuity at GM." and discussing the father/son relation is definitely personal and is a classic example of an "Ad hominem association fallacy ". The sins of the father are not passed down to the son.


Given the tone of the post, the statement is sarcastic hence also Ad Homeiem attack on the Ruess's role at GM implying some nefarious reasons for the connection.

Can you point to the sources for those statement. Where do you assert that M. Ruess lamented the education as reason for GM's failure? Its definitely not in the article associated with this thread!

What corporate policy says GM should attack US public education -- provide a citation please. If you say its an unwritten policy, what policy/action by M Ruess suggests suggest he supports such a unwritten policy? Citations please? How does milage standards and safety quipment on cars related to public education? Those sounds like they elements related to their auto business, not public education.

GM is big, and old. In 2009, when M. Ruess took over. GM made no political contributions.
in 2010 they had limited giving $90,500 (see GM Resumes Political Donations - WSJ.com)

In 2011, here is their disclosure
http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom/COMPANY/Investors/Corporate_Governance/PDFs/GMVoluntaryDisclosureofPoliticalContributions.pdf

For 2012.. I could find no reports though I do expect there to be some.

So who on this list is anti-pubic education?


Despite multiple requests to do so, you've produced no evidence to support your claim that M. Ruess his against public education. Maybe you need to head back to public school and learn how to build a valid argument. For now I'll just have to ignore you as you add only noise, not content and suck time/energy I could use elsewhere.

 

Chuckle....a new and novel confabulation...now back to GM's call for improvements in US education

​

GM supported politicians who fought the mileage standards, requirements for alt fuel vehicles, safety standards, etc. The battles in CA over this were monumental as GM correctly saw that if CA could impose such standards they would spread...they did.

The politicians who GM paid to fight environmental, safety and alt fuel regs also were against public education as a matter of policy and ideology so GM's attacks on the environment, unions, etc. had collateral damage on public education.

Adding to the problem was GM's need for its own subsidies and bailouts, competing directly for public funds needed for education while GM cries alligator tears over US educational decline...one which GM helped orchestrate.

 

This does not, unfortunately surprise me. Like so much in this country, its someone elses problem. Here is some relevant data:

A 2006 survey sponsor by the Business Roundtable[1] found the following:
* 33% of opinion leaders and 18% of voters said improving U.S. science and technology capabilities to increase U.S. innovation and competitiveness is our country’s single most significant objective;
* 62% of both groups said that addressing this problem is equally critical to other challenges such as national security, transportation, health care, energy and the legal system;
* 76% of opinion leaders and 51% of American voters rank a focus on education as the most important way to solve the problem;
* Only 5% of parents responded that they would try to persuade their child toward careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), while 65% report they would allow her/him to pursue whatever career path he/she prefers, 27% stated although they may encourage their child to pursue a STEM career the child would likely balance that pursuit with their own career preference.

The actual link from the Business Roundtable is now dead, but its referenced in Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (Concerning S. 1298 Protecting America’s Competitive Edge -- Education, Science and Math Teacher Provisions