Every 10 years with the Census. It's a States' Rights thing after that. Some can do so more often, depending.
Population shifts over time so it needs to be adjusted say once every five years.
Every 10 years with the Census. It's a States' Rights thing after that. Some can do so more often, depending.
Population shifts over time so it needs to be adjusted say once every five years.
That's my line. Again, what boys club and what competition and what must suck? Do you even realize that I pointed out how to make ET less male-dominated that it already is?
Stop acting like a know-it-all when you don't have the faintest clue.
I know that the 10th Amendment gives states the right to do anything not specifically covered by the Constitution but setting the districts would keep them consistent. The census should be used to determine the weight that each one carries as the population fluctuates.
Rather exacted you believe you're the smart one, even if you're incapable of reading your own writing:
"The real and most glaring gendered education issue in US is boys falling way behind in reading and since it's a primary cognitive skill it affects other fields as well,"
Despite the stereotype that boys do better in math and science, girls have made higher grades than boys throughout their school years for nearly a century, according to a new analysis published by the American Psychological Association.
What is worth remembering is that boys used to be the group considered shortchanged by the schools. The idea that the schools shortchanged boys was part of the common wisdom through the 1970s. As Brophy (1985) reminds us:
"Claims that one sex or the other is not being taught effectively in our schools have been frequent and often impassioned. From early in the century (Ayres, 1909) through about 1970 (Sexton, 1969; Austin, Clark, & Fitchett, 1971), criticism was usually focused on the treatment of boys, especially at the elementary level. Critics noted that boys received lower grades in all subjects and lower achievement test scores in reading and language arts. They insisted that these sex differences occurred because the schools were 'too feminine' or the 'overwhelmingly female' teachers were unable to meet boys' learning needs effectively."
So your one line nonsense was in response to,
And I should divine your clueless reasoning ? Again, what boys club, what competition? Do you think education itself is a boys' club that is only just getting some competition? To reiterate, you haven't got the faintest clue.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/10_Oct/1000boy3.htm
What changed during the 70s?
If you want increased competition, it'd require education to stop being a girls club.
Seems like Citizens do it best assuming they live in the area and have some basic guidance. Admittedly it won't be perfect but it would be better and its the type thing where perfectly balanced is impossible.
But But Clinton was the one who was going to be able to work with Republicans....
Yeah, who believed that lie during the primary.... suckers.
________________
She said she was willing & has a track record to back that up. That doesn't mean they will be. Their failings shouldn't be put off onto her.
Nice dodge. but anyone with a lick of sense realized that the argument was so much "vaporware".... that argument shouldn't have even been made by Hillary pushers based on past experience with the obstructionist attitude toward President Obama demonstrated by republicans
But she was the better choice...
____________
So much the pity....She *is* the choice of the Democratic Party.
It's rather presumptuous to assume what my opinion is of an average republican's capacity for racial bigotry is, but ok.That probably counts for more than you think, sad to say.
So much the pity....
It's rather presumptuous to assume what my opinion is of an average republican's capacity for racial bigotry is, but ok.
*e2a*
Let's turn that point to another form of discrimination...
I'll be presumptuous and ask.
Perhaps you're underestimating the average republican's capacity for sexism?
______________
It turns their world upside down enough...It doesn't turn their world upside down like a black president does.
It turns their world upside down enough...
One of the reasons the cons and neocons may be more sanguine about Hillary is because there is not that much daylight between their and her views on foreign interventions as there was with President Obama
_________________
Use that big brain to ponder the possibility
that women might well do somewhat better in academic settings when provided the opportunity.
After all it's hardly activity which rewards dumb machismo like yours.
It's certainly the case in more societies than the US that women marginally surpassed men in degree attainment & such.
This pretty obviously upsets you, mostly likely along with much else associated with modernity, and it's not hard to see why. Good thing kids these days are taught how to live in the future instead of backwardness like your own. It's simple to see why that easily upsets you, too, which is again the sort of behavior not helpful to learning anything.
And what happened to this agonistic educational culture? After over two thousand years as the central element in education, public verbal contest died out almost completely in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Instead of the oral, argument-based, male-dominated education of the pre-1870 period, education post-1870 was much more interiorized, irenic, negotiative, explanatory. The older methods of academic defense and attack died out with startling rapidity, says Ong, because of the entrance of women into higher education. Contestive, combative educational methods that had worked satisfactorily for all-male schooling now came to seem violent, vulgar, silly. A man could attack another man verbally, and was expected to do so, but to attack a woman, either physically or intellectually, was thought ignoble. As more women entered colleges, their influence both tacit and explicit caused the abandonment of the agonistic tradition and the evolution of less overtly contestive educational methods. Thus the educational structure we inherit, an amalgam of newer irenic values and half-understood survivals from a more agonistic time in education.
Whatever foreign interventions they engaged in while Clinton was SoS were joint ventures, obviously.
that feminists might be inveterate liars.
They might or they might not, the point is that the academic setting does suit them better which is why despite boys getting better scores on tests, they don't get better grades. And this has been happening for a century. And yet, feminists have cried bloody murder about how schools are shortchanging girls at expense of boys. They keep trying to change it to make it lopsided still. Hence, it's a girls' club and if you are talking about competition, you should help boys.
To wit, here you further demonstrate a lack of basic self-awareness with this hilariously ironic accusation. OTOH, illustrating that someone lacks the cognitive tools to meaningfully participate in a discussion is the opposite of not having a clue. A person taken to use epithets they don't know the meaning of is by definition clueless, and rather useless.hahaha, your juvenile attack is noted, clueless as usual.
The older methods of academic defense and attack died out with startling rapidity, says Ong, because of the entrance of women into higher education. Contestive, combative educational methods that had worked satisfactorily for all-male schooling now came to seem violent, vulgar, silly. A man could attack another man verbally, and was expected to do so, but to attack a woman, either physically or intellectually, was thought ignoble.
Seems you finally got around to understanding what was meant numerous posts ago concerning that boys club. People this slow shouldn't assume they have much smarts to apply to any problem.
To wit, here you further demonstrate a lack of basic self-awareness with this hilariously ironic accusation.
OTOH, illustrating that someone lacks the cognitive tools to meaningfully participate in a discussion is the opposite of not having a clue. A person taken to use epithets they don't know the meaning of is by definition clueless, and rather useless.
Seems rather obvious that it's far more effective for dummies to settle down and absorb some reading first rather than act like you do in lieu of much education.
Not really, your one line nonsense continues to be an enigma considering you've been shown just how clueless you're about the issue.
That's my line, again. You lack the basic self-awareness to see that you're using rhetoric to make your point, whatever the hell that might be and yet accuse me of dumb machismo.
For instance.
Just look at how oblivious you are: "hahaha, your juvenile attack is noted, clueless as usual."
A one line nonsense literary doing what you accuse someone else of not 3 words back.
There are some worthy contenders for dunning kruger posterchild here, and you're at the head of that line.