One thing that pissed me off about public schooling was that I got stuck in a spot where I was one of the top students, yet not in the "gifted" program. Because I apparently didn't attain some arbitrary number on an IQ test, I was denied opportunities in high school to take classes that I REALLY wanted, and by all means could have succeeded in. For example, Japanese. Apparently Pennsylvania requires that a certain amount of cirriculum must be reserved for gifted students alone, and because of that, non-gifted students at my school were not permitted to take classes like Latin and Japanese. The school also took pains to guard the "secret" that non-gifted students were allowed to take courses for credit at the local university, and that middle schoolers could come over to take high school classes if their teachers approved. This irked my family greatly, and we met with the school administrators several times attempting to fight the fact that I was barred from these classes for pretty superficial reasons; however, we were blocked at every step of the ladder. Eventually we realized that the only way to change anything would be to sue the state over that particular education law, but it wasn't worth the time, money, and public scrutiny for us to pursue.
In short, IQ tests are a retarded and brainless way of deciding which children should be given which opportunities. Ooohhh, John Taylor Gatto.
Even honors and advanced classes have this problem, because schools put anyone who can get an A in them, along with the "above-average" kids, and due to rampant cheating and the importance placed on homework, this approach doesn't work.
I guess I'm not above average enough to understand how having a tract of classes that are Honors or AP in some way is not a way to rise above the other kids? Beyond that I think most schools have some way that you can take college classes at a community college at the same time!
UglyFred, yea, I understand how that is. I never actually took a IQ test but was "allowed" to hang out with the Enrichment kids in their special room because I was pegged as "a smart kid". I didn't want to have to deal with the extra requirements of Enrichment but still got to do a lot of the fun benefits (like playing Star Control 2 on the computers during study hall). Then again my school got rid of Latin the year before I got there. (D'oh! the only language I was really interested in at the time)
If you are a US resident, and you are mid-20s or younger, then by law you took an IQ test. You might not have known it at the time, or you might not remember it. But you took it. It determined whether you required IEP assessment or had a pyschological disorder such as dyslexia (which is not transposing letters -- that's dysgraphia), autism, ADHD, apraxia, developmental dyspraxia, and dyscalculia.
But I guarantee that you took it, because a great deal of school funding is reliant on cognitive classification.
I guess I'm not above average enough to understand how having a tract of classes that are Honors or AP in some way is not a way to rise above the other kids? Beyond that I think most schools have some way that you can take college classes at a community college at the same time!
The point is that honors and AP classes are filled with average kids, who are only there because they got good grades in previous classes, not because they have the ability to be in them. Taking classes at a local community college is an option, but this is only ever really used for taking more advanced math or science classes(which are of such low quality at the community college my school uses that they would have to be retaken in college anyway), because there are very few ways to complete or surpass all the classes in a different subject area before graduation.
If you are a US resident, and you are mid-20s or younger, then by law you took an IQ test. You might not have known it at the time, or you might not remember it. But you took it. It determined whether you required IEP assessment or had a pyschological disorder such as dyslexia (which is not transposing letters -- that's dysgraphia), autism, ADHD, apraxia, developmental dyspraxia, and dyscalculia.
But I guarantee that you took it, because a great deal of school funding is reliant on cognitive classification.
When would I have taken this IQ test? My parents don't remember anything about it, and I'm almost positive I haven't take any.
Master, you seem to be describing more of a "School Without Walls" scenario rather than a true"home-school".
Anyar, most, if not all kindergarten and elementary schools administer IQ tests to determine placement and educational level. Also, IQ alone does not determine if a child is gifted. Aptitude and skill levels can be developed and warrant them the title of gifted. Also, a child with a high IQ may be excluded from gifted programs because they do not achieve for various reasons. Different States and schools determine who is gifted and who is not based on a multitude of factors. Any school that bases their definition of gifted on IQ alone, has a shallow understanding of what IQ tests do and do not illustrate about intelligence and ability (e.g. someone with a reading disability, but a high level of comprehension, reasoning, and deductive skills may have a low IQ, but is actually "gifted").
...Parents who send their kids into homeschooling probably care a lot more about their child's education though. Can't help but think that is where the real difference lies.
WOW! I take issue with that statement. Many parents who send their kids to any type of school care deeply for their child's education, just as there are many parents that homeschool their children who do not give a rat's ass about a quality education, they merely do not want their children exposed to ideas and viewpoints that differ from their own (not all, but many).
I really think it is impossible to say what is consistently better because so many factors (the child, the area, the parents, etc.) determine the quality of a school. For instance, I went to Kindergarten and some of Elementary School at a Private School because the public schools in Tampa were pretty crappy at the time. When we moved to New York State, I went to Public School where I received an amazing education, and all the while my parents took active roles in guiding my education at home, providing me with books, educational tool, enrolling me in CTY, and, most importantly, constantly keeping an open intellectual dialogue in which we all discussed our ideas on world events, literature, philosophy, and the subjects of my studies at school. Really, the most important factor is the parents taking advantage of the resources they have available that will best suit their child's needs.
I am wary of homeschooling, I'm sure there are great homeschool plans out there but it seems that many parents do it because they disagree with what is being taught in schools and want to indoctrinate their kids.
You're absolutely right. Briefly, I contemplated saying "What's wrong with that?", but decided against it. I myself am a homeschooler, and am fully aware of how much I am indoctrinated. Some of the people on this forum, were they to know all of my beliefs on social and political issues, would think that I'm a total loon who should be locked up before I graduate in 08 and am set loose upon society. I'm fairly confident that at least 70 percent of my beliefs stem directly from my being around my right-wing "Religious people" parents. I guess you just accept what you're used to hearing.
I am currently a student at the very same school that Brineshrimp graduated from. He's right, guys, some homeschoolers are quite rediculously good-looking. The objection was raised a while ago that parents who homeschool their kids have no background in teaching. There's a flaw here, in that those who hold this view assume that any teacher would see the value and superiority of the public school system. I know a teacher who, although he has yet to reproduce, is not a fan of either the public or private school systems (and I must add that he has taught in both) and will probably homeschool (or so I have gathered). But this is somewhat beside the point. At any rate, while the teachers at this school may not all have backgrounds in teaching, they are specially trained in other areas. We have two registered nurses, I believe one doctor (we used to have two, but the other one had a kid graduate in Brine's class), one historian (at least), a lawyer (who was an international affairs major in college, btw), and I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I used to be a student in a private school, but I hesitate to say that because, while it was a "private school", it was staffed by a bunch of parents and I guess was a private school in name only. Other than that, I love being homeschooled. Look at it in the most ego-feeding way possible: If you are a very smart kid of two very smart parents who have very wide bases of knowledge AND who are capable of taking up your education, then why wouldn't you want to learn from them, instead of wasting your time learning from state employees who probably could care less whether any student they teach actually succeeds and will tell you at the drop of a hat how much they hate being there? Would you be willing to waste your time? Remember, just because someone is your teacher does not necessarily mean that they are smarter than you. (Yes, I do realize that the above example is probably not true of most people, and most would rather not be educated by their parents, but all the same, that's one way I look at it)
So yeah, go homeschooling. It works for me, but I understand that it might not work for you.
They can't be home-schooled through adulthood!
Of course not, Kilarney. Not a homeschooler I know of would dare try to give their kids a college education. Even we are smart enough to know that some things just can't be done at home.
Wow man. Quite an essay. The fact is, homeschooling in any form can lack certain things, most students will end up sheltered in some form. The key is to replace social interaction with other activities.
I just thought of something. What do home-schools do about physical education? I've never known any home-school kids to be obese, but I've never known any to be world-class athletes either. Without the facilities of a real gymnasium, tracks and fields and without enough kids to play competitive team sports, how do home-schools do the P.E.? The only thing I can think of is to send the kids down to the YMCA, or keep them enrolled in extracurricular physical activities not bound to the school like little league, martial arts, dance, etc.
Got me thinking even more now. What about other activities like marching bands, debate teams, the school play etc. Sure, you can get private lessons in music or drama, but the organized activities requiring many kids seem to be out. Also, what about stuff that requires fancy equipment? My middle and high school had lots of computer labs, wood shops, metal shops, an auto shop, science labs, etc. How do you learn things in home-school that require lots of equipment or expensive facilities?
WOW! I take issue with that statement. Many parents who send their kids to any type of school care deeply for their child's education, just as there are many parents that homeschool their children who do not give a rat's ass about a quality education, they merely do not want their children exposed to ideas and viewpoints that differ from their own (not all, but many).
I'm not saying that parents who send their children into any other kind of school necessarily don't care about their child's education. However, if indeed you don't give a damn then public schooling is the easiest and cheapest method of schooling with the exception of no school at all (but that's illegal in most places). If you're going to homeschool your child, which as I understand it takes a fair bit of organisation and effort, then you must care. Possibly for the wrong reasons. I like to think those extreme cases are few and far between. I may be wrong.
I suppose "care" is the wrong word. Almost all parents care, but I suspect most of them don't take the interest they should or they don't know how to. The school system as it is makes it too easy to just send the kid to school every day and expect that they'll get an education and have some enthusiasm to learn. But that doesn't work. I'm convinced that enthusiasm for learning in children comes primarily from parents setting a good example and encouraging their children. Other wise school is just a great construct of boring teachers, arbitrary numbers and lunch time. At least if you home school then you must know what's going on - Either from being a teacher or talking to people who are teachers in your homeschooling community.
Hope that sets my viewpoint somewhat straighter. I don't think that any system is inherently bad. I'm a firm believer of initiative lying with parents though.
How do you learn things in home-school that require lots of equipment or expensive facilities?
Enrol in college courses?
P.E.s not so hard. Either participate in Little Leagues and take classes, etc, or if the school wants to set up some sort of P.E. class of its own plenty of places hire out their sports fields and equipment. All the public schools I've been to have either owned a field that they also rented to people or rented from somewhere (usually another school).
I suppose I was lucky in that I attended a very large high school in a wealthy neighborhood. Prior to that, my parents considered home-schooling, and as well boarding school and specialized education centers, and even once resorted to threatening legal action against my public middle school. My high school education was, to be perfectly honest, more rigorous and difficult than anything I did at RIT.
I'll tell my story for the benefit of the thread. It is both praising and highly critical of the public school system in the US, as I had very different experiences at different schools.
I attended a private Catholic school for 1-4th grade, as Detroit public schools were simply not an option. Religious silliness aside (which I mostly ignored), the math, language, and history education I received there was quite literally at least two full years ahead of public school.
To provide a specific example, I learned long division in the second half of 3rd grade. I was astonished to find upon transferring to public schools for 5th grade that it had not yet been taught in any fashion. I can say with confidence that I learned nothing for the entirety of 5th grade. I'd learned algebra in 4th grade, something that was not taught until 6th grade at the earliest, and for many students not until 7th grade.
The interesting thing was that my middle school was mired in the "Outcome Based Education" controversy while I was there. Their interpretation of these efforts basically amounted to policies intended to ensure that all students graduated with adequate grades no matter what. To achieve this, they set the standards low enough to ensure that everyone would pass. You could literally retake a test as many times as you wanted, only your final score being counted. They maxed this retake score out at a "B," but it still removed any incentive to actually learn.
The science and math curricula were well below what I had experienced in elementary school, and moved very slowly. In 7th grade, they were teaching the Metric System in science class. The basic, simple, easy-to-understand metric system. Most of the children understood it after a week at most, but a small minority repeatedly failed to grasp the concept. In keeping with the school's policies, the entire program was slowed down to accommodate the slow kids, and they spent OVER TWO MONTHS teaching the metric system.
Even worse, the school eschewed any form of stratification among students. To have an advanced program for intelligent children would harm the self-esteem of the other children. To allow bright kids to have much better grades than slower kids would only harm the slow kids.
They went so far as to purposefully populate classes with a mix of very high and very low performers, requiring students with good grades to spend time tutoring those with poor grades. The trouble began when I flatly refused to do this and explained to my parents what was going on. After numerous complaints from myself and my parents, the school's counselor pulled me out of class for a private meeting.
There, he asked what I was so angry about. I explained that I and others like me were being held back from achieving our full potential. I explained that I was bored to tears in school, and that I wasn't learning anything. I told him I had almost no reason to even show up every day, and I could still get straight As on the exams.
He asked me what I wanted.
I told him that the school needed an advanced track for abnormal students, or at least a remedial track for problem students. By segregating children according to ability, each could receive the best possible education. A smart child shouldn't be punished for his intelligence, being forced to spend his time doing the teachers' jobs and being denied the chance to excel.
This is when he asked me if I knew what an "elitist" was. To semi-quote (this was a long time ago):
"1% of the people in the world want to lord their abilities over and control the rest of us. If you segregate people based on intelligence when they're young, you'll let that happen by legitimizing it. That would be bad. After all, aren't we all supposed to be equal? Do you really want the world to be controlled by that '1%?'"
I was floored.
After a stunned silence, I said flatly: "The thing is, I want all of that to happen, because -I'm- a member of that 1%." I got up to leave. He stopped me.
"You should stop trying to make your classes harder, and just enjoy the easy ride. People don't like a know-it-all." He was visibly angry.
I ignored him, walked out, and went home. That's when the fun began.
Sounds like that school was really awful. At my school at least when you finished your work you were basically allowed to wander off to another part of the classroom and play a game with the other smarter kids.
I have yet to meet or hear of a counsellor who is also a useful and intelligent person. Anyone know one?
"My friend's suicidal and acting weird, help me!" "Here, have a pamphlet!"
True story, simplified somewhat. Argh. We then proceeded to save my friend's life without her help.
Man. That's why I liked my particular track of schooling. I chose to skip 8th grade because I had all my core stuff complete to finish middle school. Now, I'm a college freshman with a 3.6 somthing GPA at 17 years of age. Not exactly child prodigy, but I'd still be in highschool if I did anything else, and I'm very thankful for that. Not only was intelligence jumpstarted, but my maturity was too. I'm coming to realize a lot of things well before many of my 'friends' from highschool did. I'm not saying I'm particularly wiser than anyone at all, but I am very happy with who I've become.
As for the P.E. dilemma, the problem is solved with extra curricular activities like joining a bowling team at the local alley or doing dual credit at a college for sport classes(I did both.) Also, in high school, a coalition of athletic homeschooled guys got together and signed on as a select team for all homeschoolers in our area to compete in the private school divisons. We ended up state champ div. II.
Rym, I had the same exact story. Like, almost to the letter. With the term "elitist" being bandied about like it was a bad thing. People have been so ingrained with this dumbass idea that everyone is "equal" in worth that they don't stop to realize that we are not all equal in ability. If I was in a vocational school, I would have been in remedial classes. But in academic school, I was falling asleep every day and annoying my teachers with questions they couldn't or wouldn't answer. Growing up in NY, though, we did have tracked courses -- does anybody know if the Regents curriculum is still around? -- and I was bored in the higher ones. Neither you or I say this to brag. We say it because we wanted to be able to do more. There was an innate prejudice against people who excelled, but to want to excell was anathema.
So yes, I am an elitist. So what? I don't want stupid people making the big decisions. So what? I think that there is merit in wanting to improve. So what? Some people are more qualified than others. So what? Somebody's self-esteem was hurt. So what?
Life is tough and things aren't "fair." These equivocators need to grow up and deal with it.
Yeah, an episode could be good. In the far future. I think the forum might have had enough of the topic for the moment.
I believe everyone is equal. I'm convinced that everyone can fit into society in a useful way. If they want to. We are important not only for what talents we may have but in some cases also for a lack thereof. People who try to apply the "equality/anti-elitist" philosophy haven't though it through very hard and have their understanding of elitism wrong.
Personally, I went to a Catholic school grades 1-8, then to a very good public school for high school. I learned a lot about the real world, and anime, and all kinds of good stuff in that publicn school, and I came out of my shell too. I think as long as the school is in good shape and not gangsta land, a public school, especially when one is a little older, is very good.
Admittedly I am going to a Jesuit/Catholic (thus private) high school, so this will be a bit slanted. The public school system in America is very weak. They are often large full of kids who do not want to be there (not that private schools are very different). They will lack adequte funding espically in an urban area. I must note that I am coming from a small city just on the other side of the New York Bay in New Jersey.
Comments
In short, IQ tests are a retarded and brainless way of deciding which children should be given which opportunities. Ooohhh, John Taylor Gatto.
UglyFred, yea, I understand how that is. I never actually took a IQ test but was "allowed" to hang out with the Enrichment kids in their special room because I was pegged as "a smart kid". I didn't want to have to deal with the extra requirements of Enrichment but still got to do a lot of the fun benefits (like playing Star Control 2 on the computers during study hall). Then again my school got rid of Latin the year before I got there. (D'oh! the only language I was really interested in at the time)
But I guarantee that you took it, because a great deal of school funding is reliant on cognitive classification.
When would I have taken this IQ test? My parents don't remember anything about it, and I'm almost positive I haven't take any.
Like I've been saying, just because you're homeschooled doesn't mean you're a hermit!
Anyar, most, if not all kindergarten and elementary schools administer IQ tests to determine placement and educational level. Also, IQ alone does not determine if a child is gifted. Aptitude and skill levels can be developed and warrant them the title of gifted. Also, a child with a high IQ may be excluded from gifted programs because they do not achieve for various reasons. Different States and schools determine who is gifted and who is not based on a multitude of factors. Any school that bases their definition of gifted on IQ alone, has a shallow understanding of what IQ tests do and do not illustrate about intelligence and ability (e.g. someone with a reading disability, but a high level of comprehension, reasoning, and deductive skills may have a low IQ, but is actually "gifted").
I really think it is impossible to say what is consistently better because so many factors (the child, the area, the parents, etc.) determine the quality of a school. For instance, I went to Kindergarten and some of Elementary School at a Private School because the public schools in Tampa were pretty crappy at the time. When we moved to New York State, I went to Public School where I received an amazing education, and all the while my parents took active roles in guiding my education at home, providing me with books, educational tool, enrolling me in CTY, and, most importantly, constantly keeping an open intellectual dialogue in which we all discussed our ideas on world events, literature, philosophy, and the subjects of my studies at school. Really, the most important factor is the parents taking advantage of the resources they have available that will best suit their child's needs.
I am currently a student at the very same school that Brineshrimp graduated from. He's right, guys, some homeschoolers are quite rediculously good-looking. The objection was raised a while ago that parents who homeschool their kids have no background in teaching. There's a flaw here, in that those who hold this view assume that any teacher would see the value and superiority of the public school system. I know a teacher who, although he has yet to reproduce, is not a fan of either the public or private school systems (and I must add that he has taught in both) and will probably homeschool (or so I have gathered). But this is somewhat beside the point. At any rate, while the teachers at this school may not all have backgrounds in teaching, they are specially trained in other areas. We have two registered nurses, I believe one doctor (we used to have two, but the other one had a kid graduate in Brine's class), one historian (at least), a lawyer (who was an international affairs major in college, btw), and I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I used to be a student in a private school, but I hesitate to say that because, while it was a "private school", it was staffed by a bunch of parents and I guess was a private school in name only. Other than that, I love being homeschooled. Look at it in the most ego-feeding way possible: If you are a very smart kid of two very smart parents who have very wide bases of knowledge AND who are capable of taking up your education, then why wouldn't you want to learn from them, instead of wasting your time learning from state employees who probably could care less whether any student they teach actually succeeds and will tell you at the drop of a hat how much they hate being there? Would you be willing to waste your time? Remember, just because someone is your teacher does not necessarily mean that they are smarter than you. (Yes, I do realize that the above example is probably not true of most people, and most would rather not be educated by their parents, but all the same, that's one way I look at it)
So yeah, go homeschooling. It works for me, but I understand that it might not work for you. Of course not, Kilarney. Not a homeschooler I know of would dare try to give their kids a college education. Even we are smart enough to know that some things just can't be done at home.
Got me thinking even more now. What about other activities like marching bands, debate teams, the school play etc. Sure, you can get private lessons in music or drama, but the organized activities requiring many kids seem to be out. Also, what about stuff that requires fancy equipment? My middle and high school had lots of computer labs, wood shops, metal shops, an auto shop, science labs, etc. How do you learn things in home-school that require lots of equipment or expensive facilities?
I suppose "care" is the wrong word. Almost all parents care, but I suspect most of them don't take the interest they should or they don't know how to. The school system as it is makes it too easy to just send the kid to school every day and expect that they'll get an education and have some enthusiasm to learn. But that doesn't work. I'm convinced that enthusiasm for learning in children comes primarily from parents setting a good example and encouraging their children. Other wise school is just a great construct of boring teachers, arbitrary numbers and lunch time. At least if you home school then you must know what's going on - Either from being a teacher or talking to people who are teachers in your homeschooling community.
Hope that sets my viewpoint somewhat straighter. I don't think that any system is inherently bad. I'm a firm believer of initiative lying with parents though.
P.E.s not so hard. Either participate in Little Leagues and take classes, etc, or if the school wants to set up some sort of P.E. class of its own plenty of places hire out their sports fields and equipment. All the public schools I've been to have either owned a field that they also rented to people or rented from somewhere (usually another school).
I'll tell my story for the benefit of the thread. It is both praising and highly critical of the public school system in the US, as I had very different experiences at different schools.
I attended a private Catholic school for 1-4th grade, as Detroit public schools were simply not an option. Religious silliness aside (which I mostly ignored), the math, language, and history education I received there was quite literally at least two full years ahead of public school.
To provide a specific example, I learned long division in the second half of 3rd grade. I was astonished to find upon transferring to public schools for 5th grade that it had not yet been taught in any fashion. I can say with confidence that I learned nothing for the entirety of 5th grade. I'd learned algebra in 4th grade, something that was not taught until 6th grade at the earliest, and for many students not until 7th grade.
The interesting thing was that my middle school was mired in the "Outcome Based Education" controversy while I was there. Their interpretation of these efforts basically amounted to policies intended to ensure that all students graduated with adequate grades no matter what. To achieve this, they set the standards low enough to ensure that everyone would pass. You could literally retake a test as many times as you wanted, only your final score being counted. They maxed this retake score out at a "B," but it still removed any incentive to actually learn.
The science and math curricula were well below what I had experienced in elementary school, and moved very slowly. In 7th grade, they were teaching the Metric System in science class. The basic, simple, easy-to-understand metric system. Most of the children understood it after a week at most, but a small minority repeatedly failed to grasp the concept. In keeping with the school's policies, the entire program was slowed down to accommodate the slow kids, and they spent OVER TWO MONTHS teaching the metric system.
Even worse, the school eschewed any form of stratification among students. To have an advanced program for intelligent children would harm the self-esteem of the other children. To allow bright kids to have much better grades than slower kids would only harm the slow kids.
They went so far as to purposefully populate classes with a mix of very high and very low performers, requiring students with good grades to spend time tutoring those with poor grades. The trouble began when I flatly refused to do this and explained to my parents what was going on. After numerous complaints from myself and my parents, the school's counselor pulled me out of class for a private meeting.
There, he asked what I was so angry about. I explained that I and others like me were being held back from achieving our full potential. I explained that I was bored to tears in school, and that I wasn't learning anything. I told him I had almost no reason to even show up every day, and I could still get straight As on the exams.
He asked me what I wanted.
I told him that the school needed an advanced track for abnormal students, or at least a remedial track for problem students. By segregating children according to ability, each could receive the best possible education. A smart child shouldn't be punished for his intelligence, being forced to spend his time doing the teachers' jobs and being denied the chance to excel.
This is when he asked me if I knew what an "elitist" was. To semi-quote (this was a long time ago):
"1% of the people in the world want to lord their abilities over and control the rest of us. If you segregate people based on intelligence when they're young, you'll let that happen by legitimizing it. That would be bad. After all, aren't we all supposed to be equal? Do you really want the world to be controlled by that '1%?'"
I was floored.
After a stunned silence, I said flatly: "The thing is, I want all of that to happen, because -I'm- a member of that 1%." I got up to leave. He stopped me.
"You should stop trying to make your classes harder, and just enjoy the easy ride. People don't like a know-it-all." He was visibly angry.
I ignored him, walked out, and went home. That's when the fun began.
I have yet to meet or hear of a counsellor who is also a useful and intelligent person. Anyone know one?
"My friend's suicidal and acting weird, help me!"
"Here, have a pamphlet!"
True story, simplified somewhat. Argh. We then proceeded to save my friend's life without her help.
As for the P.E. dilemma, the problem is solved with extra curricular activities like joining a bowling team at the local alley or doing dual credit at a college for sport classes(I did both.) Also, in high school, a coalition of athletic homeschooled guys got together and signed on as a select team for all homeschoolers in our area to compete in the private school divisons. We ended up state champ div. II.
So yes, I am an elitist. So what? I don't want stupid people making the big decisions. So what? I think that there is merit in wanting to improve. So what? Some people are more qualified than others. So what? Somebody's self-esteem was hurt. So what?
Life is tough and things aren't "fair." These equivocators need to grow up and deal with it.
Which OS are You?
I believe everyone is equal. I'm convinced that everyone can fit into society in a useful way. If they want to. We are important not only for what talents we may have but in some cases also for a lack thereof.
Biggest fucking mistake of my life.
So, why was public school so bad for you?
I think that story kinda tells itself, dont you think?