CCCToad on 25/5/2010 at 02:17

---

Keep in mind that the study in question was one for corporate boards, cited as part of his article on (http://www.johntreed.com/tournament.html) how the army chooses generals. Here is the quote from the article:



I'd think it would be natural that any profession where performance is easily measured objectively (like engineering, programming, sales, etc.) would be somewhat less affected by flattery than the more political positions of being in upper management. Unlike in technical jobs, "leadership" is difficult to measure objectively, so the influence of flattery is going to go up for those in management.

Enchantermon on 25/5/2010 at 03:42

---

Which is only natural. In upper management, people are going to be more comfortable with those that they know. Personal friends, golf buddies, etc. Flattery and nice-making is how you ease your way into that circle of "trust".
But as you've already pointed out, we're talking about two very different worlds. You're focusing on upper management while I'm talking about the code monkeys (even the upper echelon code monkeys). If I was to hire a network administrator, I would want someone who can get the job done and done well, regardless of how much or little I know him/her.

It should also be noted that if board members are indeed chosen mostly based on who they know, I don't agree with it at all. Leadership may not be the easiest thing to measure objectively, but there are other qualifications that should be looked at as well.

CCCToad on 25/5/2010 at 14:51

---

Thanks for the link, it answers some specific questions I had about the Texas Program.

However, what you said before is why I said earlier that this is all political: A lot of the shrieking occurs not because of inacurracy, but because there's parts of history they don't want kids taught. This is something that should be opposed first and foremost on principle: teaching for a political agenda is just wrong, whoever's doing it.

SD on 25/5/2010 at 16:52

---

You wouldn't necessarily, not from that somewhat selective blogpost anyway.

The documents are (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643) here. Some samples:

"The student is expected to [..] analyze social issues such as the treatment of minorities, child labor, growth of cities, and problems of immigrants."

becomes

"The student is expected to [..] analyze social issues affecting women, minorities, children, urbanization, and analyze the Social Gospel and philanthropy of industrialists."

"evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Shirley Chisholm and Franklin D. Roosevelt."

becomes

"evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Hector P. Garcia, Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, and Hillary Clinton."

This one is new:

"Citizenship. The student understands the concept of American exceptionalism. The student is expected to [..] describe how American values are different and unique from those of other nations"

BCEs and CEs are out, of course, replaced by BC and AD.

Armenia is no longer genocide but "politically motivated mass murder".

Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favour of examining scientific advances through military technology.

The education board has dropped references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade", and recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.

One amendment requires that students be taught that economic prosperity requires "minimal government intrusion and taxation".

Another amendment describes the civil rights movement as creating "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" among minorities. Another seeks to place Martin Luther King and the violent Black Panther movement as opposite sides of the same coin.

Lenin is removed from world history and Freud from psychology; Friedman and Hayek are names you need to know. Phyllis Schlafly and Thomas Aquinas are required; Hobbes and Jefferson are out.

And now a final word from the catalyst behind these changes herself, Cynthia Dunbar:



No doubt CCCToad thinks all of this is no worse than anything liberals have ever said...

Namdrol on 25/5/2010 at 17:26

---

i think we can all get behind this one