Having come from a poor family, my single mother the child of a dirt-poor, subsistence-farming family, and having done fairly well for myself all things considered, I am almost always skeptical of anyone that says the poor don't have a chance. Not that public schooling was much help, but when people spout this garbage, I want to ask them where the hell I came from if the US doesn't give you a fair shake. I've not seen failure from anyone that was truly determined, but I have seen a pampered, upper-middle class tell me I couldn't make it, over and over again. Hell, I've seen my own family tell me I couldn't make it. I could imagine beliving them if I were anywhere else on earth.

The most inspiring thing I've ever seen is Baxter Humby, right after defending his title as super-middleweight Muay Thai champion (with only one arm and at the age of 34, no less) grab the microphone like a giddy schoolboy and tell the stunned audience after his mostly one-sided fight (I have never seen a one-armed man dominate the ring like that) that the only limits we have are those we place on ourselves. I'm thoroughly sick of dour people like the author of this article help people limit themselves.

Humby aside, it's true: you don't need to listen to anyone tell you that you are oppressed here. Prove it to yourself: make enough money to travel abroad, and see if those people are oppressed, to give yourself a point of reference. You'll learn a few things on the way up.

Lots of poor people stay poor and are likely to continue; my point is that, of all places on earth, the poor have a pretty good shot here, and that the attitude that we're somehow unfair to them in this country is totally unfounded and, in fact, damaging to people who don't need the added disadvantage of being discouraged.

Life's playing field has never been level, but it doesn't do anyone any good to make these assertions that one disadvantage or another is too much.

As far as your question about personal drive, it came from an intense desire to not eat another bowl of instant ramen, ever.

And on the topic of luck, it's a common saying that the harder you work, the luckier you get.

Have you taken a standardized test lately? I'm 23, and I've taken at least a dozen of them. Every single one I have taken has tested my ability to learn the test at least as much (if not more, cough SATs cough).

Color me cynical, but i believe it's a scam, perpetuated by the powers entrusted with administering these tests, who in turn are influenced by lobbies for the 'test prep' industry.

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-perce...

are still rather rare.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278685697537839.html

I can provide what I believe the be an example of a good teaacher: When I was in highschool I had a number of teachers but the one who stuck out the most a man who taught us religious education (I went to Catholic school.) On the first day of class, this man, to show just how important he thought that this one point was, dropped to his knees and shouted. His enthusiasm grabbed my attention and made the lecture much more interesting.

This man tought us more classes and each one he tought with a sense of dynamism and enthusiasm which was infectious. He knew his subject matter, was passionate about it, was intellectually curious, wanted us to be so as well. Not only did he hold himself to high standards, he held the class to high standards as well, and all of his together made us, particularly me, want to learn.

I once had the privilaege to sit in on the disertation of a man who was discussion what he believed the best approach to education was. His conclusion was that a teacher's role was was to act as a sort of guide to the student. To inspire the student and motivate him to learn. His belief was that teaching was first and formost, a relationship between the student and the teacher.

I agree. Growing up I loved school, but I went to a very small school with a very strong sense of community. I knew all the teachers and they all knew me and it helped to make learning a very rewarding experience. I think the crux of it is this: most of my immediate role models growing up loved to learn and loved their subjects and I learned from them to learn and an appreciation of the same subjects.

In today's public schools, there is a certain lack of interpersonalization eityher due to management style, regulations, or budget issues, which makes it harder for the teachers to connect with the students and teach. I don't know what the root cause of this is, but I think it is a major factor in the ineffectiveness of the system.

Good teachers engage their students and make them think about problems around them and how to solve them. They present history as then ask if it's happening again around them. They teach English and then explain why learning the proper way to talk and write helps make their own expressions more poignant and well received.

In today's school system's the teachers are judged solely on the test scores of students and it's unheard of that a student might simply be a 'c' student instead of being the teachers fault. Teachers have to teach the tests and no longer have the proper time to teach theory and critical thinking. School lengths change at the whim of the school board depending on why survey has been read saying that 50 min classes are better than 90 min and so on. The school system has become a political playground and we are seeing the result of focusing on 'grades' over education.

Time and time again I hear the argument that teachers now have to "teach the test". If it's possible for a teacher to "teach the test", and students can pass it just by route memorization, well then surely these are some pretty horrible tests!

It's rare to hear people want to reform the actual format and content of the tests to ensure that "teaching the test" is less possible. You could argue, for example, allowing more free-form answers, or creative test formats that allow students to display critical thinking skills to the grader would do just as much to reduce the "teaching to the test problem" as throwing out tests as the primary means of evaluating performance, but you don't really hear this argument all that often.

Admittedly I know little about it, but I find it pretty hard to believe that the best teachers, who do engage their students and provide them a solid education, end up with classrooms of worldly students that end up failing standardized tests.

But hell, what do I know? I also think rote memorization gets a bad rap.

Poor test design: no rule against standing on your toes.

Standardized test: all results must be reported in meters, as opposed to subjective units ("a wee bit taller than the person giving the test").

But for a test to be a learning technique, it must challenging enough to make the students study new material. Otherwise, it's just an excercise in "monkey see, monkey do."

Personally, I think the future of standardized tests will be like ACT's Compass college placement test, which progressively adapts to the level of the student as he/she is taking it, yet still results in a comparative standardized score.

Further, specific and concrete examples of "good teachers" presented by either the film maker or reviewer would have been absurd (but the review's point was the the film didn't even attempt to address the issue of a good teacher). The notion of a "good teacher" is absurd, I think, because it doesn't exist. Consider your kindergarten teacher and advanced math prof. One was probably nurturing and kind, the other an expert in a complex subject. What do these two people have in common that can be communicated in the 90 minutes alloted to a film or the 5 minutes alloted to a blog post?