scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) (01/16/89)
Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions that control it. American children are hounded by mindless educrats pushing "self-esteem" and "skills acquisition" and precious little else from the time they're 4 until they're 24. It takes its toll as any trip to the local Taco Bell will clearly demonstrate. But this is just nuture. It is additionally interesting to wonder if non-Indian Americans come up short in the nature department too. Were there any filters in place that might have sent a disproportionate number of dullards to the New World? If I had to bet ... I mean if I *HAD* to bet ... I'd bet there were. Australia, on the other hand, got more than its share of smart ones. Cheers, Scott +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+**+*+ "Education, which was at first made universal in order that all might be able to read and write, has been found capable of serving quite other purposes. By instilling nonsense, it unifies populations and generates collective enthusiasm." Bertrand Russell +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+**+*+
kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The >answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This >is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public >education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions ^^^^^^ I don't think that it is quite this extreeme; sure, there is a tendency towards the protection of ones job, but you make it sound as if there had been a concious decision made to "SCREW THE KIDS, let's just keep our jobs secure." >that control it. American children are hounded by mindless educrats >pushing "self-esteem" and "skills acquisition" and precious little >else from the time they're 4 until they're 24. It takes its toll >as any trip to the local Taco Bell will clearly demonstrate. > >But this is just nuture. It is additionally interesting to wonder >if non-Indian Americans come up short in the nature department too. >Were there any filters in place that might have sent a disproportionate >number of dullards to the New World? If I had to bet ... I mean if >I *HAD* to bet ... I'd bet there were. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You would lose. Think about it, it takes quite a lot to be willing to give up everything one has, and immigrate to another country where there is *NO* guarantee that the situation will be any better than the one that you just left. For a nation with a "disproportionate number of dullards", we seem to have done rather well. Also, your little comment about going to Taco Bell tells me that you like so many other "self professed intellectuals"* make the mistake of equating IGNORANCE with STUPIDITY. They are not the same at all. Ignorance can be cured, Stupidity cannot. * - Any truly intelligent person, should have enough confidence in his- or her-self, to not require the continual denigration of those whose abilities are preceived to be less than ones own. >Australia, on the other hand, >got more than its share of smart ones. How do you infer this? If I remember my history correctly, the original settlers of Aussieland were deported criminals from England. Do you mean to imply that the average convicted criminal has a higher I.Q. than the average voluntary immigrant? (No slams intended against any Aussie's reading this :-) ) > > Cheers, Scott > Regards, Denny
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (01/17/89)
Someone has made the comment that Americans might be intellectually
inferior because our ancestors were selected for stupidity. (something
like that anyhow). There are two outrageously silly parts to this.
First, the role of heredity in intelligence is hotly contested. It
seems reasonably safe to say that selecting a single generation of
people who are marginally less intelligent than the average and deporting
them will *not* result in a substantially stupider population in
the colony than in the mother country. This would be so even if intelligence
were strictly determined by genetics (read up on regression to the mean
if you doubt this). Since nutrition and upbringing can be expected to
blur any genetic determinism in any society that is not a strict
meritocracy ( read "any society" for that) this makes nonsense of
the original assertion.
Second, large numbers of Americans ended up here for reasons having
nothing to do with intelligence. Africans enslaved by their peers,
or by Arab and European invaders, were not particular stupid, just unlucky.
Jews who fled from the shtetls of Russia (or from the holocaust) were,
if anything, demonstrating more smarts than those who stayed. Obviously
that list can be extended.
It is possible that American society is anti-intellectual in the sense
that professions that require extensive, disciplined training are not
encouraged or rewarded and that society as a whole is hostile to those
who claim to know more than the average person. I see some signs of this.
It's interesting to note that a large proportion of American academia is
recruited from immigrants or the children of immigrants.
For what it's worth, my Australian friends claim that Australia is much
more anti-intellectual than the US. I've never been there.
--
I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
- Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
These must be my opinions. Who else would bother?bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The > answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This > is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public > education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions > that control it. American children are hounded by mindless educrats > pushing "self-esteem" and "skills acquisition" and precious little > else from the time they're 4 until they're 24. It takes its toll > as any trip to the local Taco Bell will clearly demonstrate. I've often wondered about the quality of our elementary school teachers, at least as far as mathematics is concerned. Nearly everyone that I knew in college who had planned to teach elementary school were women with "math anxiety". When the people who teach math dislike it and barely understand it, it's no wonder most Americans are pretty poor at it. I don't know whether it's the teachers or the school boards who are to blame for the degradation of the curriculum, but I don't think that it's because the students couldn't handle it.
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. *Ahem*. I didn't say this. I said that *when I was in 3rd grade* I wondered whether Americans were intellectually inferior. -Bret
johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The > answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This > is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public > education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions > that control it. If unions and public schools are to blame, then how come kids in other countries seem to be smarter? The US isn't the only nation with public schools and teachers' unions. Indeed, in some countries, private schools tend to turn out lesser quality students than the public system; they're regarded as academies for rich thick kids. Why blame teachers and unions for a system which allows kids to leave school without sitting some standard national or state-wide exams? If every local school district gets to set its own curriculum and rules, then of course some kids are going to be short-changed. No school or teacher wants to seem incompetent, and hance they'll "grade on a curve", so to speak. Centralize the curriculum, exams, grading, and so on, and then see who's good and bad. - John Murray (My own opinions, etc.)
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The >answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This >is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public >education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions >that control it. While avoiding the poke you take at the unions (which I believe are irrelevant compared to other, more important issues) I think that it is important to separate the issues of intellectual inferiority from those of educational inferiority -- the latter we suffer from, and the former is merely slander. >American children are hounded by mindless educrats >pushing "self-esteem" and "skills acquisition" and precious little >else from the time they're 4 until they're 24. It takes its toll >as any trip to the local Taco Bell will clearly demonstrate. The more important issue here is the failure of the parents to take responsibility for the education of their children (note I didn't say to educate them, but to take the responsibility). I look at the public education system as adjunct faculty when it comes to my childrens' education, not as the primary educators; the class room has a 25+/1 student-to-teacher ratio, in our house we have a 1/1 student-to-parent ratio. > [the rest deleted ...] > Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/17/89)
In article <997@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb) writes: > If I remember my history correctly, the > original settlers of Aussieland were deported criminals from > England. Do you mean to imply that the average convicted > criminal has a higher I.Q. than the average voluntary immigrant? The deportees were called "criminals" at the time, in accordance with a social theory that identified a "criminal class" -- and predicted crime would disappear if this class were sent elsewhere en masse. Most of the "crimes" were theft of food or small property -- what we call petite theft today. Almost all were poor, and had to live by their wits. Presumably they took their wits along when they were deported. I doubt Australians would stack up any better than Americans on an IQ test -- unless they wrote the test ... -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/18/89)
In article <9504@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >Someone has made the comment that Americans might be intellectually >inferior because our ancestors were selected for stupidity. (something >like that anyhow). There are two outrageously silly parts to this. As Ethan put forth, this is preposterous. The vast majority of the people who came here did so for extremely intellectual reasons: to better their life. Of course, there were those who did not, but the majority did. Just think about what it took to uproot and move across the vast ocean to a new and unkown land. Many people have trouble leaving the towns in which they grew up in! >It is possible that American society is anti-intellectual in the sense >that professions that require extensive, disciplined training are not >encouraged or rewarded and that society as a whole is hostile to those >who claim to know more than the average person. I see some signs of this. Yes, and institutions such as unions encourage this. Rather than trying to improve themselves certain people would rather knock those who do make such attempts. Why? Because to improve oneself requires lots of hard work and dedication. Many would rather camp out in a bar all night. The lure of easy money is too great in this society. How many poor kids make it out of the getto by hard work as compared to the number who profit from illegal activities? You figure it out. If you were in their shoes what would you do? >For what it's worth, my Australian friends claim that Australia is much >more anti-intellectual than the US. I've never been there. From what I recall, didn't Australian start out as a penal colony? In fact, didn't Georgia start off that way as well? Most of the original American Colonies either started as a haven for religious groups or for some sort of economical benefit for the mother country. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) (01/18/89)
In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >> Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The >> answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This >> is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public >> education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions >> that control it. > >If unions and public schools are to blame, then how come kids in other >countries seem to be smarter? The US isn't the only nation with public >schools and teachers' unions. #define SOAPBOX TRUE Actually, the teachers and Unions are not to blame so much for the schooling that children recieve in the States. I would have to say the lack of respect for educators is partially responsible for this low education. Why Should I, who makes over 30K a year, go teach at a school where I would probably make half that. I was lucky. I had parents who taught me to think, and to ask questions. I also had a physics teacher in high school who loved what he was doing. He loved to show his students how physics worked in real life! My "elders", so to speak, were not the type to get in the way of my learning (even if they had to put the vacuum cleaner back together) and I learned a lot. However, I also learned to dis-respect the schooling system in the US. The US seems to believe the saying "Those who can't, teach". They are not willing to make it worth my while to teach people in subjects that I have an active interest in. I would like to say this, I will probably get my teaching credentials and start teaching children. I enjoy watching and helping people learn about their surroundings. I will not do this for the money, I will do it because I believe I can make a difference. But, in order to get children to really learn, a system has to be set up to allow people to not hurt themselves financially in order to make this difference. #define SOAPBOX FALSE Oh well, enough spouting off. brian moffet -- Brian Moffet {uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucscc}!sco!brianm -or- ...sco!alar!brian "I was everything you wanted me to be. You were afraid, I was frightening." My fish and company have policies. I have opinions.
wendyt@pyrps5 (Wendy Thrash) (01/18/89)
Scott Guthery: >>Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. Bret Jolly: > *Ahem*. I didn't say this. I said that *when I was in 3rd grade* I >wondered whether Americans were intellectually inferior. Guess Scott must be one of them intellectually inferior Amurricans, to have misunderstood Bret so. ;-)
kenny@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Kenneth Lee) (01/18/89)
/ hpcuhc:comp.edu / johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) / 7:00 pm Jan 16, 1989 / In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The > answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This > is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public > education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions > that control it. If unions and public schools are to blame, then how come kids in other countries seem to be smarter? The US isn't the only nation with public schools and teachers' unions. Indeed, in some countries, private schools tend to turn out lesser quality students than the public system; they're regarded as academies for rich thick kids. Why blame teachers and unions for a system which allows kids to leave school without sitting some standard national or state-wide exams? If every local school district gets to set its own curriculum and rules, then of course some kids are going to be short-changed. No school or teacher wants to seem incompetent, and hance they'll "grade on a curve", so to speak. Centralize the curriculum, exams, grading, and so on, and then see who's good and bad. - John Murray (My own opinions, etc.) ----------
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (01/19/89)
Americans are intellectually inferior because they learn everything they know from TV.
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/19/89)
In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >> Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. People keep quoting this and are now cross-posting this to various other groups like sci.math & sci.physics. So I want to repeat yet again that *I did not say this*. I said (in the course of an anecdote in comp.edu) that *when I was in third grade* I wondered whether Americans were intellectually inferior. Thank you. -Bret
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/19/89)
In article <2085@scolex> brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) writes: >In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >>In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >>> Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. Once again, I didn't say this! >Actually, the teachers and Unions are not to blame so much for the schooling >that children recieve in the States. I would have to say the lack >of respect for educators is partially responsible for this low >education. Why Should I, who makes over 30K a year, go teach at a >school where I would probably make half that. You seem to underestimate teacher's salaries. In the LA unified school district the average tenured teacher makes about 35k. And this is for a 9 month year. Pro-rate this and you see that they are being paid quite well, especially considering their frequent inadequacy. (Source: an article I read in the LA times a month or so ago.) However it is true that competence makes little or no difference in a teacher's salary. Part of the problem lies in the colleges and universities which allow incompetent future teachers to graduate. For example there are *college* courses for future teachers which teach things like adding fractions. But I think that an adult who can't add fractions should not be admitted to college and definitely should never be allowed to teach. These people will be teaching math to your kids!!!!
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (01/19/89)
In article <348@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: > In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: > >In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > >> Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. > > People keep quoting this and are now cross-posting this to various other > groups like sci.math & sci.physics. So I want to repeat yet again that > *I did not say this*. I said (in the course of an anecdote in comp.edu) > that *when I was in third grade* I wondered whether Americans were > intellectually inferior. Thank you. Perhaps the fact that people assume that Bret's opinions have remained unchanged since the third grade proves he was right in the first place. :-) -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother?
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (01/20/89)
troly@math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
- [ ... ]
-*I did not say this*. I said (in the course of an anecdote in comp.edu)
-that *when I was in third grade* I wondered whether Americans were
-intellectually inferior. Thank you.
--Bret
I suppose you've stopped wondering by now? :-)bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/20/89)
In article <1179@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > >Americans are intellectually inferior because they learn everything >they know from TV. Can you tell who's been watching too much of the tube? The Boston globe ran an article this past Sunday where the authors took every study they could find (a few hunnert...) of TV vs. intellect from the past umpteen years, and summarized: TV doesn't hinder nor does it aid one's education, unless you're learning the numbers and letters offa Sesame Street. --Blair "So, der, when's 'The Honeymooners' on tonight?"
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/21/89)
In article <5393@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > From what I recall, didn't Australian start out as a penal colony? > In fact, didn't Georgia start off that way as well? Most of the original > American Colonies either started as a haven for religious groups or for > some sort of economical benefit for the mother country. > Largo, FL USA 34649-2826 The American colonies were used as a dumping ground for "criminals" exported from England until the American revolution discouraged the practice. Australia was then chosen as an alternative. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/21/89)
In article <349@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: > For example there are *college* > courses for future teachers which teach things like adding fractions. But > I think that an adult who can't add fractions should not be admitted to > college and definitely should never be allowed to teach. These people > will be teaching math to your kids!!!! There is hope. The University of Texas at Austin (not noted world-wide as a leader in liberal education theory) has just abandoned a full set of such courses for education majors; they must now major in, and pass, the same curricula as everyone else. No more "educator's math" which I heard described by a giggling co-ed in an elevator as "...kindergarden math that satisfies the math requirement!" -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
shankar@haarlem.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) (01/21/89)
In article <1932@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > >The Boston globe ran an article this past Sunday where the authors took >every study they could find (a few hunnert...) of TV vs. intellect from >the past umpteen years, and summarized: > >TV doesn't hinder nor does it aid one's education, unless you're learning >the numbers and letters offa Sesame Street. Did this survey mention what the people who aren't watching TV do? Selling drugs? Listening to music? Reading Hardy Boys stories? Reading novels and/or nonfiction? Beating up other gangs? I would think that this would affect the results of the survey. -- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: shankar@src.honeywell.com UUCP: shankar@srcsip.uucp {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!shankar -- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: shankar@src.honeywell.com
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (01/21/89)
in article <349@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) says: > In article <2085@scolex> brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) writes: >>that children recieve in the States. I would have to say the lack >>of respect for educators is partially responsible for this low >>education. Why Should I, who makes over 30K a year, go teach at a >>school where I would probably make half that. > You seem to underestimate teacher's salaries. In the LA unified > school district the average tenured teacher makes about 35k. And this > is for a 9 month year. Pro-rate this and you see that they are being > paid quite well, especially considering their frequent inadequacy. I seem to recall reading an article in a magazine that said that over the past 8 years, teacher salaries have risen drastically, from around 18K/year to over 25K/year. I know that here in Lafayette, Louisiana, teachers typically make around 24K/year -- a quite comfortable living in this area (VERY low costs for housing, utilities, groceries). The Lafayette school system is one of the best in the state (which isn't saying much), partially because their salaries allow them to "pick and choose" when it comes to hiring teachers (they get applications from all over the state, and even from surrounding states -- but, then again, an application from Mississippi or Arkansas, two other states with high illiteracy rates, isn't something to rave about ;-}. > Part of the problem lies in the colleges and universities which allow > incompetent future teachers to graduate. For example there are One of the problems lies in the definition of "competent." Here in this state, to get teacher certification, you have to make a certain score on the NTE (National Teachers Exam). New teachers teaching in this state are therefore competent, BY THE STANDARDS OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION. In my view, though, the vast majority of teachers are INCOMPETENT when it comes to teaching mathematics, even though by the standards of the teaching profession they are quite well-trained. These standards were set by the currently existing teachers, most of whom have "math phobia", and serve only to perpetuate the current mis-teaching of mathematics in our elementary schools. Note that teaching of the sciences has the same problem, except it's not so critical because learning, e.g., Chemistry, doesn't require extensive background in the subject. I won't even mention my encounter with a Physics teacher who knew very little of the subject. The "science education" curriculum generally does not require that its students take any courses beyond "introductory" courses. I took the same introductory Physics courses as the future "science educators" take, and can truthfully say that I don't don't know the subject. Can it be Physics, if it is a course in formula regurgitation that doesn't use calculus(which describes the "why" of most of physics)? But, because the future educators don't have the math background, they wouldn't be CAPABLE of learning "real" Physics. Yet, THEY ARE COMPETENT BY THE STANDARDS OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION. Perhaps experts in the particular fields should be setting the standards, instead of professional educators? -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Netter A: In Hell they run VMS. Netter B: No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/21/89)
In article <15125@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@haarlem.UUCP (Son of Knuth) writes: >In article <1932@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>every study they could find (a few hunnert...) of TV vs. intellect from ... >Did this survey mention what the people who aren't watching TV do? ... >I would think that this would affect the results of the survey. I think a few hundred studies would be enough to ensure a wide variety of control conditions. The question is whether the summary was accurate. Did the full blown version appear in a reputable journal? -Dan
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (01/28/89)
In article <19554@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In article <1461@trantor.harris-atd.com> ferguson@x102c.harris-atd.com (ferguson ct 71078) writes: > >>There have been some studies of this phenomenon but I am not aware of >>their results other than one study that found that Asian-Americans >>that spoke their native language at home fared better in school that >>Asian-Americans that spoke English at home. Fascinating. True, as Norm said, it has to do with culture. But Asian-American culture enforces this thing that many other cultures do not enforce: DISCIPLINE. Many Asian kids are taught, since childhood, that getting low grades is shameful. Therefore, to combat the idea of "losing face," the Asian child must continually strive to succeed throughout his/her school years. Since these "lessons" have been ingrained in his/her mind since childhood, the Asian kid will not need to be told to do well later in life. He/she will SIMPLY DO WELL (and often better than non-Asians). Of course, this applies only to the Asians that speak their native tongue at home. The other category of Asians have a culture that has been diluted (or plagued) by American society. >>same classroom treatment as the rest of the students. She used to >>start each school year asking the students to write a paper about what >>they wanted to do when they got out of school. Most of the >>Asian-Americans wanted to be computer engineers and such while most of >>the rest wanted to be truck drivers and hair stylists. Yep, or any of a number of other menial labor jobs. (Whoops, now that haircutter down the street will scalp me!) >Immigrant Asian-Americans tend to have a fantastically good "network," >so they know that there are lots of openings for computer engineers, >and that one can get a good salary in this line of work. Many of the >non-Asians do not know this. I wonder if this knowledge would change >their aspirations? > > Norm I've noticed that American children (all types) do not place much value on the concept of money. They know they can use it to buy stuff and they can often beg for some from their parents... not much else. I'm not sure what it is, but the Asian culture seems to deem money highly. The discipline inherent in the whole Asian cultural framework enforces a certain rule for saving money rather than flaunting it. Yes, Americans are extremely wasteful. One look in a typical American home and we'll find tons of crap, like VCR's, TV's, expensive furniture, the board game section of Toys 'R' Us, wasted light fixtures, etc. A typical Asian home is very modest; amid the furniture, you may see a couple of decorations that enforce the ideas of having and living a good life and developing yourself to your potential. Now why can't Americans follow these ideas? -clarence
johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (01/28/89)
In article <19554@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) writes: > Immigrant Asian-Americans tend to have a fantastically good "network," > so they know that there are lots of openings for computer engineers, > and that one can get a good salary in this line of work. Many of the > non-Asians do not know this. I wonder if this knowledge would change > their aspirations? This "network" phenomenon is not peculiar to Asian immigrants - or to computer engineering for that matter. It's a by-product of the "ghetto- forming" process which occurs among immigrants from many backgrounds. For example, much of the fresh vegetable trade in New York seems to be in the hands of people with a Korean background, many Irish immigrants end up in the bar trade, police, construction, etc. One factor which hasn't been considered is the attitude difference which many Americans seem to have about "doing favors". It seems that some folk from a foreign background are more willing to help "a friend of a friend" (to study, find a job, etc.) without necessarily expecting compensation. It's a sort of "buy me a beer sometime" type of attitude. On the other hand, I sense that Americans would be more likely to feel that they were under an obligation to the "benefactor", and therefore would prefer to pay some "market value" for a service. Hence, people make money helping kids apply to college, selling class notes and term papers, grief counselling, etc. - jobs which typically are done as "favors" by a person's friends and relatives in many other countries. To go back to the original question:- Yes, the knowledge would change their aspirations. It probably does change them for the people who have paid for the knowledge. - John M. (My own opinions, etc.)
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/28/89)
In article <00Uvr19Q3V1010d85Q6@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <19554@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) writes: >> Immigrant Asian-Americans tend to have a fantastically good "network," >> so they know that there are lots of openings for computer engineers, >> and that one can get a good salary in this line of work. Many of the >> non-Asians do not know this. I wonder if this knowledge would change >> their aspirations? >This "network" phenomenon is not peculiar to Asian immigrants - or to >computer engineering for that matter. It's a by-product of the "ghetto- >forming" process which occurs among immigrants from many backgrounds. For >example, much of the fresh vegetable trade in New York seems to be in the >hands of people with a Korean background, many Irish immigrants end up in >the bar trade, police, construction, etc. Yes, I agree with all this, but there is a big variation in degree. For example, I recently speculated in a conversation with some of our students from India that the Chinese students have a better network than the Indians do. The Indians not only agreed with me, but also added that they had just been talking about this the night before. Also, I think there is even a variation among the various Chinese groups, with the Taiwan students having a better network than those from China and Hong Kong. But, getting back to the subject at hand, I would guess that a large number of even educated Americans don't realize how much opportunity exists in the computer professions. As an example, an American physics student recently came to me to investigate the possibility of getting an MS in computer science. I asked what his goals were. He said that he wanted to use the MS as an entree into the computer software industry, which he had thought would not open to him without a degree. I told him that with his physics degree, good grades, and prior summer jobs programming in the aerospace industry, he WOULD be able to find a job without having a formal CS degree. He was quite surprised by this. By contrast, a student from Taiwan would know examples of his/her friends, friends of friends, friends of friends of friends, etc. who had done such a thing. So: If Americans COULD be made aware of the opportunities in the computer professions (to the extent described above), would they then be interested? Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/28/89)
In article <27541@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: >In article <19554@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>Immigrant Asian-Americans tend to have a fantastically good "network," >>so they know that there are lots of openings for computer engineers, >>and that one can get a good salary in this line of work. Many of the >>non-Asians do not know this. I wonder if this knowledge would change >>their aspirations? >I've noticed that American children (all types) do not place much value >on the concept of money. They know they can use it to buy stuff and >they can often beg for some from their parents... not much else. I'm >not sure what it is, but the Asian culture seems to deem money highly. Well, this is not the right newsgroup for this, but I can't pass up that remark without saying that at least something ought to be said for "quality of life." I know some Asian immigrant engineers in the Silicon Valley who spend a total of 90 hours per week making money: (a) Their main job. (b) Outside consulting. (c) Landlordship. (d) Starting international businesses. (e) Etc. I'm grateful for them for their revitalizing the American economy, but I feel sorry for their spouses and kids. Nevertheless, lots of nonimmigrant Americans like money too, and yet I think that many of them are unaware of the chances to make some money in the computer world. >Now why can't Americans follow these ideas? BTW, could we insert a qualifier such as "nonimmigrant" or "non-Asian" before the word "Americans"? Norm
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (01/29/89)
In article <27541@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: >True, as Norm said, it has to do with culture. But Asian-American culture >enforces this thing that many other cultures do not enforce: DISCIPLINE. >Many Asian kids are taught, since childhood, that getting low grades is >shameful. Therefore, to combat the idea of "losing face," the Asian >child must continually strive to succeed throughout his/her school >years. [...] You really hit a sore spot here ... Why are (such-and-such) people so obsessed with the idea of success that they deem it shameful to fail? As if failing made someone a bad person! A person is a good person because of *who* they are, not *what* they are able to do. Perhaps (some) Americans cannot compete with Asians because their parents did not shame them into being straight A students. I take my hat off to those parents. In my opinion, it's far better to provide a child with care and nurture than to criticize them for failure. If more people were encouraged to learn for learning's sake, as opposed to for some reward (or punishment if they fail to learn), we wouldn't have the situation where students jump off of bridges or hang themselves because they failed to live up to expectations. --gregbo
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (01/30/89)
In article <15993@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >In article <27541@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: >Perhaps (some) Americans cannot compete with Asians because their >parents did not shame them into being straight A students. I take my >hat off to those parents. In my opinion, it's far better to provide a >child with care and nurture than to criticize them for failure. I, too, agree with your opinion, however, the Asian culture has been around for ages, so it's obviously a formula that works. >If more people were encouraged to learn for learning's sake, as >opposed to for some reward (or punishment if they fail to learn), we >wouldn't have the situation where students jump off of bridges or hang >themselves because they failed to live up to expectations. Believe it or not, almost all suicides are "performed" by non-Asians who have parents who have tried an Asian-approach way of discipline. -clarence
ian@shire (Ian Parberry) (01/30/89)
Paraphrasing my wife's Webster's (apologies: my OED is at work), intellect is defined to be the ability to reason, perceive, or understand. My experience leads me to believe that U.S. educated students are not intellectually inferior. However, they do have some educational deficiencies which are balanced by other strengths. The same can probably be said of foreign educational systems. What is "my experience"? I was educated from grades 1-5 in England (to be pedantic, the equivalent thereof; the nomenclature is different), 6-12 and B. Sc. in Australia, Ph. D. in England. I have teaching experience at the Undergraduate level in Australia and England (as a T.A.) and 5 years of teaching at the Undergraduate and Graduate level in the U.S., including the supervision of research Ph. D.'s. The undergraduates that I see appear to have been let down by their high-school education, compared to England and Australia. It doesn't seem to have done them very great harm, however. The B.S. here has great width, but is shallower. The great catching-up in depth is achieved at the M.S. and Ph.D. level with interminable coursework (these degrees require only a thesis in England and Australia). The end-products of all three advanced degrees appear to me to be equivalent in intellect and knowledge, although the latter may be distributed differently. Now, motivation is an issue which is different from intellect and knowledge. I have seen vast variation from student to student, class to class, semester to semester, year to year. I don't think I can make any generalizations there. Just when lack of motivation amongst my incoming students gets me down, I get a great class. I give you my observations, but no conclusions. The observations of one person are simply not sufficient. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Parberry "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy" ian@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu ian@psuvax1.BITNET ian@psuvax1.UUCP (814) 863-3600 Dept of Comp Sci, 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, Pa 16802
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/30/89)
In article <15993@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >In article <27541@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: *>True, as Norm said, it has to do with culture. But Asian-American culture *>enforces this thing that many other cultures do not enforce: DISCIPLINE. *>Many Asian kids are taught, since childhood, that getting low grades is *>shameful. Therefore, to combat the idea of "losing face," the Asian *>child must continually strive to succeed throughout his/her school *>years. [...] >Perhaps (some) Americans cannot compete with Asians because their >parents did not shame them into being straight A students. I take my >hat off to those parents. In my opinion, it's far better to provide a >child with care and nurture than to criticize them for failure. What I feel very strongly should be done is for parents to create a learning environment for their kids, in a POSITIVE way, e.g. by setting a good example. If parents themselves enjoy reading for recreation, have a good intellectual curiosity, etc., then the kids will follow quite naturally. By contrast, Asian kids, including recently immigrated Asian-Americans, tend to grow up in an environment where education, though valued enormously, is not considered fun or enjoyable. This is good for neither them -- since they often wind up doing work which is not of interest to them -- nor for society, for the same reason. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do really well in a profession that one is not interested in. On this last point, I think it is very significant that at least one of the Chinese Nobel Laureates (Ding, I believe) achieved greatness IN SPITE of the Chinese system of education, rather than because of it. He apparently had a great intellectual curiosity as a child, and spent more time pursuing this than the rote memorization required for his university entrance exams, and failed them. Of course, Chinese people think this is "cute," and they also delight in similar stories about Einstein, but I feel that they are completely missing the point. Of course, great achievement also requires a high degree of self-discipline, so Clarence's point is well-taken, but as someone who is involved in various ways with the Chinese community, I feel very strongly that the parents are taking the WRONG approach. I feel sorry for the kids, and feel that there is a tragic opportunity cost (i.e. waste of talent) which comes out of this. Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/30/89)
In article <27586@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: >In article <15993@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >>In article <27541@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: *>If more people were encouraged to learn for learning's sake, as *>opposed to for some reward (or punishment if they fail to learn), we *>wouldn't have the situation where students jump off of bridges or hang *>themselves because they failed to live up to expectations. >Believe it or not, almost all suicides are "performed" by non-Asians >who have parents who have tried an Asian-approach way of discipline. Would you please rephrase this? Either I've misunderstood your point, or you meant to say something else. Certainly suicide after failed exams is something one hears about in Japan. Last year a Taiwanese immigrant at UCLA took her own life, because of academic problems. Norm
reggie@pdn.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) (01/31/89)
In article <19671@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >What I feel very strongly should be done is for parents to create a >learning environment for their kids, in a POSITIVE way, e.g. by setting >a good example. If parents themselves enjoy reading for recreation, have >a good intellectual curiosity, etc., then the kids will follow quite >naturally. Yes! My parents would accept nothing short of straight A's out of me for all my years of schooling. Anything less was considered a failure to them. It seemed to me that I could never satisfy them. To this day I still have some trace of these feelings, that they feel I sold them short or something. It was not until I returned to graduate school after working in industry for a few years that I had a change of attitude towards grades and learning. Why? Because there was no pressure from the parents *and* I had adopted the proper attitude. I was there because *I* wanted to learn, not because it was my parents' wish that I attend college. Attitude is everything! -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 reggie@pdn.nm.paradyne.com P.O. Box 2826 Phone: (813) 530-2376 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
reggie@pdn.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) (01/31/89)
In article <00Uvr19Q3V1010d85Q6@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <19554@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) writes: >> Immigrant Asian-Americans tend to have a fantastically good "network," >> so they know that there are lots of openings for computer engineers, >> and that one can get a good salary in this line of work. Many of the >> non-Asians do not know this. I wonder if this knowledge would change >> their aspirations? >This "network" phenomenon is not peculiar to Asian immigrants - or to >computer engineering for that matter. It's a by-product of the "ghetto- >forming" process which occurs among immigrants from many backgrounds. For >example, much of the fresh vegetable trade in New York seems to be in the >hands of people with a Korean background, many Irish immigrants end up in >the bar trade, police, construction, etc. I lived in a very ethnic neighborhood in New York and grew up next to an ethnic town in New Jersey. The "network" is used to get friends and family members into this country, legally or illegally, and to set them up with a place to live, a job, some new friends, etc..... People help friends of friends for the same reason that you may stop your car to help someone change a flat tire. Someday one of your loved ones may need similar help and you hope that a kind person will be there for them when you can not. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 reggie@pdn.nm.paradyne.com P.O. Box 2826 Phone: (813) 530-2376 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) (02/01/89)
In article <15993@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >In article <27541@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: >>True, as Norm said, it has to do with culture. But Asian-American culture >>enforces this thing that many other cultures do not enforce: DISCIPLINE. >>Many Asian kids are taught, since childhood, that getting low grades is >>shameful. Therefore, to combat the idea of "losing face," the Asian >>child must continually strive to succeed throughout his/her school >>years. [...] Another thing that I noticed while in school is that many Asian-American (and Asian-non-American) students are compelled to take certain majors. I often met students like this as a teaching assistant in lower and upper division computer science. In an introductory C.S. class, I advised some Asian-American students to reconsider their major. They invariably replied that they would have to leave school if they could not succeed in their chosen major (leaving school to some meant going back to Asia). To switch majors implied defeat. To others, they were taking a C.S. major because that is what their parents had told them to take; because it would get them a good job. In upper division, I would have some Asian-American students come by my office very often, sometimes 10 times a day, about stuff that I had assumed should be very familiar to them. I would often get a suspicion that some of these students were just not cut out of C.S., but since they only had a couple classes to go and would most likely get decent jobs, it was nearly unthinkable to suggest a different career plan (In fact, unless they are doing data entry, they probably have a better job than I do...). However, I admire the time and dedication they put into their degree. For me, an A was simple, and I would probably have given up if I was forced to study as hard as they did. Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com) "You can't fight in here! This is the war room.."
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (02/01/89)
in article <15993@joyce.istc.sri.com>, gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) says: > In article <27541@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: >>True, as Norm said, it has to do with culture. But Asian-American culture >>enforces this thing that many other cultures do not enforce: DISCIPLINE. >>Many Asian kids are taught, since childhood, that getting low grades is >>shameful. Therefore, to combat the idea of "losing face," the Asian >>child must continually strive to succeed throughout his/her school >>years. [...] > Why are (such-and-such) people so obsessed with the idea of success > that they deem it shameful to fail? As if failing made someone a bad > person! A person is a good person because of *who* they are, not > *what* they are able to do. I'd call Mr. Skinner "sociologically naieve". Like it or not, most of us identify ourselves by what we do. e.g. if you ask a typical engineer, "What are you?", he'd reply "An engineer". The only way that most of us have of telling how "good" a person is, is to observe WHAT they do... do they exhibit caring behavior? Do they do good, consciencious work? Let's face it, particles may have inherent properties, but the only way we have of observing those properties is by observing their action upon other particles.... it all boils down to "doing", to action (or inaction). Hazy sentimentalism such as "it's what you are, not what you do" is even too hazy for sociologists (notoriously "soft" "science"). > hat off to those parents. In my opinion, it's far better to provide a > child with care and nurture than to criticize them for failure. I don't know about Asiatic parents in general. Among Asian-Americans that I know, criticism is virtually unheard-of, and occurs only for extreme behavior (e.g. criminal or similiar). Very stoic people. They lay out expectations. If those expectations are not met, child knows, parents know, both know they know (since those expectations have been reiterated regularly for years), criticism or recriminations would be unnecessary and shameful. -- | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | | // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 | | \X/ >> In Hell you need 4Mb to Multitask << |
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (02/02/89)
In article <6991@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: >I'd call Mr. Skinner "sociologically naieve". Well, you are entitled to your opinion. >Like it or not, most of us identify ourselves by what we do. e.g. if >you ask a typical engineer, "What are you?", he'd reply "An >engineer". The only way that most of us have of telling how "good" a >person is, is to observe WHAT they do... do they exhibit caring >behavior? [...] There is nothing wrong with this attitude. However, this is not the attitude I responded to in the posting, that rewarded failure with "loss of face" and criticism. >They [Asian-American parents] lay out expectations. If those >expectations are not met, child knows, parents know, both know they >know (since those expectations have been reiterated regularly for >years), criticism or recriminations would be unnecessary and >shameful. I suppose it depends on the expectations. Should I ever become a parent, I will expect my kids to do the best they can. This does not mean I will expect them to get straight A's or be accepted to prestigious schools. This means I will expect them to apply themselves to whatever tasks they undertake to the fullest of their abilities. I will not expect them to be lazy or unconscientious. If they succeed, I will be happy for them. If they do not, I will still be happy as long as I and they both know they tried their best. --gregbo
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (02/02/89)
In article <429@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson) writes: >In article <15993@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >Another thing that I noticed while in school is that many Asian-American >(and Asian-non-American) students are compelled to take certain majors. >I often met students like this as a teaching assistant in lower and >upper division computer science. In an introductory C.S. class, I >advised some Asian-American students to reconsider their major. They >invariably replied that they would have to leave school if they could >not succeed in their chosen major (leaving school to some meant going >back to Asia). To switch majors implied defeat. To others, they were >taking a C.S. major because that is what their parents had told them >to take; because it would get them a good job. I doubt if many would have to go back to Asia, but the main point is that many choose what they consider to be the majors in which it is easy to get a job. As you said, this is often from parental pressure. >In upper division, I would have some Asian-American students come >by my office very often, sometimes 10 times a day, about stuff that >I had assumed should be very familiar to them. I would often get >a suspicion that some of these students were just not cut out of >C.S., but since they only had a couple classes to go and would This was basically the point I was trying to make. If one is not fundamentally interested in the subject matter, it's almost impossible to really do well in it. Even those who might manage to get good grades will still miss things which, as you point out, are simply "obvious" to someone who really has an interest in the subject. >However, I admire the time and dedication they put into their degree. >For me, an A was simple, and I would probably have given up if I was >forced to study as hard as they did. Yes! There are lots of ways to get an A other than having insight into the material [no suggestive jokes, please :-) ]. In CS, so many courses place a major part of the grade on a term project, which one can do well on if one is willing to put in enough time. For exams, there is what the Taiwan students call the "archaeology method," which is basically the one used by American fraternity houses -- extensive archives of past exams (it's really quite amazing how many professors will give essentially the same exam year after year, at least in terms of general content). For homework, one can pretty much ensure near-perfection if one consults the professor, TA's and classmates often enough. And of course, all-night cram sessions before an exam DO work for some professors. Norm
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (02/05/89)
~r dead.article
mayoung@bnr-di.UUCP (Mark Young) (02/07/89)
In article <27702@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (of Boston University) writes: > ~r dead.article yeah, but you could be a foreign student. :-)
patty@hms3.gatech.edu (02/10/89)
There's a group called CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) that publishes
a great mag called "The Skeptical Inquirer". They don't just
deal with paranormal claims, but all kinds of pseudo-science.
They have also published some articles on the dismaying lack of
critical thinking demonstrated by college students.
To quote from a letter they sent, their goals are "to help
raise the level of public understanding of science and to
develop the skills of rational thinking in the young people
of the United States and other parts of the world."
Their address is:
CSICOP
P. O. Box 229
Buffalo, NY 14215-0229
(716) 834-3222
Patty Jones
UUCP: patty@chmsr.UUCP
{backbones}!gatech!chmsr!patty
INTERNET: patty@chmsr.gatech.edu