Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2014198,00.html

I think it's liberal policies that declare everyone to be a winner are the problem. Smart kids don't care about achievement because they don't get any better treatment than morons, because "everyone is equal". The dumb aren't getting dumber; the smart are being slowed down. Look at the Discovery channel; it's loaded with shows about motorcycles and sharks! At best, they have nature shows, but they never show physics or chemistry shows. That's too hard and boring for average people.

I hope this doesn't persist into adulthood. We can expect more reality TV, Xbox sales, and pop "punk" bands if this trend isn't reversed ASAP!

I still believe the library is the best place for children to be after school.

I agree that the drop in child IQ is alarming, but blaming liberal beliefs is just absurd, you're extreme conservatism is simply clouding your judgement on that one. I mean do you think an average child is going to sit around and think that due to equality laws he can simply slack off, a young child would not even have the mind to comprehend equality laws, never mind have the mind to exploit them. It's clear that the drop is due to the emphasis of educating children while entertaining them at the same time has declined. I always remember, as a child, (which wasn't very long ago) that programmes I watched placed equal emphasis on the two aforementioned factors. Seems now that children's programmes are just mindless fun for children, it's not teaching them anything, it's just pure stupidity. It could also be placed on the decline in reading, children need to be reading from an early age, but in recent years, due to the increasingly easy access to television and computer games this has stopped. There are many factors that I believe are contributing to this but it can't be pinned on a political belief system.

Yay!

Of course it's the tv's fault that people are getting dumber... The liberal policies? What are the liberal policies that are doing it? The fact that the smart kids aren't getting an extra pudding for their accomplishments? I think that parenting has taken a step backwards almost all over the globe within the past 20 yeards. Or let's make it 10. And it's really easy to blame it on the media. But in the end, it is the parents' job to watch what their offspring is watching on the tv. The society needs people of each and every educational level to provide their presence and their work to make everything work. It should be made a value of it's own, that if one tries their best - it is enough, not that if your mommy drops you off at school every weekday.

And the average intelligence of the world is propably not falling. I think that there's a shitload of potential in Asia, that will grow exponentially within the next 20 years... As they know how some people have it at their country, and do want to do something about it. If everyone had it as good out there as we do in Europe, maybe they'd have the same issues, but as for now.. they are going strong. Maybe later they'll blame their decline (if there will be one) on the tv or the internet also. But for now the society's going strong.

At this point. I really wouldn't go after tv-companies like Discovery channel - which is in the business for money. We'd have to get the parents interested in getting their children interested in 'smart' things. What they do to unwind, and to relax is another issue.. Some sports would be nice.

My point is... reality tv, xbox sales and them bands are a product of demand... It is not something that is spoonfed. It seems to be what a (n unfortunatelu) big majority of people want at the moment. (just realized that I don't have a point.. just don't agree ?on some of the things you think are behind this 'decline of intelligence'...)

well it's good. the smart can now take over the world, and it's always good to talk to dumbasses ;)

Okay, so I'll agree with you on the reality TV. But the rest of it? Any idea how old you sound? You sound like the man with the 'what's with all of this rock and the roll?'



In some ways I would like to go into more detail, but debating matters such as the majority of the ideals that you hold is not something that I enjoy doing on message boards so much...It takes up far too much time, and once the facts and figures get involved, I'll admit, I'll have ran to the DVD player. I can't be bothered with all that on a message board.

But I really have considered it before, because (straight talking now) I detest your way of thinking, your thoughts towards the young and your upper class values. I hate the way you think and your smug sense of having some knowledge of what would benefit society.

Actually, I hate most of your posts full stop. No childish insults here, let us try and keep it clean, do ya ken?, but from how you present yourself I being to realise that I cannot stand you.

I had to say that. It's how I feel and, maybe, someday, I will elaborate more, but each time I read one of your posts it kind of makes me angry, you know? Your first post in the MySpace thread about that kiddy getting expelled was disgusting, for example.

Anyway. My point in regards to this post?

Well, as far as the best place for kids being the library after school is a joke at best.

Why, because I'm against reading? No! Not at all. Most of the time I have about three books on the go (work, college and home, yeah?) so, personally, I think that it can be a great thing.

So, because I'm against homework? No! Not in the slightest. I never do any, but that's irrelevant. It should be enforced with minimal pressure, and is vital to any form of learning...

No, why I am against that notion is because you clearly have no concept of the middle way.

Why does everything have to be so final? So totalitarian?

The library a couple of days a week? Go mad.

Enforced every day? Maybe for the Hitler Youth.

Children do need to be pushed in the right direction, but they can't be bullied into it. One of the major problems that you, and people like you, have is that you can't see things as mutually respective. All cases are different, murder isn't murder every time. There are grey areas in everything and it is not a flaw of human morality and blindness, but a fact of the universe that very few principles can be definitive and without exception.

Fuck it. I digress. This isn't the right thread. Maybe another time.

If you look carefully, you'll see that even conservatives fall for the liberal idea of hyperindividualism. Libertarians are especially at fault here. "It's his life, let him ruin it if he wants. He has that freedom". I say no. Should I have children (maybe), they will go to the library and read, whether they like it or not. The internet is too distracting. They'll get paper and ink, and it will teach them to think.  : ok:

The irony is that hyperindividualism isn't individualism at all. Without decent education, people tend to fall towards a base mentality. That's what I meant with the pop punk and Xboxes. There are some good punk bands out there and good Xbox games, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

Young people have a very plastic brain. It can be molded easily. They should be taught discipline early, or else they will never learn it at all. The Myspace kid is a perfect example of wasted opportunity. But at his age, punishment usually doesn't work. Hell, I bet he was already punished a lot, but the article doesn't say. At this point of no return, those kind of kids should be expelled.

It sounds tough, but it's good for the smart kids who actually want to learn. They shouldn't be brought down by lazy or dumb kids.

I had to be forced to write properly. For a long time, I thought it was elitist and "British" to write something like "he is older than they" instead of "he is older than them". Today, I look back and can't imagine how stupid I was. I was lucky my parents made me learn grammar. It's not "upper class" at all; everyone should learn to write. The truth is that few are capable or willing enough.

Children have to be forced to learn things because they can't see the immediate value of grammar or calculus. That comes with time. They'll remember their youth and thank their parents. I bet the Myspace kid had apathetic parents.

Dumb du du du DUMB............

When I started secondary school I worked hard, went to all my classes, and did all my work. By the end of the first year, I barely did anything. Why? Becuase I didn't need to. I saw other people sitting around, missing classes, coing no work, and there were no consequences. So I'm thinking, Why the fuck am I sitting here like an idiot when I don't need to.

I was never challenged at school because the school felt the need to mix the bright kids with the kids who were naughty, so that teachers wouldn't have a class they couldn't control. We didn't get put in different sets for maths, english, science, languages for three years, and so I was never being streched because they set work which could be done by the stupidest kids.

I know I sound like an arrogant twat, but thats simply the way it was.

I never though I'd ever hear myself say this, but I agree with Walk. Kids aren't being challenged in school. It's not about making the learning fun, they try that anyway with pretty slideshows and videos. It's about the fact that state school appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's too un-PC to make stupid kids feel stupid, so they just don't set work which challenges them.

eeerrrrrrr whats IQ. :drool:.

The Japanese separate kids at 5th grade or so, whatever their equivalent is. At about that age, one can see if the child is intelligent or a future turnip picker. It works for them. Crime is low, their economy is strong, and science is respected and honored. Why can't we understand that some people are happier doing manual labor?

I was given an IQ test when I was a child and it was found to be pretty high. ?So I was placed in a program that I believe still exists - GATE. ?Then I was part of a new program where they took GATE kids and put us in our own classes, separate from the rest of the kids. ?This continued through high school, my high school actually sectioned kids based on their standardized test scores. ?I know this is rare, now most schools mix every one and teach to the lowest level. ? ? ?

From my experience, my higher testing group of students absolutley learned more, as long as we wanted to. ?See, a high IQ didn't stop me from deciding in high school that I was getting screwed. ?Because I was smart, I had to work harder for my grades, do more difficult coursework, etc. ?So I tried to get myself dropped out of the program and let myself fail. ?The only reason that I wasn't successful with my plan, and ultimately still went to college, was because of my parents. ?My mother wouldn't accept C's from me. ?She made me come home everyday and sit and do my homework and get the grades I was capable of, or I didn't leave the house.

So my point is that if it appears IQ is dropping, or people are getting dumber, I think it has more to do with what the parents expect of their kids. ?I think parents are getting lazier, and they don't want to do the work it requires to get a whiney ?kid to sit down and do their homework before watching tv or playing games. ? ?I also think they should use standardized testing to place students with others who are at the same level. ?It would work better for everyone.

Capitalism's main weakness is its failure to adapt to very fast changes. Peak oil comes to mind immediately; think of what happened during the 70's oil crisis and multiply it by 10. The market won't stand it. War is also another factor that capitalism can't adjust to quickly enough.

What is worth more? A $2000 computer, a $20,000 car, or a $200 box of ammo? In war, the ammo is priceless. In peace, cars get made, then computers, then ammo. We're dead in war if we can't switch to a wartime economy quickly enough. This will happen to us if we don't do anything.

Parents are lazy because they can be. Science isn't studied because someone in Bangkok or Shanghai will do it cheaper. It will be too late when we lose all of our scientists and engineers. Business is very important, but its importance is not as great as people say it is. Despite our focus on business, the US economy is in bad shape. Clearly, there are a lot of mediocre businessmen out there. We need technology if we want to maintain our economic and military edge.

We need more government money going to science instead of "homeland security" programs of dubious worth. ID checks come to mind. We'll get more efficient at security post-911 as time goes on, but hopefully it won't be too late. Labs now have tough budgets.

At what age should this happen??

People grow up at very different speeds. And putting a child into a 'not so good' group could effect his self image in a damaging way for many years, or a lifetime. And even if you'd make like 'trials' at the end of each year, there'd always be a bunch of people who were in the 'dumb' classes.. No matter how great everyone did.  I think that the biggest problem, at least here in Finland, are the groupsizes. They are way too big. None of us got put to a special class just because some of us were doing better. But the groupsizes were  small enough so that the class teacher could really 'control' the children better. They had a good bond with each and every one of our students on a personal level, and could guide them through school like that. At this moment, as teachers are being fired for not having sufficent funds, the groupsizes are growing, the level of teaching is dropping (no matter how great the teacher is) and it'll come back to haunt us at some point in the future if it doesn't get fixed.

I'm against putting people in differect categories by their intellect at a young age. Of course some people are smarter than others, and they will propably go to colleges more likely. But I think that everyone should be given the chance. And I don't mean like a chance for a year, but the system should stay with a kid for at least until he's 14-16 years old. Even at this age - a lot of people don't know what to do with their lives, but the cord has to be broken at some age. I'd see the cord broken at 17-18 if it was my way. Since a lot of people are still going through puberty and might have a whole lot of other stuff going through their mind than education. There's no easy answer, but I do not think that setting kids apart from one another by some tests is the answer here.

No one considers u a winner, from any point in the political spectrum.

Exactly what is a liberal policy?

What criteria do u give to a liberal and conservative policy? Surely your own political views determine what falls into either category? America strikes me as being ultra-conservative, but you'd advocate its far too liberal. Where are the goal posts in this matter?


Well, i don't even know what to say here - thats such nonsense the counter position hardly needs airing. All smart kids don't care about achievement? As Aerosmith would say 'dream on'


Equality is sadly often more an ideal than a tangible reality - poor people, rich people, old people, young people are all treated differently.


Judging by this message board, thats probably not too far from the truth - but as a judgement on society its highly falwed

'IQ tests' are absurd pseudo-science - for it is impossible to measure intelligence in any definitive sense, everything can be learned and if it can be learned surely a higher score is more an indicator of learning combined with memory showing far more about current than potential ability.

One can even revise IQ tests thus giving a person a huge advantage over someone who would seem to be of higher intellect to begin with


By what criteria is someone smart? For instance - i consider you to have a truly dismal standard of intellect and do not consider you 'smart', you'd disagree and voice similiar concerns over my intellect, but surely we both have a trunkful of academic qualifications, merits, commendations etc?

Only a fool would relate someone's academic standing with their intellect

Is someone who can't count but is truly exceptional in computer programming smart of stupid?
Is the top football player, a man of skill and finesse smart or stupid?

What goes in to being 'smart' - tests results? I don't believe intellect can be crudely judged from a test created by a flawed and imperfect mortal


Peple don't watch those shows primarily due to disinterest :confused: Understanding is irrelevant, i understand all kinds of topics I have no interest in


These criteria are hardly signs we're heading for the abyss, smart people have bene known to watch reality tv shows, every young male buys some computer games at one point or another, and who listens to what music is no reflection on intellect but on taste


What a most curious observation! Surely additional tutorials, academic tasks, intense metal and physical excercises would be better?

Or maybe just being in a loving family environment in which you recieve the confidence to work hard?

But don't you agree that by the end of your first year in secondary school you had reached an age in your life that you had the intellect to understand the "equality laws" that were brought up initially in this thread? And thus also had the intellect to exploit them? When I raised my initial point in my first post I was refering more to kids between say 4 and 12 for example? You really think a little kiddy aged 6 years old is really going to be observant and learned enough to have even heard of equality laws never mind observant and learned enough to use them to their advantage in some way?


Well that simply displays your own lack of work ethic and responsibility at that time, do you really think liberal ideals are to blame for your own lack of interest? The option was given to you to work or not to work and you chose not to, just be thankful you weren't shot for showing lack of interest, something that would probably have happened in this ultra-conservative society that some people here are advocating.


So would you advocate seperatism? The system that seems to be in place in that school is not without flaw, but it's the best possible system that can be adopted? Which is a better solution an environment with seperation wherein smart kids thrive and less gifted children rot, or an environment where everyone is treated equally and the smart kids thrive anyway but the less gifted kids, despite their flaws have the opportunity to better themselves and thus, thrive? Seperatism creates the idea that some kids are better than others, which quite simply, is fascism.

And even after all this I'm going to say that my schools have seperate classes for English, Irish, Maths and just about every other subject, and it works. You know why? Because the students aren't forced into higher or ordinary level classes, they choose themselves, based on what they think their own ability merits.


Kids aren't being challenged in school because they choose not to be challenged in school, anyone who puts in their own efforts in school will reap the benefits themselves. The people who feel they are not being challenged are the same people who will sit at the back of the class and stare at the wall doing nothing and without even trying will claim they are not being challenged.


And to end I will quote South Park and say this, "Seperatism sucks ass".

you HAVE to seperate kids based on their learning capabilities and work ethic. the difference between the most advanced and the least advanced is too great.

in my high school, we had what they call "tracks"....track 1 through track 4. 1 was the smart kids, and 4 was the kids who didn't do their homework.

all the first track kids finished college credits by doubling up on their course work. so they had almost a year of college done by the time they graduated high school.

this would never be possible without seperating students. so smarter students would be held back, and not challenged. which is not at all fair to them.

I think this is stupid because they are just testing in one area! One!

They should test in all areas before they come up with a conclusion.

 I think threads like this prove absolutely nothing!!

Yes, I do believe the school system is to blame. I don't like to fail, and  Idon't like to lose, but the point was, I didn't need to work in order to pass, and even get top marks. When you don't have to put any effort in to succeed, there becomes little point in doing any work.

But some people are better than others. That's life I'm afriad. Muhammed Ali was a better boxer than George Foreman. Michael Jordan was better basketball player than...well, everyone. Stephen Hawking is better at quantum mechanics than...probably everyone as well.  Some people will always excel at certain things, and some people won't.

I bet you don't have a problem with your high school football team not playing people who are shit. Imagine if the CavaliersImagine the outrage if the class whipping boy started ahead of your best quarterback becuase of "equal opportunities".  I know I would think it was ridiculous, I think you would too.

But the question there is did you actually pass by doing no school work? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the most eager student in school at times but I know damn well that if I want to pass my exams I need to put the work in simple as that, I'm not just going to glide through school with no effort whatsoever and fail my exams and end up on the street. And if by some misfortune that does happen I'll know who to blame, myself.



Agreed some people are better than others at certain things, but you're missing the point here, Mohammed Ali was the best boxer, Michael Jordon the best basketballer and Stephen Hawking the best quantum physicist because they busted their respective asses to be the best in their chosen field. The point is anyone could have had the opportunity to excel in those areas if they chosed to, freedom. Mohammed Ali wasn't picked from a bunch of people to be a boxer because he was tough, nor Michael Jordon because he was real tall. They had the talent. Same with education, everyone should be on a level playing field to begin with, in every area of education and those who better themselves through their own hard work will continue on to college and get all the high paying jobs whereas those who don't will fall behind, and will only have themselves to blame for not applying themselves properly in school. But seperating children because of their IQ will diminish the chance for the less bright to put their heart and soul into their academic life and leave with the best grade they can get, rather than being told from day one that they are not as smart as everyone else which will completely fuck up their confidence and self belief and leave them stranded after school.

Maybe true.  But on the other hand, it isn't fair to the bright students to be held back by the average and below average students.  Just think about how much more material can be covered if you have a class full of students who are eager to learn and have the chops to do it.  The lower talented kids are still getting an education, but one that suits them better.  As somebody said, some people are better at the trades, and some people are better at more knowledge based work.  Why should we struggle to fit square pegs into round holes?

We are going to start seeing a steady drop in our standard of living in about a generation.  We aren't producing the engineers, doctors, etc like we used to.  Add to that the fact that smart Chinese and Indian kids are less inclined to come to the US because of rising standards in their own economies.  In essence, if we don't adjust our education system, we will experience a lower standard of living.  At that point, everybody will be blaming everybody else for their own reasons.

Another point:  Blaming liberals/democrats is just to easy to do on this topic.  The Democrats marriage to the teachers unions will prevent a lot of much needed changes being made to our education system.  We will all suffer as a result.  Not to say conservatives as faultless, but the teachers unions and blatant wastes of money by administrators are not helping matters.

It would be, if it were really a topic.




Edit: You take a shot at the liberals claiming they caused the decline in the education system, yet misspell a simple word. I sure love the irony in that???

Based on?


 
Based on?

 
Sure we will............

Why would you call a child a moron? That's very harsh!! :hihi:

People aren't robots. Even if a child is very bright, he may not want to pursue a professional career, such as medicine. Maybe he wants to be a rockstar. That's the American dream--to do what makes you happy.


I like what Jamie said:

Agreed some people are better than others at certain things, but you're missing the point here, Mohammed Ali was the best boxer, Michael Jordon the best basketballer and Stephen Hawking the best quantum physicist because they busted their respective asses to be the best in their chosen field. The point is anyone could have had the opportunity to excel in those areas if they chosed to, freedom. Mohammed Ali wasn't picked from a bunch of people to be a boxer because he was tough, nor Michael Jordon because he was real tall. They had the talent. Same with education, everyone should be on a level playing field to begin with, in every area of education and those who better themselves through their own hard work will continue on to college and get all the high paying jobs whereas those who don't will fall behind, and will only have themselves to blame for not applying themselves properly in school. But seperating children because of their IQ will diminish the chance for the less bright to put their heart and soul into their academic life and leave with the best grade they can get, rather than being told from day one that they are not as smart as everyone else which will completely fuck up their confidence and self belief and leave them stranded after school.

i couldn't disagree with what jamie said more.

and i think sports is a great analogy.

Ali - he didn't get great at boxing by fighting average fighters. he fought tough competitors throughout his life and he benefitted from it.

Jordan - varsity vs. junior varsity. A team vs. B team. kids are grouped based on ability in sports throughout their lives. Jordan played Division I basketball at one of the best universities in the country. he was exposed to alot of pressure and top notch competition on a regular basis. do you think he would have become the player he was if he had gone to a community college and played against THAT level of competition?

i say no, becuase the jump from community college to the pros would have been too great.

Yes I do think Michael Jordan could have been a great basketball player had he gone to a community college, because he had the will and determination to do so.

Some people have a superiority complex about universities. It's absurd. People can accomplish anything they put their minds to, regardless of what college they attend or how rich they are.

Do you think Axl would have been a better rockstar if he had attended Harvard?

That is right. Hard work and knowing HOW TO USE your money are key.

I know plenty of people making 100k plus that never finished college. I know one woman that is a RE investor that never got a HS degree but could buy and sell our ass in a NY minute.

Others I know that started at JC and now are lawyers, hold master degrees, PHDs....whatever.

A drop in our standard of living? There's already been a drop in the standards of schools because of a lack of people skills. Kids are bringing guns to school and shooting other students.

Intelligence is important but it's not the most valuable quality in a person's character. Theodore Kaczynski is a very intelligent person, but look at what he did to people. Jeffrey Dahmer had a high IQ, but he was a serial killer. Even Adolf Hitler was supposedly a genius, but he murdered a million people. So your theory doesn't hold up. Just because a child is taught well and grows up to have a high IQ, doesn't mean that they're going to give back to society in a healthy and productive way. Character training and good people skills are just as important as intelligence.

Very nice...............

you totally missed my point. it's not the fact that he went to a university, it's the fact that he played against the top talent in america.

let me use a baseball analogy....what's more beneficial to a 20-year-old baseball player hoping to make it in the big leagues....

option A - playing baseball with guys in the neighborhood everyday

option B - playing in the minor leagues against the best players out there

for me, the answer is obvious.

and if axl had studied music/singing at an institution, maybe he would have learned to protect his voice a little better.  :hihi:

I know what you're saying now. I just took offense to "THAT level" in reference to community colleges.

But you're right about learning from skilled players. If I'm not mistaken, Kobe Bryant went straight to the pros out of High School. I've been told that he didn't do so well during his first few years as a professional basketball player. He was great on a high school level, but somewhat mediocre compared to the pros. He learned from the other players who had gone to college and had lots of training.

Spoken like somebody born with a plastic spoon in his mouth...........

gotcha....i wasn't talking down about community college at all.  : ok:

i went to a community college for my first two years. some of my teachers were better than the ones i had at the university i attended. it was one of the best decisions of my life, and i didn't have loans to pay when i graduated.  :hihi:

To the people who use sports analogys...

Was Jordan playing against the best US players when he was 7... Was he playing against them when he was 10? Was Ali beating the best junior boxers in the country when he was 13, or the kids down the street? I don't think that the sports analogy works really well in raising kids.. We are raising people, not machines. It should _not_ be all about how we can squeeze the best result out of small kids.

Of course, at some point the people who are better in a sport, at school, or at whatever area of life, will stand out from the rest in that area. And in case of school, they will most likely go to a better college, university or whatever. But. I think that up until that point, it is not really smart to separate kids. With some, this might work. For some it is a perfect setup to develop some sort of superiority complex, and to forget all social skills. I think that it is important for all the kids to be associated with each other so that they learn to deal with all kinds of people.

the answer to all your questions are probably yes.

in sports, there are try-outs to make most teams. then, teams are split up into levels.

this benefits the kids with less ability as well - it enables them to play and excel in competitive sports.

the same is true for school - whatever the "norm" is could be too much for some kids. then they could get overwhelmed and disinterested and fall behind.

by having different levels, children with LESS abilities probably benefit the most.

But it is. That's what education is; becoming the best. Why do we have Grades if we don't want people to perform?

I wasn't saying Ali was great because he was trained from when he was young, but when he started fighting, people recognised his talent and helped him, helped him more than people who couldn't box.

I could train 10 hours a day for the next 5 years and I'll never be able to run 100m as fast as Maurice Green. It's just the way things are. Some people are naturally better than others at certain things. These people should get the attention. I shouldn't get picked for the Olympic team to make me feel good even though i'm slow, Maurice should go, because he's fast.

It's unfair to hold some people back in certain areas, while letting other excel. Your kids sports leagues still have sperate divisions, because some teams are better than others. Some players are better than others, and the good players (at whatever sport) go to the good teams. Even at 7 or 8 years old this happens. If it can for sport, why not for education? That's why I brought up sports. In sports people excel, and they're allowed to, they're encouraged to with trophies and medals.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Of course we want people to do well. Of course we want them to advance. But I think that it only goes up to a limit. I don't think that the only job for education is to make you the best you can be in terms of grades. Schools educate us as a whole.. I think school's function, especially for the smaller children (let's say 6-15-year-olds), is to educate people on the subjects they teach, but also to teach on the side people social skills.

If it was all about how well the do in school, children would stay in school 9 hours every day, have no freetime 'cause they'd be taught from the getgo that their purpose in life is to perform. Be the best individual there is!! Have no childhood what so ever. Some people out of these would grow up to be successful in life, and the others.. well... They'd propably just grow bitter 'cause they worked just as hard as the next guy, and propably would've gotten the same results by spending a little less time with school.

And all you people talk about is sports... It's the kids and learning we're talking about. If your only motivation in school is to be better than the person next to you, and not the fact that you want to learn the things that are taught... Well then we're just very different people. I really don't care if a guy in my school gets a better grade than me, or if I was the best of my class. What I care about is how well I know the subject in question.

Learning too, can be made fun sometimes by making a game out of it. But I think that it's not healthy for the basic idea in school to be out doing the guy/girl next to you.