UK: 'This country is breeding a lot of ignorant buffoons!' Apprentice viewers vent their disbelief that Lord Sugar's business wannabes don't know what a mortar board is or dates of the Second World War

Candidates on The Apprentice were slammed by BBC viewers last night after the losing team failed to understand the dates of the Second World War.

Events manager Riyonn Farsad was fired having been part of the losing team five times and Lord Alan Sugar's patience ran out after a disappointing display.

His team were stumped by the starting date of the war before they even began the task, which involved finding a pre-war copy of Alice's Adventures In Wonderland.

Their hunt for items in Oxford and Cambridge did not fare well, paying over the odds in the discount buying task, and not securing all desired objects on the list.

The team also failed to know what a mortar board was, with Riyonn believing it was something a plasterer would use in his work.

One viewer tweeted: 'It says a lot about the British education system, when The Apprentice candidates don't know when World War Two started and how long it lasted. This country is breeding a lot of ignorant buffoons.'

Another added: 'Should have sacked the whole team for not knowing what a Mortar Board is or when World War Two started.'

And a third said today: 'Just remembered an entire team of contestants on The Apprentice didn't know what year World War Two began.'

It was Farsad who was sent home after beginning the latest episode by saying 'this isn't a good start' when his team did not know the dates of the Second World War. He suggested it lasted four years.

Teammate Pamela Laird said: 'Does anybody know just so we can be really clear, what date the Second World War started. How long did it go on for?'

The contestants struggled over whether 1945 was the start or end date of the war, and tried to work out the timeline based on their parents' ages.

An opposing team led by Marianne Rawlins did not face the same struggles, and managed to spend less in the task.

Lion, who is from Taunton, Somerset, said before the show aired: 'On this week's show I am the only one who knows when the Second World War was.'

The librarian added: 'It's very insulting to British people that they don't know such an important part of our history.

'I am disappointed in all of the candidates because no one else knew the dates. It shows how ignorant they all are to our history and respect for our country. It is very basic knowledge.

'We are often branded as idiots for going on The Apprentice but we do not help ourselves and have ourselves to blame. It's idiotic. It's as simple as that.'

Lion also wrote a tweet ahead of the show asking viewers to look out for the 'important reminder' about teaching children national heritage.

Fellow contestant Lewis Ellis replied to her comments, admitting to 'struggling' to know the wartime dates.

His tweet, which has since been deleted, said: 'We did struggle to recall the exact dates but I do recall World War Two involved aggressive foreign policy by the Nazi party and an unprovoked attack. Why does that sound familiar?'

Lion's father is Belgian and once fought for German armed forces, she said.

SOURCE






Results Are In: Common Core Is Making American Kids Dumber

The never-ending quest of modern educators to find new ways of learning that will never hurt any child's feelings has not been a resounding success thus far. The ambitious attempt to standardize learning across the country known as Common Core can now be measured and the news isn't good.

The Common Core website explains the initiative:

[A] set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA). These learning goals outline what a student should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. The standards were created to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live.
Super.

The aforementioned bad news is that the first group of Common Core high school grads aren't as well prepared as their predecessors.

The Federalist:

For the  third time in a row since Common Core was fully phased in nationwide, U.S. student test scores on the nation’s broadest and most respected test have dropped, a reversal of an upward trend between 1990 and 2015. Further, the class of 2019, the first to experience all four high school years under Common Core, is the worst-prepared for college in 15 years, according to a new report.

Paraphrasing a popular commercial from recent years: "That's not how this is supposed to work. That's not how any of this is supposed to work."

However noble its intentions, Common Core is a failure of one-size-fits-all standardization.

The Federalist post notes various slippages in proficiency in different subjects and different grades, but the most damning assessment comes from the college admissions testing organization ACT:

On the same day the NAEP results were released, the college testing organization ACT released  a report showing that the high school class of 2019’s college preparedness in English and math is at seniors’ lowest levels in 15 years. These students are the first to have completed all four high school years under Common Core.

“Readiness levels in English, reading, math, and science have all decreased since 2015, with English and math seeing the largest decline,” the report noted. Student achievement declined on ACT’s measures among U.S. students of all races except for Asian-Americans, whose achievement increased.

The kids can't read, write, or count as well as they used to. Other than that, this is all going swimmingly.

I spent half of my elementary and high school years in Catholic schools, where the learning was a bit more tailored to a student's abilities. Not surprisingly, I learned more in those schools.

The avalanche of evidence about Common Core's failure will no doubt be used by liberals as evidence that schools and teachers need more money. While not a federal program per se, there were a lot of federal grant dollars spent to get states to adopt Common Core. The program began as a "more money" initiative. Of course, with the Left, there never is enough money to throw at a problem.

What is left out of the reports cited in the Federalist's article is the fact that -- despite all protestations to the contrary -- most public schools are more interested in liberal indoctrination than education. It's more important to terrorize children with apocalyptic climate-change messages than to teach them to read.

Common Core is an extremely detailed and fleshed-out approach. If it's failing at achieving its basic goals, the flaw is in the curriculum, not the funding.

SOURCE





Do University Stores Rip Off Students?

By RICHARD K. VEDDER

I had a couple of my economics students, Tom Witschey and Ryan Dufinetz, help me conduct a little study recently. We were interested in whether an Ohio University owned convenience store attached to a large dormitory charged more for sundry goods (toothpaste, Ramen noodles, Pepsi, ketchup, condoms, sugar, water bottles, peanut butter, Pop-Tarts, gum and nine other items) that students commonly buy than the town’s two largest grocery store retailers, Wal-Mart and Kroger, as well as a small local grocery, Seaman’s, all located too far from campus for students to walk, as well as a large CVS drugstore outlet conveniently near the campus.

What was the result of this little shopping expedition? We found that on average, the price of the surveyed goods was 40-60% higher at the university store (called Jefferson Market) than at Wal-Mart, and 25-30% higher than at Kroger. Even Seaman’s prices were 20-30% lower than at Jefferson Market. However, the prices at CVS were fairly comparable to those at the university store. Our reading of the evidence: when students are without auto transportation, they are trapped into paying high prices, because the campus area stores have a near monopoly so exploit students.

Interestingly, only one item—condoms—was cheaper at the Jefferson Market than at the competitors, consistent with a frequent refrain on the part of the university’s Division of Student Affairs, urging students to practice safe sex (as opposed to the message generations earlier which was to practice no premarital sex; how times change). The school rips kids off a bit on Pop-Tarts to subsidize condom purchases—for the greater good.

To be sure, Ohio University is primarily in the education business, not a grocery store, and large scale volume does give Wal-Mart and Kroger an advantage. This, however, is at least partially offset by cost advantages Ohio University has, namely the fact that other stores pay substantial property and income taxes, whereas the university does not—in fact it receives subsidies from the state and federal governments financed in large part with tax revenues.

A more comprehensive survey involving perhaps a dozen or more universities would be worthwhile, and I suggest young researchers seek government or private foundation grants. That said, I have traveled to literally scores of colleges and universities in recent years, and often inquire of students about the prices they pay for goods bought in college run convenience stores, sometimes in the student union building, and generally get similar reactions—school prices are higher than those of private commercial providers. Is this exploitation or not?

There is both an economic and moral issue here. The economic issue is that universities have enormous amount of monopoly-like power. Once students enroll at a school, it has a monopoly over the provision of educational services, and often non-educational services as well, such as housing and providing food. Universities often compel students to live in their dorms and eat their food, and even sometimes force them to pay fees to help finance such non-academic activities as ball throwing and kicking contests like football and basketball.

Why doesn’t the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission investigate this issue, threatening action against schools and perhaps others abusing this monopoly power, akin to the company stores in early 20th century mining towns? They have on rare occasion done so in the past in the area of admissions, but why not more aggressively? I generally do not believe anti-trust laws are effective, but collegiate monopolies are highly entrenched, often even reinforced by such collegiate controlled support organizations as regional accreditation agencies or, in the case of college athletes, the National Collegiate Athletics Association.

The moral question is why do adults responsible for the intellectual advancement of older children transitioning to adulthood exploit them for financial gain? Colleges have expenses and bills to pay, but they are given special privileges by society (government subsidies, exemption from taxes) because they are performing the important social task of helping young persons become adults and prepare for the world of work. Ripping off students, where it happens, sends a bad message—you can exploit the weak and vulnerable if it is profitable to do so.

SOURCE