| From: Don Green | 12/7/2023 11:45:43 AM | | | | | | I was always curious about this so I asked A.I. Bard
How do companies like JG Wentworth work for someone who recently won a $25 million lottery and is considering the lottery annuity vs what JG Wentworth has to offer
Bard: Lottery Annuities vs. JG Wentworth: A Breakdown
For a lottery winner of $25 million, deciding between an annuity and JG Wentworth's offer involves understanding the pros and cons of each option. Here's a breakdown:
Lottery Annuity:
Pros:
Guaranteed income: You'll receive a steady stream of income over a set period, providing financial security.
Tax advantages: Depending on the structure, some annuity payments may be tax-deferred until you receive them.
Protection from bad financial decisions: Spreading the winnings over time can prevent hasty spending and encourage responsible financial planning.
Cons:
Less immediate access to funds: You won't receive the full $25 million upfront, limiting immediate spending power.
Potential for lower overall value: Inflation and market fluctuations can erode the value of future payments.
Limited flexibility: Making changes to the annuity payment structure can be difficult or costly.
JG Wentworth:
Pros:
Lump sum payment: You'll receive the entire $25 million upfront, allowing for immediate financial freedom.
Flexibility: You have complete control over the money, allowing for investments, debt repayment, or fulfilling other financial goals.
Potentially faster access to funds: The process of selling your lottery payments to JG Wentworth can be quicker than receiving annuity payments.
Cons:
Lower overall value: JG Wentworth will offer you a discounted amount for your future payments, meaning you'll receive less than the full $25 million.
Loss of guaranteed income: You lose the security of guaranteed income and become responsible for managing the funds responsibly.
Tax implications: You'll pay taxes on the entire lump sum in the year you receive it, potentially pushing you into a higher tax bracket.
Factors to Consider:
Financial goals: What are your financial priorities? Do you need immediate access to funds or prefer a guaranteed income stream?
Financial knowledge: Are you comfortable managing a large sum of money or prefer the security of an annuity?
Risk tolerance: How comfortable are you with the risk of potential lower returns from an annuity or losing control of the funds with JG Wentworth?
Tax implications: Consult a financial advisor to understand the tax implications of each option.
Additional Resources:
JG Wentworth: jgwentworth.com
National Lottery: national-lottery.co.uk
Financial Planning Association: financialplanningassociation.org
Ultimately, the best option depends on your individual circumstances and financial goals. Weigh the pros and cons of each option carefully and seek professional financial advice to make an informed decision.
Human: Any idea or estimate what JG Wentworth offer might be on the 25 million
Bard: Unfortunately, I cannot give you a precise estimate of JG Wentworth's offer on the $25 million lottery winnings. The exact amount they would offer depends on various factors, including:
- The specific structure of the annuity: Annuities can vary in their terms and payouts, which will affect the value JG Wentworth is willing to pay.
- Current interest rates: Lower interest rates generally lead to higher lump-sum offers from JG Wentworth.
- JG Wentworth's internal pricing model: This model considers various factors like market conditions and their risk tolerance.
However, I can provide you with some general information that might help you estimate the potential offer:
- JG Wentworth typically offers 40-60% of the present value of the future annuity payments.
- Based on this range, for a $25 million annuity, JG Wentworth might offer between $10 million and $15 million.
Here's a table with some potential offers based on different present value percentages:
Present Value Percentage
| JG Wentworth Offer
| 40%
| $10 million
| 50%
| $12.5 million
| 60%
| $15 million
|
It's important to note that these are just estimates, and the actual offer may vary significantly.
Recommendation:
To get a more accurate estimate, it's best to contact JG Wentworth directly and provide them with the details of your specific annuity. They will be able to assess your situation and give you a personalized offer.
|
| | Lessons Learned | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 3/7/2024 11:02:22 AM | | | | | | Libertarian Party chair says RFK Jr. nomination could be 'mutually beneficial'Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s independent presidential campaign is fighting for ballot access in all 50 states
March 7, 2024 7:10am EST
As independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fights for nationwide ballot access, the chief of the Libertarian Party said it would be wise for him to run on their ticket.
Angela McArdle, the chair of the Libertarian National Committee, made clear that no decision has been made about RFK Jr. joining the Libertarian Party's 2024 ticket. But she did say such a move could be "mutually beneficial" as the party seeks a candidate who could seal ballot access in all 50 states.
"I'm not allowed to actively recruit anyone for the presidential nomination," McArdle said in an interview on "The Hill on NewsNation." "I'm certainly friendly with his campaign, just like I am with all the other candidates' campaigns."
RFK JR'S CAMPAIGN SAYS HE HAS ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO GET ON BALLOT IN NEVADA
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. hosts a fireside chat with rapper and producer Eric B. at The Gentleman's Factory on Feb. 18, 2024, in New York City. (John Nacion/Getty Images)
Kennedy has recently floated the idea of running for president as a Libertarian. His long-shot independent campaign against President Biden and former President Trump has only garnered enough signatures for ballot access in four states, and the Libertarian Party has a demonstrated track record of getting on the ballot in all 50 states in 2016 and 2020.
In an interview on CNN in January, Kennedy said he was "looking at" the option of running as a Libertarian, adding that he has a good relationship with the party. He spoke at the California Libertarian Party Convention last month, though he has not committed to joining the Libertarian presidential primary.
NIKKI HALEY TO DROP OUT OF 2024 RACE, ENDING CHALLENGE AGAINST TRUMP FOR GOP PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION: SOURCES
A view of pamphlets handed out during Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s fireside chat with rapper and producer Eric B. at The Gentleman's Factory on Feb. 18, 2024, in New York City. (John Nacion/Getty Images)
McArdle said it would be wise for Kennedy to seek the Libertarian nomination, noting that the party has "the experience and the ground game" to get ballot access in all 50 states.
She said there is no current favorite for the Libertarian nomination "and that's not a knock against him. You know, we have a very ornery group of delegates. They're interested in finding the best, most principled messenger, someone who represents us ideologically. And, we also have a group of people who are very focused on ballot access. And of course, having Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as our candidate would absolutely seal ballot access for us. But it's not decided yet."
BIDEN CRUISES TOWARD LIKELY 2020 REMATCH — BUT SUFFERS DEFEAT TO LITTLE-KNOWN CANDIDATE
Pins and other merchandise in support of Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on display during a voter rally at St. Cecilia Music Center on Feb. 10, 2024, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. (Emily Elconin/Getty Images)
McArdle acknowledged that RFK Jr. would not be a perfect ideological fit for the Libertarian Party, but said both sides have something to gain from his potential candidacy as a Libertarian.
"I think that if he became our nominee, there would be an understanding with us that he doesn't 100% represent us ideologically. He is getting ballot access by using our name and branding. And in return, we are securing ballot access for the future," she said. |
| | Lessons Learned | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 3/15/2024 12:31:08 PM | | | | | | Selena Gomez, Timothée Chalamet, Zoe Saldana and billionaire Rihanna took out massive multi-million dollar mortgages on their extravagant homes
Even A-listers with the largest wallets need a helping hand on the property ladder.
DailyMail.com's latest list of high-earning celebrities who've recently taken out massive mortgages includes Kanye West, his ex-wife Kim Kardashian, and Rihanna – all reported billionaires with extravagant Hollywood housing empires.
The world's most followed female star Selena Gomez – with 430 million Instagram followers – borrowed $3million to finance her luxury Hollywood pad.
Often times these uber-wealthy famous faces prefer to take out loans than use their own mountain of cash, as they get offered low interest rates and can use their money for other investments.
Rihanna: $13.65million loan / $98,950 monthly
In March last year, the Barbados-born pop star bought the same penthouse that the late Matthew Perry lived in before moving out two years ago.
Situated in a luxury condo in Century City, the 9,300sqft home has four bedrooms, seven bathrooms, a soundproofed movie theatre and four outdoor terraces.
The previous owner, billionaire Afterpay co-founder Nick Molnar, sold it to Rihanna for $21million – $7million off the asking price and $600k less than what he paid the Friends actor.
Other notable residents over the years have included Candy Spelling, Paula Abdul and restauranteur Nobu Matsuhisa.
The 36-year-old saddled the place with a $13,650,000 mortgage at a 6.9% interest rate with City National Bank.
That's $98,950-a-month.
Rihanna hasn't released an album since 2016, but there's little worry about her financial status as it's claimed she's worth $1.4 billion by Forbes.
Zoe Saldana: $11.375million loan / $83,000 monthly
The Avatar actress doesn't hesitate to spend big bucks on property.
After putting her Beverly Hills mansion on the market for $16.5million in September, the 45-year-old wasted no time buying a Spanish-style colonial mansion in celebrity hotspot Montecito.
Built in 1930, the five-bedroom historic home was picked up for $17.5million - but also comes with an $11.375million mortgage from JP Morgan Chase Bank.
The interest rate is unknown, but the average rate is currently 7%, meaning Zoe is paying around $83k-a-month.
That's the price one pays for living so close to Katy Perry, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and Ellen DeGeneres.
While she waits for her Beverly Hills pad to sell, she's also offering it up for rent at $47,500 per month, which will come in handy to help fund her recent mortgage.
Timothée Chalamet: $5million loan / $24,681 monthly
The actor is now one half of the world's second most famous couple – after Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, of course.
Kylie Jenner's famous beau scooped up a gorgeous Beverly Hills home with four bedrooms and five bathrooms for $10,980,000 in May 2022.
The lifelong New Yorker, 28, bought the property from model Kate Upton and husband Justin Verlander.
The 5,521-square-foot house, built in 1976, was also owned by tennis legend Pete Sampras and saxophonist Kenny G.
But he needed a few dollars help and borrowed $5million from City National Bank at a generous 3.09% interest rate, which is $24,681-a-month.
Robbie Williams: $32million loan / $169,567 monthly
British singer Robbie Williams has taken out a $32million mortgage on the $49.5million LA home he bought in March 2022.
The three-house estate is situated in Holmby Hills, close to Kylie Jenner and Miranda Kerr, and features eight bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, and the celeb-standard pool and tennis court, plus an impressive garage that holds 15-plus luxury cars.
In March 2022, he sold his old Beverly Hills place to Drake for $75million, then sold his Wiltshire country pad for $8.8million, and his Swiss mansion, near to Lake Geneva, is currently on the market for $30million.
Five months after Robbie purchased his new LA place, he borrowed $32,045,000 from JP Morgan Chase Bank at 3.75% interest rate, which works out at $169,567-a-month, including property taxes.
Kanye West $6.8million loan
The outspoken hip-hop artist is also pretty noisy in the property game – scooping up places all over the US and Europe.
While he's hit the headlines for his rotting $57million Malibu oceanfront mansion, he's also got at least ten more properties to manage from his divorce from Kim Kardashian.
Kanye, 46, was given their four-bed property, in Calabasas, which has been saddled with a $6.8million mortgage with the financial institution Hankey Capital since October 2020.
Kanye and Kim also jointly borrowed $1.65million two years previously – both of these mortgages, totaling $8.45million, are now his sole responsibility.
The couple bought a property for $2.2million in May 2018, Zillow estimates it's now worth $3.3million – that's $5.15million less than his home loans.
There's also a smaller home loan of $392k on a rental three-bed apartment in Thousand Oaks, which Kim and Kanye purchased for $575k in September 2017.
None of the three mortgages list the interest rate, at the time it'd be around 5%, which is roughly $44k-a-month in total including taxes.
Orlando Bloom: $5million loan / $25,810 monthly
The Pirates of the Caribbean actor had been trying to offload his Beverly Hills bachelor pad for years.
The property had been sitting empty since March 2019 when he put the four-bed, four-bath home on the market for $8.99million and moved in with girlfriend Katy Perry.
Within months, the 47-year-old had reduced the price twice to $7.99million as he struggled to sell it.
The actor bought it for $7million in 2017 and took out a $5million mortgage with JPMorgan Chase Bank.
After sitting dormant on the property market for nearly four years, Orlando's luck finally changed. DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal that he found a buyer in November 2023.
The bad news – the buyer paid just $7million, which after all the agents' fees and taxes means Orlando, 47, took a hit on the place.
Orlando may have taken the deal as his interest rate was set to go up from 3.5% to nearly 10% in May.
Monthly payments were $25,810 – and would have doubled at the new rate.
Instead he took the cash and has been living in Montecito with the pop star and their daughter Daisy Bloom.
Kim Kardashian: $3.7million loan / $23,494 monthly
Kim has been building a real estate empire throughout the years.
The 43-year-old took out a loan on the property next door to her $60million Hidden Hills mansion, which she bought for $6.3million in May 2022.
The mortgage was taken out in July last year for $3,743,600 at a 5.375% interest rate with PNC Bank.
That's $23,494-a-month, with taxes. Though it seems like a hefty sum, it's not even a day's work for the mega-rich reality star.
The recent purchase means that she now owns five of the homes surrounding her main house. It's not clear what her plans are for the six bedroom, seven bathroom home.
It was revealed last February that Kim had taken out a huge $48.7million mortgage to buy her $70.4million luxury mansion in Malibu in September 2022.
Selena Gomez: $3million loan / $14,193 monthly
The 31-year-old has been buying up real estate in LA and her home state of Texas for years.
In 2020 she bought an epic Encino home from the late Tom Petty.
The six-bedroom, ten-bathroom home cost $4,895,000.
Selena didn't want to splash out all the cash herself so she went to City National Bank for a $3million loan.
She got a bargain interest rate of 2.69% for the first ten years, which comes out to monthly payments of $14,193.
Robert Pattinson: $3million loan/ $15,579 monthly
The London-born actor now spends most of his time in the UK capital with his pregnant girlfriend, model Suki Waterhouse.
But that's not stopped him from spreading his cash across the pond.
In the summer of 2022, the 37-year-old purchased a secluded villa in Hollywood Hills for $5.3million and borrowed $3million from City National Bank at 3.54% interest.
The home listing boasts a sunny master suite with private balcony, walk-in wardrobe, and bathroom with soaking tub, as well as a sparkling plunge pool and spa.
Fans expressed bewilderment online that Robert was paid a relatively 'paltry' $3million for playing Batman compared to previous actors who'd donned the black cape.
Maybe he was feeling the pinch and needed the loan, but then again, maybe not, when he has a fortune worth in excess of $100 million.
The mortgage repayments on his new place are $15,579-a-month.
Although a Batman sequel wouldn't harm the coffers!
Jay-Z and Beyoncé: $190million cash/ $0 monthly
The power couple deserve a special mention for not only topping the charts for the most expensive home purchase of 2023, but doing it without the help from a bank.
Jay-Z and Beyoncé splashed out $190million cash for a spectacular blufftop complex at Paradise Cove in Malibu.
It's the second biggest deal ever to go through and took 15 years to build. It was designed by Japanese architect Tadao Ando, maybe more widely known for creating Jay-Z's former pal Kanye's Malibu home, which now resembles a bomb shelter.
Why the mega-rich take out a home loan - rather than pay outright
It often pays the super-rich to take out a mortgage on a mega home instead of paying for it outright, a celebrity wealth expert told DailyMail.com.
'You might think if you had so much money, why would you have a loan?' said Robert Pagliarini, based in Irvine, California.
'It usually comes down to one reason. Typically the investor feels that what they are paying on the mortgage is less than what they can do with that money by investing it.
'It also depends on the time frame. If you look back in history, chances are that if you invested that money in a diversified portfolio over the course of a 30-year loan then you would very likely do better than the rate you are paying.
'If you are really, really wealthy, that's the game you play.'
Pagliarini – who handles celebrities, 'sudden wealth' people like big lottery winners, and retirees through his company Pacifica Wealth – said tax breaks don't often factor in super-rich home purchases, except if it is tied to a business.
'At the very wealthy level, there aren't really any tax advantages to having a mortgage. You can deduct against your tax first million dollars of home indebtedness. But at a very high level, that is not going to do anything for a person's tax life.
'The only other area of benefit would be if the property was being used in conjunction with a business. In that case, any sort of expense, whether it is mortgage interest or property taxes or otherwise, then it is a business expense. And you can use that to offset any business income.'
- Greg Woodfield |
| | Lessons Learned | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 4/17/2024 8:54:39 AM | | | | | | Thoughts worth Saving
Frank Breslin
Three Reasons Why Public High Schools Don’t Teach Critical Thinking
The following warning should be affixed atop every computer in America’s schools: Proceed at your own risk. Don’t accept as true what you’re about to read. Some of it is fact; some of it is opinion masquerading as fact; and the rest is liberal, conservative, or mainstream propaganda. Make sure you know which is which before choosing to believe it.
Students are exposed to so many different viewpoints on- and offline and so prone to accepting whatever they read, that they run the very real risk of becoming brainwashed. If it’s on a computer screen, it becomes Holy Writ, sacrosanct, immutable, beyond question or doubt. Teachers caution students constantly against taking what they read at face value, since some of these sites may be propaganda mills or recruiting stations for the naïve and unwary.
Not only egregious forms of indoctrination may target unsuspecting young minds, but also the more artfully contrived variety, whose insinuating soft-sell subtlety and silken appeals ingratiatingly weave their spell to lull the credulous into accepting their wares.
To prevent this from happening, every school in America should teach the twin arts of critical thinking and critical reading, so that a critical spirit becomes a permanent possession of every student and pervades the teaching of every course in America. This would be time well-spent in schools acting in loco parentis to protect their students from the virulent contagion of mental toxins.
While ensuring students’ physical safety is a school’s first order of priority, the school should be no less vigilant in safeguarding them from propaganda that will assail them for the rest of their lives. Caveat emptor!Let the buyer beware! Everyone wants to sell students a viewpoint, against which schools should teach them the art of self-defense.
Teaching students how to be their own person by abandoning Groupthink and developing the courage to think for themselves should begin from the first day of high school. More important than all the information they will be learning during these four crucial years will be how they critically process this information either to accept or reject it.
It is a rare high-school graduate who can pinpoint 20 different kinds of fallacies while listening to a speaker or reading a book; who can distinguish between fact and opinion, objective account and specious polemic; who can tell the difference between facts, value judgments, explanatory theories, and metaphysical claims; who can argue both sides of a question, anticipate objections, rebut them, and undermine arguments in various ways.
The essence of an education — the ability to think critically and protect oneself against falsehood and lies — is a lost art in America’s high schools today. This is unfortunate for it is precisely this skill that is of transcendent importance for students in defending themselves.
Computers are wonderful things, but, like everything else in this world, they must be approached with great caution. Their potential for good can suddenly become an angel of darkness that takes over young minds.
A school should teach its students how to think, not what to think; to question whatever they read, and never to accept any claim blindly; to suspend judgment until they’ve heard all sides of a question; and interrogate whatever claims to be true, since truth can withstand any scrutiny. Critical thinking is life’s indispensable survival skill, compared to which everything else is an educational frill!
While teachers do encourage critical thinking, there has never been a way of formally integrating teaching this skill into existing curricula. Apart from a few teachers who do train their students in this art, most teachers do not for one simple reason — there is no time.
State education departments mandate that so much material be covered that critical thinking cannot be taught; nor can the courses themselves be critically presented. To cover the curriculum, courses must be taught quickly, superficially, and uncritically, the infallible way of boring students, of trivializing learning, and unintentionally brainwashing the young.
This is a source of frustration to teachers, who would rather teach their courses in depth to give students an informed understanding of the issues involved; the controversies surrounding those issues; the social and political resistance their field of inquiry may have encountered and its cultural impact; in short, the splash and color of its unfolding drama.
At the same time, teachers must keep an eye on the clock to finish their course by the semester’s end when there is scarcely time to teach the “official” viewpoint, much less the competing views of the controversy surrounding those questions.
This omission of alternative theories leaves students with the mistaken impression that there is no scholarly disagreement about what they are taught, as though what is presented is self-evident truth.
The problem, of course, is that it may not be the truth at all, but only one side of a debate that happens to be the “official” view of the moment, with other views unacknowledged, much less explored.
Not that every discipline lends itself to controversy, but most subjects do, with key questions still fiercely debated. History, psychology, sociology, economics, the natural sciences, the arts and humanities are all teeming with scholarly conflicts, yet this is regrettably kept from students for lack of time.
Some teachers may make a glancing reference to specialist debates, occasionally cite alternative theories, or provide as much critical comment as possible on the bias of the course text, but what is sometimes possible is not nearly enough.
The sheer bulk of material necessarily inhibits its critical treatment, which requires time to explore rival theories so that students can experience the excitement of learning and the contentious world of ongoing scholarship.
Rather than partaking of a sumptuous banquet, students receive only thin gruel, insufficient nourishment for curious young minds. Because students are taught only one view about everything, they simply accept that view with no understanding of the attendant controversy.
However, were they taught a second and third theory, along with their respective pro and con arguments, students would be drawn into a more nuanced understanding of the respective issue, try to determine which theory was right, and discover their minds as they experienced the excitement of intellectual inquiry.
Such breakthroughs occur all too seldom in classrooms today because only one “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable” viewpoint is all they learn about anything, given the breakneck speed at which the course is taught. Imagine the intellectual stimulus were several theories routinely presented about every question with no attempt at resolving them.
Students would learn the other plausible theories, become curious about which one was right after hearing both the arguments and objections for each of those theories, apply this critical spirit to everything they learn, and the nation would have a more enlightened citizenry less apt to be duped by the specious claims of the charlatans of this world.
Now these would be courses well-worth the taking! However, it is precisely this intellectual ferment that is missing in our schools today, thanks to an educational policy which fosters a climate of indoctrination by default by teaching only one view about everything instead of the controversy that surrounds every question.
The solution, naturally, is simply relaxing this mile-wide-inch-deep approach to curriculum, employed for generations to little effect. In its place, teachers would critically treat as many of the course’s essential questions as possible, omitting what couldn’t be taught in the time remaining. If we want to raise a more reflective generation of students, the critical treatment of less material will have a more lasting effect on students than the present soporific of “material covered.”
This is a damning indictment of an educational policy that compels teachers to become unwillingly complicit in brainwashing students in a one-view understanding of the world and its workings. Teachers want to teach alternative views to avoid such mindlessness, but cannot for lack of time. This long-standing policy of haste and superficiality that trivializes learning instead of making it come alive in all its complexity is easily remedied: State education departments have only to alter their present policies.
While State Education Departments are the first reason why public schools don’t teach critical thinking, community pressure against it is the second. While some communities do welcome critical inquiry as an essential part of their children’s education, others do not, rejecting critical thinking as dangerous and wanting only views taught that agree with their own.
Teachers, however, don’t want to teach only one viewpoint imposed by either the state or community, but several viewpoints about the questions they teach. Education is, after all, discovering that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our own little village.
They don’t want a small vocal minority within a community arrogating to itself the presumption of pontificating for other parents’ college-prep and AP children about what can and cannot be taught in their school. They didn’t enter their profession to indoctrinate students into one point of view, but to educate them by exposing them to as many different viewpoints as possible and leaving it to students themselves to decide which view is correct.
It is the eternal struggle between two opposed visions of what education is about. The first believes that it alone possesses the truth; that those who disagree are wrong; and that it has the right to suppress every viewpoint which disagrees with its own because error has no right to exist. Woe betide a nation should this vision come to power when, alas, it already has with such dreadful results of indoctrination.
The second vision believes that we must always be suspicious of such infallible pretensions to truth, and have a healthy distrust of ourselves and our motives, which may be little more than ethnocentric narrow-mindedness. Education is not about being taught more and more reasons about why we are right and everyone else is wrong.
Rather, it is a process of being given more and more air, a wider perspective that affords us a grander, more Olympian view of everything. It is only then that we can see our own point of view within a much broader context as only one among many.
This view of education teaches us that we often believe what we want to believe in spite of the evidence; that we and our little village think ourselves the center of the universe; and that only the ancient stories believed by our village and handed down from generation unto generation are true.
It teaches that had we been born in another village with different myths, we would have believed that only those stories were true; that an education consists in coming to terms with this realization; and that when we do, we have begun to leave the Plato’s Cave of our culture, forsaking the myths of our tribe and beginning at long last to educate ourselves.
Education to be education and not indoctrination exposes the young to all possibilities, advocates none of them, and encourages students to keep their minds open until they have heard all the options, and only then to decide for themselves or remain undecided should that be their choice.
Unfortunately, this kind of education which encourages critical thinking about all points of view is taboo in many high schools today because the communities in which they are situated insist that only their views be taught.
The result of this mindset is, sadly, all too predictable for their high-school graduates who, never exposed to critical discussion, are overwhelmed by it on their first day in college. They have never heard of even the questions, much less the welter of dissenting viewpoints in answering those questions and the way in which each view critiques the other. Some feel so beyond their depth that they become discouraged, demoralized, and at times even leave college, wondering why their high school never prepared them for this.
It’s the age-old story of what one sows, that must one reap. Only now it is both the students and their parents who must deal with those consequences and the broken dreams of their children who must now pay the price. A high-school college-prep program should be precisely that — a demanding academic program that prepares students for college, not one that denies them the very skills needed to succeed there to make their way in the world.
Fortunately, parents today are now beginning to realize what is happening in their communities, and that it is their children who are the collateral damage of such narrow-mindedness. They understand that a high school must prepare students for college, where they will need critical thinking to survive in thid challenging new environment. They know that their sons and daughters must be ready for intellectual demands the first day on campus, not spend their time in remedial classes learning skills that should already have been learned in high school.
Parents who make deep financial sacrifices to put their children through college want high-school teachers to insist on high standards, and tell those teachers on Back-to-School Night that they will support them when they do. They want their children enrolled in solid college-prep, honors, or AP programs that will help them do well during their college years.
They know that the senior year in high school is notoriously difficult because senior teachers are the quality-control officers for graduating seniors. These teachers will assign homework that stresses critical thinking, difficult reading assignments, and a research paper that advances a thesis, with supporting arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttal. These teachers insist that students take an active part in discussions, have time-management skills, a solid work ethic and old-fashioned Sitzfleisch.
Why do teachers do this and parents support them? The answer is simple — without these skills, students will not survive in college! Teachers of college-prep students and their parents look at high school, and especially the senior year, as the indispensable sine-qua-non to college and not as a party year before settling down in college. This is not why they are paying a yearly tuition of $40,000, so they’ll do all they can to protect their investment.
High school is the training ground to acquire the necessary knowledge, critical-thinking skills and the self-discipline to succeed in college where students will be off on their own for the first time in their lives without the daily support-system of their families, friends, and home environment. They’ll be under tremendous academic and emotional pressure facing rigorous course demands that must simply be met.
Graduating seniors become all too aware of these heightened expectations in their first weeks of college, and if they have any regrets it’s that they weren’t pushed even harder in high school. This is why college-prep, honors, and AP students take their high-school courses very seriously. Moreover, word drifts back from the colleges that everything their teachers told them is true, and if the present senior class wants to survive, they must be battle-hardened by next September.
That being said, the last thing parents want to hear is that some community members are interfering with what is going on at the high school by dictating what college-bound students can and cannot be taught. Parents urge their school board members and school administrators to hold the line when these self-appointed watch-dog groups seek to derail the educational futures of their children.
Fortunately, communities are beginning to understand this as well, and this interference is slowly receding. The Old Guard is becoming aware that it cannot jeopardize the lives of other people’s children in securing an education that will prepare them for college and the larger world outside their village. High schools are preparing students for tomorrow, not the horse-and-buggy days of yesterday.
Until state government and communities allow the teaching of different views — not as truths, but simply as other ways of viewing the world, critical thinking in American high schools will remain a mere utopian dream. Teachers can only advocate for meaningful curricular reform. For this to become a reality, they need the vocal support of both the state education departments and the local communities, but especially parents, who are totally invested in the educational success of their children as no one else could possibly be.
There remains, however, one final logistical problem before critical thinking could transform American schools — that of class size, an enormously under-appreciated reason why critical thinking in the schools could still never become a reality even if the state education departments and local communities instantly saw the light by altering their education policies and letting teachers teach critical thinking in their high school.
And now we come to the crux of the problem. Why are class sizes so unmanageably large to prevent the teaching of critical thinking? State aid cutbacks, relentless school budget defeats in the past, and now vitally-needed school funding diverted to local charters prevent public schools from hiring additional teachers to keep class sizes manageable. Everything is, like so much else in life, so inextricably interconnected.
Instead of teaching classes of 15 students, teachers may be confronted with upwards of 25 to 40 or more students, making the teaching of critical thinking impossible. The energizing storm-center of critical thinking has always been the rapid-fire, cut-and-thrust drama of class discussion.
No classes of over 15 students should ever be scheduled, especially if the power and élan of critical discussion is to be palpably felt in the classroom. Teaching 20 students is crowd control and warehousing students.
Numbers change class chemistry from all-too-willing participants in class discussion to comatose observers in a class of wall-to-wall students. This seemingly mundane matter of class size may seem insignificant to anyone who has never taught high-school students, but large classes are the kiss of death for meaningful learning. Class size matters!
Frank Breslin is a retired high-school teacher in the New Jersey public school system. |
| | Lessons Learned | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 4/20/2024 5:30:07 PM | | | | | | Alleged Manifesto of Man Who Set Himself on Fire Outside the Trump Trial Posted Online
My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan.
https://theponzipapers.substack.com/
This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery:
We are victims of a totalitarian con, and our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup.
- Whistleblower’s Claim: The author presents themselves as a whistleblower, revealing a supposed totalitarian conspiracy.
- Bank Run Initiated: In March 2023, Peter Thiel allegedly started a bank run, which is a significant financial event.
- Extensive Research: The author mentions conducting 1,500 hours of research to uncover evidence of the conspiracy.
- Long-Term Impact: The conspiracy is claimed to have been “bleeding us dry since 1988” and is predicted to soon collapse the world economy.
Co-pilot summary
primary subjects mentioned:
- Latest Nuclear Fusion Experiment from South Korea: The Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research (KSTAR) facility conducted an experiment where they sustained a nuclear fusion reaction at temperatures exceeding 100 million°C for 30 seconds 1 2. This experiment is significant because it achieved a net energy gain, a major milestone in nuclear fusion research 2. The temperatures reached were nearly seven times hotter than the core of the Sun 1.
- Peter Thiel’s Bank Run in March 2023: Peter Thiel, a tech billionaire, initiated a bank run on Silicon Valley Bank in March 2023 3 4. This event led to the collapse of the bank, marking a significant event in the financial industry 3 4.
- Totalitarian Con-Job Since 1988: This refers to a theory proposed by M. Crosby in “The Ponzi Papers” that suggests a vast conspiracy has been manipulating the world economy since 1988 5. The theory posits that this manipulation will soon lead to a global economic collapse 5.
- Criminal Gaslighting at the Heart of Quora: This refers to a claim made in “The Ponzi Papers” that Quora, a popular question-and-answer website, is being used as a tool for manipulation and misinformation 6.
- Influence of The Simpsons: “The Simpsons” is a popular animated television show that has had a significant impact on popular culture and other television series 7 8. Its catchphrases, characters, and themes have become widely recognized and have influenced other shows and cultural discussions 7.
- Netflix’s Thriller “Leave the World Behind”: This is a Netflix film that explores the reactions of two families to a series of strange and potentially apocalyptic events 9 10. The film raises questions about trust, survival, and the nature of societal collapse 9 10.
- Secret Kleptocracy: This term refers to a form of government where leaders use their positions of power to steal from their citizens 11 12 13. In the context of “The Ponzi Papers”, it is used to describe a supposed hidden network of powerful individuals manipulating global events for their own gain 11.
- Social Revolution: A social revolution is a sudden, transformative change in the structure and nature of society 14 15. It often involves shifts in social, economic, cultural, philosophical, and technological systems 14 15.
- Doomsday Cult Artifacts: These are objects or symbols associated with doomsday cults, which are groups that believe in and prepare for an impending apocalypse 16 17 18. The term is used in “The Ponzi Papers” to suggest the existence of hidden signs or symbols related to the alleged conspiracy 19.
Please note that these explanations are based on the information available and the context provided. Some of these topics, particularly those related to conspiracy theories, should be approached with a critical mind and corroborated with information from multiple sources.
|
| | Lessons Learned | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
