I’ll get to the subject in a tad, but meanwhile, this is an open trackbacks post. Link to THIS post and track back. 🙂
If you have a linkfest/open trackback post to promote OR if you simply want to promote a post via the linkfests/open trackback posts others are offering, GO TO LINKFEST HAVEN DELUXE! Just CLICK the link above or the graphic immediately below.
If you want to host your own linkfests but have not yet done so, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance. The FAQ there is very helpful in understanding linkfests/open trackbacks.
Prisons for kids lesson 10013: City kids are dumber than rural kids, at least largely because of incarceration in citified prisons for kids, AKA “public schools”.
Outrageous statement? Here’s a data set in support:
In the United States, [military] recruiters have noted a steady decline in the proportion (to their population) of recruits coming from urban areas. This is largely because so many potential recruits have to be turned down because of the poor education they have received in urban schools. While only 21 percent of Americans live in rural areas, 44 percent of the qualified recruits come from these areas. What’s strange about all this is that the rural areas spend much less, per pupil, on education, but get much better results. Part of this can be attributed to differences in cost of living, but a lot of it has to do with simply getting more done with less. Per capita, young people in urban areas are 22 percent more likely to join the army, than those of the same age in urban areas.
OK, so part of the result is because–proportionally–more rural folk volunteer for military service than citified folk. But the rub comes where more of the citified volunteers are washouts because they’re simply not good enough, smart enough or… “have a bad attitude, as well as a difficult time getting along with others, and following instructions.” Yeh, kudos for the fine “socialization skills” y’all inculcate in our youth, pubschool weenies.
The rural recruits are also a lot easier to train, and generally make better soldiers. The urban recruits often have a bad attitude, as well as a difficult time getting along with others, and following instructions. The urban schools deserve some of the blame for this, as rural schools tend to be far more orderly, and put more emphasis on civil responsibility. Many of the urban recruits are aware of these problems, and joined the service to learn useful (for getting a job) social skills. Those skills are more often found among rural recruits because out in the boondocks, people are more involved with local government, and more involved in general.
Sure, pubschools are still crappy in rural regions, but at least they’re less crappy (in turning out decent citizens) than urban schools. The reasons are legion, and worth another, separate, post. But for now, remember to be grateful for rednecks. Without them, you’d have to rely on city kids to enlist in defense of this country, and that’d be a nightmare…
You mean, “Per capita, young people in RURAL areas are 22 percent more likely to join the army, than those of the same age in urban areas.”
No, Bernie, I don’t. Sure, I short-handed my expression. Per capita almost always refers to “per head” (just as the Latin says); what I said was “proprtionally” more rural folk than urban folk serve in the military (or even volunteer). Long hand, that statement would more properly read something like, “When assessed as a proportion of their respective populations, more rural folk volunteer for military service than urban folk do.”
Of course, as I said, that doesn’t even address the issue that few of the urban volunteers are of trhe quality of the rural volunteers. While it’s almost always been the case, in the Western world at least, that military populations are more rural than urban, the disparity in quality seen in today’s U.S. military is startling to those who don’t bother to consider the contrasting work ethic and school environments–among many factors–of city folk and rural folk.