The general idea behind NCLB is that we should test all students against a set of national standards. Then, if schools are not able to get their students to perform at these standards, then we should cut federal funding for those schools.

Personally, I am in favor of holding school systems more accountable. The school system in my town is run by the most ignorant collection of twits imaginable who hold the schools captive with petty local politics. I'm sure its the same in your town too.

However, all NCLB has done is told us that the schools we thought were bad are in fact bad. Before NCLB, did anyone think that urban and rural schools were are good as suburban schools? Spend 1 hour in an inner city school almost anywhere in the USA and you'll realize that all of this testing is a waste of time and money. Truancy, drop out and college admission rates tell us everything we need to know about a school.

Further, when a school has been identified as poor performing, what is the right thing to do? Is cutting its funding likely to fix its problems? Certainly, in some cases mismanagement of funds is part of the problem. However, in most cases, cutting funding is just going to make the problems worse.

Democrats aren't against NCLB because its a republican idea. They are against it because it does nothing to fix the problem. Actually, what is does is allow its proponents to think and say that they are doing something about education.

NCLB is not a real, practical solution to the problems facing public education in the USA.

We are selecting the leader of one of the most powerful nations in history. While it certainly important to focus on the policies and accomplishments of that person, character also matters. The POTUS has the power to drive the world towards war or away from it. The POTUS is arguably the most powerful person in the world. So, forgive me for considering the character of candidates who run that office.

What's "inkredulous" is saying that understanding the roots of a candidates beliefs and values is not important. Judging a man or woman by the church they attend is perfectly valid. To me, that Romney would leave the campaign trail days before "Super Tuesday" speaks volumes about his allegiance to his church and how he views the roles of religion and governing in his life. With JFK, everyone had the sense that he was prepared to put the duties of president before those of his religion. With Romney, I'm not convinced that he'd be willing to do that.

Don't do it.

I'm offering you this advice not because I think you will be thrown out of the program. I am mainly concerned that those who will mentor and teach you will regard you less seriously. You'll have to work that much harder to make a point with these folks. Using your body to get ahead (instead of your mind) will be viewed unfavorably by most academics, never mind the economic realities. Getting a job in academia afterwards is going to be difficult at best. You are going to need stellar recommendation letters from these people.

Also, stripping is just plain demeaning. Men are paying for you to give them hard-ons, for Pete's sake. How could demand the respect of a student who saw your strip?

Plenty of us made it through grad. school without resorting to stripping! Looking for a job that only requires a few hours a day? Try waiting tables. Work a few weekend evening shifts at a nice restaurant and you'll be fine. You can't study 24 hours a day anyway. Also, look for fellowship programs that pay a 12 month salary.

The purpose is that you are interested in the topic and want to make a contribution to human knowledge. Getting the Ph.D. has plenty of good points, including learning to think and write, both of which are marketable skills.

Any time someone writes in asking for advice about some aspect of graduate school, some jackass responds by telling the LW that graduate school is a waste of time.

More advice: Don't listen to washed-out Ph.D. wannabes who couldn't cut it.

The point is that a Ph.D. is not job training. Its an intellectual pursuit and an academic degree. It may or may not train you to do a particular job or qualify you for higher pay. People who think a Ph.D. should always be ticket to economic success don't really understand the purpose of the Ph.D. If you want job training, get a professional degree.

I advise Ph.D. (and masters) students. The vast majority of them go on to get much more interesting and better paying jobs than they would have if they'd stayed in or entered the job market with a bachelor's degree. More importantly, they've all made a real contribution to the field in which they did their research. They've improved human knowledge and done so without a profit motive or agenda. Being able to pay the bills is nice, but wealth is not the measure of a successful life.

If Ph.D.s are not "good employees" (and I don't think I really buy that argument), it's because they've learned how to think critically and learned not to put up with BS from anyone who is accustomed to people following orders just because they are in a position of power. Maybe getting a Ph.D. is going to make you more rebellious and less of a "follower." Is that a bad thing?

There is so much vile directed not so much at the book or even the authors, but at veganism in general, in this review that it should have given the editors pause. Why and how do articles with such obvious agendas get published here? Is this a book review, or an op-ed piece on veganism?