Of course you can teach it. There is a small segment of the population who cannot do it - just like there is always a small segment of the population who cannot do any other random thing - but for most people, it can be learned. The best way to learn it is by using techniques which are applied with native speakers of languages that roll Rs who struggle with it - many kids cannot do it, so they go to some form of speech therapy where they give them exercises in specific orders aimed at having them produce the sound. A small segment never manages, but many DO correct their habits. R is pronounced in the part of your mouth right behind the teeth, and the sounds which are pronounced "geographically" the closest are T and D. For that reason, it is the best to practice the R with the words in which it follows those sounds - say, treno - because it will be easier to get the first initial sound. That way your tongue is still about those areas and R should come more naturally than as an isolated sound, or moving from a "geographically" more distant area. When practicing it as an isolated sound, also say it after T/D, or even B/P. After that, move to R that follows A, such as arrivo. "Overdo" that A to really open/spread your mouth, and try getting the R sound while slowly closing your mouth. That should get you the technique of vibration. Then they usually move onto words where R follows a vocal and is followed by an L sound, but I think that is because many kids have R/L confusion, so I am not sure how helpful it is when learning a foreign language. (Copy-pasted parts of it from one of my older posts, because I remember I had written something about this. I am not expert, but I think these are some of the exercises included for kids who struggle with the R sound.)

A totally normal paragraph which *makes sense* - each thought neatly proceeding from the previous one, and I *like* that he avoided trying to make it "lively" (similar to as choirfarm suggested). I think it adds a touch of something serious to it, because it does not sound as "journalist" as many other options would sound. Needs rewording, but it makes some sense. A greater understanding of the world and its aspects that were invisible to us before is brought about by continuous attempts to describe the world in models that are ever improving, i.e. superior to the ones we had before. Nothing wrong with this sentence IMO. This sounds normal to me too. A bit posh, LOL, but I see nothing conceptually wrong with it nor linguistically problematic. From general to specific to personal (science in the context of what he wrote about before, then specifically physics, and his more narrow interests so far). Sounds good to me. Parsing this, I do not see any problem here either. He has a certain base of theoretical knowledge and interests, which he hopes to further, but also to combine with a practical component offered in the XYZ camp. Then he adds an additional motivation for the camp, the one of experience possibly illustrating what it would be like if he took the road he plans to take further down his educational path. Cool with me. And he wants peers and emphasizes the element of the dialogue he would get there. A very reasonable reason to list, IMO. And he wants to meet not only prospective peers, but also mentors, with whose help he might be better prepared to educate himself ("ideal high school education"), locate additional resources, as well as get an insight into how people for whom this is a profession function. Just WHERE do you guys see problems with his essay? :confused: I do this thing a LOT, reading and correcting and grading papers. Typically not of this kind, and not of this length, so it is different. Still, his essay is: 1) Structurally sound - there is a natural flow from one thought into another, there is a clear beginning progressing towards an end, not a mishmash of random thoughts; 2) Literate (to the extent of sounding posh); 3) Serious, avoids "teen speak" and cheap effects of modern journalism; 4) Personal - written in the context of his interests and aspirations. Barring several inaccuracies in wording, it seems totally reasonable to me. I would be FAR more likely to accept somebody who sounded "serious" and ambitious to me than "teen speak" based on the outbursts of passion. The boy has a goal, wants to learn, knows how to put it in writing, and yes, has a typical ill of literate young minds - the one of being slightly "pretentious" in how he words things, but it takes some time and maturity to find the right balance - and on the whole, I saw no great deficits in this. I am truly interested in hearing where do you see deficits past a few inaccurate wordings that DO need to be fixed.

Nope, language / letters.

I still think it is good. Not to play the contrarian to everyone else's views :tongue_smilie:, but I do see a certain developing thought there and I actually appreciate the kind of syntax he uses. I would, personally, be far LESS likely to accept a student who wrote a "stereotypical" expectable essay (of the kind choirfarm suggested to reword he first sentence?). I do think it needs some rewording for accuracy, though. What on Earth is going on?! :lol: I am usually the one that is the most "negative" on the threads in this subforum, and now I seem to like something everybody else has issues with. Weird. Maybe becuause this is not lit analysis. But I still think it could decently serve its intended function too, if reworded a little.

We agree. Hopefully I am not pushing your hot buttons, but I do wish to emphasize one thing. Interest and passion can often be, especially with kids, a bit of an "intermittent" thing. A child can be really interested in a certain area, but lack perspective and understanding that some skill polishing is needed to get to the point where they can truly profit from what they like with passion, because it is a tool to get them there. My daughter who plays violin really does not like doing technical exercises, and doing over and over something she "knows" may seem like a pointless busywork - but in effects, it is skill polishing and something that pays off on the long run. Another daughter is into drawing and she has the equivalent of those "technical" exercises - she may not be excited about them every single time and may roll her eyes about being asked again to do something she "knows" how to do, but I do not find it pointless. I understand the article in that perspective: stating that some of what may pass as busy work is in reality a legitimate work on things which require a certain level of skill and automatization to be developed. I find these things liberating rather than confinining, because the better developed the skill is and the more automatic those processes are, the MORE choice our students have when dealing with things that are their passions. I am against "busywork" too, but I do not think all "technical" work is bad, even though some of that may appear as a busywork. Of course, it needs to be dosed and combined with other things, but in and of itself, I do not think it s a bad thing and I do not think the "intermittent" interest and passion is necessarily an indicator of something being done wrong - nobody can be, I think, totally excited about something literally every time they do it, especially when polishing technique and automatization is concerned. Anyhow, I digress, principally I agree with you, just wanted to emphasize this point.

Oh, Sarah. :grouphug: I am sorry if any of that read as though I was "suggesting" you either do not know what you are talking about or you are extrapolating "random" cases to present a whole. In my eyes you are a de facto Italian, with a child in the system, with an international perspective and having done your research and comparisons, thus more than fully entitled and capable of making some very justified criticism of the system. We live rather far away from each other and I am in a weird place in my life right now, predominately working - mentally and physically - on some other fronts, but if these two were not factors, I might as well enjoy having this conversation in a more intimate atmosphere, when I could say some things which are more difficult to utter when you are faced with an impersonal screen. Regarding the US, I do tend to have conversations majorly critical of it in circles which are predominately American. We could consider these boards to be one such virtual community, even though I have never actually discussed "seriously" the US-specific issues here, as I tend to limit myself to the kind of conversations I would have with a friend in a caffe (i.e. somewhat consciously watered down to a more superficial level - but such is the format of the forum, not allowing for all the distinctions I would draw in a lenghtier and more focused conversation). DH and I do not even vent our US-specific frustrations in front of the children, barring an occasional incident now that they are older and can put things into their own perspective, because we do not feel it is good for them to grow up surrounded with a subtle negativity of constant comparisons between the places and the societies. I tend to be rather wary, IRL (as this is the only place of my online activities of this type), of to whom exactly and to what extent I am going to "bash" the US, because I am afraid to fortify stereotypes, promote thinking in very rigid boxes (both the US and Italy are very diverse worlds within themselves and cannot be represented in a way that it does it justice to somebody who has not experienced it). It is not, IMO, only the question of the panni sporchi che si lavano in famiglia, not airing the dirty laundry in public, but also the question of, often, a genuine impossiblity for somebody who has not experienced some things to grasp it. I have at times voiced criticism of the US, even on here, or satirized vents of the kind I would never allow myself to do in a predominately non-American circle. It may be a paradox in a way, but that is more or less my typical standard modus operandi - praise the good things to those who do not know and cannot understand, criticize the bad things to those who do know and can understand because they have a perspective needed for it. By saying this, I am not trying to imply that your own personal values as to how the criticism is handled need to match mine nor trying to suggest that your criticism is any way "unacceptable", let alone unwelcome, in some circles - because, after all, who am I to determine any of that, and you have a full right to express whatever you feel pertinent to a discussion in whatever way and intensity you feel needed. In that, you have my full support even though I personally would not handle some things the same way. So, I would like that to be very clear. America is, to me, one of the most powerful ideas in history, with an absolutely sublime constitutive document and my own view of what goes wrong in "practice", a history of its genesis which explains much of what I both like and dislike, but the "level" at which I am going to discuss it with those who have not experienced it is typically going to be that of a somewhat reserved respect, trying to bring out the good ideas they have, educationally and otherwise. With Americans, I am going to take an often radically different stance, contrasting my view of what I perceive as system weaknesses against what I know as good from other systems, thus taking the stance of a reserved respect regarding other places more than open criticism of other places. It is not as though I was having double standards, in terms of thinking one is be viewed critically while the other should be immune criticism (though I am not saying you suggest this in your post), but that it seems to me more "proper" to handle the ratio differently in different circles. And again, I am not saying you ought to share my views on this in any way, shape or form - only stating my views on it. I agree with you that the root of these problems is in politics. But Italian politics, and "politics" behind the curtains, is a whole 'nother can of worms. To be perfectly honest, I did not expect our conversation to go into that direction (though I do not mind it per se), as originally I was actually interested not in the problems pertaining to the framework of the social and political organization and the macrostructure of it, but to the problems pertaining to the actual content. I expected, to be blunt, a far less "complex" discussion between us, dealing mostly with the school program / methodical and pedagogical approach differences, rather than with far more complex issues which generate those in the first place and which I am not sure I can comprehend fully well myself. To be honest, I am neither surprised by the PISA results nor do I take them as a very good arbiter of the quality of the school system. There is one Austrian university professor who wrote a book in response to a major public uproar that was caused by the PISA results in Austria and that book sums up pretty much my own view of it and why I do not take PISA into account and why I believe that the quality of an education is "measured" by some entirely different criteria. If you can read German, I recommend it. The book is written to be accessible to wide audiences and it does not have the academic rigor of a "serious" study, but I have found much confirmation for my own ideological bias behind what an education ought to be about in it - and my view tends to contrast drastically with what is typically promoted nowadays. I have the "bangs on a bit" stick too. :tongue_smilie:

Welcome. :)

I wonder if this has something to do with how old you were when you first left. I think people who had a more or less stable upbringing in one place, went through most or the entirety of their education there and found their spouse there, and THEN left - in their mid to late twenties, already with children and all - may still have that sense of belonging because the ties are simply too strong NOT to definitely belong to a certain place... so even if past that point they lived abroad, I think it s a very different situation than somebody who grew up internationally between several countries and never really had an opportunity to have that stability as a child and in the youth periods critical for identity formation / starting your own family / etc. I agree, though, that extended stays abroad definitely form you in a way to acquire a perspective which you would not have acquired had you lived only home - and that it is very difficult to forgo of that and "block" it, so it does affect you. But I still think it is possible to feel at home when you are home for some people.

Thank you! That is so kind of you! :) I would really, really like it to be used more consistently with its actual meaning (included by me, LOL).

I think Regentrude could help you more about this, being that she is the physicist on this thread and would know how to word some phrases to keep the meaning, but make it more accurate. :) For example, she mentioned his expression that quantum is a "realm" - I have no idea in what way he uses the word "realm" there. About superior models, it needs to be worded more clearly that science attempts to build the most accurate possible model of the world (because it progresses by constant "upgrades" of those models, the science we have at any point is the model of the world to the best of our current knowledge, yadda yadda yadda). Maybe emphasize that those models are developed rather than just pursued. IDK. I think you need Regentrude for this, these are some of my general impression, but she could help you how to really polish those few potentially awkward places. But on the whole, I liked that paragraph. I think the third paragraph needs to be a tad bit "stronger", especially the ending, because the ending phrase usually makes or breaks the final impression of such shorter pieces of writing. I hope he gets in, he sounds passionate (to me). :)

Yes, begin this way - and after that being EARLY, about 1st-2nd grade, a FORMAL, grammar-based program in addition to these things (not instead of them). Start exposure as early as possible, and formal stuff in lower elementary. Typical mistakes are delaying exposure, delaying formal stuff, substituing exposure with formal stuff, as well as doing formal stuff too early and then burning out when too young kids cannot follow it at some point anymore.

LOL.

:001_wub: I am not going to tell you where I live right now not to make you very, very jealous (and not to provide too much personal information, LOL) - but you seem to understand. I was raised with semi-serious jokes of a particular Jewish propensity for sharp thought and learning. I have always thought that the (presumed) Jewish atypical intellectual intensity had an equivalent, when it comes to the matters of beauty and aesthetics, in the Italian people. Not that the Italians have the "monopoly" over artistic beauty and taste (just like there are Jewish idiots, as well as geniuses of intellectual intensity amongst other nations), but that there is something really particularly artistically intense amongst that people, something more "concentrated" than more "diluted" as you find it amongst other peoples. I almost ended up studying art history, so I do know a thing or two about art past the typical national arrogance, and I have always been fascinated by the Italian phenomenon in art. I truly think it is something unique, and as much as I attempt to consider it in the historical context, something escapes me and there always remains a small "unexplainable" touch to it.

Two things even the more enlightened crew gets consistently wrong. 1) Optimal is a superlative. It is bene, melior, optime. Optimal is the equivalent of "the best". Because of that, there is NO SUCH THING as "a more optimal solution", "the most optimal course of action". Optimal is already a superlative. 2) Alternative is ONE. Alter means "the other of the two". An alternative is the ONE other option you have in a certain situation. If you have multiple options to choose from, those are NOT to be called alternatives, they are to be called... other options? Well, invent something along those lines. There is NO SUCH THING as "another alternative might be", "one of the alternatives proposed", etc. In fact, very strictly speaking, there is no "an alternative" either, only "the alternative", because of that - it should be used only in cases where there is the other option involved. ---- As regards 2), we have pretty much LOST that battle and this particular distinction is no longer observed even by the majority of literate, educated people. I sometimes catch myself doing it too. It has become accepted and only the most stringent people will frown upon it. But still, try to keep it in mind and maybe we can resurrect this distinction, LOL. As regards 1), that particular distinction did NOT get lost and you WILL leave a bad impression. So remember it. Optimal is a superlative.

I actually think it is good. Shoot me, I am contradicting a physicist who says it is not, but I think it is really good. A bit of a stereotypical (but not bad) introduction, but the second paragraph beautifully explains the quest of science in making ever superior conceptual models of the universe (yes, I would reword a thing or two for the sake of clarity), it introduces science as a constant thread of thought developing throughout generations, and then goes neatly from more general to specific which part of that thread of thought he finds personally the most interesting. The last paragraph, even though somewhat too general, is also very realistic and well-written, emphasizes his desire for a dialogue and peers, puts it into the context of his future plans for the university. The very last phrase, I believe, should be a bit more "powerful" and perhaps he should be a bit more specific about his interests / experience. However, on the whole, not bad at all. On the contrary. Very well-developed language, each thought neatly proceding from the previous one, intervowen in a clear synctactic structure. I did not even get an impression that the essay sounds "forced" or "trying" to sound polished - I read it as a fluent, neat writing. Weird. Regentrude and I usually have very similar readings of many writings posted here, and now you got two quite different impressions, so I am not sure how much it helps you. :tongue_smilie:

I am in the opposite boat. While I most definitely do not do classical education as often proposed on these boards, I certainly do something which I grew up understanding as classical education. It had nothing to do with "truth", "beauty" or even "excellence" (which was more of a side effect, albeit a desired one) and everything to do with a solid broad education rooted in our national culture and the context of its genesis and development, with a fairly strong philological bent as it incorporated the study of classical languages as the sources and the constitutive moments of much of that culture.

The point is not to "speak positively" - and that, actually, IS the very essence of the PC. The essence of what I wrote, on the other hand, is the emphasis on conceptual clarity, whether or not those words rub somebody the wrong way. From that standpoint, it makes a lot more sense to speak of normal vs. abnormal, than of typical vs. "atypical", for the reasons I outlined in their basic form. Words are not charged per se. They become charged due to a certain dynamics of their use in a society. On the colloquial level, it is a very sensible thing to be aware of that dynamics of the evolving language and express yourself accordingly - but when we are talking more "seriously" than the colloquial level, I am very much against that. In the latter context, I believe the priority should be given to the maximal clarity of thought with all due conceptual distinctions (as well as knowing exactly what I mean by "type" and "typical", as opposed to what is "normal" and "prevalent"). One of the reasons why I loathe "PCese" is because is erases some very important conceptual distinctions... and from an imprecise language to an imprecise thought there is a very small step, in my experience. It is no coincidence that the sharpest thinkers I know are the ones who observe all the due distinctions and attempt to maximally concord their linguistic framework with their conceptual framework, rather than subject their linguistic framework to the roundabout ways and mistakes in categories typical for the PC talk, which brings about inconsistences and a more obfuscated thought. Unfortunately, it happens not only in colloquial language, but many disciplines have been poisoned by those trends too, which has caused many conceptual problems that run very deep at the core of how they parse the phenomena they deal with, but I cannot elaborate on any of that further being that I plan on writing about something in that vein in the future. :tongue_smilie:

It does not surprise me. Does English have an equivalent of "patti chiari, amicizia lunga"?

It actually makes far more sense to use "normal" than "typical". I normally use "typical", like you, for social reasons, but it actually makes LESS sense. As to why it makes more sense to say normal: normal is that which has to do with the NORM which is statistically prevalent. Ab-normal is that is an aberration as regards statistics. Both normal and abnormal are natural, in that they are phenomena which exist in nature. Dyslexia is natural phenomenon, but not the norm - no "moral" connotations there. Homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurance in many species, but it is not normal in that it is not the norm in sexual behavior - no "moral" connotations there either. The PC tendencies have blurred much of the precision of thought which we have if we use words in a more literal sense. It does not make sense to say "typical". Typical is pertaining to a certain type of something - so what does atypical even mean? Typical of a different type? LOL. So, sorry, no offenses meant. Normally I use "typical" to speak the common language, but when I lapse and say "normal", it is not morally colored, I am just being a bit more literal.

You mean other couples, in general?

I actually started out with the British spelling and extremely fake pseudo-British pronunciation, LOL. ;) It is very possible that I still have a touch of that left, although I try to be consistent within one norm. The most difficult thing to get rid of was double Ls in the past (traveLed rather than travelled), that used to just hurt my eyes plus it is sooooo inconsistent with any logic, but okay, I got over it for the most part. What I find more challenging are vocabulary and idiomatic differences, as well as some of the sounds. Of course there are. There are genuine examples of all of that. I believe my middle daughter to be a perfect example of a "could have been falsely diagnosed" child. She is completely normal, yet as a child you could have labeled her with anything you wanted because she was a bit off and took longer to grow out of some things, and add to it some sensitivities on the biochem level (foods and such), there you get a mess. She was a "does not fit in exactly, but if you want, you can put her into that box" case. As regards specifically dyslexia, nope, but she has a weird thing about Hebrew in mixing and inventing letters which are not there. That, however, is more due to the "guessing nature" of the written form of that language itself than to any cognitive differences. She grew out of most of that too, with lots of practice.

Okay this is all making my head spin. :lol: No, not in the US. The formal signed stuff, however, were most definitely "concrete", enforcable stuff, because those were the only ones that could be put into a formal agreement - and because of that some considerations had to be added on a separate agreement without strict legal value. But the money, one spouse taking minor kids abroad if divorced, etc. stuff were in the formal signed agreement.

:iagree:

I could not resist. It was either putting :iagree: after your post or an "innocent" comment like this. LOL.

And that is exactly how it should be. You know you lack in some area, you presumably did all in your reasonable power to correct it, it did not work, so you organized your life to accomodate for it and the results are typically as those of any other person. If, in spite of that, somebody puts you into a situation you cannot handle well - you cannot handle it well, and that is fine, we all have limitations. No moral fault in my eyes. :)