The 1950's Were Better! (than today)

[Eve]

I think there was a thread awhile back about how people used to dress better. Look at photos from 100 years ago: even poor people looked better then than rich people do now! I have worn corsets and floor-length skirts (it's a long story), and they're not as uncomfortable or hard to get around in as rumor will have it. Even in NY, there's no place to dress up anymore! People wear sweats to the opera, for pete's sake.

As far as the rest of the OP . . . I can't quite remember the '50s, but I don't imagine being a woman, or black, or gay, or handicapped could have been much fun then.

[Bricker]

I don't recall the exact book, but it was written in the late fifties, and a passage described the downfall of a young lady from a good family. One sentence that has stuck in mymind went something like: "As the year went on, she began to attend parties with the wrong kind of people, where the men didn't wear ties."

That was the fifties!

- Rick

[tracer]

Um, I don't think it's such a good idea to judge a decade from the way its movies portray contemporary people.

If we did, we'd have to conclude that the 1990s consisted entirely of explosions.

[neutron star]

Maybe (I wish) people started to realize that what you drape over your body does not define you as a person. Judging by the endless parade of fashion shows and Gap outlets, I'm probably wrong, though.

[Eve]

Neutron, don't you believe that how you present yourself to the world says something about your personality, about who you are? You can indeed hudge a book by its cover, most of the time.

I always try to look my best when I go outdoors; I figure the world is ugly enough without me making things worse. No, I don't wear tons of makeup or Chanel suits (I hate Chanel, the Nazi whore), but I always make sure I am neat, well-groomed and wearing flattering clothes.

Would I be morally superior somehow if I wore raggedy sweats, dirty stringy hair and falling-apart tennis shoes?

[Eve]

"Judge" a book, of course.

"Hudging" a book is darned difficult.

[egkelly]

Thanks eve, you really said what I tried to convey: surely the sloppy way people dress today says something about the image they want to project. I agree, clothes do not mean everything, but every time I see a college student dressed like a bum, I feel that something is wrong. I guess I don't like the ghetto-hip/hop look!

[neutron star]

Ugly is an opinion. And I couldn't care less if the guy in front of me at the convenience store is scraggly-looking. Fashion, as an industry and as a hobby, is a joke. Who decides what's going to look cool next year anyhow. And who cares? My closet is filled with clothes from 5 or 6 years ago. Jeans, t-shirts, and sweat shirts, that's all I wear. I usually toss something on without even looking at it. I have more important things to worry about.

[neutron star]

If I was going to some sort of business meeting or formal function, I'd dress up, but only for the benefit of the others there who think you're a monster if you're not in a tux. If I threw some kind of formal party and someone showed up in sweatpants, it wouldn't bother me one damn bit.

[Moose and Squirrel]

"Hudging" a book is darned difficult.

I've hudged books before . . .

:::glancing furtively around room::::

WHAT?!? There's *nothing* wrong with that!

[NicePete]

Oh yes, the 50's were just a lovely time! We still had segregation, the cold war and polio. Women knew their place was in the home.

But everybody dressed so neatly. And so much like everybody else. We didn't have any of this corrosive individuality. Oh yes, life was much better in the 50's.

------------------
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.

[Lissa]

You do realise that fifty years from now, people will look back at with nostalgia, wishing that their era had our taste, our moral fiber, the honesty of our politicians, the manners of our children, our modesty of dress and the general happiness that we have today.

P.S: The fifties weren't all that hot, anyway. Read The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz.

[Eve]

Well, Neutron, I am glad there are people who feel the way you do . . . Makes the rest of us look all the better by comparison.

[NicePete]

Eve:

I absolutely agree, the amount of care someone puts into their appearance sends a message. I would submit, however, that:

a) not everyone wants to send the same message; and

b) the professional garb which you and I sport requires time and attention -- however, other forms of attire cost the wearer equal effort and expense.

I didn't live through the 50's so I have no personal knowledge to objectively make a fair evaluation of their culture. However, media portrayals of that decade make me think our culture was homogenous, sanitized, repressive and stultifying.



------------------
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.

[neutron star]

I talk to people and judge them for who they are, no matter what they're wearing. There SHOULD be more people like that.

[neutron star]

And let me clarify : I'm not talking about people who smell really bad and haven't taken a shower in a year. That's just gross. I'm talking about looking down on someone because they're wearing a sweatshirt and a baseball cap.

[Eve]

Well, let's just agree to disagree, then (she says, brushing a piece of lint from her crisp and stylish cotton frock).

[neutron star]

Yeah, I suppose so Eve. (Brushing potato chip crumbs off my Penn State Nittany Lions t-shirt)

[Eve]

Har!

[Gaudere]

Well, let's just agree to disagree, thenNone of that stuff here, you two. This is Great Debates! If you can't be debatably disagreeable, you can just hie yourself back to MPSIMS...

[tracer]

From MAD Magazine in the early 1970s:

"Dressing poor when you're really rich is a status symbol.

Dressing poor when you really are poor isn't."

[tracer]

Frankd6 (is that Frank six-sided dice?) wrote:

Oh yes, the 50's were just a lovely time! We still had segregation, the cold war and polio. Women knew their place was in the home.

And Senator McCarthy! Don't forget ol' Joltin' Joe McCarthy! And those lovely suburban bomb shelters. Don't forget to duck and cover, kiddies!

[Crystalguy]

Ahem, excuse me, Ahem. I survived the fifties as a teen ager. In 1954, when I was fourteen years old, I got my drivers license and my first car, along with my first job. I put groceries in bags at an A&P grocery store for $0.50 per hour. Yes, folks, $0.50 per hour. Plus tips which usually ranged from a nickel to fifteen cents, when you got one. I was required to wear a white shirt, "nice" pants and a tie. It was unthinkable that anyone would report to work wearing tennis shoes. A $20.00 grocery order required four to five paper bags. A $50.00 grocery order meant the people who bought it shopped only once a month.
Girls expected to be dated by guys wearing ties and sport coats. And guys expected the girls to be dressed comparably and that was usually what happened. College in West Texas in 1958. Classes in ties and sport coats. Girls DID NOT wear slacks on campus. Girls DID NOT smoke in public. Girls WERE NOT ALLOWED to hold hands with a guy on campus.
Campus conversations were about goals, future prospects, who would be the first to earn $10K per year. First full time job in 1960: $250.00 gross per month SALARY---no hourly job for the upwardly mobile. First offer for the job in question was $200.00 per month.
But, gasoline was $0.18 per gallon, cigarettes were like $0.22 per pack, movie tickets were like $0.75, beer was usually around $0.20 per can. Was it any better? Hell, no. I will be sixty damn years old this Sunday and I wouldn't go through the fifties again for pay. Well, that is harsh, make me an offer.

------------------
Crystalguy

[Spiritus Mundi]

There are some things about a book that you can judge by the cover.

Most notably, the price.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

[Moose and Squirrel]

I absolutely agree, the amount of care someone puts into their appearance sends a message. I would submit, however, that:

a) not everyone wants to send the same message; and

b) the professional garb which you and I sport requires time and attention -- however, other forms of attire cost the wearer equal effort and expense.

This morning I donned a nice, clean sweatshirt and pair of jeans for work. My tennis shoes are VERY white and clean. This is my professional attire, and I like it that way.

Years ago, I had to wear nylons, high heels and "fancy" business suits to work.

Having been on both sides of the court, I have to say that "jeans and a T" is better... more comfortable (don't we all work better when we're comfortable?); less expensive to purchase; less expensive and easier to maintain (no more drycleaning! no more ironing); and no more "class" distinctions amongst co-workers (even the "suits" don't wear suits around here).

That's not to say that getting all decked out once in awhile isn't pretty cool, too.

[tomndebb]

Hoo boy! A topic I can stand on both sides of!

"Dress down" has been following me around my whole life. I had to wear a tie and either a sweater or a jacket in high school and for the first year or so of college, then they dropped that rule. When I worked retail, I was required to wear a tie at all times (even when unloading a truck full of bagged-in-ball shrubs or hot sticky bags of peat or manure). I had to relegate a kid to working in the stock room when I worked in retail because he simply refused to wear a tie on the sales floor and I had no desire to fire him. (He was a decent worker.) A year or so after I escaped retail, I noticed that each of my former employers had dropped their "tie" regs. In the world of offices, the "dress down" came more slowly, beginning with "tie-less" Fridays in summer and eventually taking over the whole work week.

How has this affected me? Not much. I still wear shirts and slacks that would go with a tie. I would never wear a polo shirt or a flannel shirt to work. (My shoes are significantly more comfortable, however.) I still "dress up" if I am going to a play or the symphony (despite the fact that I am one of the few guys that seems to) or if I am acting as lector at church.

I was always smart enough to buy shirt collars large enough that a snugged tie would not choke me. I simply do not see the great pleasure in "dressing down." Since I have chosen not to work at banks, I have never needed more than one or two jackets at a time, but I have no problem with "dressing up" for a sales call or a major presentation to the brass. If that is what is called for, that is what I will wear. :::shrug:::

Of course, it doesn't matter a lot in my case anyway, since a custom tailored suit will look rumpled on me within seconds of putting it on. I don't have a very GQ physical appearance.

And, while I can tolerate "dress up" situations, I am generally suspicious of "dress up" people. In my techno-geek world, it is almost a truism that the better a guy dresses, the less likely he is able to code or manage. I have known exactly three exceptions to that rule in 19 1/2 years of programming. The contemptuous phrase, "He's a suit." has its roots in real-life experiences. Aside from the three specific exceptions I noted, I can easily rattle off the names of more than a dozen "suits" who dressed their way to success and power while contributing only mayhem and bad feelings to their work environment, and have not been able to add to my list of exceptions while I (laboriously) typed this out.

I'm not sure why that is. As noted, I will readily dress up when required (although I don't look very good) so I certainly do not believe that putting on ties, suits, etc. affect one's mental capabilities. Maybe, if I had spent more time at banks and publishing houses and Big 6 corporate offices I would have a different view of "suits." (On the other hand, the people who the Big 6 put into data centers as workers are the very archetypes of stuffed shirst and "suits"--incompetent mannequins, the lot of them.) I would guess that Eve is simply presenting the appropriate appearance for her work environment and carries her self-image over into her run-to-the-store persona. That hardly counts as being stuffy or stuck-up. It certainly does not imply anything about her professional abilities.

Up until the end of the twentieth century, clothing was a badge of class. Poor people dressed up to show that they were not on the lowest rung. Now that the wealthiest are dressing casually, that sort of badge is no longer useful, and society is moving away from it. I'm fairly sure that we still have class badges, but they are more likely to be displayed in other possessions rather than in clothing--and, of course, those who are not "upper class" still attempt to imitate the "upper class" in the possessions they acquire and display.


(BTW, on a different point: there was no less trash on our streets in the 1950's. Most of those "$100 fine for littering" signs have been up since the 1940's or 1950's. When watching Ruff and Reddy, Huckleberry Hound, Pixie and Dixe, Fury, and Sky King, etc. on Saturday mornings, we saw as many "Don't be a literbug" ads as Smokey the Bear ads.

Movies looked cleaner in the 1950's because far more of them were shot on sets than on location and the sets were simply cleaned up each evening.

------------------
Tom~

[mangeorge]

My coupla pennies;
I also survived the 50's. Yuck. If you were a WASP who followed the rules, life was ok. Otherwise you were an outcast, to a degree determined by how far you erred from the norm.
Cleaner? Hah. Not on your life. I remember trash strewn all over, along the highways and anywhere there wasn't a building of some kind. Hence the anti-litter laws.
Believe me, egkelly, these are the good old days. Enjoy them.
Peace,
mangeorge

------------------
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000

[Yue Han]

Originally posted by Lissa:
You do realise that fifty years from now, people will look back at with nostalgia, wishing that their era had our taste, our moral fiber, the honesty of our politicians, the manners of our children, our modesty of dress and the general happiness that we have today.



a) You're right.

b) That makes me want to cry.

Anyway, I agree with egkelly. W

hat I REALLY love about the 50's is that we didn't have to do those damn daily duck and cover drills. Y'know, the ones dumbasses thought might protect us if someone dropped a nuke.

And how there was no McCarthyism.

Oh, and the possibility of being exposed to new viewpoints and outlooks from a round the world with the click of a button, instead of being taught that nonAmericans were a) grubby or b)Communist.

Wait, wait, no, that's today.

Never mind.

--John


------------------
'Twis brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gymble in the wabe.
Mimsy were the borogroves,
And the momeraths outgrabe.

[tracer]

tomndebb wrote:

Up until the end of the twentieth century, clothing was a badge of class. Poor people dressed up to show that they were not on the lowest rung. Now that the wealthiest are dressing casually, that sort of badge is no longer useful, and society is moving away from it. I'm fairly sure that we still have class badges, but they are more likely to be displayed in other possessions rather than in clothing--and, of course, those who are not "upper class" still attempt to imitate the "upper class" in the possessions they acquire and display.

Come, starless Sneeches! For only $3, you can be accepted among the upper crust with my Star-On Machine!

[Rysdad]

The fifties I remember (born 1953) was that of neighborhoods with unlocked doors, unleashed dogs, burning the leaves in the backyard, and swimming in the Mississippi River.

Now, most people barely know their neighbors, hardly ever speak to them, and double lock their doors. A dog not on a leash disappears forever. The smoke from the leaves would draw every fire truck for miles, and nobody swims in the river for fear of PCB's and mercury.

At least the air is cleaner now.

[justwannano]

I agree with crystalguy andmangeorge. I was 14 in 1959. The road ditehes were strewn with beer cans. The City dump of a town I know in Northern Iowa was a sandbar in the Mississippi.
Dad had a Job. My entire wardrobe consisted of 2 pair of bluejeans,three shirts and 3pair of underwear.And of course a good shirt,tie and slacks.And we were some of the lucky kids.
There were some good times back then though.

[Lissa]

I can't remember where I read this paper, but it proposed that air conditioning has been the death of the American neighbor relationship. Before we had nice cool houses to retreat into, people sat out on their porches in the evening, which, of course, led to conversations with passersby, and offering the neighbors a glass of lemonade. Interesting theory.

[Phantmwise]

Would I be morally superior somehow if I wore raggedy sweats, dirty stringy hair and falling-apart tennis shoes?
Said Eve.

No, you would be morally superior if you did not look down on people who do not dress to impress you. Pride is one thing, smugness another.

You really can only tell certain things about a person by how they dress. If that kind of information is important to you, feel free to use it, but don't imagine you're seeing all there is to see. People are wonderfully complex, and you will never understand most of them. At this moment, i, a young female, am wearing a Dudley Do-Right t-shirt, blue jeans, white socks and black running shoes, all in good condition. I am wearing no makeup, but am clean and kempt. What kind of person am i?


------------------
Phantomwise

...never seen by waking eyes...

[Bored2001]

<--- has Absolutly no memory of the fifties, unless of course I lived it in a pass life, but I don't believe in that crap anyway =)

As for clothes--Get over it. Clothing fashions change. Everyone gravitates toward the status quo and the hip-hop look is what is in, at least somewhat. There are many different types of styles.

The Nuke duck and cover: HAHAHAHAHHAHA I so love that. It's so damn halarious. *see a flash? Duck and cover!!*... then kiss your butt goodbye your ass is desintegrated.

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned how stupid americans were in the fifties. The only reason are schools are so horridly bad now is because School is so much harder then in the past. Thank sputnik for that. Because of the dismal american math and science scores our scientific output well.... sucked. In order to boost it up everyone's knowledge in these subjects the governemnt beefed up public school standards meteorically. That also accounts for why kids don't play outside anymore, we have to do 100x more homework.

~Bored2001 the disgruntled student.

[tomndebb]

That also accounts for why kids don't play outside anymore, we have to do 100x more homework.
As a student then and a parent now, I can reasonably assert that you do not have 100 times (or even twice as much) homework. There are differences from school to school and district to district, but in general you are not getting more. (If you are lucky, you are getting some of it earlier.)

- -

Other Then/Now comparisons.

My parents always locked their doors.

I almost never lock mine.

-

My childhood neighborhood did not have many social gatherings.

My neighborhood has no social gatherings, but my brother's has many throughout the Spring, Summer, and Fall.

-

We had sandlot/pick-up baseball and football, swamp-rink hockey, (all of which required sufficient friends to be "picked") and find-a-hill sledding.

My kids have organized/moderated/professional-equipment baseball, football, soccer, hockey, and volleyball (where all the kids get some chance to play. There are decent parks where my kids can sled.

(I am seriously conflicted as to whether my kids or I had it better--and I often did not have enough friends to be picked for a team.)

-

We were the heroic defenders of liberty and freedom who had defeated the monstrous hoards of fascists and militarists who threatened the world from overseas.

We are the oppressors in numerous petty squabbles in which many people die, and even when we are doing the right thing, evil is never defeated.

-

I lived in abject, physical, fear of nuclear war. (I'm young enough to have never done the KYAG duck and cover. By the time I was in school, everyone realized that there would be no escape.)

My kids are growing up without that fear.

-

We grew up with an understanding that some people just weren't quite as good as the rest of us. (Not in my house, where my parents would have been aghast to hear such silliness, but most of my neighbors believed it.)

My kids are growing up surrounded by people who generally accept the basic equality of all people--they go to school with handicapped kids, kids of different races, people of different religions. People who have superiority complexes are at least sufficiently intimidated by "societal norms" to keep their opinions away from my kids.

-

By getting a job at GM, my Dad was able to take long vacations in which we saw nearly all the states by the time I was twelve.

My wife and I can never adjust our separate vacation schedules to get the kids more than three states distant from Ohio.

- - -

I think every era has its good and bad qualities. I was certainly not "scarred" by growing up in the fifties. My kids do not seem too badly damaged by their environment.

(I do miss burning leaves.)


------------------
Tom~

[Bored2001]

When you were in grade school how many arithmetic problems did you have a day?

I had aprx 100 per day. From what I hear from my parents they had like 10. ( yea yea, only a factor of 10, but hey, it's a generally good number to exaggerate =) )

What was the highest Math course offered in your High school?

I have Calculus Ab at the moment, but we offer algebra, algebra 2, Geometry, Trig, Statistics and calc ab and bc.

Honors classes?

AP classes?

Oh, not to mention that since our science has advanced so much we have to learn more.

Todays students DO have more work then the students in the fifties.

Anyway, back to the OP. I personally like the present. We have far more creature comforts =)
~Bored2001

[mangeorge]

All that doesn't mean much to us, Bored2001, unless we know what grade level you're in. If it's the third grade, that's pretty impressive. But if you're in your third year at Harvard, well...
Peace,
mangeorge

[Bored2001]

hehe, 11th grade. I was just pointing out that in the 50's standards were MUCH lower. Then I seemed to be refuted by experience. I have to defend my argument don't I?

Oh yea, and Harvard sucks anyway. I would never go there.

[egkelly]

In viewing the movies of the 1950's, you can learn a lot about life in the USA-"then" vs "now". One thing I've noticed: America was a lot cleaner then-people didn't throw their trash around the way they do now (of course, fast food chains were but a dream in Ray Kroc's brain back then). Another thing: people dressed much better back them-the typical college student wore a jacket and tie to classes-as opposed to the backward baseball cap, size XXXL grunge look favored today. The girls also took more care of their appearence. Am I a retro? maybe-but in some respects I'd rather this be 1950 iso 2000!

[manhattan]

Lemme guess. You're a white guy.

------------------
Change Your Password, Please (http://204.95.48.199/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ubbmisc.cgi?action=getannounce&ForumNumber=3&Start=2451545.99&End=2451911&Session=2451598.1854) and don't use HTML, as it has been disabled, but you can learn about superscripts here (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000795.html)

[justwannano]

The Standards were not lower.

You cannot justify calling having calculus and trig problems standard because they generally were only touched upon in the curriculem at that time.

How much homework do you bring home a day?
Study Hall?????
IIRC it was generally considered the norm to have 20minutes per class homework.If you recall any really old movies you see the boy carring the girls books home.Those things were heavy I'll tell you.
As the father of 2 I can tell you that neither would bring home books because their homework was done in school.
That carries on into college because my son still doesn't bring homework home. He is on the Deans List by the way.
Has it ocurred to you yet that the workload may be easier.

[justwannano]

Another point.

Throw away your calculator and see how many you can do.
Just for fun see if you can find a slide rule and try that.
It was a whole different world Kiddo

[Crystalguy]

And I neglected to mention segregation. "Colored" waiting rooms in bus and train stations. "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms. "Coloreds" to the back of the bus. Black men, full grown, routinely called "Boy" by whites. Black women routinely called "Girls" by whites. As in, "I have a boy to do the lawn and a girl who comes in to clean twice a week." I never attended school with a black person and don't remember seeing any in college. This was Texas in the fifties.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by justwannano:
Another point.

Throw away your calculator and see how many you can do.
Just for fun see if you can find a slide rule and try that.
It was a whole different world Kiddo

Very good point, justwannano. I wonder how many students today can find a square root without their calculator. I remember having to do all that simple math on scratch paper.
And don't forget pre-computer research for a paper. And then having to write that paper longhand. Do they still use "Bluebooks"?
Peace,
mangeorge

[Bored2001]

How much homework do you bring home a day? Study Hall?????

Usuaully a few hours per night, but sometimes I just brush it off. I usually do well enough on the tests and other high end works do be able to simply ignore my homework. I learn the stuff in class, I don't see the point in so much homework sometimes. I, however, am Not the norm. I may seem like i'm bragging, but i'm not, this is the truth.

IIRC it was generally considered the norm to have 20minutes per class homework
What the heck is IIRC?

The standard in my district is 30 minutes of hw per class per day.

If you recall any really old movies you see the boy carring the girls books home.
Your point? Those were the freaking movies!!! and I suppose you think the matrix is real too!

If I was actually dumb enough to carry all my books around school i'd have around 40 pounds of paper on my back.

That carries on into college because my son still doesn't bring homework home. He is on the Deans List by the way.

Well, most professors that I have met don't even give homework, but they assign aprx 100 pages of reading a night per class.

Has it ocurred to you yet that the workload may be easier.
No.

Throw away your calculator and see how many you can do.

I rarely use my calculator in my calculus class.
Then again... if I had a TI 89....

*shudder* i've seen those slide rules... point taken.

I wonder how many students today can find a square root without their calculator. 729^(1/2) = 27
3 * 200 = 600, 3 * 43 = 129
600 + 129 = 729
80 * 3 = 240, 3 * 1 = 3
240 + 3 = 243

729 = 243 x 3 = 81 x 3 x 3 = 9 x 9 x 3 x 3


I remember having to do all that simple math on scratch paper. And don't forget pre-computer research for a paper. And then having to write that paper longhand. Do they still use "Bluebooks"?

I concede here. Research is alot easier

[Bored2001]

Study hall at my school? What's that? :rolleyes:

[justwannano]

Bored2001

If you are as you say and you want to sell stock options in your future,I'll buy.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Is it a challenge to find square roots which are integers?

FTR: Every age had its own challenges. I think sciene and mathematics are taught earlier now than in the past, but literature, art, music and the humanities in general are not dealt with as thoroughly. I also believe that evaluation methods are much more quantitative now, due to class sizes, etc. This tends to emphasize taxonimic and recognition skills while de-emphasizing deeper analysis.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

[Moose and Squirrel]

Todays students DO have more work then the students in the fifties.

(1) That's not necessarily a bad thing. Think about it.

(2) A lot has happened in the past 50 years. Maybe you have more work because there's more to learn and understand?

[tracer]

Luxury! Why, when I was your age, we didn't have any of them fancy-schmancy slide rules. We had to work out math problems by moving the rocks around the outside of Stonehenge. And weeeeeeeeee liked it!

[Bored2001]

Is it a challenge to find square roots which are integers?

Nope, neither are decimals, but it's just incredibly annoying.

I also believe that evaluation methods are much more quantitative now, due to class sizes, etc. This tends to emphasize taxonimic and recognition skills while de-emphasizing deeper analysis.

Maybe, I wouldn't know. Britain may be right when they call us uncultured =)


(1) That's not necessarily a bad thing. Think about it.


Didn't say it was a bad thing.


(2) A lot has happened in the past 50 years. Maybe you have more work because there's
more to learn and understand?


EXACTLY! You can thank sputnik for causing the math and science revolution.

[Holly]

I, for one, am extremely grateful that I am alive now. I would rather live now than at any time in the past. My kids will have it even better.

Reading my mom's high school yearbook (she graduated in 1953) I was disturbed to see that every single female student said her future goal was to be a "wife and mother". Except my mom. She declared she wanted to be a "grease monkey".

When my mom went to college (Illinios State University) her drafting professor was furious that she had enrolled in his class. On the first day of school, he announced, "Everyone check your schedules. Be sure you're supposed to be in this class." Silence. "Check your schedules again. Someone is not supposed to be in this class." Silence. Finally, he walked up to my mom's table and said, "Let me see your schedule". She was the first female student, ever, to take drafting at ISU.

I'm a nurse, a traditionally female profession, but I could be a doctor or a nuclear physicist or anything else I want to be. I have choices. I have a future. Although I've been a "traditional" sort of wife for ten years, I don't have to be. My husband and I are partners; we're a team. I don't feel subjugated to him.

I don't worry about whether or not I'm allowed to wear white shoes after Labor Day. I can wear jeans and scrubs and tee-shirts. (Thank goodness I don't have to wear a white dress and one of those stupid hats to work- nursing has changed a lot, too.) I can dress up if I want, but I don't have to. I don't have to go to church. I don't have to look down on people who aren't in the same income bracket as me, or who aren't the same color as me. My kids play with children of all races and backgrounds; there is so much to learn from people of other cultures. (I recently perfected my tortilla-making technique, and I'm almost purely Swedish. :))

The 1950's might be a nice time for reminiscing. I just wouldn't want to live there.

[Bored2001]

YOU GO GIRL!

[egkelly]

Thanks for all of the replie. Is it possible that we are at the end of a fashion cycle? Thay maybe the sweatpants/sneaker/backwards baseball cap thing is dying out? As for the talk about education being better now than in the 50's-I don't buy it-my dad attended public highscool, and I still have his HS notebooks-he took LATIN in HS, also geography and advanced mathematics. I seem to recall several well-publicised incidents where college freshpersons? were tested in basic points of geography-after 12 years of the best American education (in the 90's) many had trouble locating Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, on a blank globe!

[Hey Hey Paula]

Well, maybe the clothes in the 50's were cooler - certainly dressier - but the hairstyles? No thanks! Most young women today cannot even conceive of only washing their hair once or twice a week, or having a standing appointment at a beauty parlor to get their hair washed and set. And the undergarments? Anyone who complains that pantyhose are uncomfortable has obviously never worn a girdle! Or a long-line bra - do they even still make those?

Not to mention that in the 50's there were no soft contact lenses, no MRI's or CAT scans, no birth control pills, no (fill in one thing that has made your life easier or saved the life of a loved one - it won't take you long to think of something!)

------------------
"The analyst went barking up the wrong tree, of course. I never should have mentioned unicorns to a Freudian." -- Dottie ("Jumpers" by Tom Stoppard)

[tracer]

Holly wrote:

I recently perfected my tortilla-making technique,

So, have you seen the image of the Virgin Mary in one of them yet? :)

[Bored2001]

Thanks for all of the replie. Is it possible that we are at the end of a fashion cycle?


Exactly, so it's a moot point.


-I don't buy it-my dad attended publichighscool, and I still have his HS notebooks-he took LATIN in HS, also geography andadvanced mathematics. I seem to recall several well-publicised incidents where college freshpersons? were tested in basic points of geography-after 12 years of the bestAmerican education (in the 90's) many had trouble locating Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, on a blank globe!


I would have tooken latin if it was offered at my school. The reason they don't offer it is because it's a dead language. No one uses it, and it's pretty much useless(except for chopping up words and deriving their meanings).

What kind of mathematics?
Most high schools in my area offer Algebra, Geometry, Algebra 2, Trigonometry/precalculus, Ap Calculus AB(1) AP Calculus BC(2), and AP statistics.

Geography? Seriously, how useful is that? I know where the major countries of the world are. I'm not gonna care what the name of every little island in the phillipines are.

Concerning the college freshmen test; Most collegians do not take geography, but rather they take the hardcore sciences: Biology, Chemistry and Physics.

[tomndebb]

Well, now, Bored, you're changing subjects. First you complained that it is more difficult, today. Now you dismiss the work that was done "then" as being irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, it would not make it easier to do. The amount and difficulty of the work for most high school kids has probably not changed that much and you're going to have to come up with much better arguments to convince us otherwise.

As to your dismissal of Latin and Geography, you have simply displayed for the whole world to see that you may be a competent budding techno-geek, but you have no understanding of anything outside your little mathematical world.

Latin is dead and is (possibly) less useful now than forty years ago. However, mastery of Latin prepares one to take on a large number of other languages; not just the obvious Romance languages, but all of the different Indo-European languages in that learning to think "outside the Englisgh box" prepares one to more readily understand how languages are put together.

A knowledge of Latin also allows one to read a huge amount of History, Philosophy, Theology, and the earliest treatises in that upstart body of knowledge we call "Science." It does not help the tunnel-visioned "find the next fact without understanding the context" geek, but the people who have the wit and breadth of vision to actually create the new ideas can learn much from it.

Geography was never "learning the capitals of countries." Geography provided an understanding of who owned (or at least controlled) which resources that we would fight over in the next war and the obstacles to extracting and shipping those resources or defending those resources from assault. It provided the knowledge of which ethnic and religious groups lived in adjacent regions or were intermixed in areas where they might decide to fight. For people who feel that a citizen of the world should have a knowledge of the world, this was useful stuff. For people whose only goal is their next grade or paystub, it is probably less meaningful.

------------------
Tom~

[AHunter3]

All personnel are hereby prohibited from showing up to work in clothing that is unsuitable to doing physical labor in (non-durable dry clean only fabrics, for instance), or from wearing garments obviously derived from sadomasochistic culture (neck ties, pantyhose, high heels, etc).

Please observe the following guidelines:

Pants or skirts and tops shall be of durable cotton or linen blend, with comfortably placed pockets and with garment design such as to reduce as much as possible unnecessary pulling and limitations of range of motion. A comfortable worker is a productive worker.

Shoes shall be lightweight and flat with adequate arch support, shall be securely affixed to the foot, and shall provide adequate ventilation.

Unnecessary clothing accessories that bind or reduce freedom of movement or require ongoing attention to maintain are actively discouraged.

Within these parameters, please feel free to select clothing you find suitable to yourself on a daily basis.



------------------
Disable Similes in this Post

[Bored2001]

First you complained that it is more difficult,today

I wasn't complaining. If you read my original argument I was basically calling the 50's people stupid(with reference to their Science and mathmatical skill), and because of the increased difficulty of today's High schools we are not(Ok, we are, but not to that extent.)

However, you are correct in a sense. I should have made myself clearer.


you have simply displayed for the whole world to see that you may be a competent budding techno-geek, but you have no understanding of anything outside your little mathematical world.

That was an uncalled for Insult. Intelligent, but in a 3rd graderish sort of way.

FYI I hate math.


Latin is dead and is (possibly) less useful now than forty years ago. However, mastery of
Latin prepares one to take on a large number of other languages;

Any langauge will do that, INCLUDING ENGLISH. English is composed distantly, from all the romance langauges. Anyway, Latin was basically ditched in favor of the romance languages for their practical use. I however, would still like to take Latin, but unfortunitly I can't get a class.


in that learning to think "outside the English box" prepares one to more readily understand how languages are put together.

English is the one langauge that totally defies language organization.

And once again all langauages will do that.(fyi, at least in my district foriegn language is required for graduation)


knowledge of Latin also allows one to read a huge amount of History, Philosophy,
Theology, and the earliest treatises in that upstart body of knowledge we call "Science."


Oh, and i'm sure you couldn't find translations.(this excludes of course poetry which may use the langauge's form for expresion.)
Geography was never "learning the capitals of countries."

What boosts the IQ higher? Geography or applied mathmatics? Applied mathmatics isn't something you can pick up from the general society.

For people whose only goal is their next grade

I don't give a damn about my grades. I care about what I learn. Usually they go hand in hand, but not this semester...

[Holly]

The girls also took more care of their appearence.
The key word really is appearance; they didn't take better care of themselves. I have the misfortune of having to see old women's feet on a daily basis. Because they had to wear those tortorous pointy-toe/high-heeled/mincy-foot little shoes, most older women have twisted, deformed, constantly painful feet.

The few exceptions to this rule are my patients who immigrated here from Mexico, women who spent many years barefoot or lightly shod. Their feet are in great condition even at 80 or 90 years old.

Those women with the twisted feet just can't let it go, either. They insist on continuing to wear those horrible shoes, even when this causes them to teeter around precariously and invite broken hips. At the same time, they groan and cry about how badly their feet and joints hurt. I realize I'm generalizing here, but as usual I don't really care. (And no, I don't hate old ladies; I love them. I just don't understand them sometimes.)

Also, I could not tolerate washing my hair only once a week. How vile and repulsive. (shudder)
So, have you seen the image of the Virgin Mary in one of them yet?
No, even better: Cecil's image. I'm setting up a shrine.

[egkelly]

A 1950's TV question: one of my earliest memories (actually early 1960's) of Saturday morning TV, was a really weird TV show put on by the US Army. If memory serves me, it was called "THE BIG PICTURE". It seemed to deal with military life, and had lots of pictures of tanks, guns, etc.-I rmember thinking it would be really cool to drive a tank whwn I grew up!
Anyway, what happened to this show-did any videotapes of it survive?

[tomndebb]

That was an uncalled for Insult. Intelligent, but in a 3rd graderish sort of way.
No. That was a very mild reproof. You insist on expressing yourself in a text medium using words that do not convey what you apparently mean. (Your repeated use of the word stupid (indicating an incapacity to learn or a desire to not learn) when you actually meant uneducated or, perhaps, ignorant (not knowing) is a clear example.)

I doubt that anyone will challenge the idea that the math that is offered in high schools, today, is superior to that offered in the 50's. (Of course, there are a lot of kids today who are not taking those math classes, so it is not possible to say that all kids today are better educated.)

You also couched your discussion in terms of workload, then had to change the terms of the discussion when that backfired on you. Your original statement saidI'm suprised that no one has mentioned how stupid americans were in the fifties. The only reason are schools are so horridly bad now is because School is so much harder then in the past.and you have just repeatedIf you read my original argument I was basically calling the 50's people stupid(with reference to their Science and mathmatical skill)

The workload is not, necessarily, harder now. Some of the technical subject matter clearly is harder while some of the tools available to students, now, simplify many of the tasks kids do today. Neither you nor I have presented figures showing how many kids actually took the difficult subjects in either era. I won't drag out hoary stories of walking to school 10 miles, uphill both ways, through 7-foot snowdrifts in July (and liking it) and I am not going to claim that school was harder for the typical kid 40 years ago. For you to make the across-the-board statement that kids then were stupid and school today is harder, however, indicates that you don't know what school then was like and that you still have some work to do on your communication skills.

You don't seem to be particularly stupid (as the word should be used), so pay a bit of attention and realize that if you blurt out your thoughts in any word that comes to hand without being sure that the words says what you mean, you are going to get your ears pinned back in this environment. I'm not telling you to go away. I'm suggesting that you post more carefully.

------------------
Tom~

[mangeorge]

Main Entry: 1stu·pid
Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be astonished -- more at TYPE
Date: 1541
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS
4 a : lacking interest or point b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <this stupid flashlight won't work>
- stu·pid·ly adverb
- stu·pid·ness noun
synonyms STUPID, DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. STUPID implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>. DULL suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. DENSE implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. CRASS suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. DUMB applies to an exasperating obtuseness or lack of comprehension <too dumb to figure out what's going on>.
----------------------------------------
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
--------------------------------------
Sorry about the long post, but I think it important for Bored2001 to understand the difference between stupid and unknowing.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Bored2001]

If I could voice my opinions vocally I would, but this is a message board, so I can't.

Exact langauge is something I hate(and am horribly bad at). I prefer to write as I would actually say it. This is my problem I suppose.


I'm suprised that no one has mentioned how stupid americans were in the fifties. The only reason are schools are so horridly bad now is because School is so much harder then in the past.

My own words. I left the gap between me calling the people of the 50's stup--er ignorant and the reference to math and science skills up to the reader.

Look at the general/advanced classes back then and now. Our math and science skills are far above then what they once were.

Going off on another tangent.... Because of these increased skills do you think that the general standard of life has been raised?

~Bored2001

[justwannano]

Hey Bored. Whats your point. If you really believe what you are saying then you must agree that you were stupid when you were in 10th grade.Or don't I understand your youthful rantings.

[Sam Stone]

In some technical high schools kids could take calculus all the way up to differential equations, even back in the 1920's.

Sorry, I don't buy the 'school is harder' argument. My grandparents had to memorize the multiplicating tables up to some godawful number like 50 X 50. When I was in school in the 1970's we had to to memorize the tables up to 20X20.

Another thing kids had to practice then (and don't now) was penmanship.

My Grandmother took her high school in a rural 1-room school, and she had to study Latin and memorize all the countries of the world. Her handwriting was impeccable, she was very well spoken and well read, and wrote very eloquently.

Today, there are many, many high school grads who cannot construct a proper paragraph, who cannot spell, and cannot relate even simple ideas on paper. The University of Alberta used to require that all students pass a writing competancy exam by the end of their second year. This exam was NOT difficult. You were given a number of subjects, and simply had to write a 700 word essay on any one of them. You were graded on spelling, paragraph construction, and ability to carry a logical argument from start to finish. The grading was pretty lax, and you were allowed something like seven or eight spelling errors in 700 words, plus you were allowed a number of structural errors. The prime requirement was simply that you be able to communicate your thoughts to the reader.

They had to drop that exam requirement because there were too many kids who simply couldn't pass it, even after several remedial English classes in University. I was a marker back then, and read many of them. The quality of the prose was apalling. There were many, many essays that simply meandered and were totally incoherent. And these were kids who were already in University and supposedly the cream of the crop.

[evilbeth]

I was just going to drop by and say that fast food did exist in the 50s. But I see that we have moved on from the silly reflecting stage and it is getting ugly so I will leave.

------------------
I always try to do things in chronological order.

[Bored2001]

~Justwannano

EH???? And just when I thought I was making myself clear. My arguement(revised) is basically that the standards for math and the sciences was generally lower then the standards are today.

~Dhanson


In some technical high schools kids could take calculus all the way up to differential
equations, even back in the 1920's.


Thats semester 1 of calculus; Derivitives. Read the above, most high schools that I know of offer 3 semesters more and a year of statistics.


My grandparents had to memorize the multiplicating tables up to some godawful number like 50 X 50.

Well thats not too hard, break down the numbers and use the shortcuts.

21 * 20 = 21 x 10 = 210 x 2 = 420.

Besides, we have calculators now. Technology aids much. This may seem like it makes school easier, and it probably does, but then more time goes into understanding of higher level mathmatics. Arithmetic is a rather low standard math.


Another thing kids had to practice then (and don't now) was penmanship

I need to take that class ^_^

But anyway, the revelence would be?

As for the rest of your argument; wow, those people are pathetic. But it makes sense for the math and science's standards have been boosted while the languages have been neglected. Today's society is based around mathmatics and the sciences.

Hum... I think I backtracked over a little of my own argument here, but it doesn't matter. The purpose of debate is to change opinions anyway.

~Bored2001

[tracer]

Bored2001 wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------
mastery of Latin prepares one to take on a large number of other languages;
--------------------------------------------

Any langauge will do that, INCLUDING ENGLISH.

I disagree!

English grammar, compared to the grammars of other Western languages, is phenomenally simple. Nouns and adjectives in English do not decline for different cases. English pronouns do decline for case, but English only has two cases: nominative and objective.

(English spelling, on the other hand, seems to have been invented by the Marquis de Sade. Even French pronunciation is more predictable.)

Furthermore, if English is your primary (native) language, learning more English will probably not help you learn foreign languages. Learning your first foreign langauge will, however, make it much easier to learn subsequent foreign languages.

I like to recommend Esperanto as the first foreign language one learns, since it's not burdened with irregular verbs and draws its word roots from many diverse sources. (Most of its word roots are, admittedly, from Romance languages, but there are some Germanic, Slavic, and even a few Asian root words in Esperanto, too.)

[justwannano]

Thank you Bored 2001 for your input into the subject at hand.

Other things that I remember about the 50's
Beatniks culture

The change from flatheads to V8s

DAs

Almost never saw a deer

The Mass in latin

The end of the coal burning Locomotives

Transistor Radios

TV

[mangeorge]

Very slight nitpick here;
Ford went from flathead V8's to overhead valves in the early or mid 50's, if I remember correctly.
I actually knew some old "beats" when I was a teenager. Smoked my first "boo" with them. I thought I was pretty cool. :cool:
And thanks, for getting this back on topic.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Sam Stone]

Bored: Apparently, you haven't taken a whole lot of calculus. The 'differential equations' you get in an intro calculus course are not what I'm talking about.

I was just about to describe them to you, but after a minor in Math in university and about a dozen university calculus courses, I can't remember.

[WhiteNight]

Phantmwise: What kind of person am I?

You and Neutron are the type I'd like to hang out with, concerned with who a person is, more than their appearance.

Not that I dress in raggedy dirty clothes regularly, but when I do, as when I'm going walking in the park, I think I deserve as much respect as when I'm dressed up for a dinner party.

[justwannano]

Yes, Mangeorge, you are correct. Post should have read"Change from Flatheads to Overhead valve V8s. MHA

[Crystalguy]

General Motors made overhead valve engines back in the 40s and probably earlier. I just cannot visualize the engines in cars older than some 40s models. Ford switched to overhead valve engines (V-8 and straight 6) in 1954, IIRC.

------------------
Crystalguy

[justwannano]

I Don't think that our 49 Pontiac had a OHV engine. It Was loaded with extras so I thought it was probably the cats meow for its time.I know the 46 chevys were not ohv engines.
IIRC the neighbor had a 53 Chevy with a ohv 6 Thats the first I remember.I will readily concede though.

[OldBroad]

The 50's were great time to be a kid. I was 8 in 1950. I was in high school during a wonderful time - there was so much happening!

And life was so much simpler. The big temptations were cigarettes, alcohol and sex. VD was curable - no AIDS. My kids were born in the early 70's and their teen years were much more difficult and terrifying than mine were.

Although I probably would have loved being in high school during the late 40's, I know how limited my choices would have been as a young adult female in the 50's. I can't imagine what it must have been like as a non-white person - black, brown, yellow, didn't matter much if you weren't white.

I have fond memories from those days, but it wasn't necessarily "better".

[egkelly]

Everybody is right! The 1950's really were a time of repression, fear, and hypocrisy. Therefore, I've changed my favorite decade-it is now the 1930's! Art Deco, fred Astaire, FDR-and men wore hats!!

[PeeQueue]

Whenever I'm going to make a really big purchase, I make sure to dress extra shabbily, just to see how the salesperson reacts to me. It is fun. :)

PeeQueue

[justwannano]

Hey eg

Don't forget Big Al, prohibition, and the charleston and flag pole sitting. Oh my achin butt.

[Eve]

"Don't forget Big Al, prohibition, and the charleston and flag pole sitting. Oh my achin butt."

—Umm, I think that was the 1920s; though I have no idea who Big Al was. You don't mean Alan Suess from Laugh-In?

[justwannano]

Al Capone

Well what happened in the 30s then?

[PeeQueue]

Capone

[Eve]

OK—that was the '20s—early '30s you're thinking of (Prohibition was from 1919–32, I think). The Charleston was 1923 and flagpole sitting late '20s.

1930s? Lessee. Good stuff: the golden age of films, great Big Band music, gorgeous, flattering clothes for men & women, increasing social freedom for women, introduction of air-conditioning.

Bad stuff: the Depression, the Dust Bowl, continuing repression of minorities, increased hostilities overseas.

I'd say it's a toss-up. Besides, in 20 years it'll be the 1950s, and you're screwed all over again!

[justwannano]

Well I just looked up Al Capone. He was convicted of Income tax evasion and imprisoned in 1931. Not much of an influence probably. :o..:0

[december]

One difference is that people work more overtime today. At least, my wife, daughters, son-in-law and myself do. (Although I confess to sometimes posting messages to The Straight Dope from work.)

Anyhow, in the 50's in New York most could count on working 9 to 5. It was acceptible for a suburban commuter to walk out of a meeting, saying, "I've got to make my train.)

[december]

One difference is that people work more overtime today. Certainly, my wife, daughters, son-in-law and myself do. (Although I confess to sometimes posting messages to The Straight Dope from work.)

Anyhow, in the 50's in New York most could count on working 9 to 5. It was acceptible for a suburban commuter to walk out of a meeting, saying, "I've got to make my train.)

[december]

One difference is that people work more overtime today. Certainly, my wife, daughters, son-in-law and myself do. (Although I confess to sometimes posting messages to The Straight Dope from work.)

Anyhow, in the 50's in New York most could count on working 9 to 5. It was acceptible for a suburban commuter to walk out of a meeting, saying, "I've got to make my train."

[tracer]

Plus, all the appliances manufactured in the 1950s had those rounded corners on them, so you never had to worry about hurting yourself by bumping into them. (You'd impale yourself on those big "fin" taillights on the backs of cars, instead.)

[justwannano]

Right tracer but getting your tit caught in the wringer was a real possibility.

[Bored2001]

~tracer

The langauge thing was just my own experiance I suppose. I was able to relate lots of words when I took French.

Grammer in english easier? English is 90% memorization! The romance langauges at least have rules that are REGULARLY followed.

~Dhanson
I do not have intro to calculus.

Well, I admit I haven't had very much calculus. This is my first year, but it's AP calculus and is supposedly the equivalent to a college course.

I learned differential calculus as being derivitives. Dy/dx and such. Integral calculus is integrations.

can you define yours please?

I still maintain argument that the standards have been raised.

[Holly]

1950's architecture bites. Absolutely hideous.

[Sam Stone]

I believe Duesenberg made a 4-valve per cylinder, overhead cam engine in the early 1930's. They may even have had a supercharged version if I recall correctly.

Those engines had something like 250-300 hp, at a time when the average car engine was probably more like 50-75.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Bored2001:
I learned differential calculus as being derivitives. Dy/dx and such. Integral calculus is integrations.

can you define yours please?


That's not what's meant by differential equations. Finding the derivative of a polynominal is basic calculus, learned in high school.

Differential equations are used in second year college classes. They are of value in, as an example, finding recurrance values for continuous linear systems.

Quick example:

Picture a linear differential equation with constant coefficients A:
A5 y''''' + A4 y'''' + A3 y''' + A2 y'' + A1 y' + A0 y = 0

(where the prime mark (') shows derivatives with respect to t, so A5 is the coefficient of the fifth derivative y with respect to t)

y(t) can be reproduced discretely by a recurrence relation of the form B5 y(5dt) + B4 y(4dt) + B3 y(3dt) + B2 y(2dt) + B1 y(dt) + B0 y(0) = 0
where "dt" is the time increment of the simulation.

So, given the coefficients Ai of the differential equation, can you determine the coefficients Bi of the corresponding recurrence relation?

It's not, in other words, high school calculus derivatives.

- Rick

[Eve]

Remember, too, that up till (I think) the 1940s, Saturday was considered a half-workday!

As far as architecture goes, the U.S. was a much prettier place before the 1950s, when so many of the gorgeous 19th century buildings were demolished to put up the hideous glass boxes that now pass for cityscapes.

[tracer]

Bored2001 wrote:

Grammer in english easier? English is 90% memorization! The romance langauges at least have rules that are REGULARLY followed.

*Sigh* English SPELLING is 90% memorization. English grammar is dirt simple and is as regular as that in any Romance language. Don't even get me started on the irregular-verb-form count in other languages vs. English.

[Drain Bead]

I agree, clothes do not mean everything, but every time I see a college student dressed like a bum, I feel that something is wrong.

Hate to take this all the way back to the original topic, but I'm just starting to read GD again after a long hiatus.

I'm a senior in college, and when I wake up at 7:45 to make it to my 8:30 class on time, I'll be damned if I'm going to put on makeup or curl my hair or wear a dress. They're lucky I can't go to class in my pajamas. It's not a matter of personal style for me, it's comfort and convenience. If I'm going to be sitting down for two hours at 8:30 in the morning, I'm not going to make it worse by waking up an hour earlier to make sure I get to class looking like a fashion plate. It's uncomfortable, and I lose valuable sleep over it, so why even bother? To paraphrase DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince, "I go to school to learn, not for a fashion show."

[egkelly]

Excuse me! I think that dressing well implied a certain respect for the professor! Granted, nobody has to dress like a fashion plate, but at least clean clothes, without holes, and outer garments without obscene expressions printed on them would seem to be appropriate. I live near several colleges, and I can verify that many students do resemble the local homeless people.

[tracer]

Eve wrote:

OK, I used to dress in thrift-shop glamour when I was in college (nifty frocks from the '30s and '40s, bought for a song at Veteran's Warehouse), but that's me . . .

I've always assumed that the main reason a particular mode of dress is chosen in college is: it helps you get laid. So, did your clothing choice work for you in this department? (God knows nothing seemed to help me.)

[PeeQueue]

As a side note, the large international company I work for just instituted a year round, every day dress down policy for every branch from now on. I don't hear many people complaining about it - that's for sure.

Maybe a new topic should be started about this.

PeeQueue

[Eve]

This was in the late 1970s: EVERYBODY was getting laid. I could've worn a bubble-wrap hat and dressed like Howdy Doody and I could've gotten laid.

But yeah, I guess I got a higher quality of men by dressing like Claudette Colbert.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by egkelly:
Excuse me! I think that dressing well implied a certain respect for the professor! Granted, nobody has to dress like a fashion plate, but at least clean clothes, without holes, and outer garments without obscene expressions printed on them would seem to be appropriate. I live near several colleges, and I can verify that many students do resemble the local homeless people.

The professor works for you. His/her job is to teach, not to judge fashion.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Eve]

I'm going to give everyone conniption fits by agreeing with Drain on this one. College students are SUPPOSED to "look like bums," that's part of the eclat of being in college. After you graduate and join the real world, you start dressing like a grownup. But college is one of the times it's excusable to wear sloppy sweats, jeans and T-shirts.

OK, I used to dress in thrift-shop glamour when I was in college (nifty frocks from the '30s and '40s, bought for a song at Veteran's Warehouse), but that's me . . .

[Finagle]

Originally posted by Eve:
This was in the late 1970s: EVERYBODY was getting laid.



Well, actually, introverted computer science types weren't doing so hot. Times haven't changed so much in that regard either.

To get back to the OP, have you ever looked back at pictures of people enjoying themselves in the 1950's (and even earlier, in the early 1900's)? Even in hot weather, people are wearing heavy broadcloth, suits, often hats. Yuck.
My favorite example is the Dick Van Dyke show. Even on weekends, he always wore a suit and tie. Sheesh.

[tracer]

Finagle wrote, re getting laid in the 1970s:

Well, actually, introverted computer science types weren't doing so hot. Times haven't changed so much in that regard either.

Tell me about it. (Grumble, grumble)