ducators would avail themselves so poorly of an educational opportunity. I temper that with the realization that the education majors were attending the class for considerably different reasons than the rest of us. For them it was 'continuing education' or whatever the catch phrase of the time. They were more or less required to be seeking advanced degrees as a condition of their job, and even that particular class may have been required of them. They were also out in the 'working world' and oddly enough education wasn't the center of their existence.
Another observation: Even in studying multivariate statistics, the focus was on the "High School and Beyond" data set. In graduating to advanced work these folks had gone from studying teacher's aids and how to give a chalk talk, to analyzing educational statistics. The vocational education emphasis was still there. Perhaps this is a holdover from the days when my grandmother graduated from the North Dakota State Normal School. "Normal School," you've got to love that. It's what they called the teacher's college. Was that normal? [Sorry, couldn't resist] But seriously, teaching was treated as a vocation, like welding or diesel mechanics. Teachers didn't go to a university, they went to a vocational school. Much of this view of teacher training apparently still persists. Whether that is good or bad is an argument for another day.
Saturday, March 30, 2002- - -
".. the past should be left to the historians." Gerald Ford, as quoted by Robert Asprey in his book War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History. Asprey's book gives an outstanding overview of guerrilla warfare since the days of the Scythians. It also illustrates why you shouldn't believe everything you read..
Discussing the build-up for the Vietnam war during the Johnson years, Asprey says (pages 814-815) In addition to standard arms and equipment, troops received rapid-firing Armalite rifles, at first the controversial M-16, later the improved M-14 which fired a lighter, 7.62-mm. round.
Yes, the M14 fires a 7.62mm, .308 caliber cartridge, but the M14 is an improved version of the WWII M1 and predates the M16 considerably. The M16 was controversial and the basic design was by Armalite, but the M16 fires the much lighter round, the 5.56mm, .223 cartridge. The controversy was at least partially over the adoption of a .22 caliber as a fighting rifle. Col. Jeff Cooper still refers to the M16 as a "poodle-shooter" and prefers the earlier and much more powerful 7.62mm round. Supposedly there were also a lot of problems with jamming at first with the M16 but these were supposedly remedied with cleaner-burning ammunition and chrome-plated chambers and bores. Some folks really liked the M16. It doesn't kick much so you can do a lot of shooting very fast. The ammunition is very light so you can carry a lot of it.
Some folks didn't care for the M16, however. They took the M14s away and gave me an M16. After firing it on the range I decided I wasn't a happy camper. The sights were rudimentary and the trigger was awful. 300 meters became a very long shot. The thin black plastic stocks broke when you whacked them on a tree. The loudest noise they made when you fired them was the sound of the recoil spring rattling as it compressed in the guide tube under your ear. They simply didn't instill a lot of confidence in me.
I must say that the current issue M16A2 is vastly superior to the original M16, with much better sights and trigger and a much stronger stock, and the new heavy bullet ammunition and faster rifling is supposed to extend the range to 500 meters or better. However, 300 meters would seem to be a long shot for any .22 caliber weapon in any sort of wind. I'd like to say I'd still prefer the old M14, but there is something to be said for the lighter rifle if I'm lugging it all day.
So how did I get off on that tangent? I guess I started pointing out that practically everything said about the modern US Infantryman's basic weapon in this passage is wrong in this well-received and generally excellent history book. This seems lik