@Alien
The problem is not just social but also transportation itself.

It would be hard to imagine to see an important surgeon getting ready for brain surgery hauled in by bicycle.

The cars need to be smaller and hybrids, or hydrogen run.

Carsharing apps and carbo footprint rewards could be an incentive. Also accident free riding, traffic assistance points for good drivers. There are plenty of ways to get cars to more use, but it's not the transportation but the people, riding 'em.

No difference if it's a bike, car, plane or boat.

I think the bikesharing idea is brilliant. And it works with the to expected hiccups rather well.

Sure there are some idiots using the bikes for spare parts and vandalize 'em but for a country and its people who are used to not care for the environment or about thy neighbor, it works really well.

I am often in the North of town and there are always mobikes available, plus you can spot them through their GPS system.

I also saw how they have been sunk in the river and mistreated or misplaced, but I see an increase of care about the bikes.

I see people intentionally putting them in places, easy to spot for others.

I think they are brilliant options for short distance transportation.

The size and physical features of the bikes should be adjustable, seats and handlebars for example.

On the other hand, if I plan a trip over 3 kilometers,

I wouldn't chose bikesharing,anyways.

I usually take them to my Walmart trips or to downtown and they are great for that.

The car thing, as a veteran car mechanic I think people complaining about cars are silly.
The car is a fantastic transportation method and much cleaner than people care to admit.

When I was in school we learned that cars have an efficiency quotient of 60% by 1989.
By today's standards I would assume it is in the 80% or even more.

Most air pollution didn't come from cars, but from production of electricity.
Water pollution from heavy industry, for example making batteries.

And we all know what the Fukushima power plant was for.

It's our customer demands, deciding if we buy a Smart 4/4 or a hybrid micro mobile, or the new flashy cheaper by a few hundred bucks heavy FORD F150 truck.

Some people jump on electric cars like they are Jesus reborn.

These cars are not clean at all, and never will be.
Unless you use your treadmill to recharge batteries out of cow dung.

I have a car, because I live in Dali and we need one, for short hauls we use the scooter, or the bicycle. Our monthly carbo-emissions are lower than our fellow city people.
So, I don't feel bad nor do I have to.

There is Uber, carsharing and many other options to use a car more ecologically.

Or use bike sharing, it isn't perfect but it gets you from A to B cheap with little to no effort and without investing in transportation or fear the theft of you bike.And it's fun.

I give it thumbs up and I also like to see tourists have a great time with these bikes.

Maybe these companies could add different options, like touring bikes for higher deposits or fees, and other upscale options such as frequent flyer miles.

@misfit
What you describe is more the job description of a referee or a judge.

A teacher should promote knowledge and information, nurture the student in a good learning environment, should be a fair and capable conductor of a large variety of teaching methods and tools. He should be creative in choosing teaching approaches and act skillfully on an interpersonal level, encouraging students and find ways to widen and focus a students interest, on academically and individually. A teacher should be fair and knowledgeable in many subjects beyond his teaching subject. He should build sufficiency and confidence in his students.

He should be a teacher, mentor, artist, buddy and counselor.

-That's my definition of a teacher-

The way you approach a students learning, wouldn't that be very restrictive?

I think a teacher should give opportunities, let students experiment, broaden the horizon of the students.

Putting them in a box with only the things students are good at, will bring the opposite of what you and I like, inspiration and knowledge.

If I told a student, that he can't play guitar because he is better at the piano, it would l make him a unhappy piano player, hopefully a great symphony will be the result of his depression, but it could also turn him away from music, because if he hates the piano, how could he ever be good at it.

So why not let him open a few more doors, and let him try the guitar, or other instruments he feels happy with. In the end practice makes a good musician, and what better way to practice, than loving the instrument you love and practice every free minute.

As other posters have written before, we have so little time with the students, how could I possible objectively, and with all fairness know, IF a student is good at this or that, in those specific 15 seconds I am judging him on that day?

What if I would have assessed the same question a day or just after a good lunch break?

I think we shouldn't close and lock door, they should stay open, enabling a return to.

In my life I have returned to certain passions and interests, skipping others and learning new things.

I think it is what most people do and naturally inclined to.

We were born learners, explorers and inventors, and choosing via a teacher-medium what one is good at will never bring excellence.

What learners also should be introduced to is rejection and how to deal with it.

When I was young and a teacher told me I could never be a fighter pilot, which was my dream job,
I took it for granted. When I learned what alternative ways are available to become one, it was already too late.

Now, I teach students to find out alternatives to reach there goals, and to extend their mental middle finger, towards teachers restricting their minds and dreams.

The probably best way is to switch between all sorts of methods, restriction and encouragement.

Some parents told me their kids enjoy a little pressure, while other don't. And often there are many available ways to use the right amount of each for the individual students psyche.

@misfit
I seriously doubt that Newton, Beethoven, van Gogh and the whole bunch of French enlightenment and renaissance are the product of teachers spending all their resources and time on them.

Most geniuses are developing through a hobby or an interest, very few get special attention from teachers. Then when having a certain level they become disciples or apprentices .

I would guess that 2/3 of all the excellent achievers are autodidacts or have little to no education. Also some of the amazing musicians in this world are not recognized as such, most people don't even know who Peter Greene or Eddie Hazel is.

Also I highly doubt that Einstein and his brain capacity could have received anymore new knowledge through knowledge induction, over him learning autonomously.

And as Alien states, why send the smart kids to a slow kids school, if they are such geniuses? Why wasting the dumb kids time with the smart kids incredible brain force?

There are many organizations sponsoring gifted kids.

That way you could start working there, or have enough time to deal with the loser-kids, not worth your effort.

But I guess then the average student deserving most of the time and the loser kids shouldn't be wasting the teachers time, right? lol

@misfit
How can you define by meeting a student 3 times for about 20 seconds per week, saying things they memorize as homework?

Is he lazy? Is he inapt? Does he understand? Is he on-level? Is he a bit slow? Or are my teaching approaches not stimulating him? Does he have learning disabilities?

I am saying the teacher should never be a judge on a young persons skills, development, future, or career choice.

His job is to give every child the same chance, disregarding his level. The tools and methods are out there. Online, in courses, colleges, training schools.

Let me ask you a question, why is it so important to be excellent at something? Is it better to give one or a very few students all your time and resources in hope they will keep on doing this?

Or isn't it equally great to give a lot of student a good education, over excellence. Excellence can also be self motivated. I don't think a little Beethoven needs a lot of teaching, I'd assume a little Beethoven needs difficulty, challenges, and different intuitions and style. I doubt that some of those parents with geniuses as kids go and spend a lot of money on tutoring.

Take first aid, if I had a crash being severely injured, I am happy with the random person, moderately trained as medic but capable of administering first aid. I'd take that guy to help me over waiting about 15 minutes for the fully trained M.D. to arrive.

As I tried to explain, teaching all students giving equal chances and motivating the underdogs does not take much more work than giving it all for the good students.

We are not used to it, or told this and that, on how to proceed with our classes.

Also we look at how we got taught in school.

In my opinion, the more difficult the class is the more you have to break with standards and traditional thinking approaches.

I have a question, what does it say if teachers only give their attention to good students?

You, the one who is naturally good at something, and naturally not needed much help, shall receive all my attention because you don't really need it. In order for you to succeed.

You who could most benefit from my attention, shall not receive it because I sentence you not worthy of my work effort. Because you will fail for sure, and all future efforts are a waste of time.

It's illogical to focus on 3-10 good students, and you simply don't need to. Because they need little to no motivation. Because it is easy for them. And they can work on their own.
So, why not help the students who actually really need it.

How much time do you HAVE TO spend on a good student, each class?

I mean it how much of your 45 minutes could you possible spend on good students form them to be more good? And how?

Mathematics, English, Science, Physics. I can't think of any subject, except maybe P.E., where you couldn't give hard tasks and work as homework or work at the beginning of the class, for all the Einsteins.

And then you can focus on the students most benefiting from actual help.

Maybe I am nuts but I have more time now than I ever had before.

Sometimes, I kid you not. I lay down all my tasks at the beginning of the class, get the groups ready find their challenge-mate and sit back there on my chair, reading a book for 30 minutes, observing, who does what, listening to their questions to the excellent students, them using skills and method to teach and share.
Win-win, they win grades I win time and observation time.

My teacher ones told me, - a lazy teacher is a good teacher-.

I didn't quite get what he meant when he threw me into the classroom at first. Now I do know.

All of my students made unbelievable progress, None of my students ever goes below a C. I literally have no below-average anymore.