朋友，歡迎您來發表、討論
2019年10月14日 9 點~12 點
漢清講堂 紀念戴明博士研討會
漢清講堂 紀念戴明博士研討會
時間：2019年(10月14日* 周一 9點~12點
地址：台北市新生南路三段88號2樓
電話：（02） 23650127
*William Edwards Deming (October 14, 1900 – December 20, 1993)
發表 (每人15~30分)：
王晃三：三一微功夫：戴明會怎麼看？
林公孚〈戴明法之我見--一切法因緣生〉
熊維強 遊戲中學習開發案例：橡皮筋遊戲的改善
鍾漢清 2019年戴明哲學的學習
(備課講課組織思考)心得/或從報紙 The Economist 等的"看圖研究"
李惠銘：過去一季在中華民國中小學校長協會對千位校長校上課：從"橡皮筋遊戲"出發的充實、整合
ˊˊ
(備課講課組織思考)心得/或從報紙 The Economist 等的"看圖研究"
李惠銘：過去一季在中華民國中小學校長協會對千位校長校上課：從"橡皮筋遊戲"出發的充實、整合
ˊˊ
座談；Deming Philosophy ；Deming 的淵博知識：人、文/道、圖
"The aim proposed here for any organization is for everybody to gain – stockholders, employees, suppliers, customers, community, the environment – over the long term." ~W. Edwards Deming 1993
"The aim proposed here for any organization is for everybody to gain – stockholders, employees, suppliers, customers, community, the environment – over the long term." ~W. Edwards Deming 1993
熊維強太太參加
---
需要午餐便當者，請通知。
----
2019年10月14日 13點~17點
下午1點到5點，有讀書座談，歡迎您參加：
討論主題：唐香燕【時光悠悠美麗島】；東海1959級【大度山風雲】
----
2019年10月14日 13點~17點
下午1點到5點，有讀書座談，歡迎您參加：
討論主題：唐香燕【時光悠悠美麗島】；東海1959級【大度山風雲】
討論主題：唐香燕【時光悠悠美麗島】；東海1959級【大度山風雲】
"The aim proposed here for any organization is for everybody to gain – stockholders, employees, suppliers, customers, community, the environment – over the long term."
W. Edwards Deming
1993In the Deming Institute's latest blog post, John Hunter reminds us that Dr. Deming has been preaching this message for decades. It's shocking to us that only now are some organizations beginning to embrace this philosophy. Enjoy the read!
2019年2次研習會 (每回2天，與Peter同台，完成法國開創的"擲橡皮筋遊戲"的改善。)
元月：以Deming 的The New Economics為主，《從統計品管到淵博知識》為輔。" 十四要點"先生：經營/管理；自我轉化；紅珠實驗
2019年1月底的影片
262 ROC中小學校長協會 課程模組(1) 一戴明博士的系統觀 熊維強
六月：Deming 的淵博知識系統出發：系統論；變異論；知識論；心理學
無影片
意外收獲：受贈《做農做工做佛》、20年前校長的勉勵函
2019年的故事之一：20年前福和國中校長
Is Congress rigged in favour of the rich?
A new study finds that partisanship matters more than the influence of the wealthy
American politicians often rail against the undue influence of the rich. Bernie Sanders, a left-wing senator from Vermont, has decried a political system that allows billionaires to “elect the candidates of their choice”. On the campaign trail in 2016 Donald Trump claimed that the system is “rigged” in favour of big business. Elizabeth Warren, a senator from Massachusetts, kicked off her 2020 presidential campaign in February by swearing to combat a system that “props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else”.
A new paper by Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips of Columbia University, and Adam Zelizer of the University of Chicago, suggests that the wealthy hold considerably less sway than is often assumed. Using data on 49 Senate votes on economic, social, and foreign-policy issues between 2001 and 2015, as well as on national survey data from polling firms such as Gallup and Pew, the authors analysed how often senators voted in line with the opinions of the rich and poor—defined as voters in the richest and poorest income quintiles in their state. They found that the rich get what they want from their senators about 60% of the time, whereas the poor receive their desired policy 55% of the time. When these two groups are on opposing sides of an issue, the rich get what they want 63% of the time. The middle class fare similarly when pitted against the rich.
A new paper by Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips of Columbia University, and Adam Zelizer of the University of Chicago, suggests that the wealthy hold considerably less sway than is often assumed. Using data on 49 Senate votes on economic, social, and foreign-policy issues between 2001 and 2015, as well as on national survey data from polling firms such as Gallup and Pew, the authors analysed how often senators voted in line with the opinions of the rich and poor—defined as voters in the richest and poorest income quintiles in their state. They found that the rich get what they want from their senators about 60% of the time, whereas the poor receive their desired policy 55% of the time. When these two groups are on opposing sides of an issue, the rich get what they want 63% of the time. The middle class fare similarly when pitted against the rich.
沒有留言:
張貼留言