Well since you bring up the funding of Public Schools I agree that local funding is a scam. I believe the public schools should be funded at the federal level. The quality gap of schools needs to be bridged. This would benefit America in huge measure.
Fellowship
Pumping more water or changing the source of the water that is being pumped into rusty, cracked, and broken pipes is not going to accomplish anything more than more water being wasted.
Want to know how funding really works? A school is given $X. If they don't spend $X, it is determined that they no longer ever need $X but instead a lesser amount, $Y. In order to keep the money flowing in, schools will purchase all sorts of things they don't need because if they don't spend it they lose it.
I've worked in two schools: one was in a lower class neighborhood and received plenty of funding and the other was in a middle class neighborhood which received absolutely nothing because there weren't enough minorities and meal ticket kids there.
School one had money to burn so they bought a computer lab consisting of 20 B & W G3s and 17" studio displays as well as half of the Sunburst Software catalog. Overkill. Waste. School two had no money to spend on computers and the PTA had to assist in the purchase of the lowest end CRT iMacs possible, adding to the lab one or two at a time every year. Software? They could barely afford enough licenses for two educational titles. No way they could afford 15 like school one.
So, was this money spent well? I dunno, look at the test scores. The middle class neighborhood school still scored consistently higher.
The system is broken. We don't need to pump more into it. We need to privatize education because only through competition will we see true improvement.
The system is broken. We don't need to pump more into it. We need to privatize education because only through competition will we see true improvement.
No.
We need to teach kids things and fail those who don't learn them.
Either that or simply stop requiring school. That'd be ok by me.
I didn't say it made it right. I just didn't make it genocide. Big difference. You know...difference, like the difference between killing a three day zygote or a full term baby? That sort of difference.
I didn't say you said it made it right. I implied that you implied that it was "better." There's a difference.
Quote:
I didn't say the issue was who enslaved who. I also asked that you and others discuss how filipinos, hispanics, and the countless other "underrepresented minorities" suffered from slavery since they do receive affirmative action.
Perhaps you should read my post again, as I clearly argue that AA is not about slavery, but instead a century-plus long systematized injustice. We're going to agree, in the end, that AA should be economics-based, so there's really no debate here.
Quote:
If you are talking about the poverty I might see in Mississippi or Alabama,
Nice turn, since I hadn't mentioned poverty. Ever wonder how those silly people got so poor?
Quote:
that again can be addressed through economic affirmative action. I have seen people here dismiss it, but I have yet to see them address it. If black children and their respective parents are disproportionately poor, wouldn't they disproportionately benefit?
Yup. I'm with you.
Quote:
If the problem is poverty, address poverty, not race.
I don't see what the harm in affirmative action is.
Everyone screams QUOTAS! but there aren't quotas...
They've done studies where two identical qualified resumes are sent for the same position... if one has a name that sounds ethnic or black... they are either never called in or are told the position has been filled... while the other white sounding name gets a call for an interview.
But no one wants to talk about that.
People want to say there's quotas and that white people don't get jobs because a company is FORCED to hire a less qualified minority.
Duh. That's the byproduct of privatization. Schools that fail to produce results will die. Schools that do produce results will flourish.
No. That's a by-product of setting good, high standards and sticking to them despite the threats and complaints of parents, so that the degrees we give kids actually mean something.
The problem, I'm trying to point out here, is not with where the money comes from; it's from what you consider "results," since clearly the Texas system had a wildly different notion of what those were than, say, the rest of the state (or even, I'd argue, that the country).
(This is actually a wholly different discussion: secondary education curriculum. I'm tremendously interested in this--particularly in the problems students encounter when they leave the high schools and go to university. But the point here is that if the curriculum is broken, you don't destroy the building. You fix the curriculum.)
The point is that it isn't just the curriculum that is broken. Hiring practices and the qualifications of teachers are also to blame. The stranglehold of some of these Union contracts that prevent bad teachers from getting fired is to blame. The unnecessary bureaucracy is to blame. The entire system is broken.
AA only seeks a redress against a prevailing condition that tilted the scale in favor of white men.
Quote:
True and going to college doesn't equal obtaining a good job nor does being admitted equal graduating. In this regard I actually consider it pretty dead on.
It's not the job of the University to guarantee you success after your education. They are simply focused on giving you a good education and letting the chips fall where they may afterwards. Some schools feel it is in their best interest to have a diverse population. I do not see what's wrong with that.
Quote:
Actually it had a link to the college newspaper reports of various bake sales and one of the did mention this reasoning. I don't recall if they did charge more or if they just mentioned in passing that Asians are often not considered minorities by AA advocates.
It wouldn't matter anyways. Asians represent less than %15 of the population but trump whites in scores and enrollment numbers in schools like Caltech, MIT and others. Why would they need AA if they have better scores than whites?
Quote:
Likewise you seem to ignore how oppressed the Chinese were during the same time frame yet they have not seemed to become a culture of the permanently disadvantaged.
Trumptman there's a vast difference from being oppressed and being enslaved. Also keep in mind that the Chinese have been here in small numbers. Contrast that to 18th Century South Carolina where the majority were black slaves. Yes other races have been oppressed but the anger(KKK) and policies(jim crow) have always stood out in just how polarized this country has been regarding specifically black/white.
Quote:
You can combat the benefits of money and power without including race.
Can you really? If so tell me how because no one has been able to do it. Poverty is the biggest problem that has had no "War" waged againt it. I would support AA being based on economic need but then I also realize that you can fool someone into thinking your are more poor than you truly are and it still wouldn't address the underlying preference of white men in the job force. Equality must be fought on a Socioeconomic and Racial level.
Quote:
Likewise make sure you explain how "underrepresented minorities" are some how systematically held down by "the man" while other minorities like asians, indians, jews, and others attend in disproportionate numbers and are somehow not held down by "the man."
Jews- Are they not white?
Asians- We have some of the best on the planet. Asian culture seems a perfect fit for excellence in education.
Indians- ???? What? please show me the college "chalk full of Indians" an Elite few seem to be doing just fine with Casinos.
Quote:
There are nations that would only bring over the males and basically worth them to death. However that was not the United States and I don't think it right that you intentionally attempt to link the two very different behaviors.
Trumptman it's simple cause and effect. 10-15 Million African slaves perished in the transport of the Middle Passage. Whether or not the intentions were to kill or sustain life these people perished and those that lived were literally worked to death so calling it Genocide may be appropriate. Native Americans were slaughtered in large numbers too. Funny how our History Books don't equate what happened in North America with what happened in Nazi Germany. In the end the results where the same. Millions of bodies dead.
Finnally I want to see that AA is not sought as retribution against whites. The same policies should be applied to whites living in areas where they are the minority. That type of scenario is going to happen quickly in California and other states in the next few decades. Let's be prepared.
Equality or something close is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take diligence and a few bruised egos but we'll eventually get there. The Bake Sale was cute by it really only scratches the surface on what AA is really trying to do.
The point is that it isn't just the curriculum that is broken. Hiring practices and the qualifications of teachers are also to blame. The stranglehold of some of these Union contracts that prevent bad teachers from getting fired is to blame. The unnecessary bureaucracy is to blame. The entire system is broken.
it really annoys me how Native Americans are still pretty much ignored, but yet African Americans and Hispanics get all this attention. In my opinion, the Native Americans suffered worse than anyone, but yet most people choose to just forget them. Oh well...
it really annoys me how Native Americans are still pretty much ignored, but yet African Americans and Hispanics get all this attention. In my opinion, the Native Americans suffered worse than anyone, but yet most people choose to just forget them. Oh well...
I didn't mean to imply that it was. But it's a major factor.
So then don't hire them on the front end. Easy enough to fix,
Don't hire them in the first place. That's not the union's fault.
And you think privatizing the system is going to fix this?!!?
Parts. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Cheers
Scott
A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to have an assload of unnecessary bureaucracy. A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to hire inept teachers and get stuck with a shitty union contract that prevents the firing of inept teachers. A private organization that does not want to lose money will do whatever is necessary to keep its product competitive in the marketplace.
Public schools today don't give two shits about efficiency or bureaucratic waste. Sorry. They don't work.
A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to have an assload of unnecessary bureaucracy. A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to hire inept teachers and get stuck with a shitty union contract that prevents the firing of inept teachers. A private organization that does not want to lose money will do whatever is necessary to keep its product competitive in the marketplace.
Public schools today don't give two shits about efficiency or bureaucratic waste. Sorry. They don't work.
In order for a national (or even state-level) privatized school system to work in the first place, it will have to be heavily subsidized. Hell, isn't Bush fighting to be allowed to give federal funds to private/religious schools? What parents will be able to afford a school system that pays its teachers $100K? The same ones that send their kids to Eton and Exeter. The rest of those schools will be caught in an endless cycle of supply and demand wherein they cannot charge what they need in order to pay for the kinds of teachers they want, and in turn, they'll have to make do with what they can. And that will mean, sometimes, inept teachers.
Nothing will change.
If that school is going to hire qualified/not inept teachers, the curriculum/culture that teaches those teachers is going to have to change. That's my point. The modern culture of teaching is the problem; not the system. Schools hire inept teachers, very often (and I've seen this for years and years) simply to have a warm body in the classroom. The union has nothing to do with their hiring. It's simply a reality. There are lots of kids who need to be taught, and because we don't pay people very much money, and because we expect too much of them once they take the job, very few people go into a teaching profession--and this is important--and actually stay there. What's the average life-span of a high school teacher? Something like 3-5 years? And you think privatizing the system--which will in most cases mean fewer funds for most schools--will fix this? Don't forget that most of this country is rural...what happens to them? Bus their kids to the big city? The parents drive them there themselves? Not an option when your school in, say , Ada, OK closes or becomes a non-option, and the nearest schools are over 100 miles away in a suburb of Oklahoma City.
You're forgetting that private corporations very, very often go under and leave the people in that community without their services. Now, this may not be such a big deal when you're talking about one of three muffler shops in Sallisaw, OK, Picayune, MS, or St. George, UT. But when it's the school? You want to take that kind of risk?
Rural communities simply don't have the tax base to sustain the kind of utopian system you seem to be envisioning.
Again, this doesn't solve anything. You wind up with several "successful" companies running schools and many that are not. How is this different from what we have now, except that the local effects would be, quite simply, devastating?
And so we're back where we started: the schools need to do a better job. How can we get them to do that?
Set high standards and fail those students who don't meet them.
If we honest-to-god call a C an average grade and quit thinking that it's some kind of penalty (at all levels), we'll be off to a good start.
1) That such educational companies would somehow be immune to unions. That, quite simply, won't happen. Anywhere workers feel that managers are not treating them fairly, they will unionize.
2) You seem to want to assume that all of these educational companies will somehow branch out everywhere in the country. They won't. For the same reasons that Wal-Mart isn't everywhere. Sometimes, there's not enough money to be made in a potential market.
3) You seem to assume that privatizing the system will, somehow magically, make better teachers appear. Not going to happen. Instead, what is more likely to happen is that you'll get the same kind of service you get in any other place of business: sometimes it's great; sometimes it's the crazy guy at the 7-11 who works the night shift. Companies can't make good teachers appear out of nowhere.
I had several more but can't think of them at the moment. Maybe if the spirit strikes again...
I respectfully disagree. If school vouchers are implemented and new private educational institutions offer a better opportunity for students, we will see the demand for them increase and competition emerge. Competition is a good thing. I'm not saying we throw out public schools. I'm saying we allow them to be driven out of business with a little healthy competition.
I respectfully disagree. If school vouchers are implemented and new private educational institutions offer a better opportunity for students, we will see the demand for them increase and competition emerge. Competition is a good thing. I'm not saying we throw out public schools. I'm saying we allow them to be driven out of business with a little healthy competition.
What, there aren't any privately-funded schools NOW?!?! There's no competition NOW?
The position you're advocating now is markedly different from the "privatize it all" argument you made earlier. Now, it seems, all you want are vouchers.
Those, of course, will siphon funding away from those schools that most desperately need them. You want to drive them out of existence so your model, which as I have argued, will be no different from what we have now except that it will undoubtedly fail to service even the most basic needs of many rural communities in this country, what better way than to horribly under-fund and under-staff them and then complain when they can't get the job done like you want. And then, to add insult to injury, siphon funds away by allowing parents to move their children (and thus their funding) out of weaker schools and into stronger, private ones.
What, there aren't any privately-funded schools NOW?!?! There's no competition NOW?
The position you're advocating now is markedly different from the "privatize it all" argument you made earlier. Now, it seems, all you want are vouchers.
Those, of course, will siphon funding away from those schools that most desperately need them. You want to drive them out of existence so your model, which as I have argued, will be no different from what we have now except that it will undoubtedly fail to service even the most basic needs of many rural communities in this country, what better way than to horribly under-fund and under-staff them and then complain when they can't get the job done like you want. And then, to add insult to injury, siphon funds away by allowing parents to move their children (and thus their funding) out of weaker schools and into stronger, private ones.
Cheers
Scott
I don't see anything wrong with pulling your own child's share of money out of a shitty school and putting your child in a better private one.
AA only seeks a redress against a prevailing condition that tilted the scale in favor of white men.
First don't forget those white sounding names included female names.
I have read of such issues not only with jobs and payscales, but with renting and mortgage applications.
There are also studies that show taller people are more likely to be promoted than shorter people, and attractive people make more than unattractive people at the same jobs. There are studies that show obese people are less likely to be hired than trim people, etc.
I've never claimed the world is perfect or that people don't act upon their personal preferences. However this is true in all manners. Are you telling me that if I applied at "The Source" I would be as likely to be hired as a black man? How about if I wanted a record contract to rap?
Nothing in life is perfectly proportional with regard to percentages. However I question whether it can be micromanaged to make it so. When I for example complain that there are no men in teaching, I get the same sort of excuses. (Men have gone from 10% of elementary teachers to just under 5%) Yet I still wouldn't support AA even in the field where I work, because breaking through on your own give you some skills that not only lead to achievement but lead to disproportionate achievement. In areas where blacks or hispanics have broken through they are much more than their share of the population. In places where the government or management steps in, this isn't so.
Heck I would rather have one of the black man that was spurned by the company start his own business that later tosses the dirt on that company's grave.
Quote:
It's not the job of the University to guarantee you success after your education. They are simply focused on giving you a good education and letting the chips fall where they may afterwards. Some schools feel it is in their best interest to have a diverse population. I do not see what's wrong with that.
I don't see anything wrong with diversity either. It's just the agreement on what diversity happens to me for some. Again I posted the racial make up of UCLA, which we have all read in the news is described as a campus lacking diversity. Did you see anything but diversity in those figures? It wasn't not only majority white, it wasn't even minority majority white. Yet the campus is declared not diverse. How can that be?
Likewise diversity isn't just about skin color. If I room with a black teenager who comes from a two parent, middle class household in the same state as say a white teenager who is from a middle class two parent household. Is that really diversity? Diversity can mean holding spots for different parts of the country, or different countries. Different income levels, etc. That is why I endorse economic diversity over just racial. As someone who works with plenty of hispanic and black professionals, they and their children are no different than me. As someone who has a black nephew and niece, there is no dramatic difference.
I can tell you the differences are much more likely to be found in income differences than in racial differences.
Quote:
It wouldn't matter anyways. Asians represent less than %15 of the population but trump whites in scores and enrollment numbers in schools like Caltech, MIT and others. Why would they need AA if they have better scores than whites?
It isn't that they need AA, it is that AA harms them silly. Asians for example were 37% of the population at UCLA. Whites were only 34%. If AA is implemented who do you think it is going to work against percentage-wise? When the goal is not diversity, but proportional representation, then that would mean a whole lot of asians have to leave UCLA to likely let blacks and even some whites in.
But again it is truly the question of what is diversity. UCLA has an abundance of diversity. Yet it is claimed not so because it was only 3.7% black. Yet it is 66% minority. That is why people read quota when they see AA. That campus is plenty diverse yet all it gets is criticism.
Quote:
Trumptman there's a vast difference from being oppressed and being enslaved. Also keep in mind that the Chinese have been here in small numbers. Contrast that to 18th Century South Carolina where the majority were black slaves. Yes other races have been oppressed but the anger(KKK) and policies(jim crow) have always stood out in just how polarized this country has been regarding specifically black/white.
Please... so when I claim that slavery ended so long ago and that the oppression in the meantime did no harm, you would buy it?
Likewise there were over 100,000 chinese who came to the United States. They weren't enslaved, but they weren't allowed to marry white women or bring over chinese women. They had laws that confined them to living in certain areas and also they were only allowed to work in certain fields (hence the infamous chinese laundry) since their productivity crushed most white businesses.
If anything it is the chinese who were literally brought over to be worked to death on the railroads. They couldn't have families and yet they still turn out okay, or still pretty much crush their white oppressors.
I think you would see the Jewish people have a very similar history of oppression not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Likewise you say this country when Jim Crow and other such things occured in the South. That doesn't explain the lack of progress outside the south as well.
Quote:
Can you really? If so tell me how because no one has been able to do it. Poverty is the biggest problem that has had no "War" waged againt it. I would support AA being based on economic need but then I also realize that you can fool someone into thinking your are more poor than you truly are and it still wouldn't address the underlying preference of white men in the job force. Equality must be fought on a Socioeconomic and Racial level.
No one that you consider a minority. As I mentioned Jews, and Chinese especially have repeatedly gone into countries with nothing and outworked and outearned the native populations to own entire industries within a generation. The War on Poverty was declared by Lyndon Johnson so perhaps you should look into it a bit.
It is true that you can fool someone into thinking you are poor, but only because we reward certain behaviors that shouldn't be rewarded. We give benefits to someone who comes from a single mother, not mentioning that the single mother has a live in boyfriend who's income she doesn't declare even while they have been living together for years for example. It is just a continuation of the victimization mentality. I say no level of micromanagement can fix it, so get rid of it. You say, hey it can be fooled so add even more factors.
I have had friends benefit who were in no way poor or even a minority. They just married into a middle class minority family. So when Susan, with blond hair and blue eyes marries Jose Hernandez, and becomes Susan Hernandez, suddenly she has a lot more aid and options open to her.
Likewise someone might just change their name, or as they increasingly are doing, simply decline to state.
Finally what about Susan's and Jose's children? What are they? Are they hispanic? White? underrepresented because they are biracial? Overrepresented because they are part white?
You think this is tough now, wait until a generation from now. The concept of race is nothing but a historical construct and this will be even more true in the future.
[QUOTE]Jews- Are they not white?
Asians- We have some of the best on the planet. Asian culture seems a perfect fit for excellence in education.
Indians- ???? What? please show me the college "chalk full of Indians" an Elite few seem to be doing just fine with Casinos.
/QUOTE]
Jews are not considered WASP's obvioiusly. They are not considered a different race by our more broad definitions today, but in the past and even outside the U.S. today (and I suppose inside the U.S. for racists) they are not considered white or basically European.
Asians-Actually you show your own stereotypical views. Perhaps you need more asians on your campus. Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Filipinos for example do quite well educationally. Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodians for example, less so.
Indians - I'm not Columbus. When I say Indians, I mean people from India.
Quote:
Trumptman it's simple cause and effect. 10-15 Million African slaves perished in the transport of the Middle Passage. Whether or not the intentions were to kill or sustain life these people perished and those that lived were literally worked to death so calling it Genocide may be appropriate. Native Americans were slaughtered in large numbers too. Funny how our History Books don't equate what happened in North America with what happened in Nazi Germany. In the end the results where the same. Millions of bodies dead.
Finnally I want to see that AA is not sought as retribution against whites. The same policies should be applied to whites living in areas where they are the minority. That type of scenario is going to happen quickly in California and other states in the next few decades. Let's be prepared.
Equality or something close is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take diligence and a few bruised egos but we'll eventually get there. The Bake Sale was cute by it really only scratches the surface on what AA is really trying to do.
Well I've stated my view on that. Those millions went to Central and South American countries. The U.S. ended the trade and did not simply work slaves to death and then run off and get more. I'm not saying treating them like animal property was right, but it wasn't genocide.
As for AA not being retribution, I fully understand that can claim that, but it is whites who the majority of AA cases affect. (Though as I mentioned here in California, it is likely going to be Asians it affects)
BTW, it is not going to happen in California, it already has. Whites are 45% of the population last I checked. Even then I wouldn't want AA to attempt to bring the population of the student body of UCLA up to 45% white since it is only 34% now. There are reasons people make the choices they do. I don't want the staff of BET, or the number of signed RAP artists to be 75%-80% white either. It is too hard to manage all these day to day interactions and we can't assume the result would be any better. The amount of diversity now is staggering in California. I enjoy and appreciate it. However I couldn't imagine trying to manage it. Likewise when the next generation of kids is finished loving all over each other, I can't even comprehend trying to label and address all that diversity. By then we will just have move to eracism and one human race.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Well since you bring up the funding of Public Schools I agree that local funding is a scam. I believe the public schools should be funded at the federal level. The quality gap of schools needs to be bridged. This would benefit America in huge measure.
Fellowship
Pumping more water or changing the source of the water that is being pumped into rusty, cracked, and broken pipes is not going to accomplish anything more than more water being wasted.
Want to know how funding really works? A school is given $X. If they don't spend $X, it is determined that they no longer ever need $X but instead a lesser amount, $Y. In order to keep the money flowing in, schools will purchase all sorts of things they don't need because if they don't spend it they lose it.
I've worked in two schools: one was in a lower class neighborhood and received plenty of funding and the other was in a middle class neighborhood which received absolutely nothing because there weren't enough minorities and meal ticket kids there.
School one had money to burn so they bought a computer lab consisting of 20 B & W G3s and 17" studio displays as well as half of the Sunburst Software catalog. Overkill. Waste. School two had no money to spend on computers and the PTA had to assist in the purchase of the lowest end CRT iMacs possible, adding to the lab one or two at a time every year. Software? They could barely afford enough licenses for two educational titles. No way they could afford 15 like school one.
So, was this money spent well? I dunno, look at the test scores. The middle class neighborhood school still scored consistently higher.
The system is broken. We don't need to pump more into it. We need to privatize education because only through competition will we see true improvement.
Originally posted by BR
The system is broken. We don't need to pump more into it. We need to privatize education because only through competition will we see true improvement.
No.
We need to teach kids things and fail those who don't learn them.
Either that or simply stop requiring school. That'd be ok by me.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
No.
We need to teach kids things and fail those who don't learn them.
Either that or simply stop requiring school. That'd be ok by me.
Cheers
Scott
Duh. That's the byproduct of privatization. Schools that fail to produce results will die. Schools that do produce results will flourish.
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't say it made it right. I just didn't make it genocide. Big difference. You know...difference, like the difference between killing a three day zygote or a full term baby? That sort of difference.
I didn't say you said it made it right. I implied that you implied that it was "better." There's a difference.
I didn't say the issue was who enslaved who. I also asked that you and others discuss how filipinos, hispanics, and the countless other "underrepresented minorities" suffered from slavery since they do receive affirmative action.
Perhaps you should read my post again, as I clearly argue that AA is not about slavery, but instead a century-plus long systematized injustice. We're going to agree, in the end, that AA should be economics-based, so there's really no debate here.
If you are talking about the poverty I might see in Mississippi or Alabama,
Nice turn, since I hadn't mentioned poverty. Ever wonder how those silly people got so poor?
that again can be addressed through economic affirmative action. I have seen people here dismiss it, but I have yet to see them address it. If black children and their respective parents are disproportionately poor, wouldn't they disproportionately benefit?
Yup. I'm with you.
If the problem is poverty, address poverty, not race.
Yup.
Cheers
Scott
I don't see what the harm in affirmative action is.
Everyone screams QUOTAS! but there aren't quotas...
They've done studies where two identical qualified resumes are sent for the same position... if one has a name that sounds ethnic or black... they are either never called in or are told the position has been filled... while the other white sounding name gets a call for an interview.
But no one wants to talk about that.
People want to say there's quotas and that white people don't get jobs because a company is FORCED to hire a less qualified minority.
Two words for you.
Ambercrombie&Fitch
Originally posted by BR
Duh. That's the byproduct of privatization. Schools that fail to produce results will die. Schools that do produce results will flourish.
No. That's a by-product of setting good, high standards and sticking to them despite the threats and complaints of parents, so that the degrees we give kids actually mean something.
The problem, I'm trying to point out here, is not with where the money comes from; it's from what you consider "results," since clearly the Texas system had a wildly different notion of what those were than, say, the rest of the state (or even, I'd argue, that the country).
(This is actually a wholly different discussion: secondary education curriculum. I'm tremendously interested in this--particularly in the problems students encounter when they leave the high schools and go to university. But the point here is that if the curriculum is broken, you don't destroy the building. You fix the curriculum.)
Cheers
Scott
The point is the opposite. It also doesn't mean life is harder and you have less money. (and hence need more financial aid)
Please understand I'm reversing the generalization. I'm not trying to attack you.
I don't know if you can reverse it. For instance minorities ARE paid less
http://www.jsonline.com/bym/career/a...y16081501a.asp
And have could have lower access to jobs based on their names alone
http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/div...diversity.html
AA only seeks a redress against a prevailing condition that tilted the scale in favor of white men.
True and going to college doesn't equal obtaining a good job nor does being admitted equal graduating. In this regard I actually consider it pretty dead on.
It's not the job of the University to guarantee you success after your education. They are simply focused on giving you a good education and letting the chips fall where they may afterwards. Some schools feel it is in their best interest to have a diverse population. I do not see what's wrong with that.
Actually it had a link to the college newspaper reports of various bake sales and one of the did mention this reasoning. I don't recall if they did charge more or if they just mentioned in passing that Asians are often not considered minorities by AA advocates.
It wouldn't matter anyways. Asians represent less than %15 of the population but trump whites in scores and enrollment numbers in schools like Caltech, MIT and others. Why would they need AA if they have better scores than whites?
Likewise you seem to ignore how oppressed the Chinese were during the same time frame yet they have not seemed to become a culture of the permanently disadvantaged.
Trumptman there's a vast difference from being oppressed and being enslaved. Also keep in mind that the Chinese have been here in small numbers. Contrast that to 18th Century South Carolina where the majority were black slaves. Yes other races have been oppressed but the anger(KKK) and policies(jim crow) have always stood out in just how polarized this country has been regarding specifically black/white.
You can combat the benefits of money and power without including race.
Can you really? If so tell me how because no one has been able to do it. Poverty is the biggest problem that has had no "War" waged againt it. I would support AA being based on economic need but then I also realize that you can fool someone into thinking your are more poor than you truly are and it still wouldn't address the underlying preference of white men in the job force. Equality must be fought on a Socioeconomic and Racial level.
Likewise make sure you explain how "underrepresented minorities" are some how systematically held down by "the man" while other minorities like asians, indians, jews, and others attend in disproportionate numbers and are somehow not held down by "the man."
Jews- Are they not white?
Asians- We have some of the best on the planet. Asian culture seems a perfect fit for excellence in education.
Indians- ???? What? please show me the college "chalk full of Indians" an Elite few seem to be doing just fine with Casinos.
There are nations that would only bring over the males and basically worth them to death. However that was not the United States and I don't think it right that you intentionally attempt to link the two very different behaviors.
Trumptman it's simple cause and effect. 10-15 Million African slaves perished in the transport of the Middle Passage. Whether or not the intentions were to kill or sustain life these people perished and those that lived were literally worked to death so calling it Genocide may be appropriate. Native Americans were slaughtered in large numbers too. Funny how our History Books don't equate what happened in North America with what happened in Nazi Germany. In the end the results where the same. Millions of bodies dead.
Finnally I want to see that AA is not sought as retribution against whites. The same policies should be applied to whites living in areas where they are the minority. That type of scenario is going to happen quickly in California and other states in the next few decades. Let's be prepared.
Equality or something close is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take diligence and a few bruised egos but we'll eventually get there. The Bake Sale was cute by it really only scratches the surface on what AA is really trying to do.
Originally posted by BR
The point is that it isn't just the curriculum that is broken. Hiring practices and the qualifications of teachers are also to blame. The stranglehold of some of these Union contracts that prevent bad teachers from getting fired is to blame. The unnecessary bureaucracy is to blame. The entire system is broken.
I agree with this. I do agree.
Fellowship
Originally posted by BR
The point is that it isn't just the curriculum that is broken.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. But it's a major factor.
Hiring practices and the qualifications of teachers are also to blame.
So then don't hire them on the front end. Easy enough to fix,
The stranglehold of some of these Union contracts that prevent bad teachers from getting fired is to blame.
Don't hire them in the first place. That's not the union's fault.
The unnecessary bureaucracy is to blame.
And you think privatizing the system is going to fix this?!!?
The entire system is broken. [/B]
Parts. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by _ alliance _
it really annoys me how Native Americans are still pretty much ignored, but yet African Americans and Hispanics get all this attention. In my opinion, the Native Americans suffered worse than anyone, but yet most people choose to just forget them. Oh well...
Maybe it's because they got the casinos.
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe it's because they got the casinos.
haha. they dont count, right?
Originally posted by midwinter
I didn't mean to imply that it was. But it's a major factor.
So then don't hire them on the front end. Easy enough to fix,
Don't hire them in the first place. That's not the union's fault.
And you think privatizing the system is going to fix this?!!?
Parts. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Cheers
Scott
A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to have an assload of unnecessary bureaucracy. A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to hire inept teachers and get stuck with a shitty union contract that prevents the firing of inept teachers. A private organization that does not want to lose money will do whatever is necessary to keep its product competitive in the marketplace.
Public schools today don't give two shits about efficiency or bureaucratic waste. Sorry. They don't work.
Originally posted by BR
A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to have an assload of unnecessary bureaucracy. A private organization that does not want to lose money is not going to hire inept teachers and get stuck with a shitty union contract that prevents the firing of inept teachers. A private organization that does not want to lose money will do whatever is necessary to keep its product competitive in the marketplace.
Public schools today don't give two shits about efficiency or bureaucratic waste. Sorry. They don't work.
In order for a national (or even state-level) privatized school system to work in the first place, it will have to be heavily subsidized. Hell, isn't Bush fighting to be allowed to give federal funds to private/religious schools? What parents will be able to afford a school system that pays its teachers $100K? The same ones that send their kids to Eton and Exeter. The rest of those schools will be caught in an endless cycle of supply and demand wherein they cannot charge what they need in order to pay for the kinds of teachers they want, and in turn, they'll have to make do with what they can. And that will mean, sometimes, inept teachers.
Nothing will change.
If that school is going to hire qualified/not inept teachers, the curriculum/culture that teaches those teachers is going to have to change. That's my point. The modern culture of teaching is the problem; not the system. Schools hire inept teachers, very often (and I've seen this for years and years) simply to have a warm body in the classroom. The union has nothing to do with their hiring. It's simply a reality. There are lots of kids who need to be taught, and because we don't pay people very much money, and because we expect too much of them once they take the job, very few people go into a teaching profession--and this is important--and actually stay there. What's the average life-span of a high school teacher? Something like 3-5 years? And you think privatizing the system--which will in most cases mean fewer funds for most schools--will fix this? Don't forget that most of this country is rural...what happens to them? Bus their kids to the big city? The parents drive them there themselves? Not an option when your school in, say , Ada, OK closes or becomes a non-option, and the nearest schools are over 100 miles away in a suburb of Oklahoma City.
You're forgetting that private corporations very, very often go under and leave the people in that community without their services. Now, this may not be such a big deal when you're talking about one of three muffler shops in Sallisaw, OK, Picayune, MS, or St. George, UT. But when it's the school? You want to take that kind of risk?
Rural communities simply don't have the tax base to sustain the kind of utopian system you seem to be envisioning.
Again, this doesn't solve anything. You wind up with several "successful" companies running schools and many that are not. How is this different from what we have now, except that the local effects would be, quite simply, devastating?
And so we're back where we started: the schools need to do a better job. How can we get them to do that?
Set high standards and fail those students who don't meet them.
If we honest-to-god call a C an average grade and quit thinking that it's some kind of penalty (at all levels), we'll be off to a good start.
Cheers
Scott
Your argument also seems to assume a few things:
1) That such educational companies would somehow be immune to unions. That, quite simply, won't happen. Anywhere workers feel that managers are not treating them fairly, they will unionize.
2) You seem to want to assume that all of these educational companies will somehow branch out everywhere in the country. They won't. For the same reasons that Wal-Mart isn't everywhere. Sometimes, there's not enough money to be made in a potential market.
3) You seem to assume that privatizing the system will, somehow magically, make better teachers appear. Not going to happen. Instead, what is more likely to happen is that you'll get the same kind of service you get in any other place of business: sometimes it's great; sometimes it's the crazy guy at the 7-11 who works the night shift. Companies can't make good teachers appear out of nowhere.
I had several more but can't think of them at the moment. Maybe if the spirit strikes again...
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by BR
I respectfully disagree. If school vouchers are implemented and new private educational institutions offer a better opportunity for students, we will see the demand for them increase and competition emerge. Competition is a good thing. I'm not saying we throw out public schools. I'm saying we allow them to be driven out of business with a little healthy competition.
What, there aren't any privately-funded schools NOW?!?! There's no competition NOW?
The position you're advocating now is markedly different from the "privatize it all" argument you made earlier. Now, it seems, all you want are vouchers.
Those, of course, will siphon funding away from those schools that most desperately need them. You want to drive them out of existence so your model, which as I have argued, will be no different from what we have now except that it will undoubtedly fail to service even the most basic needs of many rural communities in this country, what better way than to horribly under-fund and under-staff them and then complain when they can't get the job done like you want. And then, to add insult to injury, siphon funds away by allowing parents to move their children (and thus their funding) out of weaker schools and into stronger, private ones.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
What, there aren't any privately-funded schools NOW?!?! There's no competition NOW?
The position you're advocating now is markedly different from the "privatize it all" argument you made earlier. Now, it seems, all you want are vouchers.
Those, of course, will siphon funding away from those schools that most desperately need them. You want to drive them out of existence so your model, which as I have argued, will be no different from what we have now except that it will undoubtedly fail to service even the most basic needs of many rural communities in this country, what better way than to horribly under-fund and under-staff them and then complain when they can't get the job done like you want. And then, to add insult to injury, siphon funds away by allowing parents to move their children (and thus their funding) out of weaker schools and into stronger, private ones.
Cheers
Scott
I don't see anything wrong with pulling your own child's share of money out of a shitty school and putting your child in a better private one.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I don't know if you can reverse it. For instance minorities ARE paid less
http://www.jsonline.com/bym/career/a...y16081501a.asp
And have could have lower access to jobs based on their names alone
http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/div...diversity.html
AA only seeks a redress against a prevailing condition that tilted the scale in favor of white men.
First don't forget those white sounding names included female names.
I have read of such issues not only with jobs and payscales, but with renting and mortgage applications.
There are also studies that show taller people are more likely to be promoted than shorter people, and attractive people make more than unattractive people at the same jobs. There are studies that show obese people are less likely to be hired than trim people, etc.
I've never claimed the world is perfect or that people don't act upon their personal preferences. However this is true in all manners. Are you telling me that if I applied at "The Source" I would be as likely to be hired as a black man? How about if I wanted a record contract to rap?
Nothing in life is perfectly proportional with regard to percentages. However I question whether it can be micromanaged to make it so. When I for example complain that there are no men in teaching, I get the same sort of excuses. (Men have gone from 10% of elementary teachers to just under 5%) Yet I still wouldn't support AA even in the field where I work, because breaking through on your own give you some skills that not only lead to achievement but lead to disproportionate achievement. In areas where blacks or hispanics have broken through they are much more than their share of the population. In places where the government or management steps in, this isn't so.
Heck I would rather have one of the black man that was spurned by the company start his own business that later tosses the dirt on that company's grave.
It's not the job of the University to guarantee you success after your education. They are simply focused on giving you a good education and letting the chips fall where they may afterwards. Some schools feel it is in their best interest to have a diverse population. I do not see what's wrong with that.
I don't see anything wrong with diversity either. It's just the agreement on what diversity happens to me for some. Again I posted the racial make up of UCLA, which we have all read in the news is described as a campus lacking diversity. Did you see anything but diversity in those figures? It wasn't not only majority white, it wasn't even minority majority white. Yet the campus is declared not diverse. How can that be?
Likewise diversity isn't just about skin color. If I room with a black teenager who comes from a two parent, middle class household in the same state as say a white teenager who is from a middle class two parent household. Is that really diversity? Diversity can mean holding spots for different parts of the country, or different countries. Different income levels, etc. That is why I endorse economic diversity over just racial. As someone who works with plenty of hispanic and black professionals, they and their children are no different than me. As someone who has a black nephew and niece, there is no dramatic difference.
I can tell you the differences are much more likely to be found in income differences than in racial differences.
It wouldn't matter anyways. Asians represent less than %15 of the population but trump whites in scores and enrollment numbers in schools like Caltech, MIT and others. Why would they need AA if they have better scores than whites?
It isn't that they need AA, it is that AA harms them silly. Asians for example were 37% of the population at UCLA. Whites were only 34%. If AA is implemented who do you think it is going to work against percentage-wise? When the goal is not diversity, but proportional representation, then that would mean a whole lot of asians have to leave UCLA to likely let blacks and even some whites in.
But again it is truly the question of what is diversity. UCLA has an abundance of diversity. Yet it is claimed not so because it was only 3.7% black. Yet it is 66% minority. That is why people read quota when they see AA. That campus is plenty diverse yet all it gets is criticism.
Trumptman there's a vast difference from being oppressed and being enslaved. Also keep in mind that the Chinese have been here in small numbers. Contrast that to 18th Century South Carolina where the majority were black slaves. Yes other races have been oppressed but the anger(KKK) and policies(jim crow) have always stood out in just how polarized this country has been regarding specifically black/white.
Please... so when I claim that slavery ended so long ago and that the oppression in the meantime did no harm, you would buy it?
Likewise there were over 100,000 chinese who came to the United States. They weren't enslaved, but they weren't allowed to marry white women or bring over chinese women. They had laws that confined them to living in certain areas and also they were only allowed to work in certain fields (hence the infamous chinese laundry) since their productivity crushed most white businesses.
If anything it is the chinese who were literally brought over to be worked to death on the railroads. They couldn't have families and yet they still turn out okay, or still pretty much crush their white oppressors.
I think you would see the Jewish people have a very similar history of oppression not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Likewise you say this country when Jim Crow and other such things occured in the South. That doesn't explain the lack of progress outside the south as well.
Can you really? If so tell me how because no one has been able to do it. Poverty is the biggest problem that has had no "War" waged againt it. I would support AA being based on economic need but then I also realize that you can fool someone into thinking your are more poor than you truly are and it still wouldn't address the underlying preference of white men in the job force. Equality must be fought on a Socioeconomic and Racial level.
No one that you consider a minority. As I mentioned Jews, and Chinese especially have repeatedly gone into countries with nothing and outworked and outearned the native populations to own entire industries within a generation. The War on Poverty was declared by Lyndon Johnson so perhaps you should look into it a bit.
It is true that you can fool someone into thinking you are poor, but only because we reward certain behaviors that shouldn't be rewarded. We give benefits to someone who comes from a single mother, not mentioning that the single mother has a live in boyfriend who's income she doesn't declare even while they have been living together for years for example. It is just a continuation of the victimization mentality. I say no level of micromanagement can fix it, so get rid of it. You say, hey it can be fooled so add even more factors.
I have had friends benefit who were in no way poor or even a minority. They just married into a middle class minority family. So when Susan, with blond hair and blue eyes marries Jose Hernandez, and becomes Susan Hernandez, suddenly she has a lot more aid and options open to her.
Likewise someone might just change their name, or as they increasingly are doing, simply decline to state.
Finally what about Susan's and Jose's children? What are they? Are they hispanic? White? underrepresented because they are biracial? Overrepresented because they are part white?
You think this is tough now, wait until a generation from now. The concept of race is nothing but a historical construct and this will be even more true in the future.
[QUOTE]Jews- Are they not white?
Asians- We have some of the best on the planet. Asian culture seems a perfect fit for excellence in education.
Indians- ???? What? please show me the college "chalk full of Indians" an Elite few seem to be doing just fine with Casinos.
/QUOTE]
Jews are not considered WASP's obvioiusly. They are not considered a different race by our more broad definitions today, but in the past and even outside the U.S. today (and I suppose inside the U.S. for racists) they are not considered white or basically European.
Asians-Actually you show your own stereotypical views.
Indians - I'm not Columbus. When I say Indians, I mean people from India.
Trumptman it's simple cause and effect. 10-15 Million African slaves perished in the transport of the Middle Passage. Whether or not the intentions were to kill or sustain life these people perished and those that lived were literally worked to death so calling it Genocide may be appropriate. Native Americans were slaughtered in large numbers too. Funny how our History Books don't equate what happened in North America with what happened in Nazi Germany. In the end the results where the same. Millions of bodies dead.
Finnally I want to see that AA is not sought as retribution against whites. The same policies should be applied to whites living in areas where they are the minority. That type of scenario is going to happen quickly in California and other states in the next few decades. Let's be prepared.
Equality or something close is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take diligence and a few bruised egos but we'll eventually get there. The Bake Sale was cute by it really only scratches the surface on what AA is really trying to do.
Well I've stated my view on that. Those millions went to Central and South American countries. The U.S. ended the trade and did not simply work slaves to death and then run off and get more. I'm not saying treating them like animal property was right, but it wasn't genocide.
As for AA not being retribution, I fully understand that can claim that, but it is whites who the majority of AA cases affect. (Though as I mentioned here in California, it is likely going to be Asians it affects)
BTW, it is not going to happen in California, it already has. Whites are 45% of the population last I checked. Even then I wouldn't want AA to attempt to bring the population of the student body of UCLA up to 45% white since it is only 34% now. There are reasons people make the choices they do. I don't want the staff of BET, or the number of signed RAP artists to be 75%-80% white either. It is too hard to manage all these day to day interactions and we can't assume the result would be any better. The amount of diversity now is staggering in California. I enjoy and appreciate it. However I couldn't imagine trying to manage it. Likewise when the next generation of kids is finished loving all over each other,
Nick