Quote from: Gwiz on May 29, 2007, 01:30:50 PMI don't have an answer. Just rhetoric.Right. If I could fix one thing in America, it would be the education system. I feel it's important enough to be the first priority. I also feel that everything we're doing is missing the point completely.There are so many problems, it seems almost impossible. We'd have to untangle those first before moving on to solutions. I don't have a comprehensive list of the problems, but I'm pretty sure:1. throwing more money at it isn't the complete answer.2. blaming the teachers for poor student performance isn't the complete answer.3. blaming the parents for poor student performance isn't the complete answer.
I don't have an answer. Just rhetoric.
Quote from: piggly wiggly on May 29, 2007, 12:52:32 PMDo I understand your argument correctly? Since philly is controlled by democrats and philly has systemic education problems, the democrats must be anti-education and therefore anti-american dream?Obviously a powerful argument! I think he was using Philly as an example of his argument, not as part of some form of if-then logical clause. Take it with a grain of salt, I did.The fact of the matter, however, is that liberal leaders often view themselves as an educated elite charged with looking after the unwashed masses. That was basically how Castro viewed himself. Gwiz seems to be arguing that these liberal leaders have a vested interest in proving that the "unwashed masses" exist and in-fact need their help and constant nannying. If we were to create a system of true socio-economic mobility, it would be harder for these people to gain power (what they are really after), and therefore, they pursue nanny-state policies, instead of attacking the problems that really affect our ability to better ourselves in any meaningful way.Why do you think the Democratic candidates always line up to perform fellatio on the president of the AFL-CIO? It's about power. Really though, both parties are about power, and the sooner we realize that none of them really out to help us, the better off we'll be.
Do I understand your argument correctly? Since philly is controlled by democrats and philly has systemic education problems, the democrats must be anti-education and therefore anti-american dream?Obviously a powerful argument!
For example you have unwashed masses in quotations, are your referencing a term or work or are you just saying lower class or what
Also what does "nannying" mean-you need an example.
Also why would it be harder for "these people" who I assume you mean liberals to gain power if there was a true socio-economic mobility-its not like the poorest of the poor ever vote, thus liberals have to depend on creating a middle class consensus for these programs and how do you just create a true socio-economic mobility system (are you advocating the creation of some socialist state, where private property is taken from those that currently have it, or are you just saying there would be more mobility if resources like education, daycare, et cetera were more even distributed.
Lastly, why are you so cynical about the political processes, the U.S. is a great country, it didn't get that way because all our leaders are corrupt and could care less about the people, there are a lots of third world countries where that is true, and they are stuck in economic stagnation, DUH-politicians are after power, always they are out for power-- but that is always interacting with policy decisions, not always predominating it.
Politics used to be the domain of mature grown-ups, now it seems to be the Neverland for lost boys who never want to grow up.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned these points, but I'll chime in for two things. Economic diversity is a tough thing to shoot for because if it is your main goal, you won't get very many URM's. Because there are way more whites in this country than any other race, there are way more poor whites than poor anythings. Poor whites will dilute the pool so much that you're back to having basically white (and recently Asian) student bodies. Also, it's not a new thing that elite schools aim to help out poor people. I've heard that Princeton tries to give financial aid in a way that you should not have to take out any student loans. Sure, your parents could be the types that think you should pay your own way, but if your a family cannot afford to send you there without loans, they'll give you grants to meet need 100%. I also know that very few schools do this. My UG is on the cusp of being "elite" (top 20), and they left me with $25k+ of debt with parents who combined for less than $80k per year in wages. In retrospect, I should have went there. Don't get me wrong, I loved my UG experience, and I don't think I would have had it anywhere else, but that's a steep price to pay for anything. But I guess I kinda missed the boat on this topic. I know it's about AA for socioeconomic diversity, but you'd be shocked how many "poor" kids make it into top schools. It's way, way more than the number of URM's who do.
Quote from: Randy Savage on June 19, 2007, 03:04:48 PMYou idiocy make you a URMWow, totally a lame attempt to spoof my account. If you look at the post count for the other one, it's a different person. It'll be kind of flattering once I get past the embarassment.
You idiocy make you a URM