Why, wejo?

I was a teaching assistant of Calculus at a university during the summer after my junior year of high school. When I finally got to the Ivy League school I placed out of the two year Calculus sequence. I knew how to calculate line and double integrals when most of my high school grade was still during trigonometry. But, as they say, engineers can solve Triple Integrals, but can't do long division. I had thought someone said that he had scored 1280, but maybe it was a typo or I read it wrong... I never did the math out myself (in my defense).

We know calbear. Every year thousands of deserving low-income Asian students are discriminated against by Cal's racist and unfair quotas.

Aah Calbear. In your haste to cry "Bingo" over a point that I think is a given, you overlooked my point which is that learning, like training, is, was, and always has been, student-driven.

calbear,

I agree mostly with what you are saying. My only point to add here is that not everyone needs to go to college nor should they.

I'd be very happy if the underpriviledged that today aren't becoming productive members of society in any way were to become the carpenters, the mechanics, the plumbers of tomorow - all good-paying jobs with a certain amount of respect attached to them. I think it is a losing battle to plan for and hope that everyone GOES to college. Yes, that opportunity should be provided for them if they want to go and if they make the grade. If we trump up college as the only means to success, then we not only discourage many who won't go, but we demean the jobs of non-college educated folks, and I for one am very glad I can take my car to the mechanic and have it come out running like new.

Question wrote:

Aah Calbear. In your haste to cry "Bingo" over a point that I think is a given, you overlooked my point which is that learning, like training, is, was, and always has been, student-driven.

I totally agree. However, there are certain environments that don't support even the most driven students (or athletes), thus putting those in a more supportive environment, with the same inner drive, at an advantage.

Willy, I don't think I ever said that everyone should go to college. I agree with your entire statement and my only rebuttal would be that any kid who WANTS to go to college and has demonstrated that he/she would be an asset to such a learning environment, should be given a chance. And there are certain kids (of all ethnicities) who, if judged solely on grades and scores, would never get that chance. Something has to be in place to make up for that.

Ok then. We are agreed. Sometimes I hear people chanting "college, college, college," when there are a good portion of people who not only don't want to go to college but shouldn't be there to begin with (and some of those come from very affluent backgrounds - my freshman college roomate was one of those - priviledged but dumb as a rake. He got in and then barely made it through because his father donated a ton of money to the school.

By the way calbear - Go Stanford!

Calbear, now you are disappointing me. Always trying to show that someone always has an "advantage" over someone else. Is that your point? Surely it is not so trivial. Next, you'll be arguing that someone with $10 million has an "advantage" over someone who has "merely" $2 million.

If we can show that even a small percent "overcome" what you call "disadvantages", then we can argue that such "disadvantages" are not limiting factors in whatever sphere is under discussion... unless, of course, you want them to be.

Isn't that the whole premise of the "capitalist" system? That, with work, you can make yourself what you want to be? Isn't that the American Dream? What happened to it?

Let's take a running example: the Japanese have turned themselves into the No.2 nation in elite marathoners. Without the apparent "advantages" of Kenyan genes, high altitude, peaceful pastoral life, low cost of living, perfect weather and environment, etc... they have said, "we'll just work harder than everybody else." And, whaddya know, it's working.

You, personally, appear to have done the same. Why cannot others do like you?

[quote]Flagpole Willy wrote:

Ok then. We are agreed. Sometimes I hear people chanting "college, college, college," when there are a good portion of people who not only don't want to go to college but shouldn't be there to begin with

Would this include Division I football, basketball, baseball and hockey players? They go to school on what I call "privledge" scholarships and admittance. They don't graduate either. Tax payer dollars for the training camps of the NFL, NHL, NBA, etc.....

calbear wrote:

JEH, let me preface this by saying that I have a great deal of respect [for the majority of (strike the previous 3 words - smile)] your posts as they are intelligent, insightful, and oftentimes enlightening.

Back to you! You seem to be busy enough with this topic over the past week, so do not feel compelled to respond. I honestly think we have the same goals, just slightly different ways to get there.

IF we are going to have governmental policies / funding, I would rather incent the best teachers to teach in low socio-economic areas with higher pay (the teachers on Boston Public don't impress me so much). That way, we could work towards making a change at the source, rather than give an insufficient pat on the back to get into colleges, etc.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

By the way calbear - Go Stanford!

Touche! (Too bad Stanford can't handle Cal in B-ball right now! Come to think of it, with Cal's 7-0 pac-10 record, I guess no one can...hehe)

Willy is a big boy and can defend himself, but.... The way Arizona handled KU Saturday I would have to say that Cal will definately have their work cut out for them to remain unbeaten in Pac 10 play, but they do seem to have a very good team that will go deep in the tourney come March!! Not a big fan of Pac 10 but they do have a tuff conference. I say Oklahoma State Cowboys!!!

Any student who consistently gets Ds should consider doing something else with their lives. Honestly, all college students should be able to get at least solid Bs. A "B" means GOOD, and all college students should be able to be GOOD. The "A"s should be for the truly superior.

Not all DI major sport athletes are dummies - a lot are, but it is unfair to stereotype them as being stupid.

Question, you're starting to sound more like third choice...

Question wrote:

Calbear, now you are disappointing me. Always trying to show that someone always has an "advantage" over someone else. Is that your point? Surely it is not so trivial. Next, you'll be arguing that someone with $10 million has an "advantage" over someone who has "merely" $2 million.

No, but I would say that a kid from a school district with a $10 million budget is likely to have an advantage (better teachers, more resources, greater variety of extra-curricular options, etc.) over a kid from a school district with a $2 million budget.

[/quote]If we can show that even a small percent "overcome" what you call "disadvantages", then we can argue that such "disadvantages" are not limiting factors in whatever sphere is under discussion... unless, of course, you want them to be.[/quote]

I don't think you can use a small percentage of anything to prove a point. A particular disadvantage may not be a limiting factor for one, but extremely limiting for another.

[/quote]Isn't that the whole premise of the "capitalist" system? That, with work, you can make yourself what you want to be? Isn't that the American Dream? What happened to it?

Let's take a running example: the Japanese have turned themselves into the No.2 nation in elite marathoners. Without the apparent "advantages" of Kenyan genes, high altitude, peaceful pastoral life, low cost of living, perfect weather and environment, etc... they have said, "we'll just work harder than everybody else." And, whaddya know, it's working.

You, personally, appear to have done the same. Why cannot others do like you?[/quote]

Do like me? What exactly have I done? I don't think I ever said I was disadvantaged (unless , of course, you're assuming that the color of my skin puts me at an automatic disadvantage...hmmm...)

I was fortunate to have a very priveleged upbringing. My parents weren't loaded (although they are now) but they made sure we went to private schools, were very involved in all aspects of our lives, and made it clear to us that not going to college was not an option. I didn't have to overcome a damn thing, and for all you know, I could be lazy, shiftless, and unemployed (which would explain the amount of time I've had to spend on this thread!)

Well, pardon me. I was under the impression that you felt you were given some "affirmative action" which allowed you to go to Berkeley while your friend had to "make do" with Stanford. Were you not "deserving" of that assistance? Then, I apologise for assuming so. Perhaps you can tell us why you feel you received it.

You seem to be offering a proven alternative to affirmative action... everyone just needs parents like yours. Perhaps you could direct your earnest appeals to the kids' parents instead of believing everyone else should "make allowances".

And why quote me so much if you then totally overlook the Japanese belief in, and capitalist bedrock of, a strong work ethic? Do you now argue this is no longer required? That all one requires is "assistance", to make the grade?

Boston Public! - hahahahaha. Based on that show, a teacher's life is all about getting underage nookie and avoiding the sporadic gang fights in the hallways. With all that tight teen bootie action, I can't understand why more don't go into the profession?

We need programs like affirmative action in this country. I didn't get into my first choice of college due to a quota system that gave preference to minorities, but I still believe in these programs.

College admissions, tests, etc, are generally skewed. The ideal college applicant now is a white female. They are outscoring (and outnumbering) white males, and every other group. To maintain diversity, certain groups need to be treated differently.

The real root of the problem is poor parenting. My wife is a high school teacher. The stories she tells amaze me. Many children come from an environment which is not conducive to learning. Also, our society does not value education. Say what you will - look at the role models we have for our children. We are encouraged to "Be like Mike", as if shooting a fadeaway jumper was the ultimate goal in life. For many kids, it is! However, kids are too dumb to realize how small the chance is that they will have to succeed in athletics (as a career) and that a solid education is their best bet. Athletes are more popular, and being smart isn't cool. Parents need to reward their kids for learning, not for playing sports. Dad encourages the kid to learn a new sport, but would he also encourage the kid to join the math team? Unlikely.

As for the Bush SAT question - what the hell do they teach kids in ivy schools anyway? Based on the way wejo and rojo write, they don't even teach the difference between "your" and "you're" (sorry guys).

Does anyone listen to the Russ Parr show in the morning? Today's topic was "Should my pregnant 13 year old daughter get a baby shower?"

Are you sure you're not third choice??? I made it clear in the original thread that my getting into Berkeley, and my more "qualified" white friend not getting in, was proof of how affirmative action is misused. I received that assistance because of the color of my skin (I assume--although it's not like they send out special Affirmative Action acceptance letters). And I have argued ad nauseum that socio-economics, not race, should be the factor used by admissions boards when implementing affirmative action.

Of course I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that there are kids out there who do adhere to the "capitalist bedrock of a hard work ethic", but no matter how hard they study, don't have the means to score 1600 on the SAT because of what's lacking around them. THOSE are the kids who could use a helping hand.

calbear wrote:

Of course I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that there are kids out there who do adhere to the "capitalist bedrock of a hard work ethic", but no matter how hard they study, don't have the means to score 1600 on the SAT because of what's lacking around them. THOSE are the kids who could use a helping hand.

As is probably clear by now, I'll second this statement. The real question is whether there are some prospective students for whom their SAT scores are not an accurate indicator of their academic potential. If there are (and I personally think this is beyond dispute), then the question is whether colleges should have the freedom to try to account for that discrepancy (between scores and potential) in their admissions processes. That doesn't excuse quotas or other gross oversimplifications. Nor does it excuse assuming that every african american kid has had to struggle to overcome severe hardships and every white or asian kid has been handed every possible advantage. Just because it's hard to do the right thing doesn't mean we should give up trying and rely just on SAT scores.

And thanks to Wejo for leaving this thread up. I think it continues to be one of the best on this board.