The Supreme Court ruled today that you can’t discriminate based on race but you can discriminate based on sexuality.
Only white [Christians] don’t see a problem with this
1) That is not what they said. I realize that reading and thinking are hard, but try taking a look at the actual decision.
2) I don't see much of a problem with the actual decision that SCOTUS handed down. (And FWIW I'm a committed atheist and most would probably consider me very liberal, at least in social matters.) Freedom of speech, including the freedom not to speak, is a thing.
Roughly half of the time, my student with the greatest aptitude is an urban black student in precalculus. …
So how do we measure merit? If we are interested in a perfect meritocracy, how do we measure ?which student will have the greatest trajectory?
If two students have similar profiles, with one white and one black, I would say the black student is more likely to be a better choice. But, a more refined approach would be to use urban vs. suburban, or better yet, income.
Why bet on black if it’s “roughly half the time”? Is it because black kids are a minority in your inner city student population?
No, less than 10% of my students are black. About 90% are white. Most white students are rural or suburban.
Why bet on black if it’s “roughly half the time”? Is it because black kids are a minority in your inner city student population?
No, less than 10% of my students are black. About 90% are white. Most white students are rural or suburban.
Interesting, what would you say in response to the plentiful folks on here citing evidence that black students score lower on IQ or other standardized tests despite accounting for family income?
And how biased would you consider yourself in wanting to see a certain outcome in regards to that question?
No, less than 10% of my students are black. About 90% are white. Most white students are rural or suburban.
Interesting, what would you say in response to the plentiful folks on here citing evidence that black students score lower on IQ or other standardized tests despite accounting for family income?
And how biased would you consider yourself in wanting to see a certain outcome in regards to that question?
No, less than 10% of my students are black. About 90% are white. Most white students are rural or suburban.
Interesting, what would you say in response to the plentiful folks on here citing evidence that black students score lower on IQ or other standardized tests despite accounting for family income?
And how biased would you consider yourself in wanting to see a certain outcome in regards to that question?
I don't have any opinion about what race scores higher on IQ tests. I was merely passing on some observations from my profession. And also that merit can be a little more tricky than merely looking at how many AP classes a student took, or how high they scored on a calculus exam in 12th grade.
I also agree that my observations are anecdotal. Who knows, maybe I got lucky for a few years straight. But, if I were to place a bet, and I had two students, one white, and one black, and they had the same test scores, same classes, etc., chances are, the black student, on average, has had to overcome more obstacles, and is probably more talented. That statement alone cannot be used to make an inference about the whole population, with regards to IQ or anything else.
We do give a math award each year, and it is strictly based on outcomes - whoever has the highest average in Calculus I-Differential Equations. Some things just have to be that way.
Some don't. I would be interested in seeing what MIT does. They are great at knowing all there is to know about ability. My daughter was accepted there but chose not to go, and my son got deferred and rejected.
There are two types of fundamentalists here: one says every decision in life has to be based on simple measurable outcomes, and the other says every decision has to take into account race, etc.
Interesting, what would you say in response to the plentiful folks on here citing evidence that black students score lower on IQ or other standardized tests despite accounting for family income?
And how biased would you consider yourself in wanting to see a certain outcome in regards to that question?
I don't have any opinion about what race scores higher on IQ tests.
No opinion needed. There is a large set of uncontroverted facts on that issue.
But, if I were to place a bet, and I had two students, one white, and one black, and they had the same test scores, same classes, etc., chances are, the black student, on average, has had to overcome more obstacles, and is probably more talented.
There was a time, around 40 years ago, when that stereotype was probably a good one (or a good bet as you put it). Now, it no longer carries much weight in this integrated, dynamic society, but unfortunately it is the go-to premise many people use in making decisions and advancing political arguments.
Affirmative action discriminates by admitting students with lower grades over more qualified Asian students.
Legacy preference discriminates by admitting students with lower grades over more qualified Asian students.
Both discriminate against more qualified students.
So why has one incurred the wrath of white conservatives and the other has not,in fact they pretend the other doesn’t even exist.A confounding puzzle,right ?
Well not really,the answer lies in who is benefiting from these discriminatory practices.
Affirmative action benefits minorities and Legacy prefrence beneficiaries are 70% white.Therein lies the answer to the puzzle.
White conservatives are two faced hypocrites,they say for us whites benefits but for you blacks the finger.
Native Americans did say white man speaks with forked tongue.
AA discriminates based on race, legacy does not. Is this really so difficult to figure out? At most of these top institutions, the student body is only ~50% white. So despite what you racist idiots say, legacy admissions will affect more minorities than whites. Since all you care about is race, that should be great news for you.
Convenient isn’t it that the discrimination(legacy preferences)that white conservatives don’t mind is the one that overwhelmingly benefits white folks.What a coincidence !
BTW, high school physics students in the U.S. really suck, at least according to the advanced portion of the TIMSS exams. Quite a while ago we were so bad that we had our own category, below the rest of the world. Now some other countries suck as much as we do. The truth is out there if you want to find it.
Why do we suck? Curriculum. Lack of resources. Lack of AP physics, even in many suburban schools. Lack of qualified physics teachers. It is well documented. If engineering schools in the U.S. were a true meritocracy they would be inhabited by mostly foreign students. Oh, wait, many of them are.
So, even if you go to Exeter and take 9 years of physics, if you are from the U.S., then you are part of a group that lacks the logic to navigate through the nuances of Impulse-Momentum, Work-Energy and al the various theorems that makes us Newtonian Mechanics. You are part of a class of dullards who can't seen to fathom the relationship between the theoretical and experimental, the subtleties of Newtonian idealizations, and so on.
Interesting, what would you say in response to the plentiful folks on here citing evidence that black students score lower on IQ or other standardized tests despite accounting for family income?
And how biased would you consider yourself in wanting to see a certain outcome in regards to that question?
I don't have any opinion about what race scores higher on IQ tests. I was merely passing on some observations from my profession. And also that merit can be a little more tricky than merely looking at how many AP classes a student took, or how high they scored on a calculus exam in 12th grade.
I also agree that my observations are anecdotal. Who knows, maybe I got lucky for a few years straight. But, if I were to place a bet, and I had two students, one white, and one black, and they had the same test scores, same classes, etc., chances are, the black student, on average, has had to overcome more obstacles, and is probably more talented. That statement alone cannot be used to make an inference about the whole population, with regards to IQ or anything else.
We do give a math award each year, and it is strictly based on outcomes - whoever has the highest average in Calculus I-Differential Equations. Some things just have to be that way.
Some don't. I would be interested in seeing what MIT does. They are great at knowing all there is to know about ability. My daughter was accepted there but chose not to go, and my son got deferred and rejected.
There are two types of fundamentalists here: one says every decision in life has to be based on simple measurable outcomes, and the other says every decision has to take into account race, etc.
Some don't. I would be interested in seeing what MIT does. They are great at knowing all there is to know about ability. My daughter was accepted there but chose not to go, and my son got deferred and rejected.
FWIW, I’m more familiar with MIT’s as well as graduate admissions more generally. MIT was one of the early schools to not require GREs though that’s becoming more fashionable especially for MS as opposed to PhD admissions, and increasing diversity is often a cited reason.
At the undergrad level, standardized tests are still a pretty good predictor of academic success, their flaws notwithstanding, in my view.
BTW, high school physics students in the U.S. really suck, at least according to the advanced portion of the TIMSS exams. Quite a while ago we were so bad that we had our own category, below the rest of the world. Now some other countries suck as much as we do. The truth is out there if you want to find it.
Why do we suck? Curriculum. Lack of resources. Lack of AP physics, even in many suburban schools. Lack of qualified physics teachers. It is well documented. If engineering schools in the U.S. were a true meritocracy they would be inhabited by mostly foreign students. Oh, wait, many of them are.
At the grad level, they are, but not at the undergrad level, mostly because it’s not affordable to as many people across the world, but you are right that if it were a true meritocracy, Asian high schoolers would beat their American counterparts hands down coz their high school curricula simply cover a lot more of math and physics that’s typically covered here in freshman/sophomore courses.
I believe AA has been very harmful to blacks in America. It has focused on long ago discrimination rather than fixing the underperforming schools, crime and especially broken or never-formed black families. I live and work in NYC. I work with a black man who recently had to go 1000-miles or so to another state to attend the high school graduation of his son who he has rarely seen through the son's high school years. This son was not attending some elite New England prep school like Deerfield Academy or Choate (I attended an elite university with lots of those kids and they have a different set of issues despite good academic preparation for college); he was in a far-away state probably in some under-performing high school in a mostly black neighborhood. I work with another black man. He's 33 years old, very affable, raps on the side. He's never married but has two kids. And another black male co-worker has four kids but never married. And I could go on and on. I look back in my life and see my father as a hugely important figure. But for so many black children in the USA, dad has been very remote and not the helpful figure that dads in other groups are. This is a current problem, unlike slavery or Jim Crow, and it can and should be fixed.
Circa 1960 in the USA, when direct abortion was rare, about 20% of black babies were born out-of-wedlock, compared with about 6% of white babies.
For 2018, when direct abortion was common, we have the following out-of-wedlock birth rates by race or ethnicity in the USA:
69.4% for blacks 68.2% for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent) 58.1 % for Hispanics 28.2% for whites 11.7% for Asians (39.6% or all groups combined)
Those data are from the article linked below, from which I take this paragraph: "So, we go from seven out of ten for African Americans, to one out of ten for Asian Americans; from a little less than three out of ten for whites, to a little more than five out of ten for Hispanics. As I say, a huge range, and one that more than anything else seems to fit quite precisely with how well the different groups are doing on whatever success metric you want to use."
BTW, high school physics students in the U.S. really suck, at least according to the advanced portion of the TIMSS exams. Quite a while ago we were so bad that we had our own category, below the rest of the world. Now some other countries suck as much as we do. The truth is out there if you want to find it.
Why do we suck? Curriculum. Lack of resources. Lack of AP physics, even in many suburban schools. Lack of qualified physics teachers. It is well documented. If engineering schools in the U.S. were a true meritocracy they would be inhabited by mostly foreign students. Oh, wait, many of them are.
And for the past 40+ years, the liberal/democrat teachers unions have dominated the curriculums. That’s a fact. I’m not trying to make it political, but it is what it is.
Our schools used to be very highly rated on a global scale. They have been declining substantially in the aforementioned decades.
BTW, high school physics students in the U.S. really suck, at least according to the advanced portion of the TIMSS exams. Quite a while ago we were so bad that we had our own category, below the rest of the world. Now some other countries suck as much as we do. The truth is out there if you want to find it.
Why do we suck? Curriculum. Lack of resources. Lack of AP physics, even in many suburban schools. Lack of qualified physics teachers. It is well documented. If engineering schools in the U.S. were a true meritocracy they would be inhabited by mostly foreign students. Oh, wait, many of them are.
And for the past 40+ years, the liberal/democrat teachers unions have dominated the curriculums. That’s a fact. I’m not trying to make it political, but it is what it is.
Our schools used to be very highly rated on a global scale. They have been declining substantially in the aforementioned decades.
The unions focus on salaries, work conditions, teachers' rights, professional development, pensions, health benefits, hours, vacation time. Regarding instruction best practices, peer review and mentorship are issues the unions concerns itself with.
You can't blame the unions for the curriculum being taught. No child left behind, which reading method to teach young kids and common core math are not union led issues.
And for the past 40+ years, the liberal/democrat teachers unions have dominated the curriculums. That’s a fact. I’m not trying to make it political, but it is what it is.
Our schools used to be very highly rated on a global scale. They have been declining substantially in the aforementioned decades.
The unions focus on salaries, work conditions, teachers' rights, professional development, pensions, health benefits, hours, vacation time. Regarding instruction best practices, peer review and mentorship are issues the unions concerns itself with.
You can't blame the unions for the curriculum being taught. No child left behind, which reading method to teach young kids and common core math are not union led issues.
Well, let’s take a look at the democrat-dominated school boards then. In the meantime, with everything you listed, let’s ask how education levels are continually going down when unions are more powerful than ever.
And please, don’t tell me that people like Randi Weingarten is for the betterment of our youth. She’s one of the single most destructive ‘leaders’ in our education systems history.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.