At 9/10/14 08:32 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: These findings regarding expression don't necessarily imply that racial IQ differences would have no genetic component.

We don't even know if IQ objectively measures intelligence.
We can use it to measure aptitudes in certain 1st world socio-economic systems but whether or not low intelligence is a characteristic of a certain population group will be settled along the lines of molecular genetic studies.

At 9/10/14 08:32 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: These findings regarding expression don't necessarily imply that racial IQ differences would have no genetic component.

I'm still waiting for you to source something that backs up your claim honestly. Because with no source, you DO just sound like a smarter then average racist right now. So please, instead of picking on someone ill-equipped to argue with you, and dismissing someone who seems to have scientifically pwned you....how about you put your cards on the table and show us where you're getting the idea from?

It should be pointed out that ib just about every thread on this forum people tend not to actually read my arguments but instead respond to seeing a few keywords.

Chloe claimed that "The World IQ statistics says that the USA lies in the 20th place for the average IQ after the most of other "advanced" European and Asian countries. "

All I argued was that these figures need to account for race, because blacks and hispanics in all countries have lower IQs than the white average and so having large populations of these people will necessarily lower that country's average IQ scores.

With the obvious implication being that the lower average American IQ score is in part caused by it's racial demographics, not just it's education or other social policies.

Unless the lower average black and hispanic average IQ scores were unique to america (they aren't) then whether or not they are genetic or environmental is not entirely relevent to the original discussion.

At 9/10/14 08:40 PM, naronic wrote: We don't even know if IQ objectively measures intelligence.

1. Intelligence has no objective meaning (in the context of these issues).

2. IQ doesn't need to objectively measure "intelligence" (whatever the heck that even means) because it has strong socio-economic predictive power, both between and within self-identified racial groups.

3. As noted above, I wasn't the one who brought up IQ in the first place.

We can use it to measure aptitudes in certain 1st world socio-economic systems

Which is precisely why it's useful.

but whether or not low intelligence is a characteristic of a certain population group will be settled along the lines of molecular genetic studies.

yes, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qij_wD7_kQ

what would happen if some one showed up and said that not only is poverty the main reason for the disparity of black people in America, but the Democrats, who have been in charge of just about every single one of their communities for the last few decades, are probably to blame for it?

At 9/10/14 08:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It should be pointed out that ib just about every thread on this forum people tend not to actually read my arguments but instead respond to seeing a few keywords.

That's fair.

Chloe claimed that "The World IQ statistics says that the USA lies in the 20th place for the average IQ after the most of other "advanced" European and Asian countries. "

He did.

All I argued was that these figures need to account for race, because blacks and hispanics in all countries have lower IQs than the white average and so having large populations of these people will necessarily lower that country's average IQ scores.

You did, then I asked you to prove that with a source. You still haven't answered that request.

The rest of it is you and the other users. But I would really, REALLY like you to give me a source that says those IQ rates are lower, and PROVES that it is because of race and not other factors. Which is what you claimed.

why not just make the caste system based on what youCurrent levelof education is? so then a person has incentive to advance themselves?

At 9/10/14 11:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: why not just make the caste system based on what youCurrent levelof education is? so then a person has incentive to advance themselves?

Caste systems are bad. That's why countries ban them. Because the whole POINT is that you don't advance, you stay in one spot, you stay there and you don't get to advance or step on the toes of the rich and the powerful. They don't want you on their level. That's the myth that people need to stop buying into. They want your money, they want your labor, they do NOT want you on their level. The educational system in this country IS broken. Once you start allowing money and profit motive to come into it, the game is over. We've seen that over and over again in every sector, and yet we do nothing to curb it.

At 9/10/14 11:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You did, then I asked you to prove that with a source. You still haven't answered that request.

I didn't see it, calm down buddy.

and PROVES that it is because of race and not other factors. Which is what you claimed.

Slow down there cowboy, where did I claim this?

Anyway, as far as racial IQ differences go:
A 2001 meta-analysis published in Personnel Psychology of more than 100 studies which included more than 6 million participants found that blacks score, on average, about 16-17 points lower than whites on IQ tests (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract). The same meta-analysis also showed that Hispanics have a higher mean IQ mean than blacks but a lower mean IQ than whites. Other studies have shown that East Asians and certain groups of Jews have higher mean IQ's than whites do (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf).

At 9/11/14 12:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: The educational system in this country IS broken. Once you start allowing money and profit motive to come into it, the game is over. We've seen that over and over again in every sector, and yet we do nothing to curb it.

Are you trying to suggest that more private sector involvement in education correlates with lower quality education, or that corporations are trying to sabotage public education?

At 9/11/14 12:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Once you start allowing money and profit motive to come into it, the game is over. We've seen that over and over again in every sector, and yet we do nothing to curb it.

Yeah, I guess that's why the soviet union was so prosperous and why america doesn't have the highest median income in the world.

Caste systems are bad. That's why countries ban them.

Marijuana is bad, that's why countries ban it.

Because the whole POINT is that you don't advance, you stay in one spot, you stay there and you don't get to advance or step on the toes of the rich and the powerful. They don't want you on their level.

you're forgetting the part where there is a lack of academic mobility in non-caste systems as well

though I don't think he meant by 'caste' as you seem to think he did (even if he used it incorrectly)

At 9/11/14 12:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

I'll get to the other post in a bit, need to get some more of my sources and such in order. This one seemed a bit easier to deal with.

Yeah, I guess that's why the soviet union was so prosperous and why america doesn't have the highest median income in the world.

The USSR has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It's a total straw man. Let's also remember that the US also has an amazing disproportion of wealth which will help skew that median income where there is an extreme amount of wealth and income spread among a very small section of the population.

Marijuana is bad, that's why countries ban it.

Why do you keep up with the ad absurdum?

you're forgetting the part where there is a lack of academic mobility in non-caste systems as well

I'm not speaking to the academic at that point. I'm merely defining what a caste system is and that it's whole design is to structure a society in such a way as to fix it's members into certain rigidly define classes and keep them there. Perhaps in the future I should just post a link to the dictionary definition? Not sarcasm, I'm seriously curious if you or others think that might be a better tact for the future.

though I don't think he meant by 'caste' as you seem to think he did (even if he used it incorrectly)

That's been a problem with the OP in just about all his topics: He doesn't use words correctly, or seems to get hopped up about things and concepts a bit beyond him. If you use a word, you should know it's meaning. That's the point of words, so we can easily define a thought and communicate it.

At 9/11/14 12:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I didn't see it, calm down buddy.

I'm not being agitated. I'd just rather see you stop picking on "easy targets"

Slow down there cowboy, where did I claim this?

Sin of omission. You hadn't shown your cards or admitted in other qualifiers for what you were saying, then you wondered why you got hit with a claim of "racist" etc. Was it really so hard to simply link a valid source? Here's one that throws a slightly different perspective on things:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/

At 9/10/14 08:15 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Well that's irrelevant to my original point, but I could provide you with evidence to the contrary if you like.

You can prove that it's because blacks are black? Yeah, I'm definitely interested in your arguments! Cause I believe there are no!

At 9/10/14 09:44 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: what would happen if some one showed up and said that not only is poverty the main reason for the disparity of black people in America, but the Democrats, who have been in charge of just about every single one of their communities for the last few decades, are probably to blame for it?

It seems that you are wrong!
I'm not sharing most of Democratic ideas, but still... When a Republican comes to power, who but him in his sphere of influence becomes richer?
As far as I remember the GOP is still existing just because most of it's authorities own base industry that's why they're rich. greedy and dancing under Koch's whistle

At 9/16/14 05:10 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: It seems that you are wrong!
I'm not sharing most of Democratic ideas, but still... When a Republican comes to power, who but him in his sphere of influence becomes richer?
As far as I remember the GOP is still existing just because most of it's authorities own base industry that's why they're rich. greedy and dancing under Koch's whistle

all rhetoric, no substance. Not a damn thing you said has anything to do with what I said.

Me: Democrats are in charge of black communities, and all fail to bring them out of poverty
You: "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

First of all, slavery will be coming back to the United States though it won't be the whips-n-chains stuff of the past. It'll come through the advent of debtors prisons and zero tolerance policies. It's already happening in our schools with zero tolerance.

That said, public school is to be the vehicle for this transition as the GOP has began cutting funding in an attempt to abolish public schooling while the DNC does their usual talk a big game but do nothing. The easy solution is to put the worst performing students who have zero interest in education in a vocational school designed to teach them the best solution on cleaning little Sally's s--- popsicles off the ground. Sports are privatized. Students who excel in certain areas are placed into programs to help stimulate their strengths while correcting their weaknesses.

Instead, we've gotta fight wars for oil and divide the country in order to distract everyone from the game afoot. This will all take time, but it'll happen slowly within the next 25 years.

At 10/13/14 10:42 PM, Organguy41 wrote: First of all, slavery will be coming back to the United States though it won't be the whips-n-chains stuff of the past. It'll come through the advent of debtors prisons and zero tolerance policies. It's already happening in our schools with zero tolerance.

I don't see any correlation between debtors prison/zero tolerance policies and the educational system. It seems like you are simply that ignorant, or you are trying to lump together unrelated issues in an attempt to sound smart, either way, no one here is buying what you are saying.

Instead, we've gotta fight wars for oil and divide the country in order to distract everyone from the game afoot. This will all take time, but it'll happen slowly within the next 25 years.

No it won't. Empty statements based on paranoia is not a good response to have here, especially when they are unrelated to each other, and there is no viable proof.

At 10/13/14 11:32 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 10/13/14 10:42 PM, Organguy41 wrote: First of all, slavery will be coming back to the United States though it won't be the whips-n-chains stuff of the past. It'll come through the advent of debtors prisons and zero tolerance policies. It's already happening in our schools with zero tolerance.

I don't see any correlation between debtors prison/zero tolerance policies and the educational system. It seems like you are simply that ignorant, or you are trying to lump together unrelated issues in an attempt to sound smart, either way, no one here is buying what you are saying.

Instead, we've gotta fight wars for oil and divide the country in order to distract everyone from the game afoot. This will all take time, but it'll happen slowly within the next 25 years.

No it won't. Empty statements based on paranoia is not a good response to have here, especially when they are unrelated to each other, and there is no viable proof.

Zero Tolerance policies lead to expulsion, frustration, and rebellion. I live in an impoverished community with half my community on food stamps. Gang crime is HUGE here because people have to beg, borrow, or steal to survive because many of them couldn't finish high school due to zero tolerance policies. Teachers at our local High School refer to it as the prisoner ward in waiting. There are people constantly heading to jail for writing worthless checks because their credit cards are all maxed out and the collection agencies come calling. Also, check the Southern Poverty Law Site. They've already shut down debtors' prisons in Alabama. It's coming back whether you believe it or not.

At 10/14/14 06:26 PM, Organguy41 wrote: Zero Tolerance policies lead to expulsion, frustration, and rebellion.

Yes and no. Depends very strongly on what the zero tolerance is applied to. There are certain acts that should be zero tolerance, or very low tolerance. These include assaulting a teacher, bringing weapons to school, and other like acts that both endanger the safety of fellow student and teachers, but have a dramatic chilling effect on the ability for students to learn.

I live in an impoverished community with half my community on food stamps. Gang crime is HUGE here because people have to beg, borrow, or steal to survive because many of them couldn't finish high school due to zero tolerance policies.

First off, no. No one has to steal because they couldn't finish high school. That's a shitty cop out. They steal because they don't want to put forth the effort it takes to make money or get a high school equivalent. Anyone can make a living wage, it may take extreme work (which I am sympathetic toward) but it can be done. I take no sympathy toward those who choose to commit crimes.

Teachers at our local High School refer to it as the prisoner ward in waiting.

That's sad in many respects. First it shows the school has essentially given up hope for most of its students. It reflects really poorly on the community as the most integral part of education is the home life. Very few teachers, let alone schools, can make up for parents who teach their children to not care, or worse, actively interfere with their ability to learn and focus at school.

There are people constantly heading to jail for writing worthless checks because their credit cards are all maxed out and the collection agencies come calling. Also, check the Southern Poverty Law Site. They've already shut down debtors' prisons in Alabama. It's coming back whether you believe it or not.

You dramatically misunderstand what a debtor's prison is. We do not have a debtor's prison. Our current laws do not allow for a debtor's prison. A debtor's prison is for those who do not pay an already existing debt. What you are speaking of is closer to theft and fraud. The writing of a check knowing you have no money is both theft and fraud. By doing this you are knowingly depriving the owner of the item with intent to possess it, and you are using a misrepresentation to induce someone else to give you something they woould otherwise not do had they the full and correct information. FYI, you cannot go to jail for negligently writing a check you could not actually honor.

They may sound the same to the untrained ear, but there's a key difference: Intent. Debtor's prisons were strict liability. You had to pay the debt, regardless of how you entered into the contract. You could have been 100% legit and then just unable to pay. It happens, a lot. In knowingly writing an unsupported check, you make the active move to do it. You know you cannot pay, and yet you take the item anyway. The only difference with shoplifting is that you are not thieving through slight of hand, but through fraud.

I have sympathy for those who have trouble paying for things. I have no sympathy for those who use a lack of money as a pretense for criminal activity. I know far too many families who have two parents working 2 jobs apiece (often with children working a job as well) just to get by. The claim that someone is so poor they have to steal is a slap in the face to these hardworking and upstanding people.

At 10/14/14 06:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/14/14 06:26 PM, Organguy41 wrote: Zero Tolerance policies lead to expulsion, frustration, and rebellion.

Yes and no. Depends very strongly on what the zero tolerance is applied to. There are certain acts that should be zero tolerance, or very low tolerance. These include assaulting a teacher, bringing weapons to school, and other like acts that both endanger the safety of fellow student and teachers, but have a dramatic chilling effect on the ability for students to learn.

There was a child in my condominium that got 3 days O.S.S. for defending himself when another kid started swinging at him. That's just one of the examples of how zero tolerance is slowly destroying our schools.

I live in an impoverished community with half my community on food stamps. Gang crime is HUGE here because people have to beg, borrow, or steal to survive because many of them couldn't finish high school due to zero tolerance policies.

First off, no. No one has to steal because they couldn't finish high school. That's a shitty cop out. They steal because they don't want to put forth the effort it takes to make money or get a high school equivalent. Anyone can make a living wage, it may take extreme work (which I am sympathetic toward) but it can be done. I take no sympathy toward those who choose to commit crimes.

You obviously do not live in a poor community. There aren't enough jobs to go around in many impoverished communities so how can someone survive when Food Stamps do not go far enough(or get cut in some states)?

Teachers at our local High School refer to it as the prisoner ward in waiting.

That's sad in many respects. First it shows the school has essentially given up hope for most of its students. It reflects really poorly on the community as the most integral part of education is the home life. Very few teachers, let alone schools, can make up for parents who teach their children to not care, or worse, actively interfere with their ability to learn and focus at school.

And that is partially why gang crime has exploded here since the gov't shutdown. Most of these kids come from broken homes that do not receive enough in food stamps and other assistance so they have to provide for themselves. Again, not enough jobs to go around.

There are people constantly heading to jail for writing worthless checks because their credit cards are all maxed out and the collection agencies come calling. Also, check the Southern Poverty Law Site. They've already shut down debtors' prisons in Alabama. It's coming back whether you believe it or not.

You dramatically misunderstand what a debtor's prison is. We do not have a debtor's prison. Our current laws do not allow for a debtor's prison. A debtor's prison is for those who do not pay an already existing debt. What you are speaking of is closer to theft and fraud. The writing of a check knowing you have no money is both theft and fraud. By doing this you are knowingly depriving the owner of the item with intent to possess it, and you are using a misrepresentation to induce someone else to give you something they woould otherwise not do had they the full and correct information. FYI, you cannot go to jail for negligently writing a check you could not actually honor.

They may sound the same to the untrained ear, but there's a key difference: Intent. Debtor's prisons were strict liability. You had to pay the debt, regardless of how you entered into the contract. You could have been 100% legit and then just unable to pay. It happens, a lot. In knowingly writing an unsupported check, you make the active move to do it. You know you cannot pay, and yet you take the item anyway. The only difference with shoplifting is that you are not thieving through slight of hand, but through fraud.

Most of these people are unaware they are committing fraud. Much of the time, it's a simple mistake of floating one too many checks. I've been in the workforce for about 20 years and my paychecks and other personal checks deposited have taken longer and longer to clear the bank over the years. Still, the problem goes back to what was said earlier about the lack of jobs.

I have sympathy for those who have trouble paying for things. I have no sympathy for those who use a lack of money as a pretense for criminal activity. I know far too many families who have two parents working 2 jobs apiece (often with children working a job as well) just to get by. The claim that someone is so poor they have to steal is a slap in the face to these hardworking and upstanding people.

and again, there are places where there just aren't enough jobs to go around. Look at Detroit for example, Detroit built its economy on the auto industry and look how that panned out. When you have an unemployment rate over 15%, you're going to have people steal to survive. When people are unhireable because they couldn't finish school or because they have tons of tattoos in the wrong spots, they're going to have to beg, borrow, or steal to get by. Just a simple intolerable fact of life.

At 10/14/14 06:56 PM, Organguy41 wrote: There was a child in my condominium that got 3 days O.S.S. for defending himself when another kid started swinging at him. That's just one of the examples of how zero tolerance is slowly destroying our schools.

Personally, I believe outside school suspension is counter productive. It's like rewarding students for bad behavior, and it hurts their eduction. Detention is a much better form of punishment, and it can even be converted into extra class time as well.

You obviously do not live in a poor community. There aren't enough jobs to go around in many impoverished communities so how can someone survive when Food Stamps do not go far enough(or get cut in some states)?

There are very few poor communities that are communities too small to have a load of minimum wage jobs. So, I don't buy that argument at all. Sure, there is a serious lack of good jobs, but not having a good job is no excuse to neglect one's family and responsibilities.

And that is partially why gang crime has exploded here since the gov't shutdown. Most of these kids come from broken homes that do not receive enough in food stamps and other assistance so they have to provide for themselves. Again, not enough jobs to go around.

Again, I don't buy it. There are cases of extremely poor families that instill the respect for and love of learning in their children. I do understand that many extremely poor people see college and education as completely out of reach. However, money is not a requirement to be a good parent and a good teacher at home.

and again, there are places where there just aren't enough jobs to go around. Look at Detroit for example, Detroit built its economy on the auto industry and look how that panned out. When you have an unemployment rate over 15%, you're going to have people steal to survive. When people are unhireable because they couldn't finish school or because they have tons of tattoos in the wrong spots, they're going to have to beg, borrow, or steal to get by. Just a simple intolerable fact of life.

Sure, there may be few jobs that pay more than $12/hr to go around. If a family really wanted to survive they could do it with lower jobs that are easily available. Is it fair? No. However, life being unfair is no excuse.

At 10/14/14 06:56 PM, Organguy41 wrote: There was a child in my condominium that got 3 days O.S.S. for defending himself when another kid started swinging at him. That's just one of the examples of how zero tolerance is slowly destroying our schools.

Swinging at somebody in school, even in self-defense is grounds for suspension, for good reason. Once a fight starts between two students, whether it's a slap fight or something you see in the NHL, everything within the school grinds to a halt, mostly because the students either just gawk and do nothing, simply contribute to the fight even when they don't throw any haymakers, or potentially even a lockdown.

Because of this, fighting is a huge no-no in schools and they don't want to put up with it because of the potential ramifications both on the inside and outside. I don't know if it varies from school and state, but a 3 day O.S.S is standard punishment for fighting on school grounds.

You obviously do not live in a poor community. There aren't enough jobs to go around in many impoverished communities so how can someone survive when Food Stamps do not go far enough(or get cut in some states)?

No matter where you live, stealing is never justified because most likely, they need it just as much as you do. The problem is with stealing to feed your family is where do you draw the line? If you do such a thing, you are essentially opening a Pandora's box of trouble and everyone loses, from the store to thief to the innocent people who live there who make an honest living.

Also, in a lot of places, stealing from someone may cost you your life. These are the kind of folks who aren't keen on calling 911, they would rather fire hot lead into a criminal in their own house.

And that is partially why gang crime has exploded here since the gov't shutdown. Most of these kids come from broken homes that do not receive enough in food stamps and other assistance so they have to provide for themselves. Again, not enough jobs to go around.

This is unfortunately true, as broken homes and poverty is very common in inner cities, and most of the schools there are legitimately awful. That still does not justify stealing though, especially when there are many places that offer free food (as in food drives and even homeless shelters) where available. Not to mention that many of those parents work 2 or even 3 jobs in order to feed their families and keep the electric on, what does that say to them when people are stealing or ripping off people?

Most of these people are unaware they are committing fraud. Much of the time, it's a simple mistake of floating one too many checks. I've been in the workforce for about 20 years and my paychecks and other personal checks deposited have taken longer and longer to clear the bank over the years.

The vast majority of the time, it's the person's fault for not watching the budget tight enough and not being able to write checks that they can't cash. This is one of the reasons for the Great Recession of '08 was when people began to buy everything through credit thinking that they can pay it all off like a layaway plan and that ended up backfiring in their face when they couldn't pay their mounting debt. How long the banks clear the check is irrelevant.

There are a lot of times that fraud is simply unintentional for what you just mentioned, but that still doesn't give them the excuse for not watching their budget, something that everyone needs to do.

and again, there are places where there just aren't enough jobs to go around. Look at Detroit for example, Detroit built its economy on the auto industry and look how that panned out.

True, Detroit's lack of economic diversity doomed them for decades, but it wasn't the only thing. Political corruption that would make third world countries blush with envy, the race riots in the 60's and 70's, and competitive intrusion by the Japanese also played a role. To an extent, the Rust Belt was hit hard by those exact same factors, only recently have they began to recover somewhat.

When you have an unemployment rate over 15%, you're going to have people steal to survive. When people are unhireable because they couldn't finish school or because they have tons of tattoos in the wrong spots, they're going to have to beg, borrow, or steal to get by.

When you try to defend people who make bad decisions constantly, you are either an enabler to their behavior or you are basically a total sucker, sometimes both. What you are saying isn't necessarily wrong, but you can't be too naïve about folks who make bad, uneducated decisions in their life and do nothing or little with their lives. Too many times, I've heard stories of this happening over and over again, and the lesson is still the same, if you break the rules or screw up, learn to live with the consequences.

In short, when you try to justify criminal behavior, that doesn't really make you any better then the person who committed the crime. After all, what if it were you who got robbed by a thief who needed something?

At 9/10/14 09:44 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: what would happen if some one showed up and said that not only is poverty the main reason for the disparity of black people in America, but the Democrats, who have been in charge of just about every single one of their communities for the last few decades, are probably to blame for it?

Because over the last few decades economic conditions for blacks have been improving mostly due to the reforms by Democrats?.......

That and blacks were mostly poor before the Democrats "lead" their communities.

At 9/20/14 03:10 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

Me: Democrats are in charge of black communities, and all fail to bring them out of poverty
You: "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

Urrr... okay! But Democrats are not trying to bring black people out of poverty. The only thing they're doing is complaining that the life is too cruel and its impossible for people to be equal and live in equal conditions!

*Cracks knuckles* Time for dem statistics.

For the people saying Blacks and Hispanics are the reason America may be lacking in the education department, let me direct you to a wikipedia article showing the demographics of America based on a census taken last year.

Blacks only make up 12.6% of the country.

It didn't show Hispanics, but I think they mixed them in with white since technically many people from Spanish speaking countries will find their roots in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

I can't speak for Hispanics since it wasn't on the chart and I don't want to talk out of my ass, but let's do some math here.

Roughly 300,000,000 (rounding down, it's actually 316 or something like that)= Σ USA POP
12.6 / 100 * Σ USA POP = 37,800,000

That's 38 million people out of 300 mil. I'm pretty sure blacks aren't fucking up the education system SO badly that it is causing the US to be ranked 20 in the world. And I'm not including all blacks, just most of the ones that may live in ghettos so like.. Idk, 68%-85%? Not to mention not all of them are children but...

I digress...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The problem is the system needs a major overhaul.

I think the main problem is the involvement parents. Back in the day parents would fill in the other 50% of education of getting their child to do their homework. Even the best teacher can only go so far because they need the student to take the initiative and actually do their part. If they can't focus on it then the parents have to help them.

Of course than this goes back to the 2 parent home problem which has been growing in the US. If mommy and daddy (if there is a mommy and daddy) don't want to help jr. on his algebra homework or even care that he does it, then why should he even bother about his school work? It 's not like anyone is going to stop him from doing nothing and watching anime all day.

Schools need both parents and the child working on their education along with the resources that the school gives them (including teachers).

I don't believe the problem is hard to fix, but people just don't want to for some reason.

At 10/16/14 12:05 PM, coderchick94 wrote: I think the main problem is the involvement parents.

Exactly, and not so much.

You are both right and wrong here. It is very true that the biggest problem with American education today is the dearth of interested students. This starts at home. However, I have never trusted those statistics claiming the US is 20th in this and 30th in that. Many of the countries above us cook the books like a Texas accountant.

One of the major resons we end up so low on those lists is because we are perhaps the most egalitarian country in the world when it comes to education. We let our shit sit in class along side our gold (sorry for the terms, just a metaphor) in some cases all the way until college. That just does not happen elsewhere. The underperformers in many countries are segregated and hidden under the rug in vocational schools. When it comes to "let's compare our skills" time, these countries act as if the vocational students don't exist and never include them into the final calculus. We, on the other hand, include our remedial students with our overachievers. Our end result ends up being a lower number, but a representative of our whole system. Most of the European and asian numbers are higher, but are only representative of the higher end students. I mean, if we only took our top 25-33% of students and tested them, we'd be top 5 in every category (optimism!). Yet other countries do it and mock us based on the result. There's a reason our colleges are considered the best and the most difficult in the world. If our students were really 20th or 30th in academics, our college could not function at the level and intensity they do now.

I digress. Back to the parents. I have routinely stated that the KEY thing that makes a students great is the parent(s). The parents really only have to do two things (though there are many mroe things they can do) to create a good student: Teach the child to prize learning, and expect something of them when it's all over. The common denoinator among most lower end students is that they don't care about learning, and there is no end game. When you're expected to achieve, you're more likely to posture and position yourself in a manner that leads to achievement. This is why I say the whole "private schools are inherently better" notion is a total crock. The reason private schools tend to do better is because the families that put their children into private school are both wealthier and care more. Their wealth means that the bar for the child is set high, in that the child is expected to equal or surpass the parents' achievement. The expense of private school means that most of the families are highly educated. Add to that the fact that the family is paying the price of a new car every year (in most cases, with the cheaper end being half a new car) per student to send them to the school. That expense of money indicates an importance of schooling held by the family (though I know this is not always the case).

I would dispute the need for two parents, though. I know many people who had one parent who set them up to be a great student. Two working parents is a bonus as the extra income can provide a higher degree of stability, which always helps.

^^ This, just all of this.

And yeah the 2 parent thing is arguable, it's just an argument that I've heard every time this discussion comes up.

At 10/14/14 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote:
Because over the last few decades economic conditions for blacks have been improving mostly due to the reforms by Democrats?.......

That and blacks were mostly poor before the Democrats "lead" their communities.

is that what they told you in high school?

The democrats have run the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates for decades, and 4/5 of the worst cities for police brutality (including first and second place), and 9/10 of the worst cities for crime rates (the exception being Rockford, run by an independent).

At 10/16/14 03:43 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: The democrats have run the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates for decades, and 4/5 of the worst cities for police brutality (including first and second place), and 9/10 of the worst cities for crime rates (the exception being Rockford, run by an independent).

Chicken/egg (though this can be proven, but with a hell of a lot more work than I am willing to expend.) Anyone have a sociology thesis idea they need?

Did these locales become dangerous because they had Democrats at the helm, or did they elec Democrats to the helm BECAUSE they had the problems resulting to them being dangerous?

Man, I could totally write a 500 page paper on this. Not like I want to.

At 10/16/14 03:43 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: is that what they told you in high school?

The democrats have run the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates for decades, and 4/5 of the worst cities for police brutality (including first and second place), and 9/10 of the worst cities for crime rates (the exception being Rockford, run by an independent).

First off that's text book causation-correlation fallacy.

Secondly that's what official statistics have been showing. Since the 60's black people have been moving up the income brackets and improving their conditions, mostly due to the reforms from the Kennedy-Johnson era people don't like to talk about namely job training programs and minority leadership programs. Yes not all black people have been going through the same thing, but to claim that black people have not only been declining since the 60's but it's because of Democrats that they are implies that you're using a very slanted view of the subject.