Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The NYC Marathon has just finished for the fastest runners. The field of runners was perhaps 90% white, judging from the hour I watched on First Avenue.
However the winning men were 2 Kenyans and an Ethiopian. Geoffrey Mutai, Kenyan, broke the course record set 10 years earlier by an Ethiiopian.
The top 3 women runners were 2 Ethiopians and a Kenyan.
The fasted dozen men runners at the middle of the race were black with possibly one Hispanic who seemed to drop back.
Orientals and whites, who seem to be able to get into Stuyvesant easily, did particularly poorly.
So, is this test of speed and endurance RACIST?
Or do the parents in Ethiopia and Kenya take more care to train their kids for this test? Are they encouraged to take "homework" runs every night?
Or is excellence in speed and endurance potential inherently different for different races?
Oh silly me.
There's no such thing as training or working.
All we have to do is find our magic powers.
So basically what I'm getting from you is you think if a black kid was raised from birth by a family that follows the exact regimens of an asian family, he wouldn't be as smart as the asian because he's black. Right?
You should know that "the exact regimens of an asian family" even make different products out of siblings from identical parents. In my family, only two out of six children made to college under the extremely competitive college selection process (the success rate was less than 1/10 back then). So you know you need a large enough population base to draw any meaningful conclusion from such "experiments".
My other siblings are not ashamed to say that we two are "smarter", even though one of them becomes very successful in business later on in life. But I know that it is the interest in academics and inner drive, not to mention all those long hours of studying while others were having fun playing, that helped me stood out in the tough college selection competition.
There are a few genius in the world; but for the most of us, there is a strict positive correlation between effort and reward as far as schooling is concerned.
So basically what I'm getting from you is you think if a black kid was raised from birth by a family that follows the exact regimens of an asian family, he wouldn't be as smart as the asian because he's black. Right?
Who knows, who cares.
My understanding is these "specialized" schools are merit based. They aren't sympathy for being born to poorly educated families that don't value education based. I went to school with a lot of first generation (either born or emigated early in life) students. Many of them did well in school. Most had parents that cared although some did not. My best friend in HS was one of four kids. Two were very bright, although by no means geniuses. The other two were normal. Three did well in school, the fourth not so much.
You should know that "the exact regimens of an asian family" even make different products out of siblings from identical parents. In my family, only two out of six children made to college under the extremely competitive college selection process (the success rate was less than 1/10 back then). So you know you need a large enough population base to draw any meaningful conclusion from such "experiments".
My other siblings are not ashamed to say that we two are "smarter", even though one of them becomes very successful in business later on in life. But I know that it is the interest in academics and inner drive, not to mention all those long hours of studying while others were having fun playing, that helped me stood out in the tough college selection competition.
There are a few genius in the world; but for the most of us, there is a strict positive correlation between effort and reward as far as schooling is concerned.
The thing I appreciated most here in the US is that the society encourages good education and invests a LOT in making it accessible to all people. I just don't understand that people can still find excuses to complain about "good" or "bad" schools.
If a student take not take the initiative to absorb knowledge like they are sipping down a can of coke, it makes it unfair to evaluate a teacher's competence based on such students' performance. Are there teachers able to feed knowledge into kids while they are sleeping? Or that should become an active area of research in search of such magical creative teaching methods
The thing I appreciated most here in the US is that the society encourages good education and invests a LOT in making it accessible to all people. I just don't understand that people can still find excuses to complain about "good" or "bad" schools.
If a student take not take the initiative to absorb knowledge like they are sipping down a can of coke, it makes it unfair to evaluate a teacher's competence based on such students' performance. Are there teachers able to feed knowledge into kids while they are sleeping? Or that should become an active area of research in search of such magical creative teaching methods
You have social and economic conditions affecting the ability of the child to take advantage of the best schools in the world.
The schools are the best because they select the best students for academic rigor.
If they select students who would rather shoot ball than learn calculus, then it won't be a specialized school anymore.
Like I mentioned earlier, lots of public schools are spending a lot of time to help slow learning children by reviewing the same materials over and over again, those more capable children will have to depend self learning to stay academically interested.
In the long run, implementing of the NCLBehind policy will leave US behind the rest of the world.
Interesting article, but did anyone else see the irony that the proposed solution for the "bad" half of the school building was to segregate the intelligent, well behaved students from the less intelligent, poorly behaved students through a new gifted program? Isn't that what the whole article is decrying in the first place?
Interesting article, but did anyone else see the irony that the proposed solution for the "bad" half of the school building was to segregate the intelligent, well behaved students from the less intelligent, poorly behaved students through a new gifted program? Isn't that what the whole article is decrying in the first place?
What are our social values? If you pass a test you are a human being and if you don't pass an academic test, well, who cares about you?
I wouldn't call the "underperforming" students "less intelligent," however. That seems a little cruel to me (not trying to eb offensive by saying that).
Our priorities always seem to be to sort the kids into "useable" and "unusable." Everyone can contribute. We need a system where everyone can contribute.
I wouldn't call the "underperforming" students "less intelligent," however. That seems a little cruel to me (not trying to eb offensive by saying that).
True, but the article itself uses that kind of description (again, ironic)-- here is a quote from page 2:
In the constant battle, the teacher is always fighting on two fronts: There are those who talk because they're poor students and can't sit still in a classroom, and then there are those who interrupt because they're smart and bored.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but
