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.
People like Robert Moses bulldozed a lot of private housing stock (this was called Urban Renewal or Negro Removal) and pushed the Black people in them into living in the projects. It will take a lot more than a role model to undo the problems caused by that, particularly on a large scale.
I remember reading somewhere that downtown Brooklyn was top 3 in business commerce and number one in black/African American commerce before it was re-zoned/gentrified, because city planning and Bloomberg felt the business in the area to be too narrow and limiting for the city. They wanted to diversify the area and bring in more corporate interest. I am curious to know what happen to all the African American entrepreneurship.
I remember reading somewhere that downtown Brooklyn was top 3 in business commerce and number one in black/African American commerce before it was re-zoned/gentrified, because city planning and Bloomberg felt the business in the area to be too narrow and limiting for the city. They wanted to diversify the area and bring in more corporate interest. I am curious to know what happen to all the African American entrepreneurship.
Oh and this is not limited to small Black businesses.
Gentrification has wiped out the majority of gay bars in cities like NYC. What do you think happened to those owners, and their employees?
Ditto other groups pushed out of neighborhoods that experienced rapid gentrification.
These people would be surviving. I don't know about how well.
Well, of the kids that are black and/or hispanic that is testing into these schools, what sets them apart from others black and/or hispanic applicants that did not? Is there a large socioecnomic correlation? Are they mostly of recent immigrant arrival or have they been in the city/country for generations? Were there specific programs or classes that they took/enrolled in that seemed to be particularly helpful? I think these would probably be pretty insightful.
Also, does anyone have any stats on the funding for public primary and middle schools and how successful those schools are in sending kids to the specialized high schools? Is it maybe that neighborhood primary and middle schools in communities that aren't sending many kids to these specialized high schools aren't 1) receiving the same level of government funding 2) not able to raise nearly the same amount of money within the community in fundraisers? It could be heartening in a sense if it was a funding issue and that targeted funding and the resources it allows for schools were able to play a large and straightforward role in improving people's lives. It'd also be disheartening in the sense that if this did turn out to be a funding imbalance, then why did it continue. Anyone have any info on this?
Well, of the kids that are black and/or hispanic that is testing into these schools, what sets them apart from others black and/or hispanic applicants that did not? Is there a large socioecnomic correlation? Are they mostly of recent immigrant arrival or have they been in the city/country for generations? Were there specific programs or classes that they took/enrolled in that seemed to be particularly helpful? I think these would probably be pretty insightful.
Also, does anyone have any stats on the funding for public primary and middle schools and how successful those schools are in sending kids to the specialized high schools? Is it maybe that neighborhood primary and middle schools in communities that aren't sending many kids to these specialized high schools aren't 1) receiving the same level of government funding 2) not able to raise nearly the same amount of money within the community in fundraisers? It could be heartening in a sense if it was a funding issue and that targeted funding and the resources it allows for schools were able to play a large and straightforward role in improving people's lives. It'd also be disheartening in the sense that if this did turn out to be a funding imbalance, then why did it continue. Anyone have any info on this?
For some reason when people release information like this, they don't seem to like to release the socioeconomic and ethnic differences between Blacks. The same is true for Hispanics. But you are very right, more detailed information on the socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds of those Blacks and Hispanics would be very helpful. Somehow I doubt they were from the housing projects.
People like Robert Moses bulldozed a lot of private housing stock (this was called Urban Renewal or Negro Removal) and pushed the Black people in them into living in the projects. It will take a lot more than a role model to undo the problems caused by that, particularly on a large scale.
Suppose someone living in the housing projects gets a job, and wants to move out. Oops in much of the city one must make 40 times one month's rent on an annual basis to be rented out the apartment.
Of course college affordability is an issue for all Americans. Added to that a BA alone doesn't mean much in most fields. You'd need a masters degree in highly competitive markets like NYC. Btw getting into CUNY grad programs is fairly competitive, so a large number of people with undergraduate degrees will not get to go.
Cosby's problems are inconsequential, because even if he hadn't have turned out to be a RAPIST there is nothing he could have done to solve the above socioeconomic problems.
Get over it....
Have posted pictures from what many areas that are housing projects today were back in the day, and they can be described in two words; slums and tenements. One of the best things NYC did was bulldoze down those vermin infested buildings and build new.
As for Mr. Cosby and his message the man was spot on; success begets success at least where academics are concerned. Again poor Asian and Indian kids go to the same public schools as other minorities and somehow they manage to out perform blacks and Latinos.
Stop blaming other persons and or looking for an out. That is much of the problem today with AAs, everything is someone else's fault. This despite laws that for the past fifty years have pretty much handed them things on a platter. Standards have been lowered, quotas established, various groups forced to accept on paper at lest lower qualified applicants "because"; and yet somehow that still isn't enough.
The City rolled out the red carpet and went to bat for AA and other minorities to get them the "assistance" needed to ace specialized high school entrance exams, and we can see what that has gotten. Will say it again what people are after is what always happens in these situations; lowering of the bar.
what people are after is what always happens in these situations; lowering of the bar.
Not necessarily. Think of the SHSAT in medical terms: It produces very few false positives, but a LOT of false negatives. That is, of the kids who get admitted to the elite eight, almost all will do well (though there are always some who don't, or who do and are miserable for four years). But there are also lots of kids who don't make the cutoff and would ALSO do well. I think most parents and educators will admit to that.
How we help those kids--and there are a great many black and Hispanic teenagers in that cohort--is the point. And no one is suggesting "lowering the bar" to do so. In the best outcome, those kids would all be admitted to the best selective high schools around the city, many of which (Beacon, Bard, Baccalaureate School, NEST-M, Townsend Harris, et al) have reputations among college admissions people as good as or better than the specialized high schools. This does happen in some cases. But not nearly enough IMO. (But that's for another thread sometimes).
Ultimately, using a more holistic measure of admissions, which is what every other public selective high school in the US except New York City does,, would go a long way toward eliminating racial disparities at these schools. Every specialized high school in the U.S. rerquires some sort of standardized test. But they also consider things like teacher recommendations, or grades, or socio-economic circumstances, or special talents, or unusual life experiences or some combination of all of those. In some cases the principal is even given discretion to pick a handful of students he/she thinks will be successful regardless of their showing on the other metrics.
Would that ramp up the anxiety of applying to the specialized high schools? Yep. But the angst of getting into Stuyvesant or Bronx Science is already high anyway. Would fewer Asian students gain admissions? Probably. And would you end up with an intellectually more rounded student body? I'd say yes you would. And it would be worth it.
New York State is woefully behind the times in basing admittance to so many of its top NYC schools on one test given on one day. Nobody else in the country does it like that. And if it weren't for racial hysteria we wouldn't be doing it either. But there you go. It's about time we learned from the rest of the country and change this narrow, stupid system.
Last edited by citylove101; 03-07-2016 at 04:33 PM..
Not necessarily. Think of the SHSAT in medical terms: It produces very few false positives, but a LOT of false negatives. That is, of the kids who get admitted to the elite eight, almost all will do well (though there are always some who don't, or who do and are miserable for four years). But there are also lots of kids who don't make the cutoff and would ALSO do well. I think most parents and educators will admit to that.
If that is the case, the best, simplest solution with the least opposition, would be to create additional specialized science high schools. If there are more qualified students than available seats, changing the criteria will not help things; you'd only be shuffling people around and you'll still have deserving students who don't get accepted. It's not unprecedented; when I was in school, there were only 3 (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech). Now there's 8. What's a few more? There's nothing inherently special about these schools. What makes them great is the concentration of great students. That allows schools to teach to students of the same caliber and offer more Advanced Placement classes because there's a demand for them.
They wanted to diversify the area and bring in more corporate interest. I am curious to know what happen to all the African American entrepreneurship.
Interesting. I bet "diversity" programs would be just fine if it was my area. "Diversity" is only bad if it doesn't serve minority interests apparently.
How Gotham's Elite High Schools Escaped the Leveller's Ax by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal Spring 1999
Heather M makes the same mistake so many apologists for the SHSAT make: That this one test is the ONLY true measure of "merit." That's simply not true and it's very bad educational policy as well. You certainly can't get into a top college in the US just by doing well on the SAT. It helps. But those colleges, and other elite public high schools around the country, all look at multiple factors. Just because there are other considerations doesn't mean you're "dumbing down" the school.
As to adding more specialized high schools, yes that might be a helpful thing. It has happened already. But having more of them with the same narrow definition of "merit" would still be too rigid.
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.
