Orange_Crush
Resident windbag genius
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 37,955
- Likes
- 75,542
Did you go to the University of Texas?
In reality this is what we are dealing with. I know of no way to stop it other than begin selective sterilization and forced fostering of children. Pull the kids out of the hood and trailer parks and then put them in foster homes. Pay for their education and upbringing. Limit number of children welfare recipients are allowed to have and go from there. Now, having said that, it comes across as heartless, evil, anti-family, etc. But in truth this is what it will take to break the cycle. Throwing money at an issue and not making any life style changes is exactly what we have done for close to 60 years. It hasn't and isn't working. The leaders of color that were supposed to help break this cycle have their hands in the pie the same as the whites.
Believe it or not I had that thought while watching "Blind Side". The cycle of poverty and no hope for a future for Michael Oher was stopped cold in it's tracks. How do you repeat that cycle for everyone that needs it?
I cant believe how many people here send their kids to Baylor, McCallie, GPS, etc. and the vast majority wind up going to UTC or UTK. $100k down the tubes for what?
so it just holds back black people?
or just minorities?
or only certain minorities?
this is what I am getting at. I don't buy his theory that it is holding people back.
also this thread has gone way off topic.
So you're going on the record saying that the quality of schools in poor areas has nothing to do with the inequality of educational outcomes?
throw in my alma mater Notre Dame. seems like most of my class never left high school and have done NOTHING with their lives.
Same here. I went to public schools in Atlanta (Gwinnett). AP everything was offered and we had great teachers. Had friends that went to Westminster, Marist, Woodward, etc..all the top private schools. Have been absolutely shocked at the number that have just flamed out. I think a lot of it was a sense of entitlement, too good to do certain jobs and they thought their daddy's money was their money, much to their detriment.
beyond the level of competency I don't think it matters a whole lot.
yeah, if everyone had grade A teachers all the time it would be great. but even in the private education there were plenty of teachers who knew less than the students. I had a least 1 or 2 (of 8) that didn't every semester.
again my whole thing is if you took the inner city kids and plopped them down into the best private school with no other changes you wouldn't see a big difference in what they actually learn. Sure the process of teaching, their "education" might be better, but without the drive it won't make a difference. not because they can't, but the drive.
Same here. I went to public schools in Atlanta (Gwinnett). AP everything was offered and we had great teachers. Had friends that went to Westminster, Marist, Woodward, etc..all the top private schools. Have been absolutely shocked at the number that have just flamed out. I think a lot of it was a sense of entitlement, too good to do certain jobs and they thought their daddy's money was their money, much to their detriment.
The less the commitment to learning and the higher the student to teacher ratio will define the level of disruptiveness and its negative effect on learning. To me that is pretty much what will define which schools excel and which ones fail, and that often depends on neighborhood and constituent values. Public schools can easily fall into an entitlement mold; while there is at least some skin in the game (if only money) for private schools.
You can't forget peer pressure either. As a military brat, I saw my share of schools and classmates - fortunately most decent kids. The one place (and fortunately we were there only a short time) where I would have gone wrong because of the kids around me was Denver. That place was evil.
Duck Commander? Lost me on letting kids watch that garbage.
As for the males playing the boobs. It draws laughs. You can do anything to the white American male because nothing is offensive.
Dan Connor doesn't really play the boob on Roseanne. He goes out and makes the money, but it also reflects a certain amount of "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" portrayal of their relationship.
The 50s shows you mention keep the woman in the home. Many women find such a portrayal offensive.
I dont think I have ever seen anything offensive on duck commander...what did I Miss? They never cuss, ever...end nearly every episode with a big family meal and prayer...did I miss something immoral? Honest question, because we don't watch much tv and I may have missed something. It's boring at times, and not funny...but that's most tv
beyond the level of competency I don't think it matters a whole lot.
yeah, if everyone had grade A teachers all the time it would be great. but even in the private education there were plenty of teachers who knew less than the students. I had a least 1 or 2 (of 8) that didn't every semester.
again my whole thing is if you took the inner city kids and plopped them down into the best private school with no other changes you wouldn't see a big difference in what they actually learn. Sure the process of teaching, their "education" might be better, but without the drive it won't make a difference. not because they can't, but the drive.
I follow the wife in stores because it takes too damn much time to find her when she was right beside me and then ... Men should have leashes for wives in stores, but we know where that would go.