Comparing Rich with Poor: Moral Bankruptcy

[Disir]

How about we focus on the concept presented instead of throwing out partisan insulting characterizations for a start? Thanks. I knew you would understand.

Sowell did NOT pretend in any way that there is no equality. He was quite explicit that the inequality was obvious, even glaring, to the point that the less advantaged kids were completely demoralized. And I think his point was that this is not only cruel in creating class envy in the kids, but he was expressing how futile such a program is. He brought to light that the 'moral bankruptcy' was in wasting time in that way and calling it education when the emphasis should be on providing the poor kids the basics that could actually change their lives; actually equip them to pull themselves out of their current circumstances.

Sowell is extreme right wing. He is partisan. He managed to take a small puff piece and blow it out of proportion. He makes his money off of division. And fear.

How about I pay attention to the article AND slap the shit out of my stalker? Thanks, I knew you would understand.


How many demoralized kids did you see in that article? It's been running for 8 years.

So, the kids go out and work on a project where they have to learn how to work with each other. I can see how that is horrific. Taking time out to learn that the kids from different backgrounds have similarities. I can see how that is horrific.

So why don't we cut the shit and get down to what really ticks him off. Multiculturalism. That drives him crazy.

You against multiculturalism?

What purpose could this exercise have other than to rub the noses of the poor kids in the fact that they don't enjoy all the luxuries that rich kids enjoy? The fact that you don't see a problem with it only shows what a craven. fellow traveler, apologist for statist brainwashing you are.

Shhh..........the adults are talking.

Go. Get back under your rock. Go. I'll kick you later. Go.

 

[bripat9643]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Only one paragraphs into the NYT article reveals that Sowell is engaging in the usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda. This man represents the real bankruptcy of morals in this nation.

University Heights High School is on St. Anns Avenue in the South Bronx, which is part of the poorest congressional district in America, according to the Census Bureau. Six miles away is the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, with its arched stone entrance and celebrities’ children and $43,000-a-year tuition. Eight years ago, as part of a program called Classroom Connections, students from the schools began exchanging letters, which eventually led to a small group from University Heights visiting Fieldston for a day

How does that prove that Sowell is engaging in "liberal bashing propaganda?" Liberals claim they're being bashed when you tell the truth about them.

 

[bripat9643]

Sowell is extreme right wing. He is partisan. He managed to take a small puff piece and blow it out of proportion. He makes his money off of division. And fear.

How about I pay attention to the article AND slap the shit out of my stalker? Thanks, I knew you would understand.


How many demoralized kids did you see in that article? It's been running for 8 years.

So, the kids go out and work on a project where they have to learn how to work with each other. I can see how that is horrific. Taking time out to learn that the kids from different backgrounds have similarities. I can see how that is horrific.

So why don't we cut the shit and get down to what really ticks him off. Multiculturalism. That drives him crazy.

You against multiculturalism?

What purpose could this exercise have other than to rub the noses of the poor kids in the fact that they don't enjoy all the luxuries that rich kids enjoy? The fact that you don't see a problem with it only shows what a craven. fellow traveler, apologist for statist brainwashing you are.

Shhh..........the adults are talking.

Go. Get back under your rock. Go. I'll kick you later. Go.

ROFL! You're one of the "adults?"

That's funny!

Adults don't run away with their tails between their legs like scared little puppies.

 

[Disir]

What purpose could this exercise have other than to rub the noses of the poor kids in the fact that they don't enjoy all the luxuries that rich kids enjoy? The fact that you don't see a problem with it only shows what a craven. fellow traveler, apologist for statist brainwashing you are.

Shhh..........the adults are talking.

Go. Get back under your rock. Go. I'll kick you later. Go.

ROFL! You're one of that "adults?"

That's funny!

Adults don't run away with their tails between their legs like scared little puppies.

Yes, dear. If you read my prior posts you would have your answer. So, I'm putting you back on ignore with a big promise to kick the shit out of you when I get bored. Ok?

 

[OnePercenter]

Didn't take this thread long to degenerate. Great minds...

It's Thomas Sowell, a one percenter trying to sell his books.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Only one paragraphs into the NYT article reveals that Sowell is engaging in the usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda. This man represents the real bankruptcy of morals in this nation.

University Heights High School is on St. Anns Avenue in the South Bronx, which is part of the poorest congressional district in America, according to the Census Bureau. Six miles away is the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, with its arched stone entrance and celebrities’ children and $43,000-a-year tuition. Eight years ago, as part of a program called Classroom Connections, students from the schools began exchanging letters, which eventually led to a small group from University Heights visiting Fieldston for a day

How does that line make Sowell's perceptions liberal bashing? He is expressing his opinion that programs like these are for purposes of social propaganda rather than for the purpose of any real education. Look at this comment cited in the NY Magazine piece:

ADAM “As a kid, you’re unaware that there are people who don’t have what you have. Then you realize, Oh, my God, there are people who don’t have anything like what I have. And you realize you’ve been given an unfair advantage. It’s my responsibility to use that advantage for social justice and to make the world a better place.

Unfair advantage? Advantage yes. To see one's advantages as also being a moral responsibility to use them responsibly for good is commendable. But to see one's advantage--an advantage that one's parents most likely worked very hard to provide for their children--as unfair? That is liberal nonsense in huge flashing neon lights.

I have no problem with those who can articulate an argument in opposition to Sowell's point of view. I invited that in the OP. But to characterize his point of view as "usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda" just is not credible in this context and is as much partisan bullshit as would be my characterization of those who disagree with Sowell as being the 'usual left wing conservative bashing propaganda."

Young Adam is lot smarter than you are. And he is much closer to the truth. Adam realizes he did NOTHING to earn his status, he was merely fortunate to be BORN into wealth.

And Adam's epiphany is exactly what a great program like this creates. It is an education that can't be learned in any classroom.

And it is the very core of what President Kennedy meant when he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
President John F. Kennedy


"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

 

[bripat9643]

Shhh..........the adults are talking.

Go. Get back under your rock. Go. I'll kick you later. Go.

ROFL! You're one of that "adults?"

That's funny!

Adults don't run away with their tails between their legs like scared little puppies.

Yes, dear. If you read my prior posts you would have your answer. So, I'm putting you back on ignore with a big promise to kick the shit out of you when I get bored. Ok?

Your prior post is a sleazy despicable apology for child abuse.

You, kick the shit out of me? Your a laugh a minute!

 

[bripat9643]

Only one paragraphs into the NYT article reveals that Sowell is engaging in the usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda. This man represents the real bankruptcy of morals in this nation.

University Heights High School is on St. Anns Avenue in the South Bronx, which is part of the poorest congressional district in America, according to the Census Bureau. Six miles away is the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, with its arched stone entrance and celebrities’ children and $43,000-a-year tuition. Eight years ago, as part of a program called Classroom Connections, students from the schools began exchanging letters, which eventually led to a small group from University Heights visiting Fieldston for a day

How does that line make Sowell's perceptions liberal bashing? He is expressing his opinion that programs like these are for purposes of social propaganda rather than for the purpose of any real education. Look at this comment cited in the NY Magazine piece:

ADAM “As a kid, you’re unaware that there are people who don’t have what you have. Then you realize, Oh, my God, there are people who don’t have anything like what I have. And you realize you’ve been given an unfair advantage. It’s my responsibility to use that advantage for social justice and to make the world a better place.

Unfair advantage? Advantage yes. To see one's advantages as also being a moral responsibility to use them responsibly for good is commendable. But to see one's advantage--an advantage that one's parents most likely worked very hard to provide for their children--as unfair? That is liberal nonsense in huge flashing neon lights.

I have no problem with those who can articulate an argument in opposition to Sowell's point of view. I invited that in the OP. But to characterize his point of view as "usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda" just is not credible in this context and is as much partisan bullshit as would be my characterization of those who disagree with Sowell as being the 'usual left wing conservative bashing propaganda."

Young Adam is lot smarter than you are. And he is much closer to the truth. Adam realizes he did NOTHING to earn his status, he was merely fortunate to be BORN into wealth.

And Adam's epiphany is exactly what a great program like this creates. It is an education that can't be learned in any classroom.

And it is the very core of what President Kennedy meant when he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
President John F. Kennedy


"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

All you did is confirm Sowell's assessment that the program is pure unadulterated brainwashing and child abuse.

You're just a servile boot-licking toady who is constantly making apologies for our fascists police state.

 

[Bfgrn]

How does that line make Sowell's perceptions liberal bashing? He is expressing his opinion that programs like these are for purposes of social propaganda rather than for the purpose of any real education. Look at this comment cited in the NY Magazine piece:

ADAM “As a kid, you’re unaware that there are people who don’t have what you have. Then you realize, Oh, my God, there are people who don’t have anything like what I have. And you realize you’ve been given an unfair advantage. It’s my responsibility to use that advantage for social justice and to make the world a better place.

Unfair advantage? Advantage yes. To see one's advantages as also being a moral responsibility to use them responsibly for good is commendable. But to see one's advantage--an advantage that one's parents most likely worked very hard to provide for their children--as unfair? That is liberal nonsense in huge flashing neon lights.

I have no problem with those who can articulate an argument in opposition to Sowell's point of view. I invited that in the OP. But to characterize his point of view as "usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda" just is not credible in this context and is as much partisan bullshit as would be my characterization of those who disagree with Sowell as being the 'usual left wing conservative bashing propaganda."

Young Adam is lot smarter than you are. And he is much closer to the truth. Adam realizes he did NOTHING to earn his status, he was merely fortunate to be BORN into wealth.

And Adam's epiphany is exactly what a great program like this creates. It is an education that can't be learned in any classroom.

And it is the very core of what President Kennedy meant when he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
President John F. Kennedy


"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

All you did is confirm Sowell's assessment that the program is pure unadulterated brainwashing and child abuse.

You're just a servile boot-licking toady who is constantly making apologies for our fascists police state.

Actually, Sowell is using the playbook of the fascists.

"..... Bolshevist class struggle that wants to make everyone the same. That we want to oppose by every means......He who spreads such ideas does not want a hard-working community, but rather wants to spread bitter views of class conflict...that could result from envious and critical sentiments........"
-Joseph Goebbels (1943)

 

[Samson]

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Someone had the bright idea of pairing public high school kids from a low-income neighborhood in the Bronx with kids from a private high school that charges $43,000 a year.

The NYT reported these "results:"

"One kid ran crying off campus." Apparently others felt "so disheartened about their own circumstances."

I'm really not sure what point Sowell is making. There does seem to have been a significant, if unexpected educational experience.

Was it a "Good" experience?

Maybe not, but then not all life's lessons are all that easy to swallow.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Someone had the bright idea of pairing public high school kids from a low-income neighborhood in the Bronx with kids from a private high school that charges $43,000 a year.

The NYT reported these "results:"

"One kid ran crying off campus." Apparently others felt "so disheartened about their own circumstances."

I'm really not sure what point Sowell is making. There does seem to have been a significant, if unexpected educational experience.

Was it a "Good" experience?

Maybe not, but then not all life's lessons are all that easy to swallow.

Getting raped or mugged is also an "educational experience."

 

[Bfgrn]

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

That would be Thomas Sowell, Foxfyre and bripat.

Anyone who actually read the NYT article could not come away with any evil here.

 

[jasonnfree]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

This article troubles me, but not in the way it might appear. The cultural narrative has changed in a bad way. Instead of enabling success, we are justifying the lack of it. The kid talking about how he was unfairly advantaged because he did not suffer the ill effects of life that other kids had is just such a wrong message. Maybe instead if vilifying people who have had more opportunities, we should strive more to create opportunities for those who don't enjoy such instead of indoctrinating people with this "Anybody who is successful has unfair advantages" nonsense.

Sowell is a smart guy. He just plays the roll that gets him what he wants--money....oh excuse me, "unfair advantages" I should have said.

I simply don't see Sowell that way at all. He is a great example of somebody who is pretty much a wholly self-made man. His dad died before he was born and his mom, who already had four kids to raise, simply could not handle a newborn so his great aunt and her daughters raised him. A highschool drop out and self-proclaimed Marxist, he served in Korea and, via his military credentials, landed a low level government job that allowed him to attend night classes and eventually graduate summa cum laude from Harvard and earn a PhD in economics and an emphasis on history. By that time he had figured out the serious flaws in Marxism and rejected it in favor of free market principles and is currently a strong libertarian (small 'L"). He knows what it is to be at the bottom, and he knows what earned success looks and feels like.

He is right that indoctrinating people with class envy is destructive which I think was his motive for the article cited in the OP. But I don't get the sense that he just writes junk or promotes stuff for personal gain. I have been following his writings since the early 1980's and he has never written what was 'popular' or 'commercially attractive' and his convictions have been rock solid.

Dr. Sowell is a very smart man, no doubt. Phd. in economics etc. and I read his work sometimes and agree sometimes. One thing I might ask him though. Could he have gotten his degrees while working in today's economy with the cost of education the way it is now? If he's a veteran, then he probably also had G.I. bill help. He also had a government job, although it said low paid. I wonder how that squares with the libertarian he's become. He benefited by low cost higher education, GI bill, government jobs.
Even in the late 60's, early 70's in california, UC university system was almost free. Ronald Reagan, another pull yourself up by your bootstraps guy, didn't much like that when he became governor, and worked to change it to where it is very costly now. Not trying to destroy the spirit of the thread, just wondering how some that made it with help from the government, condemn government help.

 

[bripat9643]

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

That would be Thomas Sowell, Foxfyre and bripat.

Anyone who actually read the NYT article could not come away with any evil here.

You're a deluded drone. Every parent understands instinctively what is wrong with the program Sowell outlined in his article.

 

[Foxfyre]

This article troubles me, but not in the way it might appear. The cultural narrative has changed in a bad way. Instead of enabling success, we are justifying the lack of it. The kid talking about how he was unfairly advantaged because he did not suffer the ill effects of life that other kids had is just such a wrong message. Maybe instead if vilifying people who have had more opportunities, we should strive more to create opportunities for those who don't enjoy such instead of indoctrinating people with this "Anybody who is successful has unfair advantages" nonsense.

Sowell is a smart guy. He just plays the roll that gets him what he wants--money....oh excuse me, "unfair advantages" I should have said.

I simply don't see Sowell that way at all. He is a great example of somebody who is pretty much a wholly self-made man. His dad died before he was born and his mom, who already had four kids to raise, simply could not handle a newborn so his great aunt and her daughters raised him. A highschool drop out and self-proclaimed Marxist, he served in Korea and, via his military credentials, landed a low level government job that allowed him to attend night classes and eventually graduate summa cum laude from Harvard and earn a PhD in economics and an emphasis on history. By that time he had figured out the serious flaws in Marxism and rejected it in favor of free market principles and is currently a strong libertarian (small 'L"). He knows what it is to be at the bottom, and he knows what earned success looks and feels like.

He is right that indoctrinating people with class envy is destructive which I think was his motive for the article cited in the OP. But I don't get the sense that he just writes junk or promotes stuff for personal gain. I have been following his writings since the early 1980's and he has never written what was 'popular' or 'commercially attractive' and his convictions have been rock solid.

Dr. Sowell is a very smart man, no doubt. Phd. in economics etc. and I read his work sometimes and agree sometimes. One thing I might ask him though. Could he have gotten his degrees while working in today's economy with the cost of education the way it is now? If he's a veteran, then he probably also had G.I. bill help. He also had a government job, although it said low paid. I wonder how that squares with the libertarian he's become. He benefited by low cost higher education, GI bill, government jobs.
Even in the late 60's, early 70's in california, UC university system was almost free. Ronald Reagan, another pull yourself up by your bootstraps guy, didn't much like that when he became governor, and worked to change it to where it is very costly now. Not trying to destroy the spirit of the thread, just wondering how some that made it with help from the government, condemn government help.

Sowell is one who believes those who earn what they get benefit most from what they get. It does not matter what his circumstances were when he got his college education. He grew up, was educated in inner city schools, and Harvard was not 'cheap' for anybody back then. Affirmative Action didn't exist yet so he had to get into Harvard on merit alone. There was no other way provided for him.

Sowell had to succeed in a segregated society and being of limited means and he still succeeded far beyond what others of similar means and many with far more advantages and privileges succeeded. I don't know if he received G.I. benefits for his servince in Korea, but certainly it would have made only a small dent in a Harvard tuition even back then. So he worked whatever jobs he could get in order to pay for his education however long it would take him to get it. He knows what those provided with inspiration and a bit of encouragement can achieve if they are inclined to do so.

He does not believe infusing lower income kids with class envy and a sense of deprivation or disadvantage is doing them any favors whatsoever. He believes in infusing people with a sense of hope and possibilities and the will to succeed no matter what hand they are initially dealt.

 

[Bfgrn]

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

That would be Thomas Sowell, Foxfyre and bripat.

Anyone who actually read the NYT article could not come away with any evil here.

You're a deluded drone. Every parent understands instinctively what is wrong with the program Sowell outlined in his article.

Did you READ the NYT article and HEAR what these students had to say?

Every parent understands instinctively what is RIGHT with the program, except for pea brains like you.

 

[sameech]

....He does not believe infusing lower income kids with class envy and a sense of deprivation or disadvantage is doing them any favors whatsoever. He believes in infusing people with a sense of hope and possibilities and the will to succeed no matter what hand they are initially dealt.

I disagree about that. I don't think he has a very optimistic message at all. I don't think enough people speak the more realistic truth--if you work your ass off, you will probably do a little better than your parents and that is good enough. Too many people paint these pie in the sky pictures of what hard work brings, setting people up for disappointment. Even if he had overcome great barriers, he is still a statistical outlier, and people should stop pretending that everybody can have the success he has, or a rap star has, or a pro athlete has.

 

[Foxfyre]

....He does not believe infusing lower income kids with class envy and a sense of deprivation or disadvantage is doing them any favors whatsoever. He believes in infusing people with a sense of hope and possibilities and the will to succeed no matter what hand they are initially dealt.

I disagree about that. I don't think he has a very optimistic message at all. I don't think enough people speak the more realistic truth--if you work your ass off, you will probably do a little better than your parents and that is good enough. Too many people paint these pie in the sky pictures of what hard work brings, setting people up for disappointment. Even if he had overcome great barriers, he is still a statistical outlier, and people should stop pretending that everybody can have the success he has, or a rap star has, or a pro athlete has.

But you see, you have reverted to hyperbole instead of seeing what his message actually is. He has never said everybody will succeed equally. Everybody doesn't have the same abilities, the same stamina, the same vision, the same willingness to make certain sacrifices, or the same goals. What is success to one person may be something entirely different to the next.

But like Thomas Sowell I was of a generation similar to his--I, my husband, and most of our combined fairly wide circle of friends all started out with pretty much nothing. Nobody could live on minimum wage and a 40 hour week. Our parents were not in a position to help much if at all. There were no government benefits available to us at all except for the G.I. bill for some who went into the military for awhile. My hubby was in the National Guard for 8 years but didn't pull enough active duty to qualify for the G.I. bill.

But without exception, we all--every single one of us--worked our way out of literal poverty and squarely into the middle class. Some prospered more than others, yes, but we all accomplished enough to enjoy a nice slice of the American dream. But also, we never had it thrown in our faces that we were poor or disadvantaged or oppressed or that others had more than they deserved to have. For us, it was always the hope and vision that we were capable of achieving a better life and it was up to us to do it. And we did.

 

[Flopper]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

I think throwing together students from a posh private school with poorer kids in public schools is pointless. Are high school kids in low income public schools or affluent kids in expensive private schools unaware of the differences? Are affluent kids heading to the best colleges in the country and a professional career going to bond with poor kids headed to trade schools, community college, and a life of low income jobs, unemployment and poverty? I think not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

I think throwing together students from a posh private school with poorer kids in public schools is pointless. Are high school kids in low income public schools or affluent kids in expensive private schools unaware of the differences? Are affluent kids heading to the best colleges in the country and a professional career going to bond with poor kids headed to trade schools, community college, and a life of low income jobs, unemployment and poverty? I think not.

Which was pretty much Sowell's point I think. Of course the NYT mag cherry picked a lot of 'feel good' and social engineering kinds of comments to supplement the story, but for Sowell, the bottom line is why are schools engaging in this kind of program in the first place? It doesn't do the poor kids one bit of good; it is unlikely to have much if any lasting effect on the rich kids other than to give them more ammo for sloganeering. His point is that the time and effort should be focused on giving those poor kids a sufficient education in the basics so they will be equipped to compete with anybody and change their circumstances for the better.