Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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
If you have read any of Thomas Sowell's stuff you know that he is HUGE on equipping poor kids to rise above their circumstances and he knows from up close and personal experience how that is done. And he gives poor kids a lot of credit for being smart enough to know the difference between rich and poor without smacking them in the face with it as if they would never understand otherwise. But he is also very opposed to liberal feel good mumbo jumbo propaganda that accomplishes little more than resentment, class envy, condescending patronization, and racism. And though he didn't explicitly say so, I think that's the way he viewed this kind of program.
He could be wrong. But I am an active volunteer working up close and personal with 'poor' families. And I would certainly not think it useful or helpful to intentionally smack them in the face by comparing their situation that that of the very rich.
Well, in one of my posts I did ask for examples of how NOT to "smack them in the face."
But as I said before, there's always going to be someone who feels "smacked." Frankly it appears Sowell would prefer a kinder, gentler lesson, but what is it? How do you tell people who "have not," that there are people that "have" without hurting ANYONE's FEELINGS?
You don't have to tell them at all. You give them credit for having eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to think, observe, process, and figure things out.
What you do tell the poor kid is that everybody isn't dealt the same hand to play in life. It isn't your fault and you aren't inferior to anybody. If you don't like your circumstances, it is within your power to change them. Stay in school and educate yourself. Take whatever crappy job you can get and prove that you have a work ethic and develop skills and references that will help you get better jobs. Stay away from illegal activities and illegal substances. Seek out role models in your church or community center or elsewhere who will reinforce the best qualities of who you are. Don't get pregnant until after you marry a responsible person who shares your values and goals and together raise your family.
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.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
Kids from (financially) poor backgrounds don't always end up with low income jobs, unemployment and in poverty.
Thomas Sowell didn't, Walter E. Williams didn't, and neither I nor my siblings ended up in poverty. The only common trait that I can find among myself, my siblings, Mr Sowell and Mr Williams is that we all lean towards a libertarian political stance.
Well, in one of my posts I did ask for examples of how NOT to "smack them in the face."
But as I said before, there's always going to be someone who feels "smacked." Frankly it appears Sowell would prefer a kinder, gentler lesson, but what is it? How do you tell people who "have not," that there are people that "have" without hurting ANYONE's FEELINGS?
You don't have to tell them at all. You give them credit for having eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to think, observe, process, and figure things out.
What you do tell the poor kid is that everybody isn't dealt the same hand to play in life. It isn't your fault and you aren't inferior to anybody. If you don't like your circumstances, it is within your power to change them. Stay in school and educate yourself. Take whatever crappy job you can get and prove that you have a work ethic and develop skills and references that will help you get better jobs. Stay away from illegal activities and illegal substances. Seek out role models in your church or community center or elsewhere who will reinforce the best qualities of who you are. Don't get pregnant until after you marry a responsible person who shares your values and goals and together raise your family.
^^^^^^^^
See what I mean?
This sort of deep conservative thought ignores the reality of life for the nation's poor. It is very romantic, though.
Just "educate yourself", brother.
You don't have to tell them at all. You give them credit for having eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to think, observe, process, and figure things out.
What you do tell the poor kid is that everybody isn't dealt the same hand to play in life. It isn't your fault and you aren't inferior to anybody. If you don't like your circumstances, it is within your power to change them. Stay in school and educate yourself. Take whatever crappy job you can get and prove that you have a work ethic and develop skills and references that will help you get better jobs. Stay away from illegal activities and illegal substances. Seek out role models in your church or community center or elsewhere who will reinforce the best qualities of who you are. Don't get pregnant until after you marry a responsible person who shares your values and goals and together raise your family.
^^^^^^^^
See what I mean?
This sort of deep conservative thought ignores the reality of life for the nation's poor. It is very romantic, though.
Just "educate yourself", brother.
It's a real shame that some didn't do even that. If they had they would know that is not all I said.
I am glad that I was raised in a time when schools gave more importance to math, science and technology than they did to social engineering and multiculturalism.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.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
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.
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
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.
You keep parroting that same ignorant false "envy" premise. But that is what parrots do, they mimic because parrots are unable to think.
Have an adult read the NYT article and decipher it for you...
Nagib Gonzalez University Heights Age 18 Grade 12
Nagib My mom works really hard for a little bit of money. I used to be ashamed to admit this, but now I embrace it. Being poor is the biggest motivation for me because I come from the bottom, and my goal is to reach the top. People say that success is not determined by income, and I mostly agree, but I want my success to be determined by income. I want to be able to support my family. Also, most of the things that I worry about now are money-related, and I dont want my children to have to worry like my siblings and I did.
Angie Ramirez University Heights Age 18 Grade 12
Angie Most of my peers are in the same predicament as I am, of not being able to afford a private education. So thats the group I relate to kids who are trying to get an education to make themselves better or help their families out. We want to get out of the hood and get a good job in order to have a better future.
Thomas Sowell is a a divisive piece of shit who knows where his bread is buttered. He constantly puts out this kind of garbage to rile up all you ignorant parrots to mimic.
The laws in this country have allowed for the development of institutionalized segregation when it comes to education. Based on the color green.
This guy: https://law.gsu.edu/directory/publications.php?id=46 has REALLY done exhaustive research on the subject.
There is NO WAY that a black school performed on par with a white school during our period of segregation unless the white school consisted of students from equally disadvantaged ( economically ) communities. That, of course, was very rare.
The US can......at the same time....boast of having one of the most advanced and effective public school systems in the world and the shame of having one of the world's worst public school systems. It entirely depends on where you fall on the economic spectrum.
The laws in this country have allowed for the development of institutionalized segregation when it comes to education. Based on the color green.
This guy: https://law.gsu.edu/directory/publications.php?id=46 has REALLY done exhaustive research on the subject.
There is NO WAY that a black school performed on par with a white school during our period of segregation unless the white school consisted of students from equally disadvantaged ( economically ) communities. That, of course, was very rare.
The US can......at the same time....boast of having one of the most advanced and effective public school systems in the world and the shame of having one of the world's worst public school systems. It entirely depends on where you fall on the economic spectrum.
Where one falls on the economic scale has no bearing on learning.
We are all familiar with this statement, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". Poor children and rich children alike learn how to fish equally well.
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 the communities would have been better served to take the rich kids and have them spend the day in the poor school.
....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.
It all comes down to OPPORTUNITY. Hard work is great. But without opportunity, it is not going to lift a family out of poverty.
If hard work created opportunity........we'd have very few poor people in this nation. This is a hard working nation.
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.
It all comes down to OPPORTUNITY. Hard work is great. But without opportunity, it is not going to lift a family out of poverty.
If hard work created opportunity........we'd have very few poor people in this nation. This is a hard working nation.
Last I looked, everybody had the exact same "opportunity" to create Facebook, invent the light-bulb, start their own business, or write a book that sells a million copies.. Failure to do so is not a lack of opportunity, economic status, or anything else.
And we saw NONE of that in the NYT article. Thomas Sowell fabricated a false motive that you continue to parrot.
WHERE does it say that 'envy' was the motivation behind this program? WHERE doe it even say that the program was the idea of the public school? If it was the idea of the private school, WHAT would THEN be the motivation??
Of course the NYT would not have written that as the motive. Or considered that as the net effect. But then they represent a political class in this country who thinks right motives are sufficient and unintended negative consequences are irrelevent.
I can guarantee that 'envy' was not a motive behind that program.
Do you KNOW for a fact that the idea came from the public school? Because if it came from the private school, HOW could envy be a motive?
WHAT were the negative consequences? I don't see any. It is clear to me that both the groups gained knowledge and a new perspective because of the interaction.
Aren't you ignorant, Fred?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.
Kids from (financially) poor backgrounds don't always end up with low income jobs, unemployment and in poverty.
Thomas Sowell didn't, Walter E. Williams didn't, and neither I nor my siblings ended up in poverty. The only common trait that I can find among myself, my siblings, Mr Sowell and Mr Williams is that we all lean towards a libertarian political stance.
Aren't you wonderful, Eddie!?
If you have read any of Thomas Sowell's stuff you know that he is HUGE on equipping poor kids to rise above their circumstances and he knows from up close and personal experience how that is done. And he gives poor kids a lot of credit for being smart enough to know the difference between rich and poor without smacking them in the face with it as if they would never understand otherwise. But he is also very opposed to liberal feel good mumbo jumbo propaganda that accomplishes little more than resentment, class envy, condescending patronization, and racism. And though he didn't explicitly say so, I think that's the way he viewed this kind of program.
He could be wrong. But I am an active volunteer working up close and personal with 'poor' families. And I would certainly not think it useful or helpful to intentionally smack them in the face by comparing their situation that that of the very rich.
Well, in one of my posts I did ask for examples of how NOT to "smack them in the face."
But as I said before, there's always going to be someone who feels "smacked." Frankly it appears Sowell would prefer a kinder, gentler lesson, but what is it? How do you tell people who "have not," that there are people that "have" without hurting ANYONE's FEELINGS?
You don't have to tell them at all. You give them credit for having eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to think, observe, process, and figure things out.
.
The laws in this country have allowed for the development of institutionalized segregation when it comes to education. Based on the color green.
This guy: https://law.gsu.edu/directory/publications.php?id=46 has REALLY done exhaustive research on the subject.
There is NO WAY that a black school performed on par with a white school during our period of segregation unless the white school consisted of students from equally disadvantaged ( economically ) communities. That, of course, was very rare.
The US can......at the same time....boast of having one of the most advanced and effective public school systems in the world and the shame of having one of the world's worst public school systems. It entirely depends on where you fall on the economic spectrum.
Where one falls on the economic scale has no bearing on learning.
We are all familiar with this statement, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". Poor children and rich children alike learn how to fish equally well.
It does have a bearing on the quality of education you get from the public schools. Schools in wealthier areas do far better educating our kids.
Of course the NYT would not have written that as the motive. Or considered that as the net effect. But then they represent a political class in this country who thinks right motives are sufficient and unintended negative consequences are irrelevent.
I can guarantee that 'envy' was not a motive behind that program.
Do you KNOW for a fact that the idea came from the public school? Because if it came from the private school, HOW could envy be a motive?
WHAT were the negative consequences? I don't see any. It is clear to me that both the groups gained knowledge and a new perspective because of the interaction.
Maybe it was guilt.
Foxfyre said:I have in fact taken our 'richer' kids from the church to spend a few hours volunteering at a local thrift shop or at the Salvation Army or at one of our privately run homeless shelters. For many it was a huge eye opener and it instilled in them an appreciation for how much they were blessed and for many a desire to see what they could do to help. Also several volunteers in our church, myself included, spend times in one on one tutoring with disadvantaged kids and serving as volunteer teacher's aids in one of the two 'poorer' elementary schools that we have taken on as a project. Some of those 'rich' kids are also now spending some time after school tutoring the little ones in basic math, reading, and writing skills.
If the purpose is for the kids to understand each other as equals in value and worth, then it is a good thing. I did not get the sense that was the purpose or result of the program Sowell described.
^^^^^^^^
See what I mean?
This sort of deep conservative thought ignores the reality of life for the nation's poor. It is very romantic, though.
Just "educate yourself", brother.
It's a real shame that some didn't do even that. If they had they would know that is not all I said.
You said.....and said again...that a poor person can do something to get out of poverty regardless of his or her circumstances and without being presented with an opportunity. Simply by somehow "educating himself", working hard at some readily available job, and not making any mistakes.
That is bullshit. It is a romantic ideal that we all find so appealing. But it is not reality. It is not the norm.
Millions of poor people do everything within their power to improve their lot in life. It usually works to some small degree.....BUT NOT ENOUGH TO GET SOLIDLY INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS!! The opportunities ARE NOT THERE in quantity nor in degree.
It all comes down to OPPORTUNITY. Hard work is great. But without opportunity, it is not going to lift a family out of poverty.
If hard work created opportunity........we'd have very few poor people in this nation. This is a hard working nation.
Last I looked, everybody had the exact same "opportunity" to create Facebook, invent the light-bulb, start their own business, or write a book that sells a million copies.. Failure to do so is not a lack of opportunity, economic status, or anything else.
What a simple way to look at things. Is it empowering?
