Education in the United States
We have a thread devoted to academic freedom at universities, and we have a thread devoted to whether higher education should be subsidized. This thread is a landing spot for discussion of other issues related to education -- issues like school integration, pedagogy, the influence of politics on education (and vice versa), charter schools, public v. private schools, achievement gaps, and gerrymandering of school districts.
I'll start the discussion with two articles. The first deals with a major changes in the public school system in NYC.
NYC's public schools are highly segregated for such a diverse city. Last Friday, Bill DeBlasio announced the following:
Middle schools will see the most significant policy revisions. The city will eliminate all admissions screening for the schools for at least one year, the mayor said. About 200 middle schools — 40 percent of the total — use metrics like grades, attendance and test scores to determine which students should be admitted. Now those schools will use a random lottery to admit students.
In doing this, Mr. de Blasio is essentially piloting an experiment that, if deemed successful, could permanently end the city’s academically selective middle schools, which tend to be much whiter than the district overall.
DeBlasio also announced that:
New York will also eliminate a policy that allowed some high schools to give students who live nearby first dibs at spots — even though all seats are supposed to be available to all students, regardless of where they reside.
The system of citywide choice was implemented by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in 2004 as part of an attempt to democratize high school admissions. But Mr. Bloomberg exempted some schools, and even entire districts, from the policy, and Mr. de Blasio did not end those carve outs.
The most conspicuous example is Manhattan’s District 2, one of the whitest and wealthiest of the city’s 32 local school districts. Students who live in that district, which includes the Upper East Side and the West Village, get priority for seats in some of the district’s high schools, which are among the highest-performing schools in the city.
No other district in the city has as many high schools — six — set aside for local, high-performing students.
Many of those high schools fill nearly all of their seats with students from District 2 neighborhoods before even considering qualified students from elsewhere. As a result, some schools, like Eleanor Roosevelt High School on the Upper East Side, are among the whitest high schools in all of New York City.
Here is the New York Times article that describes the changes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyreg...
Obvious questions for discussion include:
- How large a priority should cities place on ensuring that city schools are representative of the city as a whole?
- Are measures like the ones that DeBlasio is implementing likely to be effective in making schools more representative?
- Will these measures have unintended (or intended) consequences that extend far beyond changing the representativeness of city schools?
MAN IT IS CONTROVERSIAL among the people who agree with you politically, maybe you don't want to see it, or admit it, or you are actually shielded by that because of the niche of smart center-left people you interact with that shields you from the beliefs of the masses that allow democrats to win, and their ringleaders in academia, in the media and so on.
Let's take specific examples. Autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis can occur in men but are much, much more prevalent in women. There are widely accepted, non-behavioral (i.e., biological) explanations for why women are at greater risk of autoimmune disorders than men are. Sickle cell disease is caused by a gene mutation that is much more common among people who were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and to a lesser degree, more common among people whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa.
As far as I know, neither of these propositions is remotely controversial in the United States, no matter your politics.
MAN IT IS CONTROVERSIAL among the people who agree with you politically, maybe you don't want to see it, or admit it, or you are actually shielded by that because of the niche of smart center-left people you interact with that shields you from the beliefs of the masses that allow democrats to win, and their ringleaders in academia, in the media and so on.
And in literature all behavioural traits are inheritable (ofc, often by smallish percentages). All of them , not controversial among genetists.
Man, it is genuinely insulting that you expect anyone with a pulse to buy into this kinder, gentler version of eugenics you're pitching. I mean, ofc the racism is offensive as well.
Let's take specific examples. Autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis can occur in men but are much, much more prevalent in women. There are widely accepted, non-behavioral (i.e., biological) explanations for why women are at greater risk of autoimmune disorders than men are. Sickle cell disease is caused by a gene mutation that is much more common among people who were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and to a lesser degree, more common among people whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan
Do you understand that since "woman" means "anyone who identifies as a woman" for the people aligned with you politically, the bold is factually false for anyone accepting gender theory yes?
You are supposed to use "individuals with ovaries", and yes you are a transphobe if you don't according to your ideological allies and people get fired for that in med schools.
"not controversial proposition no matter your politics" and you use men to mean people with xy chromosomes, what are you, in 2005?
Do you understand that since "woman" means "anyone who identifies as a woman" for the people aligned with you politically, the bold is factually false for anyone accepting gender theory yes?
You are supposed to use "individuals with ovaries", and yes you are a transphobe if you don't according to your ideological allies and people get fired for that in med schools.
"not controversial proposition no matter your politics" and you use men to mean people with xy chromosomes, what are you, in 2005?
And people accuse me of responding in bad faith . . . .
You wrote something that you thought was absolutely not controversial, and i pointed out that it actually is ferociously controversial under political lines.
Btw i might have misread you: you wrote in a limited cases some stuff is mostly genetical, i read an implication that wasn't there.
I read the implication the rest was still , uncontroversially, at least somewhat genetically determined anyway, and that the health example was just the most glaring almost-only-genetical one.
But i guess you didn't want to imply that voting behaviour is uncontroversially admitted to be genetically influenced as well, just to a lower degree (even if literature is absolutely clear about that)
You wrote something that you thought was absolutely not controversial, and i pointed out that it actually is ferociously controversial under political lines.
You think that what I wrote about autoimmune disorders and sickle cell disease is "ferociously controversial?"
I can't speak for Italy, but it isn't remotely controversial in the U.S.
You think that what I wrote about autoimmune disorders and sickle cell disease is "ferociously controversial?"
I can't speak for Italy, but it isn't remotely controversial in the U.S.
If you don't use the expression I wrote or a similar one and insist on using men/women yes and you know it.
As for thalassemia no I don't think that is controversial (yet?)
If you don't use the expression I wrote or a similar one and insist on using men/women yes and you know it.
As for thalassemia no I don't think that is controversial (yet?)
So these articles --all of which used the language I used and none of which used the language you offered -- are "ferociously controversial?"
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-0...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/healt...
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/health/wh...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...
That's your contention? That's what you honestly expect us to believe? You probably shouldn't make these asinine arguments if you suspect that your audience has access to the internet.
So if , say, someone came and told you "we should increase teacher salaries to get better educational outcome" you would know that is a complete lie.
If your teachers had been paid 20% more, you would have literally learnt exactly the same.
Ho boy …..
Totally miss the mark !
Let’s say tomorrow we drop CEOs salaries by half , what would happened ?
Wouldn’t the quality of management go down ?
Now double salaries of teachers what would happened ?
Ie: Instead of having 50k teachers to fill up 75k positions presently , doubling salaries would probably end up having 500k teachers to fill up 75k position yah ?
Yes true , if your dumb enough to hire the worst teachers in the 500k pool to fill up the positions, it won’t improve much the educational system but I got the feeling that wouldn’t happened ….
Like the CEOs , when you want quality you pay them yah ?
That always amazes me about the right , always saying to bring the best you need the best pay but they expect paying the least to get the best for government employees …
0:: I know it sounds crazy but the law of supply and demand do actually work in the government environment too .
Also, the present teachers who were not already performing to the best of their ability would up their game if they knew the higher salaries would mean they were in competition against those with better skills than their present competition. This Luciom person is evidently a Communist.
Also, the present teachers who were not already performing to the best of their ability would up their game if they knew the higher salaries would mean they were in competition against those with better skills than their present competition. This Luciom person is evidently a Communist.
David I very clearly wrote that if wage increases are coupled with easy firing, then they can work.
But that is never the case for public employee.
Give me one day notice for teachers and I give you 20% salary increase
So these articles --all of which used the language I used and none of which used the language you offered -- are "ferociously controversial?"
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
I am relieved enough sources still use words with their normal meaning, thank you for posting that.
I won't delve in the back and forth posting AMA speech guidelines, anecdotes about medical schools punishing people because they dare to say mothers instead of pregnant people and so on. I am ok.
You know what I meant and I know what you meant.
When/if you will encounter the stuff I am talking about (if you haven't already) in your circles you will smile bitterly about this exchange
David I very clearly wrote that if wage increases are coupled with easy firing, then they can work.
But that is never the case for public employee.
Give me one day notice for teachers and I give you 20% salary increase
That didn't address my point . To address it there has to be a six month or so period where the teachers who have the ability to improve get the chance to actually do it.
There is no science that demonstrates one race is better or more intelligent than another. There's literally no evidence, only your fantasies and your worn copy of "The Bell Curve". Race is a social construct ffs.
95% of those who think that the Bell Curve is accurate want it to be accurate. 95% of those who think it is inaccurate want it to be inaccurate. I didn't read the book and barely know what it says about whether black people are less intelligent than white people. What I do know is this: Those black people who are capable of giving an unbiased and accurate critique of what is written in that book (or any other book that requires skill in probability and statistics) are much more intelligent than white people who are not capable of that.
Note: If you are in the latter category there is hope.
David I very clearly wrote that if wage increases are coupled with easy firing, then they can work.
But that is never the case for public employee.
Give me one day notice for teachers and I give you 20% salary increase
On the long run , without firing people , improvement would still occur having a much higher pool of candidates to choose from .
So if , say, someone came and told you "we should increase teacher salaries to get better educational outcome" you would know that is a complete lie.
So not it’s not a lie , its simply supply and demand .
Higher pay always attract higher quality .
I’m surprise a right wing would hold a narrative opposite to this ….
I really hope you're nowhere near the levers of power anywhere. The simplistic viewpoints you constantly share indicate that if you were able to remake the world in the way you think best, it would be a dystopian hellscape. And by "simplistic", I'm mainly thinking of your very black-and-white and extreme takes on things like the topic of this thread. Atlas Shrugged very much comes to mind when I read some of your posts.
I really hope you're nowhere near the levers of power anywhere. The simplistic viewpoints you constantly share indicate that if you were able to remake the world in the way you think best, it would be a dystopian hellscape. And by "simplistic", I'm mainly thinking of your very black-and-white and extreme takes on things like the topic of this thread. Atlas Shrugged very much comes to mind when I read some of your posts.
Luciom thinks it should be legal for civilians to own tanks and thermonuclear warheads coz something 1A something. Nuance is not really his "thing".
I really hope you're nowhere near the levers of power anywhere. The simplistic viewpoints you constantly share indicate that if you were able to remake the world in the way you think best, it would be a dystopian hellscape. And by "simplistic", I'm mainly thinking of your very black-and-white and extreme takes on things like the topic of this thread. Atlas Shrugged very much comes to mind when I read some of your posts.
i think the word is crude populism.
Thankfully, no. Were his views popular, we'd be in a very dark place indeed. But there certainly is some overlap.
Thankfully, no. Were his views popular, we'd be in a very dark place indeed. But there certainly is some overlap.
I wasn’t aiming at popular meaning but more this one :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.
Granted better words probably exist to define it better .
To me , masses would love to live in a society with easy solution to complex problems in an uncomplicated world .
That is why I use it .
It’s to put aside nuances and just go with absolute simple policies like Luciom wishes .
Yes we would be in a heap of trouble if it was in fact popular in the general pop .
I really hope you're nowhere near the levers of power anywhere. The simplistic viewpoints you constantly share indicate that if you were able to remake the world in the way you think best, it would be a dystopian hellscape. And by "simplistic", I'm mainly thinking of your very black-and-white and extreme takes on things like the topic of this thread. Atlas Shrugged very much comes to mind when I read some of your posts.
I am not but lately some people who think not so differently from me are. Like Milei in Argentina.
the tide is slowly changing, we had a Bolsonaro, we have a Bukele, we have Wilders in the Netherlands, and the first woman prime minister in Italy heads the first actual right-wing Italian government since the 60s.
your "nuanced" technocratic center left actual hell scape is pissing off enough people around the world, even while guys like you control most of the media, that we are saying "**** It, & **** you".
yes sometimes the solution (not the first best solution, just an improvement from the horrid status quo) is simple.
That happens to be true when it's not rationality that made things as they are, rather encrusted clientelar politics.
We are coming for the sweep and the world of mixed economy social-sweet-capitalism is coming to an end in many places.
your lot reduced us to automatons, who have to spend hours per week dividing the ****ing trash to pretend we recycle while we don't.
The cap on our bottles isn't removable anymore because "nuanced reasons". There is a 18 mph speed limit in my city, and lately men can get pregnant. You want to put warning labels on wine. I have to ****ing click away bull crap popups 300 times per day because GDPR because your lot is nuanced. We close nuclear because you are nuanced so we open coal plants for the climate.
You have to be thankful we aren't in a full scale civil war already
TIL I learnt that "leftism" is 18mph speed limits, recycling, data protection and closing nuclear power plants.
TIL I learnt that "leftism" is 18mph speed limits, recycling, data protection and closing nuclear power plants.
yes it actually is, at least those are clear bread and butter examples of inane, absurd, life ruining policies implemented with a big push by the left in Europe.
the maniacal desire to regulate everything is a core tenet of leftism.
psycho control freaks
and those people are the nuanced ones bobo wants to govern unlike people like me who would never regulate anything unless it's absolutely indispensable for the survival of society to regulate it
Or it could be that you define everything in politics you don't like as "leftism" or "Marxism". That is your prerogative, bit it renders the terms meaningless when it comes to any discussions with you.
Out of curiosity, who wants to close nuclear power plants and why? First I've heard of it.
