Soxy

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 12:35 PM) well, we could make school longer. If the school is s*** quality more time in it won't help.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 12:40 AM) As someone who also graduated from New Trier, I've found myself realizing this a lot lately. I knew as I was going through NT that I was receiving a much, much better education than the vast majority of the population (I also had a little different perspective, because I was much less well off than many of my classmates). However, I didn't realize how much better that education was until I got to college (and I go to Indiana, so not necessarily a good nor bad school) and saw how ridiculously unprepared many students were. When I'm in groups and whatnot and see the stuff some group members have written, I wonder how they ever finished high school, let alone got accepted into a decent college. It's very sobering. And very difficult for students and teachers. How do I make sure all of my students get the most out of their education when some are so unprepared and some are so far ahead. Frankly, I don't see this divide getting any smaller in the near future either.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) Alllrighty then. Don't know about Sotomayer. By all accounts Kagan is some kind of genius though or to use a pejorative she's an intellectual.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) This is where you and I go different paths on this one. On day one of your college, you make your own path. So, I decide to study my ass off and get a 4.0. An asian woman decides to party, she gets a 2.7. I get an internship and kick ass, she does moderately well. SHE decided what she could and could not do, she decided how to spend her time. And yet, she's got an advantage over me because she's an asian woman but I'm more "qualified" because I chose a different path. I know that's not every situation. But, with AA in place, this example strongly benefits a less qualified person to getting a job. This is what differentiates our country, and the advantages we have if people choose to take it. You're going to tell me that a socioeconomic path of an inner city leads to less success. I've experienced this, I didn't grow up with a whole lot, and I went to a pretty racially divided school system with frankly a pretty crappy academic environment. So what makes me "successful", I'm white? I just don't buy it, because that's what opportunity of this country is, IMO. When you begin to push less qualifications it degrades your whole society over time, and we are just starting to get to that shift. Is it there yet? No, but you can start to see it. Edit, you edited your response, . You started to go down where I did, sort of... but ultimately there's enough socioeconomical brainwashing that occurs in inner cities to teach that minorities get more by staying disadvantaged. That's an ugly reality and one that really disappoints me. But the school systems in cities and rural areas (in general) aren't nearly as good as those in the suburbs. I grew up in Oswego and on day 1 of college I have a huge advantage over a kid from Maywood or even Aurora (maybe--I don't know if Maywood is actually bad anymore). And those programs like teach for america (a great thought) it's sending the LEAST qualified teachers to students that are already at a disadvantage. It's not that poor people have more to gain by staying poor, but they don't have equal access to what will make them not poor. Obviously there are exceptions. Some people don't care and are fine staying poor. Some people have enough natural intelligence and a supportive home to rise above. Poverty isn't destiny, but it's a hell of a barrier to overcome. I teach students that are from pretty poor rural communities (and they are mostly white) and I am shocked (seriously SHOCKED) by their preparedness (or lack thereof) for higher education. They have to work a lot harder to maintain a quality of work I would deem acceptable than someone who went to New Trier (sorry NSS) or Wheaton. In addition to attempting to make up for their gaps in their K-12, they also often have to work full time to pay for their education or support their families. These kids (and adults--we get a lot of veterans) are set up to fail. It's not that they want to stay poor. They're just stuck. It is so hard to teach there--not because they're bad students but because it's so hard for them when it's so easy for others. It's unjust. I think this has been covered but essentially AA is basically giving someone with a broken leg an aspirin instead of actually treating the leg.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 07:41 PM) That's a good point on people not being able to handle it until they're 25. It's a lot for anyone to handle. The flip side of my "argument" I just said was (and I've always thought this about higher education) - it's to teach you how to learn, not necessarily the subject matter. I agree completely. The whole point of Bok's book is essentially college is no longer doing that (in part because they have gotten away from the traditional model and are more technically or career oriented).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 07:17 PM) I don't buy genius, I really don't. There are some technical schools out there that teach trades incredibly well. So, here's a thought, a great trade school that teach doctors and nurses vs. 4+4+4 year institutions... when in reality none of it matters until the last 4 years. So, why isn't there a kick butt 4 year doctor school that teaches the technical stuff and then we won't have to have physicians owing $250K right out of school? Machinery and equipment. Liberal arts schools aren't going to teach that. It's how they are branded, and Soxy, you go into that somewhat (interesting read, thanks). Harvard is always going to be the best, even if private money were to fund the best technical school in the world regarding (xyz) trade. I totally disagree with it, but it's where the money and prestige is, so it won't change... unless it gets rebranded. Isn't that what no child left behind (sic) should be about? I would argue there isn't a 4 year med school because 18 year olds, in general, lack the maturity to handle curriculum that rigorous. Same with most of the advanced (doctoral/MA) type degrees. Plus, in my experience, a BA is like a 101 course for grad school. I would also make the argument that since we aren't fully cognitively developed until the end of adolescence (about 25) they wouldn't engage with the material properly or at the necessary depth. Also, it isn't just branding it is a completely different approach to education. The goals of a liberal arts institution are fundamentally different from the goals of a technical college.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) One thing that I have NEVER understood is why a technical school education is not given more consideration and value in our society. In a nutshell, it's because education (prior to the about 1900 in this country) was NOT to prepare you for a trade. Prior to the last century the point of education was to prepare men to be good citizens. So, they were instructed in ethics, philosophies, art, history (what we now consider the humanities) in the hopes of preparing the citizenry. If you think about the Liberal Arts (or a Liberal education) you can see the direct descendent of this type of educational philosophy. The belief was that this broad education would allow men (WEALTHY men) to lead effectively. Now, around 1865 or so there was the start of a new trend: land grant colleges. The point of a landgrant college was to educate one and all. (Even today landgrant colleges have guidelines about majors and whom they may admit.) The landgrant colleges often began as teaching schools or trade schools. As time went on they were often enveloped or taken over or joined with more "traditional" universities. They were more career oriented and more science (and around the midwest: agriculturally) minded. So, the reason that "tech schools" are mostly looked down upon is probably because they are new and they are affiliated with less wealthy students/alumni than say Harvard or other private institutions. In fact, if you look at cheap schools (i.e. your state schools) you will usually see them being much more comprehensive and less focused on education for education's sake (more career oriented). (One exception to this would be the rather new Public Liberal Arts colleges represented together as COPLAC.) The more select and expensive the school (in general) the closer the tie to the old philosophy of education as a way to provide a broad general education for creating a moral citizenry. For more on the history you can check out Derek Bok's book about how america's colleges suck ass (not the title, but i can't remember it).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) One thing that I have NEVER understood is why a technical school education is not given more consideration and value in our society. Have you ever read anything about the history of higher education in this country? It's actually totes fascinating.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 04:33 PM) It's worth noting how poor of a job the for-profit, online-type colleges are doing right now as well. Yep. Still the future though. And the policies that are shaping online schools (i.e. no child left behind: college edition) will end up shaping our traditional universities. (And probably will end up shaping the world's universities. Look at the really, really, really sad shift in the British higher education that appears to be coming.)

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) It would be encouraging and wonderful if the bachelors degree lost prestige in the next 30 years or at least some other higher education systems gain footing. Genuinely curious: like what? An AA? Technical school? Some other country's model? In the next 30 years the only changes I see are a shift to online schools and more jobs requiring a BA or more.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) it is. but because of the vast conspiracy being leveled against me, it will probably never be used It will be used--but only against you.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) i introduced one, but Northside72 refuses to implement it We all refuse. Because we are out to get you. Solidarity against mr_genius.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) I'm not saying that minorities are not discriminated against - and of course they shouldn't be. But I am saying that everyone's being discriminated against because everyone's trying so hard to not discriminate. I know that's almost bad logic, but think about it. To bmags's point, so some white kid gets knocked out because a college has to accept a certain amount of minorities, okay... but maybe that asian should have tried a little harder as well so they wouldn't have been accepted over someone who is more qualified just because they're asian. Wrong is wrong. Lost, people get awarded business or do not get awarded business EVERY DAY because X women and X minorities are or are not part of an organization, and the LAW says business can or cannot be awared on this basis. Again, wrong is wrong. My business can do something for half the cost, but let's spend more money because AA laws say so. Hell, you could cut 5% of the government on this alone, which is a trillion of the deficit. I know, though, we can't do that, now can we? And I think mr genius (i think) raises a better point about socioeconomic status being a barrier more than race itself. And bmags (i think) raises a good point about how the education system itself precludes equal access to education in general. What are the educational attainment rates for African Americans? For whites? For latinos? For Asians? For men? For women? I have been thinking about it. But I keep coming back to what you said about how white people (I won't even say men here) have a sense of entitlement. What we have because of AA is (potentially) minorities that are able (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY) to actually COMPETE with white people for jobs. Compete not because they are minorities but because it's illegal to throw their application in the bin (although it still happens). So, if you see more minorities getting jobs maybe it is because we are finally in a place where we view minorities as competetive competent additions to the workforce. Maybe the reason you see more women getting jobs is because we aren't regulated only to be a nurse or teacher (which, btw, was still told to women in the 70s and 80s). So, maybe it's not that white men are being discriminated against--it's that they are no longer being handed jobs simply because they are there and white and dudes. Maybe now they actually have to f***ing compete with people that 50 years ago would have been laughed out of the office. How is AA more expensive? Because of the hiring practices and the extra steps in the process? The way I have seen AA enforced to me it seems more like they check the pool to certify that it's representative and that there wasn't discrimination in the process. I have had this conversation a million times with my dad. He's in construction and was, until recently, unemployed for about 18 months. It was hard, he couldn't get a job for love or for money. Was it because he was a white man? Or was it because he is highly skilled and expensive ($40/hr) and too old to be a good investment for an employer? All of this bulls*** about the "mancession" or whatever. My dad had done well for himself for so long that he thought that was how it would always be. That he would always be able to get a job with healthcare and pension and long term security. Well guess what, it's cheaper to higher someone without experience, without a family and someone who doesn't know his own worth. But it's easier to say that "mexicans are taking his job." Or that white men are being oppressed. No. I'm sorry I don't buy it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 08:44 AM) History tells me no, but today tells me yes, because I see it every day. It was needed at one point, now it's blown clear out of proportion and I think today it has put white men at a disadvantage. Now, this also cuts both ways, because white men think they're entitled to more, which bothers me. The job market right now is a pretty good example. This is truely a double edge sword kind of a problem. Well, I honestly don't know what to say to that. I had a post all written in my head about examples demonstrating otherwise, but meh. I'm too tired and I know that it wouldn't matter. On a lighter note, this must make AA the MUST EFFECTIVE law ever in the history of time. In 20 years it completely undid 200 years worth of f***ery.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) Do you all want to seriously argue that all these laws that force quotas (lost, um, yes, they are enforceable) in hiring, wages, what businesses get what, who can marry, etc. are NON discriminatory? REVERSE discrimination is just as bad as discrimination, yet you all want to make it this nice pretty bow and talk about equal rights for all. If you want to marry your partner, your choice. If a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets something through hard work and not just simply because the law calls for a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets some entitlement, I have no problem with that. Equal rights means equal rights, not just because you think someone / something is discriminated against. Bigotry has no place in our society, yet it gets bigoted more and more every day, and that cuts both ways the more laws that have to be made and put in place. That wasn't what we asked and you know it. Do you really believe that affirmative action has put white men at a thorough disadvantage in this country? Do you believe that white men have less opportunities EVERY DAY in America than minorities, women, what have you?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 07:45 PM) You're never, ever going to be able to convince me that white people are discriminated against or that life is somehow unfair for them on account of being white. Especially when actual quotas are not legally enforceable. Um, I get really bad sunburns. Like they blister and peel off. So, it's pretty hard to be white in the summer.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 07:17 PM) Fixed that for you. That's why I have a problem with "discrimination" and its definition. ANYONE is discriminated against depending on what slippery slope you want to go down, and why the 14th amendment is pretty much bastardized to fit whatever social injustice you want to pick today. You are seriously going to try and tell me that straight white men have it harder than women, gays and racial minorities.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 09:08 AM) Yeah. We should be able to have married couples have 3-ways but gays shouldn't even marry at all. The sanctity of marriage!! Damn it! Great minds.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) that's unfortunate. Says the dude that's considering a threesome. Maybe there is a third gender I am currently unaware of?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 07:22 PM) She just said she wished Chase wouldn't have waited when they met! I understood her post as saying she wished he wouldn't have been so reserved when they met?

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 06:52 PM) Why, if she likes him too, can't she be the one to take the initiative to call him first? It would be just as easy for her to go through a mutual friend as it is for him. Thank you other lady poster. So both girls vote wait. Take that dudes.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) Darn you women!!! I don't have time for these games! I actually think the calling around or facebooking is more game playing. I mean, she could get his number or facebook him too.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 05:26 PM) Meh.. that'll just make me (and maybe even her seeing it) feel desperate actually. I'm too cool for that. If I was in his shoes, I'd just wait till the softball game, talk to her face to face and get the digits. But... I play it cool mamas. Best approach, imo.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) Is there psychological or sociological reason that heat tends to cause crime to increase? Best guess? Aggression is linked to physical discomfort or pain. It's why a wounded animal is more dangerous than a healthy one. So, we assume that heat is an aversive stimulus that may cause an increase in aggressive behavior. I'm not aware of anything that can actually demonstrate it's a causal relationship--but it's a pretty strong hypothesis. One of my favorite studies looked at the relationship between temperature and batters that were hit by a pitch. Batters were significantly more likely to get hit by a pitch when the temperature gets above 90.

It's been a hotter than average summer, no?