Soon everyone will be so stupid they'll have to hand out scholarships just for being able to do things like spell "Boston."

11/27/2006 3:33:19 AM

Quote :

"Remember when whites were underrepresented minorities or were systematically denied their civil rights and discriminated against within most peoples' lifetimes?"

Oh then by all means we ought to fuck over another race of people so we can be fair, right?

11/27/2006 8:01:14 AM

Quote :

"Oh then by all means we ought to fuck over another race of people so we can be fair, right?"

1. Whites aren't being fucked over by any stretch of the imagination
2. It is right to make up for recent misdeeds.

All our evidence shows that the whites who are affected are the marginal performers, anyway. Besides, we have plenty of poor scholarships to help them, too.

Minority scholarships are a reasonable accommodation to make up for recent wrongs. The burden of proof is on you to show that giving minorities scholarships is some sort of real problem.

With that said, I would not be opposed to changing it to financial need-based. It is effectively the same as having minority scholarships.

11/27/2006 10:05:48 AM

Quote :

"recent misdeeds"

Oh yeah, I'm so sorry about how racist this country was before my relatives even moved here.

Burden of proof is on me now? Well: here we go. Racism is wrong. Racist scholarship are racism. Racist scholarships are wrong.

Done, fuck face. Also, I want to hear the burden of proof on why giving people who's parents are convicted of murder free rides to college is a bad idea...

11/27/2006 10:54:30 AM

Well if they're not governmently sponsored I really have no problems with them. scholarships for whites or scholarships for blacks, either way. its on the same basis as how private clubs can still exclude blacks from joining. I think thats a horrible thing, but its their choice to do so. If black people want to donate money to help educate other members of their race and keep them off the streets then thats really not such a bad thing. Most minority based scholarships are privately funded anyways. If white people are so upset about it, then stop bitching and make more scholarships for your own peeps.

gg boston.

11/27/2006 11:10:39 AM

Quote :

"Oh yeah, I'm so sorry about how racist this country was before my relatives even moved here."

Your parents moved here after 1970? The majority of people in the US were living when Jim Crow was in full effect.

Quote :

"Burden of proof is on me now? Well: here we go. Racism is wrong. Racist scholarship are racism. Racist scholarships are wrong."

Now welcome to the real world. You have two choices:

A. Make up for past, recent racism that was wrong with a minimal effect on any other race and a huge benefit to the wronged race.

B. Don't make up for past racism, and add no significant benefit to whites.

Do you still want to pretend about which is right or wrong? You are hiding behind sanctimonious rhetoric to hide the fact that you don't, in fact, want to do the right thing.

Paying restitution for committing a wrong is a fundamental part of our criminal and civil justice system. It's the right thing to do. For some reason, you think the government should be exempted from that, now?

If minorities were wronged, minorities are the one who should get restitution. The fact that minorities are the ones reaping the benefit (what you are perceiving as racism) is a result of minorities being the ones who were wronged (the actual racism). Your position is absurd. It's like someone breaking in to my house, me suing for damages, and my neighbor saying that it's unfair that he's not getting any damages, either. He's not entitled to any damages. Furthermore, it doesn't count as restitution if the burglar says he is not going to do it anymore.

Quote :

" Done, fuck face. Also, I want to hear the burden of proof on why giving people who's parents are convicted of murder free rides to college is a bad idea..."

This kind of drivel is what I expect from someone with a loose grasp of logical thought. Perhaps you are jealous because you couldn't get a scholarship of any kind on account of your stupidity.

[Edited on November 27, 2006 at 11:32 AM. Reason : sdf]

11/27/2006 11:25:34 AM

affirmative action helps females of all colors more so than afriacn american men.

wheres my money for being a dude?

11/27/2006 11:25:35 AM

^probably in the wage gap between men and women

11/27/2006 11:58:59 AM

Quote :

"Paying restitution for committing a wrong is a fundamental part of our criminal and civil justice system. It's the right thing to do. For some reason, you think the government should be exempted from that, now?"

I absolutely agree that restitution is a part of criminal and civil justice system. But I've never seen anyone be fined for something their deceased relatives did before they were born. Can you find me some precedent?

Also, the wage gap is explained by preferences in employment far more than some good-old-boy network. For instance, most studies showing a wage gap don't control for time worked in that position and don't control for the prevalence of women in jobs that are less physically demanding and/or hazardous to health. I can't believe that people will still spout that fucking lie like that.

11/27/2006 12:03:19 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: They won't be paying it out of pocket. They'll get a big check made payable to the school of their choice. Now, more investigation into the system would have to be done to see how you prevent all good schools from getting expensive and all shitty schools from being cheap. My guess is some restriction that says they cannot raise their prices under certain cirumstances. I'm not sure how it is done in those other countries, but at least we'll have a model to use."

Wait, so the schools won't be able to determine how much they charge? How is that private?

Seems the only thing private in your system is that schools get to pick which students they accept and don't accept. And, when the success of your business relies on the performace of the students in your schools, it would be pretty tempting to deny entrance to any student you suspect will not stand up.

Quote :

"bgmims: Also, if I have to prove that private is better, why don't you have to prove that public is better. I use comparisons across countries to show that my system is better and you, as usual, hand out vague assertions instead."

You're the one who wants to make the switch so you're the one who has the proving to do. As far as my "vague assertions" go, I'm countering your personal opinions with my own, as I've yet to see anything but claims about these other countries.

Quote :

"burr0sback: wait. what does INTEGRATION have to do with REDUCED PRICE LUNCHES? thank you for letting us know your true motives. [/your argument]"

My true motives? Is it a secret that blacks are more likely to receive reduced priced lunches?

CAT'S OUT THE BAG!!!

11/27/2006 1:51:05 PM

Impoverished people, of all types are more likely to receive free lunches. Blacks just happen to more likely be impoverished. So while your statement there is true, its phrasing is what I think is getting people.

11/27/2006 2:00:23 PM

Well, you can't blame her. Bridget was never taught base-rate statistics, only race-bait statistics.

11/27/2006 2:06:02 PM

^^Nobody has a problem with my wording. burr0sback just got all excited because he thought he caught me saying something "bad." This is what I said:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: We promote school integration by assigning people to schools so there aren't too many students getting free or reduced price lunches at any one school."

^Haven't used statistics or race baiting in this thread. That joke was hilarious though. Lemme tell ya...

11/27/2006 4:27:22 PM

I'm glad someone appreciated it, it took a lot of work.

Quote :

"We promote school integration by assigning people to schools so there aren't too many students getting free or reduced price lunches at any one school.""

But you see, the fallacy here is that we don't promote it so there aren't too many students getting free lunch. First, I'm thinking you promote it because you care about racial diversity, or at least that's the only reason I would think you'd favor making rules and policies based on race. The fact that you then slipped up and said "To keep rich kids with poor kids" isn't covered up by then saying "Well, black people are poor"

Quote :

"Is it a secret that blacks are more likely to receive reduced priced lunches?"

Is a statistical argument

Quote :

"School choice is bullshit. It's just another way for white people to segregate themselves from black people. I mean, all these people move to Wake County and buy a $500,000 home and then get all pissed that their kids have to go to school with black kids. "

Is race-baiting.

[Edited on November 27, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : i]

11/27/2006 4:44:25 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: But you see, the fallacy here is that we don't promote it so there aren't too many students getting free lunch. First, I'm thinking you promote it because you care about racial diversity, or at least that's the only reason I would think you'd favor making rules and policies based on race. The fact that you then slipped up and said "To keep rich kids with poor kids" isn't covered up by then saying "Well, black people are poor""

Slipped up? Wake County's schools are assigned using what we know about which students are receiving free and reduced price lunches. People are uncomfortable with using race so we use the lunches instead. This is no secret.

Furthermore, most educators believe the disparities between black and white students are a result of socioeconomic factors, not race so it only makes sense to use the free and reduced lunch method.

Quote :

"bgmims: Is a statistical argument"

Fine. I shouldn't have responded to your ad hominem bullshit in the first place, but whatever, I did--you win that meaningless battle.

Quote :

"bgmims: Is race-baiting."

I disagree. As "race-baiting" is a subjective concept, there's little use in arguing that point.



Did you have any responses to my more meaty "points"?

11/27/2006 5:16:37 PM

Yes I do

Quote :

"But you're okay with de facto segregation? If the government has an opportunity to keep schools integrated, you'd support that, right?"

When you said this, you meant socioeconomic integration and not racial integration?

11/27/2006 5:50:52 PM

^Racial integration.

Obviously I also value public schools that include people affected by different social and economic factors.

What's the problem here?

Also, could you respond to my bit below? I think I'm missing something...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Wait, so the schools won't be able to determine how much they charge? How is that private? Seems the only thing private in your system is that schools get to pick which students they accept and don't accept. And, when the success of your business relies on the performace of the students in your schools, it would be pretty tempting to deny entrance to any student you suspect will not stand up."

11/27/2006 8:18:06 PM

Quote :

"Well, it has been used limitedly in some U.S. cities. I am not aware of any fully comprehensive studies of how it would work here. "

I did before you even entered the conversation.

here, I did a bit of googling

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_8_34/ai_95541076

Quote :

" A NEW STUDY by two Swedish economists examines whether the Swedish voucher program has hurt education in public schools. Yes, that's right: Sweden, that vaunted social democratic paradise, operates the world's most robust and wide-ranging voucher program. Since 1992 the Swedish government has offered parents up to 75 percent of the per-student cost of their local public school. The money can go to any private school--nonprofit, for-profit, or religious--as long as the national education bureaucracy approves it. The approval requirement is mostly to ensure that private schools are open to all kids and don't charge tuition above the voucher. Parents can also choose among many public schools for their kids, unlike in the U.S., where kids generally have to attend their district school. So has the Swedish voucher program skimmed the cream, leaving public schools with the dregs, as many U.S. voucher critics predict? "The present study shows this fear to be without foundation," conclude its authors, F. Mikael Sandstrom and Fredrik Bergstrom of the Stockholm-based Research Institute of Industrial Economics. "We find that the extent of competition from independent schools, measured as the proportion of students in the municipality that goes to independent schools, improves both the test results and the grades in public schools. ...The improvement is significant both in statistical and real terms." "

[Edited on November 27, 2006 at 9:13 PM. Reason : edit]

11/27/2006 9:08:32 PM

it seems like white people now a days dont appreciate the fact that they are white

it is quite sad

11/27/2006 9:43:42 PM

^^

Quote :

"School Vouchers in Sweden Internal markets for schools in the grand dame of welfare states In Brief: * Sweden created a competitive school market by introducing vouchers in 1992. * Subsequent rapid growth in independent schools has garnered wide public support, even from teachers’ unions. * Although ethnic and religious segregation has increased, class integration is declining as poor children find better schools. * The Swedish success confirms similar evidence from vouchered American states. The credibility of voucher programs as tools to improve public education is growing in Canada and elsewhere. The principle that inspires them—that the best use of governments’ funding power is to direct resources, not to provide services directly—is also finding wider support in mature welfare states. The recent use of school vouchers in Sweden, where splitting the purchaser from the provider improved healthcare efficiency, offers another object lesson. The Swedes started to use vouchers in elementary and middle schools in 1992, with the passage of national legislation called Freedom of Choice and Independent Schools, and expanded the program two years later to include high schools. Rapidly growing private, for-profit companies like Kunskapsskolan have introduced unique curricula to attract vouchered students. In North America, vouchers are already in use in six of the United States and the District of Columbia, and many more are hearing increasingly vocal demands for such alternatives to assist children trapped in low-performing inner-city schools. The Province of Ontario installed a form of them in 2002 by expanding tax credits for children in private schools. A 2001 Compas poll reported that 57 percent of the Canadian public supports the use of vouchers. Why, then, don’t we have them already? In spite of abundant evidence that provincial education systems cost more and deliver less than students, parents and their communities want, special interest groups like teachers’ unions stand in the way. In terms of influence, “educrats” will lose the most from the systemic decentralization of public schools. Competitive schools mean less concentrated bargaining power and more merit pay for teachers, long the bête noire of their powerful professional organizations. What happened in Sweden may change some of their minds. The two largest teachers’ unions are converts to the voucher system, probably because their colleagues who work inside the burgeoning market for independent schools are generally more satisfied with working conditions than those who remain in public schools. In a poll conducted by Svenskt Näringsliv, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, students overwhelmingly confirmed they liked the new freedom of choice. Parents are on board, too, because they like the academic improvement that vouchers have generated. A 2001 study from the Swedish Ministry of Finance showed that, far from deteriorating as a result of competition from independent schools, municipal schools have been forced to make better use of their resources and improve their quality. The study described a strong positive correlation between the amount of students in independent schools in a municipality and high test results in that municipality’s schools. The rapid growth of independent schools—before vouchers, they held fewer than one percent of Swedish students; now more than ten percent of secondary and over six percent of elementary students attend them—did confirm one negative prediction. They have increased the level of educational segregation. Religious and ethnic minorities are placing their children in schools that cater to their special needs, as are parents who seek a specialized pedagogical emphasis, like music. But in another important sense, vouchers have reduced segregation. Swedish policy analyst Kristian Tiger describes the system as “a possible instrument of social and economic integration. Before the reform, the principle of proximity determined which school a student had to attend. . . . Sweden has wealthy areas and low-income areas, prosperous places as well as places with many social problems, idyllic neighbourhoods and rough neighbourhoods. The old system only fortified segregation of that sort. The voucher system has made it possible for children to choose schools further away from their homes." BIG OLE LOL COMING FROM ME RIGHT HERE That desire to open up better schools to the economically disadvantaged is precisely the motive behind American school vouchers. A study of Ohio’s controversial program in the city of Dayton identified large gains in academic scores among vouchered African-American students. The District of Columbia, Florida, Utah and Wisconsin also provide vouchers for low-income and disabled students, and parents in six states can take advantage of Ontario-style tax credits to pay for part of the cost of a private school. Two other states, Maine and Vermont, have a long history of paying tuition at non-religious schools. So does the country of Denmark, where the policy has had the same effect as noted in Sweden, with state schools improved by competition for students. New Zealand introduced a voucher program in 1989 for low-income children; 97 percent of their parents say they are satisfied or very satisfied with the education their children are receiving at an independent school. In none of these jurisdictions have public schools collapsed or been bled dry by the experience. Although Sweden’s Kunskapsskolan has yet to show a profit, it has a positive cash flow and long waiting lists for entry into its 22 schools confirm its academic attractions. Entrepreneur Peje Emilsson uses a flatter organizational structure than municipal schools. A central organizational unit takes care of recruitment, training and administration. Expensive fixed overheads like laboratories and technical shops are shared in rotation. Teachers act more like tutors than classroom instructors, with personalized learning programs that are highly flexible. School vouchers have quickly gained public and political acceptance in Sweden. Only the Communist party and a few municipal politicians oppose the program. That consensus offers food for Canadian thought. We should consider giving vouchers a try."

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1035

Basically, they say that the voucher system is increasing segregation, but that it's good in that poor kids are finding better schools, but that's what is so cool about Wake County--poor kids are already getting access to better schools!

Do you think the United States is a bit different than Sweden? Do you think Maine is a bit different than North Carolina?

And, again, these schools are hardly private. They're funded by the government. Their tuitions are regulated by the government, and they apparently have to accept any student who applies (if they get through the waiting list)--do they have to actually teach those students though?

[Edited on November 27, 2006 at 10:31 PM. Reason : sss]

11/27/2006 10:29:50 PM

Any studies to show that forced integration improves racial relationships at all?

11/27/2006 10:54:31 PM

^Forced? Like I said, it's not forced if private schools are still available. If you don't want your kids going to school with brown people, you can send them to a private school that you can personally examine yourself.

As far as those studies go, I believe there was a study done called common sense. Exposure to different races and cultures promotes and fosters understanding and tolerance. Otherwise, we're all screwed and destined to be racist. Get it?

11/27/2006 11:25:31 PM

Quote :

"As far as those studies go, I believe there was a study done called common sense. Exposure to different races and cultures promotes and fosters understanding and tolerance. Otherwise, we're all screwed and destined to be racist. Get it?"

You heard it here first. Common sense trumps scientific research. If you grow up around mostly white people, you're bound to be racist.

Kind of an interesting observation given that more people in the South grow up around black people and more people in the South are racist.

11/28/2006 7:38:00 AM

Both you of you two are correct. In the south whites who grow up with involvement with blacks are likely to be racist, but not those who grow up WITH blacks, i.e. in their neighborhoods etc. Additionally, white people in NYC are more frequently involved with blacks than many whites here in the south--namely because we have the space to segregate ourselves--and yet they remain less racist.

11/28/2006 9:04:07 AM

Quote :

"^Forced? Like I said, it's not forced if private schools are still available. If you don't want your kids going to school with brown people, you can send them to a private school that you can personally examine yourself. "

Forced as in specifically crafting the school districts in such a way as to create integration where there would normaly be none.

Quote :

"Exposure to different races and cultures promotes and fosters understanding and tolerance. Otherwise, we're all screwed and destined to be racist. Get it?"

So anyone who doesn't go to a school that's mixed with equal parts of every race and culture is destined to be racist?

11/28/2006 11:00:18 AM

Yes, she asserted it and it is thus.

11/28/2006 11:22:47 AM

Thats not what she was implying, and she didnt say that it had to be school related in that statement. Sure schools do provide an easy and consistent form of exposure, but they're not the only one. Exposure can build tolerance, and uderstanding- thats undenialbe. Without exposure or knowledge of other cultures you are less likely to be understanding of their differences, thats a fact.

11/28/2006 11:33:56 AM

It may very well be a fact, but you simply cannot assert it as "common sense." You need to support it.

11/28/2006 11:36:37 AM

Agreed. All of us on tww like sit up high and poke at all the small holes in anyone's argument, but shes fighting a one person battle here, vs many. My point is that perhaps cut her a little slack on the things she said that are a little more implicit and explicit and stick to attacking the serious flaws.

11/28/2006 11:45:22 AM

Well, ordinarily I would agree with you. But Bridget is famous for coming in here and asserting one side of the argument and then bouncing out when we ask for proof.

I also think its extremely condescending to say that if you grow up in a homogenous group of people that you are destined to be some racist, incabable of empathizing with people from another group. It is also ridiculous to think that growing up in a melting pot of different ethnicities somehow eliminates racist sentiment 100%. There are plenty of people who were from homogenous areas that aren't racist and there are plenty of people who grew up around other groups of people that are.

11/28/2006 12:02:04 PM

Quote :

"forced integration"

OMG I HAVE TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF HUMAN BEINGS WITH A DIFFERENT SKIN PIGMENTATION, WHATEVER WILL I DO!?!?!

11/28/2006 1:57:47 PM

^^ I agree. In fact some people who become increasingly racist due to their interactions with a certain percentage of an ethnic population. That being said, I also didn't knwo bridgets M.O. so thats why I was defending her. If that is truly the case, then fair game.

11/28/2006 2:19:11 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: If you grow up around mostly white people, you're bound to be racist."

I didn't fucking say that.

Quote :

"bgmims: I also think its extremely condescending to say that if you grow up in a homogenous group of people that you are destined to be some racist, incabable of empathizing with people from another group. It is also ridiculous to think that growing up in a melting pot of different ethnicities somehow eliminates racist sentiment 100%. There are plenty of people who were from homogenous areas that aren't racist and there are plenty of people who grew up around other groups of people that are."

Way to go on the paragraph-long response to something I didn't fucking say. You even got to call me condescending!

Let's go back, folks...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Exposure to different races and cultures promotes and fosters understanding and tolerance. Otherwise, we're all screwed and destined to be racist. Get it?"

In the first sentence, I'm not saying exposure always promotes tolerance and understanding. You knew that, but you ran with it anyway and accused me of saying exposure always promotes tolerance and a lack of exposure always promotes racism. I didn't say either of those things.

It's the second sentence that you seem to be struggling with. I'll help you out. The word "otherwise" refers to my assertion that exposure promotes tolerance. So replace "otherwise" with the words "If exposure doesn't promote tolerance..." I'm attempting to express the idea that if exposure doesn't promote tolerance/understanding, then it means racism is some huge, unbeatable force that we're all destined to live beneath forever.

11/28/2006 2:26:03 PM

Right Senator, that's what you meant!

Or perhaps what you meant was what you actually said. Even under your new meaning, what you're saying is

"Exposure to different races and cultures promotes and fosters understanding and tolerance. Otherwise, we're all screwed and destined to be racist. Get it?"

Exposure to other races is the only way to foster understanding and tolerance. If exposure doesn't promote tolerance/understanding then we're all screwed and destined to be racist.

So, vis a vis, if you haven't been exposed to other races, you're destined to be racist.

11/28/2006 2:39:24 PM

^No, of course there are people who aren't exposed to other races and are also not racist. My father is a fine example.

And don't accuse of me of trying to "change meanings" on you. I know what I mean, and I also know that I would never suggest people who aren't exposed to other cultures/races are automatically racist. Re-read this thread...I'm very cautious not to say anything ridiculous here. Last night I was annoyed that 1337 b4k4 actually wanted me to go find a study that showed "forced" integration improves racial relationships so I typed up a quick response not realizing that the two of you would misinterpret it.

11/28/2006 3:15:58 PM

Quote :

"if exposure doesn't promote tolerance/understanding, then it means racism is some huge, unbeatable force that we're all destined to live beneath forever."

How is that misinterpreted?

11/28/2006 3:20:38 PM

Quote :

"how exactly do you go about solving it? "

This may have been said by now, but the way to solve it isn't through affirmative action, which is trying to fix the problem's symptoms, not the cause. The way to work to fix the cause it is to make sure that every school (middle school, high school, etc.) in America is funded and staffed equally. Schools in predominately white, upper class districts on average get $1000/student/year more from federal, state, and local governments than schools in low-income areas. If every student got the same level of education leading up to college, then you don't need to consider race when giving out merit-based $$ for college.

11/28/2006 3:22:10 PM

I hope you know you can't expect small rural schools to spend the same $/student as a big urban school. There is an economy to scale in purchasing large quantities of items and also the building costs are less per student at large schools, because building a big building is progressively cheaper per unit of space than building a small one.

That's a good effort, but simply silly. It isn't money, but quality of teachers and supplies that you want to keep as close to equal as possible.

The hardest thing to do is to keep teacher quality the same. Because its difficult to pay teachers based on where they teach and what subject they teach and how well they teach, you end up with good teachers going places with fewer discipline problems and the urban schools with discipline problems get new teachers that really aren't up to par yet.

11/28/2006 3:32:10 PM

^^^I was speaking of your other post before I corrected you. You know, the one where you said my ideas were "extremely condescending."

You're continuing to try to paint me as condescending, but you can't quite find the evidence to get those words in my mouth. You did try though. You gave it a shot with the incorrect usage of "vis a vis" and whatnot, but you didn't make it.

Quote :

"bgmims: The hardest thing to do is to keep teacher quality the same. Because its difficult to pay teachers based on where they teach and what subject they teach and how well they teach, you end up with good teachers going places with fewer discipline problems and the urban schools with discipline problems get new teachers that really aren't up to par yet."

So maybe we should mix up the students attending those schools. Oh wait...we already do that, and it's working!

[Edited on November 28, 2006 at 3:40 PM. Reason : sss]

11/28/2006 3:37:03 PM

Quote :

"So maybe we should mix up the students attending those schools. Oh wait...we already do that, and it's working!"

Its working? I'm not quite sure what you base that on.

11/28/2006 4:01:56 PM

^^^It is cheaper per student to build larger schools in urban areas, but then again, the property costs, etc are higher in those areas, so that'll cancel that out a bit. I'm not saying we have to get it exactly the same. The $/student was just an example (and probably not even the best one). But surely you wouldn't say that upper-class schools are much nicer than low-income areas, for the most part. Even if you are right, then does that mean that if you live in a rural area, you should have sub-par school buildings just because you don't have the advantage of economy of scale?

This obviously is not an easy problem to fix, and it may never be completely corrected, but that doesn't mean we can't address the problem the best we can. To say "this is hard, let's give up" isn't a very good plan.

[Edited on November 28, 2006 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ^^^]

11/28/2006 4:01:59 PM

I certainly don't intend to give up. I want school choice hybridized between the Milton Friedman and the Swedish system.

11/28/2006 4:03:48 PM

sweden is much smaller than the US.

If this is going to happen its going to be at a state level which would work much better.

shits not going to happen tho.

11/28/2006 5:03:00 PM

^and mostly of one race

11/28/2006 5:21:35 PM

Quote :

"If this is going to happen its going to be at a state level which would work much better."

I agree (you know I do, lol) but unfortunately the state's have recently been raped of many of their powers over education and it becomes unlikely that it can happen on a state or municipal level.

Also,

Quote :

"and mostly of one race"

should be irrelevant because generally wealthy, educated people avoid poor, uneducated people. Not simply black people. It just happens that, as a group, blacks are more likely to fall into that category. Now, if you want to make an argument that they are basically one socioeconomic class, then you may have a point.

11/28/2006 5:31:54 PM

Sweden isnt as white as you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden

although it seems small compared to the US they only have around 9 million citizens.

this however doesnt take away from the fact that many native swedes hate the middle eastern immigrants.

11/28/2006 9:02:25 PM

Whats wrong with the forsyth county system?

Now that i look back on it....I got bus'd to the most ghetto area of town. I didnt think it was that bad, but it did seem a bit odd that i had to travel 30 minutes from home. Nothing beat watching the cops chase a guy through the outdoor track while we did the mile run timing.

11/28/2006 10:34:42 PM

You mean besides forcing you to drive 30 minutes because you were too white?

11/29/2006 7:31:15 AM

Quote :

"bgmims: Its working? I'm not quite sure what you base that on."

Wake County schools outperform national and North Carolina averages. There's A LOT of waste that needs to be dealt with though.

Quote :

"Quinn: Whats wrong with the forsyth county system? Now that i look back on it....I got bus'd to the most ghetto area of town. I didnt think it was that bad, but it did seem a bit odd that i had to travel 30 minutes from home. Nothing beat watching the cops chase a guy through the outdoor track while we did the mile run timing."

Did you go to a magnet school or live far away from a school? Because Forsyth County did away with bussing almost a decade ago.

[Edited on November 29, 2006 at 1:40 PM. Reason : sss]

11/29/2006 1:38:35 PM

Quote :

"Wake County schools outperform national and North Carolina averages. There's A LOT of waste that needs to be dealt with though."

So the evidence from this one county (if indeed that is true, which I concede it probably is) is supposed to be sweeping enough evidence to prove that the cost associated with bussing based on race is beneficial as a whole?

11/29/2006 2:21:43 PM