De factor segregation threatens MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But what benefit is a diverse school to the wealthy? How did my presence benefit the rich kids?

Rich kids who went to school with non-rich kids, in my belief (but I don't have data for this), are less likely to assume that:

1. Everybody (or at least everybody who matters) has all the advantages they have;
2. They are not actually rich, because there are people who are richer than they are;
3. Rich people are rich because they are more hard-working and intelligent than non-rich people;
4. Poor people are smelly, lazy, and distasteful.

People who do not assume these things are better human beings than people who do assume these things. And if being a better human being isn't a benefit, what is?

Rich people are more intelligent and hard-working than non-rich people in this area. Sorry you haven't figured that out yet.

I don't believe that affluent people are harder working than poorer people. I do think they have skills which the job market values more highly. I also think that generally these marketable skills correlate with intelligence. So, you're probably half right.

I disagree. Several years ago, I managed a staff of about 20 people. I hired. And I found that some affluent people were far more difficult to manage because they refused to pitch in and help as a team effort. They considered some work below them, and they did not take direction well. Again, I say SOME affluent people, not all. The less affluent people I had on staff had a more limited vocabulary, but they took direction better, were eager to learn, and were more cooperative in the sense that they were willing to do tasks that weren't part of their main job description when those tasks needed to be done.

The second part of what you say is also wrong. I don't think affluence = intelligence. Higher SES kids might score better on tests, but it is not because they are more intelligent. It is usually because they are exposed to more stuff that is relevant to the tests (i.e. their families use a larger vocabulary, et cetera). But that is not the same as intelligence.

I've managed people and have seen almost no correlation between how "affluent" they were and their job performance. But the thing is, these people had already been screened for the right degree and experienced, done well on an interview etc. In other words the market has already "valued" their skill set, so any differences were among individuals. I work in a technical fields and it's almost completely a meritocracy until you start moving up on the management side.

In general, studies show that IQ correlates with income (not wealth so much, because that can be passed down for many generations). Unless you believe that IQ isn't heritable at all, then it's hard to make the argument that there isn't some connection between affluent parents and smart kids. Again, this isn't a hard and fast rule, but there is a relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Rich people are more intelligent and hard-working than non-rich people in this area. Sorry you haven't figured that out yet.

This right here is why you should send your child to a diverse school. I would be embarrassed if my child grew up to say something like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rich people are more intelligent and hard-working than non-rich people in this area. Sorry you haven't figured that out yet.

This right here is why you should send your child to a diverse school. I would be embarrassed if my child grew up to say something like this.

Yes, please move out another 10 miles, have a crappier commute, and send your kid to a school with a low-performing student body. It will be so worth it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rich people are more intelligent and hard-working than non-rich people in this area. Sorry you haven't figured that out yet.

This right here is why you should send your child to a diverse school. I would be embarrassed if my child grew up to say something like this.

Me too.

[Anonymous]

Truth hurts sometimes though.

[Anonymous]

Comments on this board have not been very enlightening - the comments posted to the article were pretty interesting if you actually go and read it.

[Anonymous]

My friend is a landscaper who lives in Potomac.

no college degree - straight from HS into a business he started IN high school

I really think you're limited in your experiences, PP, as there are PLENTY of people making quite a bit of money working the "trades." I know; I live among them in the outer burbs, moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Generally.... correlates.... we're not talking in absolutes here. Of course there are exceptions. But if asked to bet 1000 bucks on which person was smarter, someone making $150K as an engineer or someone making 20K as a landscaper would you flip a coin to choose? I wouldn't. I would probably be wrong sometimes, but I'd guess that much more often than not I'd be right. Higher IQ correlates positively with higher salary later in life. And "less lucrative careers" doesn't mean poor; neither of the jobs you mentioned are particularly low paying.

[Anonymous]

No, your friend OWNS a landscaping business. My guess is that he's a reasonably smart guy if he was able to build a successful business from scratch. Do you think all the guys he has mowing lawns at 10 bucks an hour are as smart as he is? I've worked construction, and I know that skilled tradesmen aren't stupid, that's why they can often make good salaries.

Anonymous wrote:My friend is a landscaper who lives in Potomac.

no college degree - straight from HS into a business he started IN high school

I really think you're limited in your experiences, PP, as there are PLENTY of people making quite a bit of money working the "trades." I know; I live among them in the outer burbs, moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Generally.... correlates.... we're not talking in absolutes here. Of course there are exceptions. But if asked to bet 1000 bucks on which person was smarter, someone making $150K as an engineer or someone making 20K as a landscaper would you flip a coin to choose? I wouldn't. I would probably be wrong sometimes, but I'd guess that much more often than not I'd be right. Higher IQ correlates positively with higher salary later in life. And "less lucrative careers" doesn't mean poor; neither of the jobs you mentioned are particularly low paying.

[Anonymous]

The second part of what you say is also wrong. I don't think affluence = intelligence. Higher SES kids might score better on tests, but it is not because they are more intelligent. It is usually because they are exposed to more stuff that is relevant to the tests (i.e. their families use a larger vocabulary, et cetera). But that is not the same as intelligence.

Yes and no. You need to factor in the area employment market. In this area, the affluent are also competitive as the job market attracts people from all over the country. In order to be affluent (unless you are one of the few old money legacies in VA) you need to be able to perform at the top of your field. You have more parents with high IQs and multiple professional degrees in the affluent areas and therefore more genetically gifted kids.

The immigrant community also breaks down into two groups. You have the immigrants who came here through education. They had to be able to achieve at the highest level to immigrate through education, often in STEM fields. They also highly value education so you have kids with a combo of genetic high iQs and incredible work ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have more parents with high IQs and multiple professional degrees in the affluent areas and therefore more genetically gifted kids.

I don't know about you, but I come from ancestors who, when they arrived in America, the people who were already here wailed about how their low IQs were going to forever ruin the gene pool for everybody. And yet here their descendants are, with advanced degrees.

"Genetically gifted" indeed. It doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure that socioeconomic serration is a bad thing if its handled to maximize offerings to students across the board but in different ways.

You can end up increasing rather than decreasing racism if a diverse socioeconomic school has trends where kids of one race perform better and have more financial resources than another. You see more segregation among the students and stereotypes form in their mind. If you have a racially diverse group but everyone is from similar socioeconomic backgrounds kids see equality between the groups and they form more racially diverse friendships.

The needs are different based on socioeconomic circumstances. Why not let affluent parents collect and raise large amounts of money to fund school facilities and resources. This is less money that the county would spend on those school and money that could be diverted to schools that don't have this advantage.

If there are problems at lower SES with kids being hungry or not having parents to help with homework why not offer free meals 3 times a day at these schools and evening tutoring services to actually bridge the gap? If there are problems at higher SES schools with kids being held back and not being given challenging curriculum why not offer acceleration and/or programs where these students can provide after school tutoring programs in lower SES schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The second part of what you say is also wrong. I don't think affluence = intelligence. Higher SES kids might score better on tests, but it is not because they are more intelligent. It is usually because they are exposed to more stuff that is relevant to the tests (i.e. their families use a larger vocabulary, et cetera). But that is not the same as intelligence.

Yes and no. You need to factor in the area employment market. In this area, the affluent are also competitive as the job market attracts people from all over the country. In order to be affluent (unless you are one of the few old money legacies in VA) you need to be able to perform at the top of your field. You have more parents with high IQs and multiple professional degrees in the affluent areas and therefore more genetically gifted kids.

The immigrant community also breaks down into two groups. You have the immigrants who came here through education. They had to be able to achieve at the highest level to immigrate through education, often in STEM fields. They also highly value education so you have kids with a combo of genetic high iQs and incredible work ethics.

Hold up -- isn't one's income more a factor of their choice of field? For instance, if you take three identical liberal arts grads and one becomes a social worker and one becomes a professor and one becomes a management consultant, how is it that the management consultant apparently gets credit for being the smartest because he or she makes the most money? I happen to live in a wonderful neighborhood in Silver Spring filled with more of the human service type professions and fewer of the management consultants. This says nothing about the intelligence of the parents or (given your proclivity for eugenics) the inherited intelligence of the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The second part of what you say is also wrong. I don't think affluence = intelligence. Higher SES kids might score better on tests, but it is not because they are more intelligent. It is usually because they are exposed to more stuff that is relevant to the tests (i.e. their families use a larger vocabulary, et cetera). But that is not the same as intelligence.

Yes and no. You need to factor in the area employment market. In this area, the affluent are also competitive as the job market attracts people from all over the country. In order to be affluent (unless you are one of the few old money legacies in VA) you need to be able to perform at the top of your field. You have more parents with high IQs and multiple professional degrees in the affluent areas and therefore more genetically gifted kids.

The immigrant community also breaks down into two groups. You have the immigrants who came here through education. They had to be able to achieve at the highest level to immigrate through education, often in STEM fields. They also highly value education so you have kids with a combo of genetic high iQs and incredible work ethics.

Hold up -- isn't one's income more a factor of their choice of field? For instance, if you take three identical liberal arts grads and one becomes a social worker and one becomes a professor and one becomes a management consultant, how is it that the management consultant apparently gets credit for being the smartest because he or she makes the most money? I happen to live in a wonderful neighborhood in Silver Spring filled with more of the human service type professions and fewer of the management consultants. This says nothing about the intelligence of the parents or (given your proclivity for eugenics) the inherited intelligence of the children.

This! And FYI those in the sciences on average make no where near what most people expect considering the difficulty of the schooling.

[Anonymous]

Two more:

an interview with Joshua Starr: http://greatergreatereducation.org/post/19347/montgomery-schools-super-tries-closing-achievement-gap/

and possible solutions: http://greatergreatereducation.org/post/19361/integration-will-keep-moco-public-schools-competitive/

[Anonymous]

Hold up -- isn't one's income more a factor of their choice of field? For instance, if you take three identical liberal arts grads and one becomes a social worker and one becomes a professor and one becomes a management consultant, how is it that the management consultant apparently gets credit for being the smartest because he or she makes the most money? I happen to live in a wonderful neighborhood in Silver Spring filled with more of the human service type professions and fewer of the management consultants. This says nothing about the intelligence of the parents or (given your proclivity for eugenics) the inherited intelligence of the children.


This! And FYI those in the sciences on average make no where near what most people expect considering the difficulty of the schooling.

Higher SES is defined on the national scale not the DCUM world where anything below 500K a yr is considered poor. The engineers and researchers making 100K are in the higher SES bracket. Lower SES is making minimum wage or barely a living wage and not being able to make more because both parents barely have a high school education.

Liberal arts majors in general tend to have lower IQs than STEM majors.