De factor segregation threatens MCPS

[Anonymous]

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.

So housekeeping should make more than the doctors in a hospital? Less people have the dr skills and those skills are harder to obtain.

[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.

So housekeeping should make more than the doctors in a hospital? Less people have the dr skills and those skills are harder to obtain.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what was posted?

[Anonymous]

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

Citation please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Citation please.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/#more-15568

Doesn't support the notion that STEM majors are smarter unless you only count math.

[Anonymous]

Yes, he OWNS a company. He also GROOMS his employees. So you can start off mulching and eventually move up. He has several men running the show.

It's opportunity, dumb ass - not just high IQ.

There are plenty of kids living in poverty who have NO opportunity to shine. And you don't have to be a genius to run a strong business. You need opportunities and skills.

Anonymous wrote: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]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Citation please.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/#more-15568

Doesn't support the notion that STEM majors are smarter unless you only count math.

Funny, there is a quote I saw on a website for dyslexic kids, it says...

If you can't read well a person may think you are not smart, if you can't do math that same person thinks you are just like them

[Anonymous]

Sure, not just brains. Nobody said it was. Do you think he would have been successful if he were as dumb as a post?

Are you saying that all people need are opportunity and those that are hard workers will prosper and intelligence has nothing to do with success?

I think you didn't understand my initial post. Intelligence is correlated with income. It's not a hard and fast relationship, but higher IQ's are correlated with higher incomes. This isn't an opinion, there have been studies that back this up. Is that really that hard for you to accept/understand?

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he OWNS a company. He also GROOMS his employees. So you can start off mulching and eventually move up. He has several men running the show.

It's opportunity, dumb ass - not just high IQ.

There are plenty of kids living in poverty who have NO opportunity to shine. And you don't have to be a genius to run a strong business. You need opportunities and skills.

Anonymous wrote: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]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, not just brains. Nobody said it was. Do you think he would have been successful if he were as dumb as a post?

Are you saying that all people need are opportunity and those that are hard workers will prosper and intelligence has nothing to do with success?

I think you didn't understand my initial post. Intelligence is correlated with income. It's not a hard and fast relationship, but higher IQ's are correlated with higher incomes. This isn't an opinion, there have been studies that back this up. Is that really that hard for you to accept/understand?

You have surely heard that correlation =/= causality.

(Plus, even if there really were causality in this case, you would need to demonstrate that high intelligence --> high income. High income --> high intelligence is equally plausible, at a minimum.)

(I highly recommend Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man.)

[Anonymous]

Well, how does this matter? We know that underprivileged students perform better when they are not in highly segregated schools with many other underprivileged students. It really doesn't matter if someone posting here thinks that their parents are dumber and therefore make less money. The point is that they would get a much better education if the schools were less homogenous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, how does this matter? We know that underprivileged students perform better when they are not in highly segregated schools with many other underprivileged students. It really doesn't matter if someone posting here thinks that their parents are dumber and therefore make less money. The point is that they would get a much better education if the schools were less homogenous.

Actually your point seems to be that entire school systems should be geared towards teaching underprivileged students and ignoring everyone else. When in reality there are many buckets of students to be held accountable for and more than your personal favorite or righteous "group" should be challenged and taught to potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually your point seems to be that entire school systems should be geared towards teaching underprivileged students and ignoring everyone else. .

Where did anybody say that?

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of kids living in poverty who have NO opportunity to shine

Former "poor kid" and I call BS on NO opportunity to shine. It is a matter of desire to change your circumstances.

[Anonymous]

I do not care about segregation that happens because of school boundaries. It is not happening because there are different schools for black and whites.

You will not change the poor performance of the kids who come from impoverished backgrounds by sending them to "W" schools. That is crazy thinking. You cannot fix the home situation of these kids. Home-life and level of parents education is a very big factor that MCPS has no control of.

Here is what I think will work -
1) Send kids to their neighborhood schools.

2) Increase the number of HGC and magnet schools around the county.

3) Fail the kids who do not perform well in ES and MS. Let them repeat the class and put additional resources there to make them succeed. If there is no improvement after 2 years of repeating a class - the parents can pay fees for the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You will not change the poor performance of the kids who come from impoverished backgrounds by sending them to "W" schools. That is crazy thinking.

Well, actually it's thinking based on research. They may not do as well as the affluent kids at the "W" schools. But they will do better than they would at a high-poverty school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My rising 4th grader goes to a diverse ES in MoCo and there is definitely segregation within the class. At this point, I am not sure though that my kid has really clued in: all of the minority kids are in the lower reading and math groups and all of the white kids are in the higher ones. All of the minority kids buy lunch daily and the white kids do not. The white kids have playdates and sleepovers with one another, minority kids are usually not asked to be included. The list goes on. That is not to say there aren't friendships between the kids but that they are not very deep.

My kindergartner was the only white boy in his class this year and I have concerns about how this will play out in the future socially. None of the other boys ever invited him over, they don't have birthday parties, etc. This is not the end of the world but to me, these are normal kid things and I hate that he is missing out.

I think that in the long run the exposure to a diverse set of cultures and backgrounds is good but in the short run I worry.

So, there is self-segregation going on. I don't know what you do about that other than the burden ends up on you to reach out and do the inviting all the time. I have found it works better with boys because they want to play in groups more than girls do.