Posted on 11/29/2002 11:31:28 PM PST by kattracks
Whthout knowing the entrance criteria its hard to tell, but this link showing admitted students SAT scores sure indicates that quotas are alive and well.
I don't know what statistic you're citing, but those numbers were much, much higher in urban areas. As early as World War I, high school graduation numbers among blacks skyrocketed, as the older generations pushed for their youth - especially the girls - to go to school and get an education.
Three of my four grandparents are high school graduates - the fourth, my paternal grandfather, became a master carpenter; both of my grandmothers are college graduates. If you talk to many, those graduation rates will increase dramatically prior to Depression, then taper off again, but increasing dramatically once again during the second World War.
As I said, the higher rates were in cities. In the country, the emphasis may have been there, but it may not have been pushed as much, with youngsters choosing to become farmers or tradesmen.
Is there a quota system is isn't there one? To me the numbers show there is still some type of quota systems in place. The number of ball players and the like just can't account for the difference in SAT scores.
BTW, IMO SAT scores are not the be all and end all to indicate ones potential. If a college whats to give substandard students a chance on the students dime, I could not care less. It's when the under-performer gets a passing grade because of the fear of being accused of racism while insisting I pay for it in taxes that grate on my nerves.
I got out of there.
I"m not going to get into a pissing match about the statistics. I'm speaking, based on personal experience.
Let's get back to the original point: you refuse to accept that popular culture is responsible for the lagging of black students today. I don't accept the notion that because numbers were lower historically that it is reflected today.
Today it is accepted, thanks to the poverty pimps (as well as to popular culture), to use excuses as a reason not to go to school and excel. The best way, IMO, to address this problem is to work to eliminate and marginalize the negative influences that cause this.
Go back and re-read my original posts. My point is that parental and family involvement is key. Today's youth have substituted peer culture and involvement for traditional family involvement. Traditional family involvement points toward generational advancement.
As I mentioned, my grandfather never attended college. My father did his undergrad work at Central State in Ohio. His grad work was at Purdue. I started at Purdue and went on to Howard. I don't feel that I'm any worse off than white students.
If parents don't take the time to get involved, then you're right. The students will be behind. But my parents took the time to take us to plays; to museums; to concerts. My wife and I do the same with our children.
It's obvious from your "biggest argument" statement that we are on the same page. But we disagree in terms of what the older generations continue to emphasize.
Whoops, wrong table, sorry. Here is the admission table. The median admission score for blacks is 210 points lower than the median white score (estimated by taking the midpoints of the ranges), versus a 245-point spread for the applications, which is still pretty significant
White/Asian children can easily outdistance black children because, on average, their parents spend more time, money, and effort giving their children a life experience that includes intellectual activites.
Your statement is not far off the mark, but you've excluded the segment of Black culture that mostly prefers to patronize Black bookstores and attend Black musical and theatrical events. Plenty of these folks will go see things "The Nutcraker" or attend the "main" symphony orchestra, ballet, etc., but they also like culture that reflects who they are.
Or more precisely, genetics will determine how much effort and resources will be needed to achieve a particular IQ, with the curve rising steeply past a point.
Now, while favorable environments can increase IQ, severely unfavorable environments (eq, malnuitrition or exposure to drugs or other substances which result in brain damage) can decrease IQ. But as the bottom-line environment for the worst-off gets better, past a threshold, we should be seeing less of this effect. The exception (and it gets bigger every year) would be for the kids that we deliberately drug into stupors in school to make them more manageable
and collectingdust replied:
And this is the critical level at which all of the institutions (cultural, political, economic, legal) we hold dear are created and preserved. Labor can be found in mass wherever you look, but the engineers, doctors, scientists, writers, etc., occur at the high end of the IQ curve. If, in total, only 2.313% of blacks in the US are capable of achievement at the elite level (vs. 16.3% of whites), then so be it, and let's not kill ourselves, financially and morally, trying to change what can't be changed.
Fishrrman speaks:
VERY astute comment, collecting, regarding the "threshold" of [elite] group intelligence which is required so that "institutions (cultural, political, economic, legal) we hold dear are created and preserved".
At the risk of being thrown off this board, I contend that being "below this threshold" is why black Africa was never able to progress culturally beyond the tribal level -- UNTIL they had contact with cultures from beyond their continent. No doubt there were highly intelligent African tribesmen (the Bell Curve would account for as much), but their numbers were so small, and the culture they were born into so backward, that specific individuals couldn't make a "forward contribution" that would endure from one generation to the next.
Such "forward progress" as may have been made in Africa came ONLY after being "imposed" by European colonizers. And what happens when the Europeans leave, or are forced out? One needs only to look to the devolution of civilization in Zimbabwe for the answer.
I would contend that -- if Sub-Saharan Africa had never had _any_ contact with the outside world, they would be living today in virtually the same culture that they had in the year 1200 A.D. -- to wit, that of African tribespeople. Who would argue otherwise?
I would also contend that -- if Europeans had never had _any_ contact with Africa, European Judeo/Christian culture would have continued to progress pretty much the same as it has through the centuries. Who would argue otherwise?
There is indeed "an elephant in the room" that few are willing to consider re the continual "lagging" of the overall "group achievements" vis-a-vis whites and blacks in America. This invisible elephant is why over a billion dollars could be spent on inner-city schools in Kansas City (where a federal judge took the unusual step that property taxes could be raised to cover the cost), with almost NO improvement on minority achievement test scores. It is why, following one attempt after another, every one of which ends in failure, the "experts" throw up their hands and blame the failures of blacks to "achieve" -- either at the student or employment level -- on either "inadequate funding" or "white racism".
Guess they don't -- or won't -- see that elephant in the room.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world". We are supposed to be conservatives, seeking and accepting of the truth, even when those truths are unpleasant and unpalatable.
When will _we_ begin to speak openly about the elephant?
Cheers!
- John
So you've never heard of the Ghana, Mali or Songhay Empires?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.