Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Feb 2000 20:00:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
834 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry & all,
This whole set of posting is off from what I am arguing about, which is
affirmative action. I think discrimination, on anyone, is wrong, in the
context of jobs, education, etc. If we test people, shouldn't everyone
take the same tests? We should all be under the same rules. making
tests easier / different simply because of the pigment in your skin is
wrong. If minorities can't seem to handle a test like the ACT, then the
schools they go to are horrible, that is why I am for school choice, so
parents can decide the track their kids can go. I am all for education,
finding the best people, and helping out as many individuals as a market
friendly environment can.
However, this is not the issue here (And everyone has been jumping on me
because of these tests, etc.). This entire thread is getting me more
upset, and I am trying to avoid it. This whole testing thing, IMO, is
another way to go besides affirmative action, and I think it is wrong.
If you want to address this, fine, I am not going to debate testing
techniques because that isn't what my issue is.
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Heartlessly snipped, as usual
>
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> > I can see that you're frustrated with this, but I don't understand.
Nobody ever does, so why do I try?
> > I'm
> > serious when I don't follow whether you think it's a good thing that
> > colleges don't prepare students for the work world. I can see arguments
> > for both sides of this issue.
>
> I guess I'm mostly with Chris on this one.
>
> Scott, you raise some valid points about flaws in the current system.
>
> But short of scrapping the whole notion of regulating how colleges admit
> people, which is my solution,
Yes, mine as well, but does it matter? Maybe we should should all fall
lockstep with the left, because to suggest otherwise causes so many
problems, like this thread.
> and which is something which, as a
> conventional conservative,
I am NOT a conventional conservative. I am who I am.
> you'd presumably be against, I don't see
> where you've offered any alternatives to fix things.
No, I agreed with you, but I think everything is so flawed now, what
does it matter? Nothing is going to change outside of a revolution. My
alternative doesn't matter, because it will never happen, and everyone
thinks it is wrong anyhow.
> Since we're stuck with publicly funded schools for some time to come, I
> guess I'd take a two track approach. Advocate abolishing them on one
> track, yes, but on the other, try to do whatever fixing we can. Testing
> kids in a variety of different ways, with the goal being to predict
> whether they will do well in a school, said school having been realigned
> to try to focus on what is important to learn to prepare for success in
> future life, seems a good idea to me.
Yes, but the issue here isn't that, is it? It is adopting tests
targeting minorities to get them in, which is wrong IMO. If we want to
include leadership potential, etc. in tests to see if people can make
it, according to the college, fine. Everyone should take it, to get a
better idea of how people operate.
> And if we trot out a battery of tests that all tell us more (and
> different) things about students than the SAT does, that has to be good.
Yes. For everyone.
> Now, what it means to prepare for success is a different question. The
> classical liberal education arguably produces more well rounded citizens
> than a 100% practically oriented "vocational" approach. Engineers need
> to be able to write complete sentences, and literature majors need to
> know a bit about how electricity works, in my opinion.
I have nothing against a blending with a liberal arts and technical
areas. I don't know where this came from. From my experience, college
has been nothing more, outside of my technical and a few liberal arts,
to be a politically left indoctrination center, with classes so biased
it would make centralists blush.
As I have said before, my issue is not with testing, it is with
affirmative action, and the thought that minorities are too stupid to
take certain tests. I have a problem with that, simply because there are
stupid and smart people in every race, culture, etc.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) Ok, if the only discussion is about affirmative action, tell me, do you believe that currently blacks and women as general classes of people have the same opportunities as white males as a general class of people? If you do, then what is your (...) (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) So if the ACT is discriminatory in favor of wealth or whiteness, then it's wrong? Fine. I agree. What about the more complex situation where it's a fairly good predictor of success for white males of middle class or greater, but not for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Heartlessly snipped, as usual (...) I guess I'm mostly with Chris on this one. Scott, you raise some valid points about flaws in the current system. But short of scrapping the whole notion of regulating how colleges admit people, which is my (...) (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
