 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Your evading the question. I asked about "disadvantaged" minorities as classes. I am quite aware that INDIVIDUALS of every "disadvantaged" minority have been extremely successeful. My question is do you think that blacks as a whole have the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Frank raises some good points. But if I am careful I will find myself disagreeing with him... I think it would be naiive in the extreme to say that past history has not seen injustice suffered by some groups at the hands of others. Name an (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
|
Which is precisely why silly things like WW2 history are not emphasized in US schools. The US is a memoryless society where the opportunity-of-the-moment guides the actions. Having vast masses unconcerned with geography and history is an important (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) Some do and some don't, just like everyone else. It depends on their life choices, etc. (...) That is debatable, but if they get paid less, that's something for the EEOC to look at. (...) To who? Does every job category have to have x this, y (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
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? (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) My college education (at the first "engineering" college in the US (world?) - Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) certainly focused on a well rounded education. We were required to effectively take one humanities or social sciences class every (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote: > Why is that? Should the tests be designed to determine who has a good (...) Making it so they all go to college together segregates them? (...) Should not? What do you mean should? What if it does? Does matter, whether or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) In that case, I think we should test ALL students at all levels on their assembler coding skills. Hey, you think using different tests for different people is not fair. Of course I'll start picking doctors who went to school in some other (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
