DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... What Students in Europe Learn That Americans Don't

thats the vibe you're putting off. since you explained you're not, then my bad. we're clear on this now.


but once again, that still isn't gonna fix the problem. what you're saying is fine for the kids.

but as an education solution as a whole, it could very well make matters worse.

regardless, with this thread and overall point, this is why we need to expand what we are teaching to these kids. geography is absolutely important.

if we want to put the kids in the best position to succeed in an expanding global economy, then we can't be having kids with such linear thinking. our kids need to be learning a different language, studying other cultures, understanding dynamics.

you already said you want schools teaching real world stuff.

well thats real world stuff. at the rate we are going, foreigners aren't just dominating our own markets like they are now, they will be running it.

at the very least, we should be teaching our kids the same, that way we can have more americans dominating job industries internationally.

that's why i make sure katja continues to teach my daughters German. my mom wants to teach them Spanish.

i wish the schools offered to even teach my kids a language, as it would be easier. i want my kids, hell i want all of our kids to have the advantage come getting a job.

hell, you guys only focused on the language thing and didn't even hit on the sex Ed problem in this country, which is a huge issue.

and sports.

So Swish, what do you think about this?



While I'm always hesitant to take these "this is what they do at school in ....." at face value, let's do exactly that here. I actually would be ok with the above. Yes it's memorization, yes it can be looked up quickly on the internet, but I actually agree that it's good to be aware of geography and how other cultures operate.

I also think the schools should be more demanding/rigorous, and students should generally be held to a higher standard.

Do you think that is a reasonable amount of material for a kid to learn in regards to geography? I'm a bit torn to be honest... depends a lot on how old the kid is. Yet what I'm actually seeing from kids graduating from High School (heck, College) is more along the lines of what is alluded to in another part of the article-- many wouldn't be able to identify more than a few countries, if that.

From the article:


Is this what is really happening? See my point about being skeptical of taking things at face value. Honestly this all sounds kind of bizarre. Do you really need to teach a 5 or 8 year old this stuff? I don't think so. That's not to say that American schools are getting it right. I don't think the 'you must follow abstinence or else you will die' approach is very good either.

What about sports? Hey I'm all for rewarding intellectual achievement more and sports performance less. Maybe start giving out some of those coveted sports scholarships to the best math and science geeks instead (somehow I don't think that is where you were going with this....)

it's geography. its not gonna be really that easy.

i don't have a problem with it. hell, that can help kids understand their surroundings, or at least be able to identify some damn land marks.

memorizing is a lot better than not knowing it at all.

nobody complained when we all grew up having to memorized the multiplication table.

and yea i think it's reasonable, over the course of a school year or a few years? why not?

take this into account, Haus.

i never once said i agreed with everything in this article. what i was saying was that let's look at the differences.

i don't think kids around 5-8 should be learning about that sort of stuff, either.

but then again, something is clearly working, as their teen pregnancy rates compared to ours can't even be defended using clever word play.

we have to look at parts of the sex ed programs that work and implement them here.

What could make matters worse? Putting high achieving kids together and slower achieving kids together so they can progress at their own pace? Curious how that could make matters worse.


I loved geography, I loved literature, I loved to learn just because it was cool to know "stuff"... I'm a bit of a trivia nerd like that. I'm not disagreeing with a single thing you said. I think memorizing the global map might be a bit much but we should definitely be teaching more in depth about different regions around the world. I've read some of the studies, the absolute best time to teach a kid a second language is when they are young, not when they are 15 or 16.. I'm on board with that.

Most of my posts have not been as much about WHAT they are taught as it has been about HOW they are taught. Challenge them, give teachers the freedom to do what they do best and come up with creative ways to teach them. If anybody in our school system is being sold short it's the TEACHERS. They are generally smart and dedicated professionals who are underpaid and overmandated in how they do their job.


I wish my daughters school did too.. at least you have other language speaking folks in your family, I don't. I took French for 4 years a long time ago and can still pick up some of it.. but certainly not enough to teach it.


That's because, for me, the school is there to educate, part of that education is the biology of sex. How to put on a condom, whether you should be having sex or not.. sorry, I don't think that is for the schools to teach. What do you expect the parents to be resonsible for?

As for sports, that topic pops up every once in a while. There is an argument that could be made for removing sports from all public education and making it all on the "club level".... the challenge you are going to get with that is, if it's on the club level then there will be large fees associated with it... poorer and minority kids will be excluded because they don't have the money or can't get to the practice and games, etc... but if you want to discuss it, go for it.

I think one of the problems in education is our schools are forced to teach too many things.

Let's get the good stuff learned. Math, science, technology, and proper use of our language. History is good as well.

And further, let's eliminate the notion that each kid needs to learn the same thing, equally, and at an equal pace.

If not, may as well just give everyone participation trophies, right?

Learning about different cultures is fine. There just isn't time. Which other cultures? Why those cultures?

Hey, not every kid is going to dominate job industries internationally. Especially if they can't write, read, and do math, and understand science.

isolation. thats how it could make it worse.

i having a hard to explaining this typing, but the feeling of exclusion is rough for kids.

well, for me it was, i guess i won't try to speak for others.

for sex ed:

it's probably better if the school teaches it in an unbiased manner.

i freely admit, however wrong it may be, that if my daughters come up to me and ask me about sex, i'mma tell them to wait until marriage, and don't get married until 4 years after i'm dead.

however, if i had a son, i freely admit it would be a different scenario.

it ain't right, but...i dunno man. my daughters and sex? ugh.

so yea, i want the schools to teach it. teachers relate with the kids on a different level, probably a better comfort level with regards to that, as well.

as for sports:

i'm not gonna dwell into it too much, as this is just a "this is america, european stop complaining" issue for me.

but, the one thing i don't like is when funding gets taken away from other social clubs or student activities like Band or Choir, just so they can add more funding to sports teams. i think thats wrong.

with regards to this post about math and science.

i think broadening the kids perspective on life helps that.

i also don't think we do enough to encourage it.

I'm pretty sure you know who bill Nye and Degrasse Tyson are. I watch their radio show all the time, plus the lectures and debates they have on Youtube.

one of the things they always say is that here in America, we don't have enough kids that are interested in science and math.

why is that?

Here's why I'm a bit torn on the map/rivers/geography thing:

- I agree it's useful to know

- I hold people to a high standard and I think public schools in the U.S. are too lackadaisical

- Memorization is useful despite what some might say; in order for the brain to draw complex and abstract connections between things, it has to be built on a bed of facts and knowledge. Think about something you are highly knowledgeable about, say military tactics, you know so much more about that than I do that your brain will be able to come up with far more brilliant things than I would in the same situation.

Yet if we were playing poker, if you have never been a serious poker player, I will be able to come up with far better and more ruthless strategies because I have so much experience and facts to draw upon.

Or take a doctor. Just about kind of prescription you can get, you could go and just look it up yourself. So anybody with good Googling skills could go and replace a good doctor, right? Errr, no. There is so much memorization/knowledge that doctor has *inside his brain* that, assuming he is a skilled physician, he should be able to come up with a far better diagnosis than an equally intelligent person without that foundation of knowledge.

To have great insight into other cultures, geography and history are very helpful, etc., but I digress


On the other hand:

- Realistically speaking, that would require A LOT of time from the vast majority of students. I'm inclined to think things could be dialed back a bit from that specific example so that other, even more useful things could be taught instead.

Just think about all the adult life skills that you need to know to get by in this world that they don't teach you in High School. Sex Ed could certainly be one. What about how to apply for a job, do accounting work, read a nutrition label, start and hold a conversation (in business, personal, and romantic contexts), the importance of diet, exercise, and good sleep, how to start a business, how to build a web site, etc. We could go on and on here and still barely scratch the surface of things that probably should be covered in public schools but aren't.

Because it takes effort, and work, and studying. That's why.

Much easier to coast in school than to apply oneself. That's where parenting comes in. The whole "is your homework done? It is? Let me see it."

If it's not done, or not done well enough, it's "give me your phone. TV is off, and no, it will stay like this until your stuff is done. And furthermore, clean up your room, and treat yourself the way you want to be treated."

Parenting is HUGE in education. Ask ANY teacher.

And then the circle begins. Oh, some people don't have mom and dad at home, they just have mom, and they're poor, and because no dad is around, and they're poor, they're bad in school, so we need to have teachers do more so they don't ball behind, and teachers need more money to do it, and the schools need more money to buy new textbooks that get ripped up if they are even used, and then we need more money, and it just ain't fair."

A semi decent school system with the support of homes (parents), can make a world of difference for so, so many kids. Not all kids, I get that.

But if education isn't taken seriously at home? Not many kids will place an emphasis on it.

Swish ... I think you want the public school system to be too much for too many people. You want them to offer a wide variety of class material and you want everyone to pass at the same rate as everyone else. Which is it going to be? You can't teach French to everyone, if they can't even speak proper English. Do we separate the achievers from the non-achievers and let those that know English learn French, while the others are stuck still learning English? Then aren't we leaving kids behind and not giving them the same opportunities as the other kids? Which do you prefer we do? This is a lot deeper than, "Let's just teach them everything, and then they will magically do better at everything else."

The public school system started going downhill when we started to care more about "self-esteem" and not about putting kids where they need to be to learn. We can't have kids feeling like they are "remedial", so we have to hold everyone else back to wait for the other kids to catch up. The reason why we see the lack of geography and social studies and the like, isn't because we are so focused on test scores ... it's because we want to use this ridiculous "one-size fits all" approach to learning, so that we don't make any specific student or group feel like they any less of a student.

And DC makes a good point about sports as well. We could easily take them out of the public school realm, but the people that it will affect the most are those that come from less affluent families. To that affect, it's also the same sort of reason why we don't have Music, Art and other liberal arts in schools anymore. It costs money to do and we just want to focus on making sure EVERYONE passes the same basic level of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

In the last 15 years or so, I've noticed a trend in my private lessons: students are incapable (or certainly less capable) of hearing themselves objectively, identifying strengths/flaws, and devising potential solutions for improvement.

There are only a handful of variables attached to basic music-making that require thoughtful analysis in the early developmental learning stages:

Is it in tune or out-of-tune? too high or too low?
Is it in time/on time? too fast or too slow?
Is it at the right volume? too loud or too soft?

After that, it becomes more complex, but those are the basics.

It also forms the framework of how I run my lessons. We'll stop; I'll ask them a series of targeted questions that zero in on the basic flaws that occurred during their play. In this way, I train them to use the same procedure during their private practice sessions at home.

In previous studios, my kids mastered this rudimentary phase within the first year or two of taking lessons. They eventually picked up on the progression of questions and started incorporating them into their process. Nowadays, some can go from 6th grade to graduation without ever mastering this basic skill. They play like robots, do only what they are told, and make only the kind of slow progress that comes from blind trial and error.

About 4 months ago, I asked a student to identify what was wrong with the passage he just played. His answer: "I don't know... isn't that what my mom pays YOU to do?" He wasn't being a smartazz: he really didn't get it. And this is after 2 years of lessons with me.

______________________

I believe that these kids are being trained to regurgitate data for tests. I believe their parents encourage them to excel at this 'skill' to the exclusion of critical thought- either because they don't know better, or it does nothing to help their GPA/ college prospects.

Result: the 'smart ones' are really great at taking standardized tests, but absolutely suck at passing the tests that Real Life throws at them... and that would include problem-solving on the job.


.02

i want to school systems to teach real world stuff.

of course i wish all the kids could pass at the same rate? who doesn't.

but dreams and reality is different. you're not listening to what i'm saying. i want all the kids in a public school system to have the same opportunity of success.

if they make it, they make it, if they don't, they don't. but it's pathetic that one school has all the materials needed to keep their kids on pace, while other public schools don't even have enough books in class for everybody to read along. that some schools have working computers while others don't.

same chance to succeed is not the same as everybody NEEDS to succeed, Excl.

Good post. I personally think you do have to separate the achievers from the non-achievers. People learn different amounts and at different rates; it's silly to hold back the majority and spend all the time and effort on the very worst students.

It sounds harsh but sometimes you just have to do what is obvious and logical. Put the very best students in their own class and give them all they can handle. Put the very worst students in their own class and have them do their best. Not everybody learns at the same rate and not everybody is equally intelligent. Some may take offense to that but ask this: is that accurate?

And here's where I question your post.

All kids DO have the same opportunity. Even inner city kids do. The money is being thrown at the problem, and it doesn't appear to help.

And not all "poor" public schools are without funding. Heck, they get more, don't they? Where does the money go?

You've mentioned in the past that you went to private school AFTER you attended public school.

What was the difference? And don't tell me it was the money, because I guarantee the public school you went to graduated some serious scholars.

So what was the difference? I know you said at the public school you attended if the teacher was sick, they couldn't even get a sub. Like, no adult was in the classroom. While I find that hard to believe.........I guess my question would be "why was that so?"

So, in private school, was there more discipline, more expectations, more consequences for not following the rules?

Money is nice. Money doesn't educate. You bring your point of view, I bring mine.

Our school district constantly "needs" more money. So does every school district "need" more money.

the second line in your post shows you have no idea about the reality of inner city schools.

and by the way, this is what i'm talking about, this was suppose to be a thread about the differences in countries, yet you and the rest of the flock turned it into yet another reason to bash my community.

this is why i always get so irritated with people on this board.

i'm going to answer this crap post about inner city kids once, and then i'm done.

you can find whatever hard to believe. i really don't care. it's the truth, and there's a lot of people who grew up in the inner city that can tell you that yes, when teachers were absent, we didn't have subs.

we didn't have working computers. we didn't have enough books to take home for homework. hell, the closest library we had, the computers didn't work half the time.

how am i, at the time a 14-16 year old kid, suppose to why we didn't have those things?

we've been over this a thousand times, i'm tired of repeating myself. hood schools could very well have more funding, but the KIDS didn't see that funding, which is the lowest level, the level the money is suppose to be for.

so how am i suppose to know where the money went? i'm not a principal, or a teacher. maybe it went to salaries? maybe it went into sports fund or stadium repairs?

i dunno. but what i do know is that the condition our school was in was a couple level higher than a trap house.

i dunno why the private school was better.

however, i can tell you i was envious of those kids, which was quite a bit, pulling up to class with brand new cars.

or hell, a car period.

it was real nice visiting my friends house, and i didn't hear an ambulance, cop casr or gun shots every day.

it was real nice going to school that it was actually annoying having to take all my books home from school to do homework.


^^^^ that right there was one of the MAJOR differences i noticed straight up.

all kids don't have the same opportunities. stop lying. i already told you about spreading false information before. it's not true, stop telling lies.

i have nothing else to say about the inner city.

Because too many teachers have their hands tied in how they teach it. Because the kids spend all of their time behind a desk being talked to about it rather than being given the chance to go out and actually see it.... and there is one other reason and I might get blasted for this.. but because it's HARD. Even if you liked math and science and were good at math and science at some point, if you kept going in it, there were times when it got real hard.

Kids have the same opportunity. What they, or their family do with it is the difference. To deny that is wrong.

Expenditures per pupil:

Archbold $9200
Toledo City schools $13800
East Cleveland City $16800
Cuyahoga Heights $18000
Youngstown public $15400
Cleveland Public $15000

Ottawa Hills (in Toledo - perceived to be a rich ass school system, as I'm sure Clem and jfan would concur) $14200.

Lake High school - suburb of toledo: $9000

New Albany (outside of Columbus - another "rich" school) $12200

Money spent per pupil doesn't appear to be the problem.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...amp;output=html

So, what is the problem?

If your school couldn't get a substitute teacher, why couldn't they? Subs wouldn't show up? Whoever was in charge should've been fired. But, you can't do that, right?

I believe it was in Detroit - the head of the Detroit public schools, turns out he was illiterate. Now, how in God's name did he get the job of Head Of Detroit Public schools when he couldn't read?

And yet, all they need is more money, right?

I've spent the past couple of years trying to see how per pupil funding is spent. Any sort of google search just gives me the raw numbers, the ones you just mentioned, and no idea what all that money goes towards. I'd like some transparency, and this is coming from a teacher, too!

I know some districts spend a ton of money on programs that are deemed to be magic bullets to address the achievement gap between different demographics, and even with the national level with boosting our scores up in comparisons to other countries.

The problem with all of this? It goes back to the article, and to what even Clem mentioned. Too many of these programs center on basic facts and concepts. There's no actual real learning, and our students suffer because of politicians and their number fascination.

I absolutely agree.

I posted what I did because someone was saying there wasn't enough money in education spending.

There is. The problem is not in spending, the problem comes because teachers can't teach, they have to babysit too often. They have to make sure the last person in the class is close to the first person.

And, sorry, there's just too many parents that don't give a rip about their kids education, and it shows. Oh, sure, they WANT it, but they want someone else to do it.

My experience of public school, a supposedly nice one, was basically a mismanaged babysitting center.

Best friend of mine loved cars growing up. His dad had a bunch of cars, they had a big ol' garage and would work on them. Had ADD, dyslexia and a lowish IQ, suffered through 12 years of schooling and Ritalin. As soon as he graduates, opens up a pretty successful mechanic / body shop. The schooling was at best useless for him and at worst a massive waste of time, energy, and screwed with his self-esteem.

I'm homeschooling my kids and give zero craps about every other district. If other people want them, fine, but I'd prefer not to give a single dime to the institution.

first off some Teachers do teach it that way and that way only. Now before you get me wrong I am not blaming teachers. I have several that I loved when I was in school and still love them today they did a wonderful job when they were teaching. I have a lot of friends and several relatives who are teachers including nieces and nephews. I Love them and think they do the best they can and I know they really care about the students. Hell I think most teachers really care about the students, but I think there hands are tied by the idiots above them in the chain of command including school boards, and our own stupid government. IMO The old way worked for 95 to 99 percent of the people who tried to learn it. For those who didn't try or those who just could not learn then they should be taught that on the side. You work with them, NOT against everybody else.

Several years ago, our district ran a poverty in service. We all entered a large auditorium, took a role play card, found our group/family and were seated. After introductions and bookkeeping, we were instructed to familiarize ourselves with our group members.

Role play begins!

In role play, I was a single Mom with a teen aged pregnant daughter who quit school and a teen aged son involved in drugs. I worked but found it difficult to do so because keeping tabs on my son was a full time job.

Some of the "social service agencies" were based around the perimiter of the room.

One day, upon learning we were to be evicted from our home from lack of rent payment, I set off to the bank with my teen aged son. It took all the money I had for bus fare for the two of us. I had only a small amount of money and needed to decide how best to use it. The best use, at the time, was to take my trouble prone son with me and buy some food to sustain my small family.

From the bank we set off for the Welfare office. This required more bus fare.

We arrived at the welfare office to seek some assistance. The wait was over an hour and a half. Upon returning home, we discovered we had lost our home. I had no choice but to pack up my family and set off to Women's Services.

At Women's Services, there was also a waiting line and we encountered various other aggravated individuals.

Role play now over!

In professional discussion about the circumstances of each group, we all agreed that poverty impacts education dramatically. We all were stymied with the experience we had in the role play. We all acknowledged the hardships and difficulties. We all acknowledged the importance of meeting life's basic needs (Maslow's heirarchy) before education could become a priority in life.

However, having had all the professional discussion, we posed the question to the administration of how to address hardships of poverty and the effect on education. Curriculum still needs to be taught, basic skills still need addressed, emotional needs still need to be met, order within schools still needs to be maintained, respect still needs to be a focus and preparation for life still must occur!

All that being said, the administration really had no answers except to be sympathetic and empathetic toward the needs of the students and their families. OK, so where does that leave us?

These are the same families that, for whatever reason, have little to no contact with the school and place little importance on education.

Is it because they don't care?
Is it because they don't have time!
Is it because they are perpetuating a lifestyle they grew up in?
Is it because they are intimidated by the schools?
Is it because they are afraid?
Is it because they are too busy?
Is it because they are suffering from addiction?
Is it because they don't understand?
Is it because they lack education and fear embarassment?
Is it because ______________________________. Fill in the blank

32 years of working in education, doing much research, participating on committees and forums, designing parent/family activity nights, designing questionnaires, talking with students, talking with parents, talking with colleagues and administrators, reading related literature and praying for answers, has left a blank space on the paper of my mind.

I have a suspicion that if we solve this problem in our society, we may have the answers to educational issues prevalent within our society.

Giving and entitlement programs are definitely not the answer. Somehow, we must find a way to empower those who live in poverty and lead them to a different way of life...........especially for our children's sake.


I might also caution of comparing American performance to that of other countries where only the academically talented go on to higher education beyond a young age comparable to elementary school.

Apples : Apples Oranges : Oranges

Know why Japan has such a high suicide rate?

it's still relatively easy to compare, C.

these rankings, and the ones in the past aren't from higher learning. it's mainly k-12.

it's about as far as a comparison as we can get. it we need to absolutely compare.

your post was nice.

but i have to ask you. look what you post. now look what others have posted in this thread.

people are constantly speaking from a perspective as if kids are suppose to be making grown up decisions.

people are speaking in a way as if to imply that it's the kids fault they are in a poverty stricken area, and a bad public school.

look at what you posted. how in the name of god can a kid possibly have the same opportunity of success in that situation as everyone else?

I certainly haven't blamed any kid for growing up in poverty. But kids like that can make it.

Starving? Go to school. Free breakfast, free lunch, and some schools are initiating a free after school "meal". Heck, even around here schools are offering a free noon meal during the summer.

And swish, you make it sound like every public school in a city is full of poverty stricken students and the school has no textbooks and no teachers. Dude, that's an exception, not a rule.

The schools have money (none of them have "enough", just ask them). They have books, they have computers.

You make it sound like city schools are just cement block buildings.

i asked C.

I've made it clear i don't care about your input. on anything.

and for good measure, i disagree with what you posted.

The U.S. compares favorably to almost every other country if you break it out by race. (there is a certain irony here that people who bring race into everything will probably be adamantly opposed to doing so here)

Take PISA scores for example:

Asian American students would be near the top of achievement among East Asian countries.

White American students would be near the top of achievement among European countries.

Hispanic American students are higher than all tested South and Central American countries.

African American students do not have any Sub-Saharan African countries to compare to in this specific test, although African Americans regularly out-outperform native Africans in all forms of testing that I'm familiar with.

https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_5e_1.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#2012

The thing is is that East Asian students test well everywhere, in every country, regardless of the circumstances (ahem, actually there is a glaring exception in North Korea. That is a uniquely horrible situation in the world though.)

You don't care about anything I say? Got it.

That matters.......how?

Oh yeah, you just don't LIKE what I have to say. Especially when it's backed up with facts.

so basically you had to spin a way out of it.

i find it hilarious on this board how everybody is all like "stop talking about race swish, you part of the divide".

then i come with an article that includes all of us, and you guys are the FIRST people to try and break it down by race.

simply mind blowing.

We are all Americans right?

What are the rankings from all American kids compared to all european kids, or countries in europe broken down?

why can't i just be an american kid? why do i have to be compared to african kids? i don't speak any african languages. i wasn't born or raised there.

why can't i get compared to european kids?

we are all americans. don't try and separate us now.

I didn't spin anything. What I wrote is accurate; how can that be spin? I didn't give any interpretation whatsoever. Maybe you are offended because what I wrote has some uneasy implications that bad people could use in a harmful way? I don't know. But I do find it ironic how you are so quick to invoke race into many threads in this sub-forum and yet I do it once and I'm the bad guy. Don't worry though, I (and many others) have gotten used to it-- not from you but in society in general.

I'm not offended at all.

but you can't cry about unity and then when an article puts us all together, you try to separate.

your message is basically this: we are all equal, until something bad happens.

Speaking personally, I do not mind talking about race. I am all for it. What I strongly dislike is the double standard that one side can say very hurtful things (claims of rampant bigotry, systemic racism, white privilege, various colorful anti-white expressions) as much as they want and yet I know that I have to be extremely careful with all my words and views so as to not offend anyone. In fact even acknowledging racial difference in test scores seems to have overstepped the boundaries here.

All I will say is that I treat everybody the same and I hold everybody to the same standard. But it is a high standard.

It also bothers me when teachers and the educational system as a whole are attacked because of what I see as unfair or at least incomplete comparisons to scores in other countries. While I think the system has major flaws, that's probably true in all countries and the teachers here are underappreciated and doing a great job as a whole. They should probably get paid a lot more than they are for having to deal with all the nonsense that they do.

no it hasn't. if you feel like you have to be careful. that's on you. you can say whatever you want.

if you, or anyone has to to tip toe. than that says two things:

either you aren't sure if you even believe what you're saying.

or you're worried that you are saying some truly racist stuff.

all i said was you can't pick and choose when to separate, especially since you're one of the main ones telling me that.

do as i say, not as i do, huh?

you know why i don't tip toe? cause i really could care less how you guys are gonna react. i simply don't care. i care about your feelings and such, but your reaction? what does it mean to me? nothing.

so what whatever it is you want to say.

just don't get mad when i respond back. cause i will respond back. i'm not interested in high fives and telling people what they want to hear.

I disagree that white people can say what they think concerning race.

Take inner city schools. You say the problem is money. I showed that many inner city schools spend more per student than other schools.


The problem is culture. Not necessarily a "race" culture - but an inner city culture. A culture that frowns on education. A culture that celebrates quick money. A gang culture. A culture that pounces on anyone perceived to be week.

A culture where slang rules, bucking authority gets you status. A culture where mom is the only adult in the home. A culture that deems that "normal".

Now, watch the replies to this. I'm a white guy. Rural. Married. Have a blond haired blue eyed daughter that does well in school. Self employed and "rich" in the eyes of others that don't have a damn clue.

See, if I point out what I see as problems for the inner city, I get told "You don't know what it's like". No, I don't. And if I lived there and it's half as bad as we're told, I'd leave.

Swish, I don't think you understand. The best way that I can relate this is that you would say that, because I am a white guy in the 'burbs, I can't really know what it is like to be a black guy and deal with the police.

That's fair. Whether you are right or not, that's fair. I do not have those life experiences. Likewise, you do not realize how, intellectually, whites are attacked for deviating from a very narrow spectrum of politically correct views. Call it FirstWorldProblems if you want, but there can be very real consequences for saying things that others might find racist.

For example, we could talk about why blacks make such great athletes, especially in the NBA and NFL. You have mentioned the slavery aspect of it. I've mentioned muscle fiber type, insertion points, hormone and bodyfat levels, etc. and all are perfectly valid points. A white person talking about this on sports radio would almost certainly lose his job. It's happened before several times. Do you see how crazy that is?

I think the politically correct explanation is that blacks have no other 'outs', they must work hard in sports or music and they just outwork the competition. Like we're supposed to ignore the very obvious physical advantages that a good black athlete has over a good white athlete. Never mind that if you break that argument down by race, rich blacks are several more times more likely to make the pros than poor blacks, and rich whites are several times more likely to make the pros than poor whites. Sometimes facts get in the way of an otherwise good argument.

I'm hesitant to make any points about race because I have good social awareness; I know how people respond to these things and it ain't always pretty. I'm knowledgeable enough about it to have a fairly high degree of confidence that what I say is correct (I'm wrong sometimes too and if anything I say is wrong, I'm up for a friendly debate.) I don't have a guilty conscience, so I don't agree with what you are implying there.

I like a good discussion and I like to be right. I'm kind of a nerd like that. I do care what others think to a certain extent but I value being correct more than I value being pleasant, especially just bantering back and forth on a message board. It seems like we're kind of on the same page there. I can't type out something that I think is wrong just to get some high fives. It's not my style.

you can say whatever you want concerning race.

what you're irritated about that you don't like getting challenged on it.

cause the moment somebody challenges you on your beliefs, especially lacking in experience, you get pissed off.

lurker had said it best. you guys are trying to tell inner city people what its "actually" like to grow up in the inner city.

that's like me telling a farm boy what it's like to grow up on a farm. i don't have any expertise and as such, my opinion pretty much doesn't mean jack crap.

and that's just simply how i view your opinion.

i never been divorced. i don't have a gay son. so i could i possibly tell you anything about what that's like?

so thats how it is. you, Arch, wasn't raised in the inner city, on the east side of cleveland.

the weight of your words simply doesn't mean much to me. sorry.

that's why i asked for Cjrae. she's at least a teacher, regardless on if i disagree with her. same with Rocket and Vers. i disagree with vers, but i respect his opinion cause he's actually been knee deep with these kids everyday.

i value experience over speculation and hearsay.

i see the issue now.

you're talking about society in general with regards to discussion. i was under the impression you was talking about this board.

i agree with you to an extent. there's things i disagree with about the social aspect as a whole though.

Yeah I'm definitely talking about society in general, although some of my attitudes and cautions carry over to this board as well (through no fault of your own or anybody else on here)