[SupraSuper]

Is it any different than girls with science and engineering degrees who get jobs easier because the company needs to fill their women quota?

[Matt.is.back2011]

Originally Posted by tsbalr120

I agree the schools are different, but oppositely as you..

I think your average suburban highschool that most of the graduating class are college bound, have more challenging curriculums. With an inner city school (such as chicago) where most of the students are failing, I think the teachers are more lineant and the classes are easier to try help kids pass. Which result in an inflated GPA.

I have to do some research (on my phone atm) but I would be willing to bet standardized test scores support my hypothesis.

That's actually completely inaccurate. My GF is a teacher for TFA, we've seen first hand how the poor operate in schools, and some of the challenges these kids deal with to get by ( hunger, drugs, neglectful/abusive families, young parents, divorced parents, even deceased & imprisoned parents). This all breeds a culture of '**** sucks, there is no way to get out, and there is nobody at home, and barely anybody at school to teach them how to succeed to get out.'

Scores are statistically lower in low income areas (both rural and urban) while curriculum has been standardized across the nation, regardless of where you live.

My opinion: of a kid beats the odds of such a bad environment, let them go onto college if they want, even if their scores are a little lower than that of their suburban peers.

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by SupraSuper

Is it any different than girls with science and engineering degrees who get jobs easier because the company needs to fill their women quota?

I've never seen this happen outside of academia. There are lots of very good female scientists in my field so it's not a problem finding qualified people. If anything, Some of the older companies still have an old boys club mentality. Everyone knows who they are, so they have a hard time hiring women simply because they dont want to work for them. Would you want to work in a place that tells you what to do outside work? Change happens one retirement at a time though so that should be gone in the next 20 or so years.

Props on the Borat like thinking though.

[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011

That's actually completely inaccurate. My GF is a teacher for TFA, we've seen first hand how the poor operate in schools, and some of the challenges these kids deal with to get by ( hunger, drugs, neglectful/abusive families, young parents, divorced parents, even deceased & imprisoned parents). This all breeds a culture of '**** sucks, there is no way to get out, and there is nobody at home, and barely anybody at school to teach them how to succeed to get out.'

Scores are statistically lower in low income areas (both rural and urban) while curriculum has been standardized across the nation, regardless of where you live.

My opinion: of a kid beats the odds of such a bad environment, let them go onto college if they want, even if their scores are a little lower than that of their suburban peers.

I can see where you're coming from, but agree to disagree I guess.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011

That's actually completely inaccurate. My GF is a teacher for TFA, we've seen first hand how the poor operate in schools, and some of the challenges these kids deal with to get by ( hunger, drugs, neglectful/abusive families, young parents, divorced parents, even deceased & imprisoned parents). This all breeds a culture of '**** sucks, there is no way to get out, and there is nobody at home, and barely anybody at school to teach them how to succeed to get out.'

Scores are statistically lower in low income areas (both rural and urban) while curriculum has been standardized across the nation, regardless of where you live.

My opinion: of a kid beats the odds of such a bad environment, let them go onto college if they want, even if their scores are a little lower than that of their suburban peers.

Agreed.

There is more to it than simply grades. Grades are only relevant if the schools and systems in which they got those grades are the same. If I was looking for a swimmer from my Olympic team, and I was picking between two people one (A) who swam a 45 second 100 in a swimming pool and person (B) who swam a 47 second 100 in the ocean with a riptide while fighting off several sharks and a polar bear, then I would pick person B hands down. Now whether or not the blacks kids do compete in much harder situations (to achieve the same standards) and if we feel that those things holding them back is more than the difference between the two is another separate concern. But saying that it should simply be grades and test scores is absurd.

tl;dr Grades are relative.

[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Agreed.

There is more to it than simply grades. Grades are only relevant if the schools and systems in which they got those grades are the same. If I was looking for a swimmer from my Olympic team, and I was picking between two people one (A) who swam a 45 second 100 in a swimming pool and person (B) who swam a 47 second 100 in the ocean with a riptide while fighting off several sharks and a polar bear, then I would pick person B hands down. Now whether or not the blacks kids do compete in much harder situations (to achieve the same standards) and if we feel that those things holding them back is more than the difference between the two is another separate concern. But saying that it should simply be grades and test scores is absurd.

tl;dr Grades are relative.

But college's don't know **** about individual students situation.

A kid that goes to an inner city school can be in a normal family.

A kid that goes to a good preforming high school can have parents killed in the military, be a rape victim, ect.

Assuming every kid that goes to an inner city school has gone through traumatic event and they deserves special treatment is some bull****.

[scienceguy]

The university of Texas just gave Herman and Abigail a free life lesson. Life isn't fair, and sometimes You don't get picked even though you're qualified. That's life. So many applications look the same on paper that i bet its basically a lottery anyway. Going home to their parents to whine about it isn't going to fix that.

If these kids are going to be successful they will be successful. There are so many schools and the knowledge is the same. If they really want to go to Texas, just transfer after the first year. Lots of openings appear due to kids not having a healthy work life balance.

Where you go to college isn't as important as you think it is. The jobs you can get are more a function of luck networking and timing than anything else.

[Matt.is.back2011]

Originally Posted by tsbalr120

But college's don't know **** about individual students situation.

A kid that goes to an inner city school can be in a normal family.

A kid that goes to a good preforming high school can have parents killed in the military, be a rape victim, ect.

Assuming every kid that goes to an inner city school has gone through traumatic event and they deserves special treatment is some bull****.

I like you TsBar120, so I'm willing to give you a pass on this...but seriously, try to keep up...


1. I'm not saying 'individual situation', i was merely pointing out the myraid of ISSUES that the inner cities face & poor areas face on a daily basis that the suburban neighborhoods do not. Because of this, students in these areas tend to do very poorly in school (genetics has a lot to do with it as well, but that's a different discussion). Yes, there are kids who have 'normal parents' and go to bad schools. Guess what? They are not only the vast minority, but they also represent the top 1% of their class, often. They also will go onto college regardless without the need for Affirmative Action, but they may receive it just for putting up with **** for 18 years (IDK, just speculating here; they may receive a scholarship of sorts).

2. Nobody is advocating we give ALL kids from bad areas 'special treatment'. The majority of the kids in these areas have little desire for K-12 schooling, let alone college. What I am saying is this: some kids actually DO try and WANT to get ahead. Even getting a 2.7 or a low 3.3 can get them in the top 10% of their class when in a suburban school they would be probably in the top 50%. Affirmative Action takes this into account, and provides scholarships so that these kids can get out of their bad environement and give them the chance to go to a good University.

My point is this: grades are relative to their environment, and we're really comparing apples to oranges and tying them to the same standards (GPA/Test Scores).

[barrel roll]

What the hell is the point of grades or a standardized test if the scores mean different things for different population groups?


*insert valid argument against affirmative action here*

Sorry, maybe I'm used to a meritocracy.

[scienceguy]

On the other side of the coin. Im curious about how you guys feel about the average legacy students that get in to top schools simply because one of their parents went to that school.

They don't even split hairs with those students. One kid from my first HS got into Harvard because his dad went there and he wasn't anything special. He wasn't even rich. The valedictorian of my college prep boarding school (i felt it was harder than the college i went to) didn't even get wait listed at Harvard.

Not that Harvard gets you anywhere nowadays. The receptionist at my wife's work is a Harvard grad. Nice kid, works hard, well spoken, but that's a big chunk of money for an education that he's not using.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

Not that Harvard gets you anywhere nowadays. The receptionist at my wife's work is a Harvard grad. Nice kid, works hard, well spoken, but that's a big chunk of money for an education that he's not using.

That right there is part of the bigger problem. Ok take my field, IT work, with me desktop and network admin. I see kids out of school who have some fancy degree but they can't do basic diganosis of a network problem and look out if you put a legacy OS infront of them.

Me, I have no real degree (AA in ECE, meh) but I have 20+ years with hands on experence. Guess who gets hired as the senior/manager/teir3 person...yep the guy with no degree. I don't know that its even worth going to college anymore, in the 4 years you spend in one, you could be on the job and be at a senior level by the time your friends are getting out and trying to get into the job market.

[Tafari Makonnen]

If you go in to a ****ty field like IT, sure, an education in a university is not a huge help. If you want to get into engineering, medicine, or hard sciences you best be getting an education.

[tsbalr120]

Matt-

I still disagree but its whatever. I understand what you're saying.
I just believe when analyzing students in getting into higher education should be almost all past preformances. And if there is other factors it should be activity in school clubs, community service hours, leadership experinces, ect.


Scienceguy-

Well i want to make the same argument, that it should only be based by merit, but schools might lose alot of donations if they didn't give donors perks.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

If you go in to a ****ty field like IT, sure, an education in a university is not a huge help. If you want to get into engineering, medicine, or hard sciences you best be getting an education.

I think an education is necessary for the sciences but an education in the sciences isn't. For much of the history of science, it was an amateur pursuit done by educated men. Engineering can mostly be handled through apprenticeship. Especially with today's ease of access to resources.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I think an education is necessary for the sciences but an education in the sciences isn't. For much of the history of science, it was an amateur pursuit done by educated men. Engineering can mostly be handled through apprenticeship. Especially with today's ease of access to resources.

A lot of the mathematics are more quickly acquired through structured education than by one's will alone (the resources for learning such math is also a bit harder to come by), but I think you're pretty much right. Of course, it depends on the type of engineering. If you're going to become a chemical engineer, the resources needed to be sufficiently knowledgeable are very hard to come by without going through higher education.

On the other hand, computer engineering requires little more than a computer or two.

I guess the tl;dr is that I kind of agree with you...?

[Iamamartianchurch]

I threw apprenticeship out there again because it is a valuable resource. It is both types of knowledge, reflexive and abstract. You are transmitted concrete maxims and well stocked memory. I really do think it satisfies the demands of most professions. Even chemical engineering. The significant advantage is the relatively non existent cost for what is effectively real world experience.

All professions can benefit from higher education. However, I have yet to find one that TRULY requires it. That is to say, what I envision as being higher education. Where the idea of focused study (ie major programs) is considered absurd.

[Iamamartianchurch]

I suppose an example is due. I was never formally trained in finite element analysis. I was tasked with determining bond line strength for a system I was developing as a replacement for a failing design the company previously had. I spent some time learning the software first, and tapped the mind of a contract structural engineer for a few particulars. It took me quite some time but I was able to eventually get a good representative model built for the system. Getting creative with the forces was tricky seeing as how we knew little about the actual force involved in actuation ( long story). It was a pain in the ***, but I learned a lot from it. There is also a considerable amount of pride for having accomplished what I did.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I think an education is necessary for the sciences but an education in the sciences isn't. For much of the history of science, it was an amateur pursuit done by educated men. Engineering can mostly be handled through apprenticeship. Especially with today's ease of access to resources.

Originally Posted by Treghc

On the other hand, computer engineering requires little more than a computer or two.

LOL ****ty field like IT...lets see I make more in one year than you (tark) will in 2 years of work...and let me ask you can you configure a Wan to Lan VPN off a load balanced set of OC12 lines running in half duplex mode? And just to make it more fun, lets make it across 3 subnets. I know so called "college professors" who can't do that...I can

[Iamamartianchurch]

Why did you quote me?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Overbear

LOL ****ty field like IT...lets see I make more in one year than you (tark) will in 2 years of work...and let me ask you can you configure a Wan to Lan VPN off a load balanced set of OC12 lines running in half duplex mode? And just to make it more fun, lets make it across 3 subnets. I know so called "college professors" who can't do that...I can

because clearly they were talking about income potential and technical skills...

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by Overbear

LOL ****ty field like IT...lets see I make more in one year than you (tark) will in 2 years of work...and let me ask you can you configure a Wan to Lan VPN off a load balanced set of OC12 lines running in half duplex mode? And just to make it more fun, lets make it across 3 subnets. I know so called "college professors" who can't do that...I can

I doubt very seriously that you make that sort of money in IT.

I have designed spacecraft, rocket payloads, and chemical processing equipment. I am given anything from a specific set of requirements to a general idea of what it is that needs to happen, sort it out, and make something from nothing.

You make computers communicate through hardware networks designed and built by other people using software designed by other people specifically to do just that. You make a computer do what it is supposed to do simply because you are familiar with the way it and its software operates. There is nothing special about what you do. You can throw jargon around and make it sound like something fancy, but it really isn't.