BillFitzmaurice.info

As a late reply to bzb; we had some trouble near me but luckily the worst of it was about 10 miles away. I had a friend who had his car torched though!

bzb wrote: You can adjust raw statistics all you want to provide a controlled group to prove your point, but by doing so you're ignoring the fact that you can't force a culture change by running numbers. IMHO, an economist manipulating raw data to prove a point is akin to being a politician..

+1. The problem with public schools in the US has nothing to do with funding or teachers or unions or the government. It has to do with culture. When the culture you grow up in says that being a productive member of your particular society means being a gang member dealing in drugs and weapons it's no wonder that formal education isn't a high priority.

It all begins in the home. As did I all my girls went through public schools. Two ended up at private colleges, one went to Dartmouth on a 100% scholarship.

DrDantastic wrote:As a late reply to bzb; we had some trouble near me but luckily the worst of it was about 10 miles away. I had a friend who had his car torched though!

Yikes. Hopefully insurance will actually pay for these types of damages and not try to screw him. Glad y'all are safe, though. Always be prepared for the zombie apocalypse.

You know what's pretty sad? On our local news channels, there's little talk about the actual riots, causes, etc... but there's always a note about how the soccer matches were cancelled because of it. Who knew we cared about soccer that much?

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:

bzb wrote: You can adjust raw statistics all you want to provide a controlled group to prove your point, but by doing so you're ignoring the fact that you can't force a culture change by running numbers. IMHO, an economist manipulating raw data to prove a point is akin to being a politician..

+1. The problem with public schools in the US has nothing to do with funding or teachers or unions or the government. It has to do with culture. When the culture you grow up in says that being a productive member of your particular society means being a gang member dealing in drugs and weapons it's no wonder that formal education isn't a high priority.

It all begins in the home. As did I all my girls went through public schools. Two ended up at private colleges, one went to Dartmouth on a 100% scholarship.

Agreed, and congrats to you and your daughters! I was also the product of a public school, as my parents couldn't afford to send me to a nicer school.

My mother pushed me quite hard back in the day (she's Asian, the stereotype continues) and she still gripes at me for not finishing. But this time around, since I'm paying for it out of pocket, I want to go somewhere worth my time and money and actually learn something.

Law, medical, or economics for me. Not cheap or convenient for someone who works

Who knew we cared about soccer that much?

what's soccer?

Dave Non-Zero wrote:

Who knew we cared about soccer that much?

what's soccer?

Some "sport" where players run around and can't use their hands, then they trip on the grass and hold their knee then some dude holds up a yellow or red card depending on how much the player is crying. A lot of times the games end with no one scoring, yet someone still gets points for that. And whoever's city wins, they get the treat of a small riot.

At least that's my take.

bzb wrote: but there's always a note about how the soccer matches were cancelled because of it.

Only because the stands would have been empty, what with the fans all being out in the streets.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:

bzb wrote: but there's always a note about how the soccer matches were cancelled because of it.

Only because the stands would have been empty, what with the fans all being out in the streets.

I think the correct term is "hooligans."

bzb wrote:

el_ingeniero wrote:After controlling for socioeconomic status, not so much difference between public and private schools. Private schools have parents more likely to invest in their children's education, have students with better medical and dietary supports, etc. The sole difference seems to be the private schools seem to do a more to develop critical thinking abilities, that's all.

You can adjust raw statistics all you want to provide a controlled group to prove your point, but by doing so you're ignoring the fact that you can't force a culture change by running numbers.

Now we get to the crux of your thinking.

There is no 'culture of poverty'. That's just a made up lie some political consultant came up with.

You want people from underprivileged backgrounds to fully participate in the economy?

Then make it so that breaking out of the 'hood can be done by ordinary people.

bzb wrote:IMHO, an economist manipulating raw data to prove a point is akin to being a politician.

Using statistics makes your head hurt, so you just toss it out the window and change the topic. Nice.

With that sort of thinking, you may as well toss out every branch of science that uses statistics to prove a thesis. Say goodbye to your sweet DSP, modern amplifiers and psychoacoustics. Toss out genetics, public health, every branch of engineering, oh hell, just take us back to the 18th century.

IMNSHO, you just spouted some plausible sounding BS and presented it as true. So close to being a polititian, you might as well be one.

bzb wrote:Even at private schools with the richest, most affluent parents... you can't force a kid to go to school and succeed when s/he doesn't want to. That's the part you're ignoring. In poorer neighborhoods, there is NOT the same emphasis on education, and success is not determined by going oto a good college and getting a good job.

I live a few blocks from one of those neighborhoods. Success is measured by survival and avoiding contact with law enforcement (whether you did a crime or not).

3/4ths of the people around here hold down shitty jobs. As often as not, several jobs. Very few have good jobs (got lucky, I do software at a bank; I live here because it's cheap). Insurance, paid vacation and sick leave don't exist for those folk.

60 to 80 hour work weeks are common, time for supervising children is non-existent.

As for getting kids to cooperate with an educational agenda, most parents have low expectations. Jesuit priests are the marine sergeants of education.

bzb wrote:Lawyers and doctors and business people are not respected in these neighborhoods. Drug dealers and gang leaders are.

The main currency of respect around here is fear, not admiration. Young men join gangs and deal drugs as often as not to provide for their family or get protection from other gangs. Once they inevitably get a criminal record, it's damn near impossible to go legit.

And as far as respecting businessmen, the best known legit businessmen around here are lawyers, pawnbrokers, bail bondsmen, tow truck operators, check cashers, payday lenders and the like. Who's got any love for someone whose fortunes depend on your losses?

bzb wrote:There has to be a total revolution at the extremely local level. That can't start in Washington. It needs to start in East Point, in Watts, in Englewood, in Sterling Heights. What works in affluent sections of Atlanta, LA, Chicago, and Detroit simply isn't going to work in the poorer districts.
The beginning of your second sentence is what makes the biggest difference.

Give people the same pressures, they respond the same. Make it a rational choice to participate in the system, and people will.

bzb wrote:All of this is stuff that people control, not the government. Many people in this country do not put a priority on maintaining their bodies. That's not the government's fault, nor its responsibility. It's certainly not anyone else's.

It's a public health issue, like epidemics and sanitation. I suppose you're one of those people that thinks that vaccination and a working flush toilet should be a personal choice too.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:
It all begins in the home.

There's a fair chunk of truth to this, but the home doesn't put 35-40 kids in one elementary school class, nor does it choose to have parents work so many hours they never get to be with the children just to pay the bills.

el_ingeniero wrote:There is no 'culture of poverty'. That's just a made up lie some political consultant came up with.

You completely contradict yourself in your own post. So to that, I say...

Using statistics makes your head hurt, so you just toss it out the window and change the topic. Nice.

Uh, no. For a long time, I worked with numbers all day long. Me and BO - we're like a dude and his mother-in-law.

I tire of people manipulating data simply to prove their point. I can do it the same way that you can. I choose not to - I use the raw data, not a subsection of it that will align with my beliefs. They adjust for variables that cannot be factored into the data if you're trying to solve a broad issue. You want to point to specific portions of a problem, that's fine... but you cannot apply that to a broad approach if you're only using a subset of data to create the total solution.

The reason I do not follow any organized religion is because of this same line of thinking: folks take out the portions of the Bible/Quran/whatever they like and ignore the rest saying it's "interpretation" or "those parts you just don't understand, it's too complex for you."

On another note, if you think I'm so stupid, why do you continue with me?

With that sort of thinking, you may as well toss out every branch of science that uses statistics to prove a thesis.

You're quite good with statistics, apparently... but you're terrible at reading comprehension. Refer to my last paragraph if you don't understand why I say that. Perhaps I wasn't lucid enough with my original quote - I *do* use the statistics to find these things and create my beliefs, and you're "adjusting" them to fit your view.

IMNSHO, you just spouted some plausible sounding BS and presented it as true. So close to being a polititian, you might as well be one.

Why not so humble? You an award winning economist?

I live a few blocks from one of those neighborhoods.

The wonderful statistician is using anecdotes! Woot!

Success is measured by survival and avoiding contact with law enforcement (whether you did a crime or not)...

And the rest is where you describe the culture of the poor. Or do you have another way to explain this?

Give people the same pressures, they respond the same. Make it a rational choice to participate in the system, and people will.

And yet my ancestors, and all my immediate and extended family seemed to escape those pressures. Hundreds of my coworkers with stories of getting out of the hood. Dozens of my friends (I'm a hip hop DJ, remember?) got out. All these along with millions of productive people who started out in poverty.

Those few gems that choose to push against the grain, and they're anomalies because...?

It's a public health issue, like epidemics and sanitation. I suppose you're one of those people that thinks that vaccination and a working flush toilet should be a personal choice too.

It's a personal choice to eat 4 Big Macs, let alone McDonald's for every meal. It's a personal choice to smoke cigarettes (something the poor often partake in). It's a personal choice to play video games or watch TV instead of go for a walk or lift weights, or hell, mow the yard.

Vaccination is a personal choice, isn't it? My kids' doctor recommended them but gave us the choice of when and which they would provide, at our discretion. We chose to vaccinate on the recommended schedule. Is this not common?

As far as working flush toilet, uh... I don't get what you're asking here. Do you mean to say that we should provide toilets for everyone just because they exist? I agree with the local government controlling water supply. Reservoirs are public facilities, so as such it makes sense that government would manage the water supply. It's basic infrastructure - something the government IS supposed to supply and manage. I guess where you get hung up is what is considered basic infrastructure?

I do not think health care, as provided by a doctor - i.e. "someone else" - is an inalienable right. Doctors and the entire medical industry are simply services. They expect to be paid for their services. Just as water may be managed by the government and subsidized for the supply of that water, they don't pay for your plumber to fix your leaks. Show me where the Constitution guarantees the federal government will provide doctors for everyone and I'll change my thinking.

It's no more than you can guarantee that music is an inalienable right and force me to DJ for someone just because they exist and live in the United States.

cheapbasslovin wrote:

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:
It all begins in the home. As did I all my girls went through public schools. Two ended up at private colleges, one went to Dartmouth on a 100% scholarship.

There's a fair chunk of truth to this, but the home doesn't put 35-40 kids in one elementary school class, nor does it choose to have parents work so many hours they never get to be with the children just to pay the bills.

Yet, Dartmouth put a couple hundred kids in a class and somehow most succeeded.

I don't know this for a fact, but I'd wager that most of the households of these kids at Dartmouth grew up in dual-income families.

Around here, our schools don't put that many kids in a classroom, even in the poorest districts. Sounds like a local problem - and hey! You should be able to (and probably should) do something about that.

Yeah, my quote skillz failed me. I fixed it above. The point I was trying to make is that if the home life sucks for one or more reasons, public schools are stuck trying to pick up the slack. I think they should, because in the long run it benefits everyone if they do it well. Putting 35 to 40 kids in a classroom isn't doing it well. I wouldn't be surprised if not too far from you is a school doing this very thing right now. It is a nationwide trend. If not it sounds like Atlanta is a paradise and we all should move there and see how you are doing it.




















Ok that was kind of cold.

Nah, I got what you were saying. I was just saying that when the subjects are infinitely more complex and difficult, somehow they cram students in like sardines and they largely succeed in those classes. Classroom size is one way we could change things, but to get it to the size that has shown to be most effective, it does not become economically feasible with the cost of public schools... unless... you open it up to mass privatization, with their ability to run schools on far less overhead. Some folks say that no one would open a school in a poor district, but I believe that's incorrect if a total adjustment to the school system were made. Vouchers are one way to definitely stimulate more interest.

The problem still comes to the culture change in those communities. If those folks don't put more of a priority on education, it doesn't matter what you do, how available you make it, or how you adjust the curriculum, class size, anything. The kids have to WANT to go (or be threatened to go).

People always say how we're losing ground to China and India and how well educated their students are. They conveniently forget how impoverished both of those nations are. The major difference is they put an emphasis on education there... it's pervasive throughout their entire culture, whether rich or poor.



Good thing I don't live in Atlanta (and you're kind of proving my point by referring to the cheating scandal... or maybe you didn't read the article you posted?). Don't I have Sugar Hill in my profile? Edit: oh, I sure don't. I'll fix that

I live in North Gwinnett district, which is ranked #186 on the Newsweek Top 500. #3 in the state.

To be clear: there are homes and apartments in this district that are affordable. By affordable, I mean apartments for under $500 a month, and plenty of nice homes for under $100k (even on a crap rate, ~$700 per month mortgage). Yes, there are parts of this area that are affluent, with million dollar homes surrounded by world-class golf courses. There's also parts that are dilapidated with gang activity, and there's parts that haven't changed since the house was a farmhouse in the early 20th century.

My area is mixed development, where my house is almost brand new, yet my next door neighbors' homes are 30-40 years old. Only a couple actual subdivisions, and the commercial areas are mostly mom-and-pops. Demographics, there's a mix of ~20% Hispanic, ~15% Asian, ~10% black, and the rest Caucasian. Average household income is around $60k, average income is $40k. Certainly not what I'd call "rich" by any stretch of the imagination. Quite "typical" or "mediocre" even.

There's a sense of community out here. It's a big reason why we moved here. We didn't even know about the school district when we moved (we had no kids yet, and it was of little concern). There's always something going on - sometimes me providing PA for it, as you may have seen in my video posts - and people in the community really support the kids and their activities... sports OR academic. I actually just sponsored a kid who came by asking for donations for a competitive math team. Seriously. There's a robotics club, too. I can all but guarantee no tax funds are going to those kids, considering they cut the marching band's funds... and you know how big bands are with football down here.

I specifically pointed out elementary school because as kids become older, you can get a few more of them in class and maintain order and a decent level of education. You can't do that in elementary school.

Actually the Atlanta thing is an argument against NCLB for me more than anything. Tie funding to test scores and this is some of what happens. This is some of the corruption crap that I think you and I actually agree on.

Here's how I see things spiraling downhill with a private only school system with vouchers provided by the government.

• Private schools will only accept students with average to optimal learning capabilities to keep their track record looking good (kids with learning disabilities are out).
  
  Without public schools as another option, private school tuition will skyrocket, leaving many students without enough money to afford school even with a voucher.
  
  No bus service or lunch programs will further hinder cash strapped families, reducing the likelihood of kids going to school.
  
  In the end you have a two class system of have and have nots that is even more notable then it is today.

Isn't a voucher for a private school kind of like welfare for the private sector?

If those folks don't put more of a priority on education, it doesn't matter what you do, how available you make it, or how you adjust the curriculum, class size, anything. The kids have to WANT to go (or be threatened to go).

So making the school a better place to learn, a better place to simply 'be' wont encourage this?

I can all but guarantee no tax funds are going to those kids

Providing funds isn't about padding the things that are going great, it's about bringing the things that are crappy to a respectable level so that almost everything is good. If I thought that the whole of the nation would be made better by letting those people rot I'd be all for it. I don't think that. I think that letting those people rot drags all but a handful of people down toward them if not down with them.

It's not about dragging down the rich (although really, how bad do people raking in 5 mil or more a year have it that they can't pay taxes. Oh, no, what will I do with a mere 3 mil. ), it's about bringing the poorest among us up so we all live in a rewarding society. Bringing the poorest up means reducing the unemployment rate through education, jobs programs, infrastructure building- as well as providing for the well being of the youth. Bringing the poorest up does NOT mean giving them money to sit on their asses and drive Cadillacs (which doesn't really happen unless the Cadillac is an '89 or a Catera).