Why girls get better grades

[tttppp]

It's more stereotyping than collectivizing on his part.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out differences between people. We are not all the same like the media wants you to think.

 

[UMULAS]

Want to know the real truth?

Psychosociobio factors hits the school in the face.

The place is probably more agressive towards boys than girls due to the regions culture and belief.

Also, thanks to Affirmative Action, schools wants women and other minorities to suceed because of higher chances in college.

As a hispanic, I find AA to be disgusting and immoral.

 

[acptulsa]

There is nothing wrong with pointing out differences between people. We are not all the same like the media wants you to think.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the differences between individuals. The liberals decry stereotyping then they turn around and stereotype the hell out of people. 'Oh, well, when you say all blacks are such-and-such, that's stereotyping and racist, because things don't depend on something superficial like the color of one's skin. But when we say all gun owners are such-and-such, that's different because owning a gun is a choice.' Well, guess what? Gun owners are just as varied and hard to pin down as blacks are. Anyone setting up little boxes to shove us into is playing a divide and conquer game. And that divide and conquer game is a totalitarian tool of control. Libertarianism--and liberty itself--are dedicated to the principle that we don't fit in little boxes, and that letting people out of their little boxes benefits society in myriad, countless, and even unpredictable ways.

If there's an Ultimate Overall Lesson to be learned from this thread, I think it's that home schooling is the best, because it gives each individual the best chance to develop his or her own individual potential, with the least interference from small minds and their ugly little preconceived notions. I also think we've proven that employers with ugly little preconceived notions will never hire the quality of employees he or she would need to grow his or her little business into an economic powerhouse.

Any American has the liberty to put blinders on and hobble themselves. It distresses me to see libertarians do it, because we're not yet a majority and if we limit ourselves we won't change that any time soon. Reading some of the crap in this thread is, therefore, distressing to me. But, you know, there is some comfort to be had. Maybe half of you are trolls. I hope so.

Want to know the real truth?

Psychosociobio factors hits the school in the face.

The place is probably more agressive towards boys than girls due to the regions culture and belief.

Also, thanks to Affirmative Action, schools wants women and other minorities to suceed because of higher chances in college.

As a hispanic, I find AA to be disgusting and immoral.

Affirmative Action picks winners and losers. That's all good for the winners. But the losers it picks are innocent. Innocent, I tell you. Any action taken with more of an eye toward demographics than justice is against basic American principles. And that isn't just an injury to American principles. That's a real injury to real people. Because American principles are good, and beneficial, and the scions of Affirmative Action are no less racist and sexist than anyone.

The Ku Klux Klan was an affirmative action program. Think about it. Just because it was designed to promote a majority rather than a minority doesn't change the basic nature of the beast. The KKK was, functionally, an affirmative action program. Period.

If you're not looking as individuals as individuals, you're wrong.

 

[robert9712000]

I agree about the homeschooling.It seems the gender gap is created mostly because of public schools.I would be curious to see if theres any studies that show how well girls do in math and boys in english compared from public school to homeschool.I would bet money the gender gap greatly diminishes with homeschooling

 

[Danke]

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the differences between individuals. The liberals decry stereotyping then they turn around and stereotype the hell out of people. 'Oh, well, when you say all blacks are such-and-such, that's stereotyping and racist, because things don't depend on something superficial like the color of one's skin. But when we say all gun owners are such-and-such, that's different because owning a gun is a choice.' Well, guess what? Gun owners are just as varied and hard to pin down as blacks are. Anyone setting up little boxes to shove us into is playing a divide and conquer game. And that divide and conquer game is a totalitarian tool of control. Libertarianism--and liberty itself--are dedicated to the principle that we don't fit in little boxes, and that letting people out of their little boxes benefits society in myriad, countless, and even unpredictable ways.

If there's an Ultimate Overall Lesson to be learned from this thread, I think it's that home schooling is the best, because it gives each individual the best chance to develop his or her own individual potential, with the least interference from small minds and their ugly little preconceived notions. I also think we've proven that employers with ugly little preconceived notions will never hire the quality of employees he or she would need to grow his or her little business into an economic powerhouse.

Any American has the liberty to put blinders on and hobble themselves. It distresses me to see libertarians do it, because we're not yet a majority and if we limit ourselves we won't change that any time soon. Reading some of the crap in this thread is, therefore, distressing to me. But, you know, there is some comfort to be had. Maybe half of you are trolls. I hope so.



Affirmative Action picks winners and losers. That's all good for the winners. But the losers it picks are innocent. Innocent, I tell you. Any action taken with more of an eye toward demographics than justice is against basic American principles. And that isn't just an injury to American principles. That's a real injury to real people. Because American principles are good, and beneficial, and the scions of Affirmative Action are no less racist and sexist than anyone.

The Ku Klux Klan was an affirmative action program. Think about it. Just because it was designed to promote a majority rather than a minority doesn't change the basic nature of the beast. The KKK was, functionally, an affirmative action program. Period.

If you're not looking as individuals as individuals, you're wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/obama-backs-race-based-school-discipline-policies/





Obama backs race-based school discipline policies

President Barack Obama is backing a controversial campaign by progressives to regulate schools’ disciplinary actions so that members of major racial and ethnic groups are penalized at equal rates, regardless of individuals’ behavior.

His July 26 executive order established a government panel to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

“African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline,” said the order, titled “White House Initiative On Educational Excellence.”

Because of those causes, the report suggests, “over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects.”

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Bader is a former official in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and has sued and represented school districts and colleges in civil-rights cases.

“It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

“A disproportionate share of crimes are committed by African Americans, and they are disproportionately likely to misbehave in school… [because] more than 7 out of 10 African Americans (72.5 percent) are born out of wedlock… versus fewer than 3 out of 10 whites,” he said in a statement to The Daily Caller. Although ” you won’t see it mentioned in the Executive Order… there is an obvious connection between these [marriage] numbers and how each group is doing educationally, economically, criminally,” he said.

The order created a “President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans.” It will include senior officials from several federal agencies — including the Departments of Education, Justice and Labor — which have gained increased power over state education policies since 2009.

The progressives campaign for race-based discipline policies also won a victory in Maryland July 24.

The state’s board of education established a policy demanding that each racial or ethnic group receive roughly proportional level of school penalties, regardless of the behavior by members of each group.

The board’s decision requires that “the state’s 24 school systems track data to ensure that minority and special education students are not unduly affected by suspensions, expulsions and other disciplinary measures,” said a July 25 Washington Post report.

“Disparities would have to be reduced within a year and eliminated within three years,” according to the Post.

The state’s new racial policy was welcomed by progressives, including Judith Browne Dianis, a director of the D.C.-based Advancement Project. “Maryland’s proposal is on the cutting edge,” she told the Post.

Dianis’ project is also a law firm that litigates race-related questions, and it gains from laws and regulations that spur race-related legal disputes.

“The combination of overly harsh school policies … has created a ‘schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track,’ in which punitive measures such as suspensions, expulsions, and school-based arrests are increasingly used to deal with student misbehavior,” claimed the group’s website.

This “is a racial justice crisis, because the students pushed out through harsh discipline are disproportionately students of color,” the group insisted.

The administration had previously advertised its support for the campaign to impose race-based discipline policies.

In February, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that “we’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled.”

“This is, quite simply, unacceptable. … These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed,” he said in his speech, given in Atlanta, Ga.

Holder’s speech did not, however, include any evidence of discrimination toward any individual African-American student. For example, he offered no evidence that school infractions by African-American students prompt stiffer punishments than similar infractions by white, Hispanic or Asian students.

The progressive campaign to impose race-based rules on schools relies on various judges’ decisions, which penalize so-called “disparate impact” in hiring.

According to progressive lawyers, “disparate impact” may occur when companies or state and local governments hire and promote people at rates different from their percentage in the local population.

Because of judges’ decisions, juries can force companies and state agencies — such as city boards that hire police officers and firefighters — to pay heavy financial penalties to plaintiffs, even when hiring policies are recognized as color-blind.

When facing a disparate impact lawsuit, employers have to justify their hiring practices, for example, by showing that the job demands special skills possessed by relatively few members of a racial or ethnic group.

In 1997, however, the Seventh Circuit appeals court barred the practice of racial balancing in school discipline to avoid disparate impact lawsuits, said Bader.

Progressives say the “disparate impact” claims are supported by the 1964 Civil Right Act.

Critics, such as Clegg, say “disparate impact” law is used to trump popular and effective color-blind practices, such as civil-service tests by governments and employment-suitability testing by companies.

Another critic, David Rettig, head of the National Character Education Foundation, told The Daily Caller in February that apparently-disproportionate school discipline practices can be a reflection of local crime reports.

“Outside the walls of the school, how many of these kids are coming from not just dysfunctional homes, but homes that are not supportive of their children?” he told TheDC.

 

[acptulsa]

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates...

And after that, they will try to end home schooling, maybe attack private schools, and force white kids into the public schools because that will prevent public schools from becoming re-segregated.

That's the problem with liberty. Let people enjoy it, and they'll keep doing what's best for themselves and their children. And that sort of thing sure makes it hard on so-called 'liberal progressives' to do what is allegedly 'best' for people.

 

[tttppp]

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the differences between individuals. The liberals decry stereotyping then they turn around and stereotype the hell out of people. 'Oh, well, when you say all blacks are such-and-such, that's stereotyping and racist, because things don't depend on something superficial like the color of one's skin. But when we say all gun owners are such-and-such, that's different because owning a gun is a choice.' Well, guess what? Gun owners are just as varied and hard to pin down as blacks are. Anyone setting up little boxes to shove us into is playing a divide and conquer game. And that divide and conquer game is a totalitarian tool of control. Libertarianism--and liberty itself--are dedicated to the principle that we don't fit in little boxes, and that letting people out of their little boxes benefits society in myriad, countless, and even unpredictable ways.

If there's an Ultimate Overall Lesson to be learned from this thread, I think it's that home schooling is the best, because it gives each individual the best chance to develop his or her own individual potential, with the least interference from small minds and their ugly little preconceived notions. I also think we've proven that employers with ugly little preconceived notions will never hire the quality of employees he or she would need to grow his or her little business into an economic powerhouse.

Any American has the liberty to put blinders on and hobble themselves. It distresses me to see libertarians do it, because we're not yet a majority and if we limit ourselves we won't change that any time soon. Reading some of the crap in this thread is, therefore, distressing to me. But, you know, there is some comfort to be had. Maybe half of you are trolls. I hope so.



Affirmative Action picks winners and losers. That's all good for the winners. But the losers it picks are innocent. Innocent, I tell you. Any action taken with more of an eye toward demographics than justice is against basic American principles. And that isn't just an injury to American principles. That's a real injury to real people. Because American principles are good, and beneficial, and the scions of Affirmative Action are no less racist and sexist than anyone.

The Ku Klux Klan was an affirmative action program. Think about it. Just because it was designed to promote a majority rather than a minority doesn't change the basic nature of the beast. The KKK was, functionally, an affirmative action program. Period.

If you're not looking as individuals as individuals, you're wrong.

I never used the word ALL to describe anyone. All I did was point out there are differences between men and women statistically. I am sure you will find differences between races too. Thats one reason why we should be allowed to discriminate. There is nothing racist or sexist about it. As I stated before, if you have a problem with what I said, blame the women who misbehaved and could not perform their dutiess as a manager or employee. Thats on them, not me. I would be perfectly happy to praise women's abilities if they had shown them to me.

 

[acptulsa]

Thats one reason why we should be allowed to discriminate. There is nothing racist or sexist about it.

No? Then on what basis are you discriminating? The color of their clothes? The 'cut of their jibs'?

Seems to me the best reason to allow people to discriminate is so that smarter people can competitively kick their dog asses. It has been done before, and it will happen again.

 

[tttppp]

No? Then on what basis are you discriminating? The color of their clothes? The 'cut of their jibs'?

Seems to me the best reason to allow people to discriminate is so that smarter people can competitively kick their dog asses. It has been done before, and it will happen again.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Lets say a pregnant woman wants to apply. It perfectly rational to hire someone else because you dont want to deal with their pregnancy leave of absense. And thats perfectly reasonable. An employer shouldnt be forced to hire employees who are going to not be there for a long time. Thats just one example. There are also many different types of personalities. Some of which would fit your company, and some wont. I guess according to you, that kind of discrimination should be illegal too. Lets take the judgemen t out of the hands of job creators and let the government decide who gets the jobs.

 

[pcosmar]

Grades?
by very definition, a popularity contest.

 

[acptulsa]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Obviously.

Lets say a pregnant woman wants to apply. It perfectly rational to hire someone else because you dont want to deal with their pregnancy leave of absense. And thats perfectly reasonable. An employer shouldnt be forced to hire employees who are going to not be there for a long time. Thats just one example.

Just one example of short term thinking enabling more intelligent employers to build the kind of gratitude and appreciation into their workforce that those short term thinkers get very jealous of later.

There are also many different types of personalities. Some of which would fit your company, and some wont.

Some of whom are carbon copies of everyone who's already there, so they don't bring in a fresh perspective that could be of great use to the company. It's a piss poor manager who is so insecure that he or she makes that mistake.

I guess according to you, that kind of discrimination should be illegal too. Lets take the judgemen t out of the hands of job creators and let the government decide who gets the jobs.

Link to the quote where I said such a thing or accept my accusation of being a baldfaced lying snake.

No one has ever won a debate by trying to put their words in my mouth. I don't intend to let you start a new trend.

 

[tttppp]

Obviously.



Just one example of short term thinking enabling more intelligent employers to build the kind of gratitude and appreciation into their workforce that those short term thinkers get very jealous of later.



Some of whom are carbon copies of everyone who's already there, so they don't bring in a fresh perspective that could be of great use to the company. It's a piss poor manager who is so insecure that he or she makes that mistake.



Link to the quote where I said such a thing or accept my accusation of being a baldfaced lying snake.

No one has ever won a debate by trying to put their words in my mouth. I don't intend to let you start a new trend.

Most of what you are saying is nonsense. Plus you have never been a manager before. Any decent manager would want employeee to actually show up for work and get employees who the right type of personality for the job. Your respense to those examples was just rediculous.

 

[acptulsa]

Most of what you are saying is nonsense.

Not only is that a non-response, but you actually left yourself weasel room. If you find 'most' of it nonsense, obviously you find 'some' of it valid. I would press you on what is valid and what is nonsense, if I were in the mood to play.

Plus you have never been a manager before.

LOL I'd be very interested to see your proof.

Any decent manager would want employeee to actually show up for work and get employees who the right type of personality for the job.

I didn't say otherwise. I responded to you saying that there's no advantage in hiring a preagnant woman who will need maternity leave, no matter how loyal she becomes when that leave is over. And to your assertion that a manager shouldn't hire someone whose personality doesn't 'fit the company', which is different from someone whose personality doesn't fit the job.

Your respense to those examples was just rediculous.

What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean only a Red could ridicule them? Thanks for the compliment. I'll wear it proudly.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Originally Posted by tttppp
Lets say a pregnant woman wants to apply. It perfectly rational to hire someone else because you dont want to deal with their pregnancy leave of absense. And thats perfectly reasonable. An employer shouldnt be forced to hire employees who are going to not be there for a long time. Thats just one example.
Just one example of short term thinking enabling more intelligent employers to build the kind of gratitude and appreciation into their workforce that those short term thinkers get very jealous of later.

Employees are not grateful for leave of absences, especially gov't mandated ones.

 

[acptulsa]

Employees are not grateful for leave of absences, especially gov't mandated ones.

Oh? I presume we've met every employee, everywhere, under all conditions, and picked their brains completely?

My, we have been busy.

 

[juleswin]

Oh? I presume we've met every employee, everywhere, under all conditions, and picked their brains completely?

My, we have been busy.

And some people like higher taxes. People are different and there are exceptions to just about every rule but its safe to say that employees in general do not like leave of absences.

 

[tttppp]

Employees are not grateful for leave of absences, especially gov't mandated ones.

Pregnant women do take leaves from work. That is one example where discrimination makes sense.