New young voter data spells good news for progressives

[cawacko]

Are you suggesting lowering the standards will take out the wealthy and elite? Lowering standards just mean more people would pass. But the best students and test takers would still be on top.

I’m suggesting we live in a globalized world where American kids are competing against not only each other but kids from all over the planet for college admissions, jobs etc. and other countries aren’t lowering their standards.

So for us to remain at the forefront of technological, scientific and economic advancement requires our kids to be able to compete with the best the world has to offer. And lowering our standards under the guise of equity does us no favors in that regard.

But if you feel lower standards and more mediocre results are something worth pursuing, again in the name of equity, I’m open to hearing why.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Would be interesting to see their polling on Gen Z towards Boomers. Now it would be too facile an answer to blame Boomers for everything. But the cost of education and the cost of housing is top of the list of concerns for young people and Boomers have fvcked both those up. Kids come out of school in debt and in many places owning a home is something years upon years away.

can you explain how 'boomers' fvcked up education and housing?

 

[cawacko]

can you explain how 'boomers' fvcked up education and housing?

Damn, I wrote and posted my response and when trying to edit something I deleted it. My bad. I'll try it again in a minute.

 

[cawacko]

I’m suggesting we live in a globalized world where American kids are competing against not only each other but kids from all over the planet for college admissions, jobs etc. and other countries aren’t lowering their standards.

So for us to remain at the forefront of technological, scientific and economic advancement requires our kids to be able to compete with the best the world has to offer. And lowering our standards under the guise of equity does us no favors in that regard.

But if you feel lower standards and more mediocre results are something worth pursuing, again in the name of equity, I’m open to hearing why.

What say you Nordberg? I’m interested in hearing your thoughts for the lowering of standards (if you support them).

 

[Nordberg]

So education question for you. There's a movement in this country towards equity. The basic premise is there are educational disparities, specifically black (and also Latin X) students, compared to Asian and white students. The current way to address them has been so-called lowering of standards. That's taking away standardized testing such as the SAT and ACT and then, for example, what they are doing in California and Cambridge lowering math requirements.

We could get more into how to address disparities but what's your take on the current trend?

The school differences are much due to funding When property taxes fund schools. the better the neighborhood, the better the facilities and the system.
Dropping standards will allow kids from impoverished schools to have a chance. Once accepted, the classes are the same for all.

 

[cawacko]

The school differences are much due to funding When property taxes fund schools. the better the neighborhood, the better the facilities and the system.
Dropping standards will allow kids from impoverished schools to have a chance. Once accepted, the classes are the same for all.

We could look at several examples but the one getting the most recent press is the changing of math standards in California and Cambridge.

What does that have to do with school funding? In California’s case it’s a statewide initiative. How does lowering standards for everyone help out the state?

 

[Nordberg]

We could look at several examples but the one getting the most recent press is the changing of math standards in California and Cambridge.

What does that have to do with school funding? In California’s case it’s a statewide initiative. How does lowering standards for everyone help out the state?

Who said it helps the state? changing math standards provides a larger pool. It gives more people opportunities.
School funding is why poor schools do not have highly qualified teachers and elevated classes.

 

[evince]

We could look at several examples but the one getting the most recent press is the changing of math standards in California and Cambridge.

What does that have to do with school funding? In California’s case it’s a statewide initiative. How does lowering standards for everyone help out the state?

So you still support trump?


You trying to change the thread subject because of that support?

 

[evince]

New young voter data spells good news for progressives — and bad news for Trump and the GOP

A pollster at Harvard University pointed to a persistent sense of precarity in the lives of young voters as a key reason behind new data that shows Americans aged 18-29 have significantly more progressive views than young people did even five years ago.

Data analyzed by the Harvard Youth Poll, which releases survey results focused on young voters every spring, found that a clear majority take a progressive outlook on what John Della Volpe, director of the poll, called the "big four" political issues that respondents are asked about: LGBTQ+ rights, economic inequality, climate action, and gun violence.

https://www.rawstory.com/young-voters-progressive/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/voters-progressive-trump-harvard-youth-poll-gop/

This thread is about how much the nations youth hate your fucking lies ass breath

 

[cawacko]

Who said it helps the state? changing math standards provides a larger pool. It gives more people opportunities.
School funding is why poor schools do not have highly qualified teachers and elevated classes.

More people opportunities? How?

If we make our current 10th grade standards equivalent to what we expect people in 7th grade to learn, more people might do “well”. But how does that benefit anyone, individuals or our country?

It’s fascinating to think instead of working to improve those on the lower end of the scale that we should dumb down our whole system.

 

[Nordberg]

More people opportunities? How?

If we make our current 10th grade standards equivalent to what we expect people in 7th grade to learn, more people might do “well”. But how does that benefit anyone, individuals or our country?

It’s fascinating to think instead of working to improve those on the lower end of the scale that we should dumb down our whole system.

People in schools that are not as good, can get into college. Many of them are as smart or smarter than the kids who are products of better educational systems.
Your fascination is utterly misplaced. The poorly funded schools are not going to just get better. We are discussing now.
It is not dumbing down the whole system. Those on top will still get the best of everything. Making the bad schools better? It will not happen.

 

[cawacko]

People in schools that are not as good, can get into college. Many of them are as smart or smarter than the kids who are products of better educational systems.
Your fascination is utterly misplaced. The poorly funded schools are not going to just get better. We are discussing now.
It is not dumbing down the whole system. Those on top will still get the best of everything. Making the bad schools better? It will not happen.

I guess you could call it a fascination with the importance of education and how dumbing it down hurts our country. They are dumbing down the good schools, not just the poor performing ones. This affects all kids (at least in California if we’re talking the math issue.)

It really is interesting that you and TDAK actually think the same even if for different reasons. You both think minority kids can’t perform. That’s essentially what you are arguing with the lowering of standards.

 

[QP!]

Are you suggesting lowering the standards will take out the wealthy and elite? Lowering standards just mean more people would pass. But the best students and test takers would still be on top.

University and especially top Universities do not just want to become the Grade Olympics, where the biggest achievement is getting your 99.3% to 99.4% no matter how much else you have to give up.

That does not make for the best students nor the best graduates who will become CEO's or leaders in other fields, something the Universities pride themselves on and have a roll in.

That is why a guy with 94% GPA who was also Valedictorian of his grade class, a high level athlete, and Captain of the debate club might get a boost over someone with a 96% GPA who only has grades to point to.

Why?

It is because the University recognizes you have taken effort from pursuit of grades only and that could have lead to a better grade.

So what about not just comparing the journey of those type students and looking at someone like a prep school kid provided every advantage in life without having to earn it, with all the benefits of a stable home, prep school, tutors, versus someone coming out of the inner city, from a broken home, with a drug addicted parent, who took care of siblings. Give Prep kid the 96% GPA and the inner city kid the 94%, and ask who is smarter? Who has dealt with the things that will make them the better leader in the job market?


People who think grades should be the only thing ultimately that matters and will be the 'best students' are not necessarily thinking this thru IMO. Making top Universities the grades Olympics would not make them better.

 

[cawacko]

University and especially top Universities do not just want to become the Grade Olympics, where the biggest achievement is getting your 99.3% to 99.4% no matter how much else you have to give up.

That does not make for the best students nor the best graduates who will become CEO's or leaders in other fields, something the Universities pride themselves on and have a roll in.

That is why a guy with 94% GPA who was also Valedictorian of his grade class, a high level athlete, and Captain of the debate club might get a boost over someone with a 96% GPA who only has grades to point to.

Why?

It is because the University recognizes you have taken effort from pursuit of grades only and that could have lead to a better grade.

So what about not just comparing the journey of those type students and looking at someone like a prep school kid provided every advantage in life without having to earn it, with all the benefits of a stable home, prep school, tutors, versus someone coming out of the inner city, from a broken home, with a drug addicted parent, who took care of siblings. Give Prep kid the 96% GPA and the inner city kid the 94%, and ask who is smarter? Who has dealt with the things that will make them the better leader in the job market?


People who think grades should be the only thing ultimately that matters and will be the 'best students' are not necessarily thinking this thru IMO. Making top Universities the grades Olympics would not make them better.

Yes, education is more than sitting in a library studying twelve hours a day. But that doesn’t justify lowering standards for our education system when our kids are competing in a globalized world and other countries are not lowering standards.

People are of course entitled to differing opinions but it’s so interesting to see people arguing it’s a good thing.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

New young voter data spells good news for progressives — and bad news for Trump and the GOP

A pollster at Harvard University pointed to a persistent sense of precarity in the lives of young voters as a key reason behind new data that shows Americans aged 18-29 have significantly more progressive views than young people did even five years ago.

Data analyzed by the Harvard Youth Poll, which releases survey results focused on young voters every spring, found that a clear majority take a progressive outlook on what John Della Volpe, director of the poll, called the "big four" political issues that respondents are asked about: LGBTQ+ rights, economic inequality, climate action, and gun violence.

https://www.rawstory.com/young-voters-progressive/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/voters-progressive-trump-harvard-youth-poll-gop/

The Good news! About 8 million more kids will have graduated High School and become eligible to vote between the last presidential election and the one upcoming in 2024!

The better news, Millions OF UGLY ASS OLD FART REPUBLICAN TRUMPTARDED ASSES HAVE GROWN TOGETHER AND ARE NOW 6 FEET UNDER SINCE the 2000 ELECTION.

They are a dying breed. Hate kills! Refusing to get vaccinated properly kills! Flu shots you know? Ignorance kills! What can I say?

At least Old Fart Democrats know to get their asses to the drug store or doctors office and get their flu shot- Because the Flu kills thousands of people every year. Obviously, Trumptards would rather die than get a Flu Shot!

And a lot of these Republican Guntards end up committing suicide with their very own guns every year.

Amazing statistics! More than 26,000 suicides by a firearm just last year!

And more Republicans own guns than Democrats. That can be over 100,000 potential voters every 4 years! WOW!

 

[QP!]

Yes, education is more than sitting in a library studying twelve hours a day. But that doesn’t justify lowering standards for our education system when our kids are competing in a globalized world and other countries are not lowering standards.

People are of course entitled to differing opinions but it’s so interesting to see people arguing it’s a good thing.

What i am saying is we need to better consider what we just label 'lowering standards'.

I maintain absolutely you are far more likely to get kids who can compete in the global world if they are not the type that just focus on the grades Olympics as if every point GPA is all that matters. Once you create that standard all other students will be forced to do the same, who can. It is well known certain groups hyper focus on grades and many in those groups are not considered well rounded and thus would have none of the typical other leadership traits.

You will get far more kids who can compete in the global world (be CEO's, leaders, etc) if you instead have a standard that more than proves competency and then you also consider the things that build character and personality (Valedictorian, Captain of debate club, kid from poor and struggling home).

Again i say, who will actually be 'smarter' in the work place. The kid who can score 96% GPA with the life long benefit of tutors, prep school, etc. Or the kid that can score 94% coming out of a troubled impoverished home where he was both parent and sibling.

The Grade Olympics approach says take the 96% and consider nothing else. That is a mistake imo.

 

[cawacko]

What i am saying is we need to better consider what we just label 'lowering standards'.

I maintain absolutely you are far more likely to get kids who can compete in the global world if they are not the type that just focus on the grades Olympics as if every point GPA is all that matters. Once you create that standard all other students will be forced to do the same, who can. It is well known certain groups hyper focus on grades and many in those groups are not considered well rounded and thus would have none of the typical other leadership traits.

You will get far more kids who can compete in the global world (be CEO's, leaders, etc) if you instead have a standard that more than proves competency and then you also consider the things that build character and personality (Valedictorian, Captain of debate club, kid from poor and struggling home).

Again i say, who will actually be 'smarter' in the work place. The kid who can score 96% GPA with the life long benefit of tutors, prep school, etc. Or the kid that can score 94% coming out of a troubled impoverished home where he was both parent and sibling.

The Grade Olympics approach says take the 96% and consider nothing else. That is a mistake imo.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say. It reminds me of the saying I heard as a kid along the lines of 'B students will run companies and A students will work for them'. I know I can recall kids who spent hours upon hours in the library, had great grades and test scores, but didn't seem to do a lot besides that (weren't 'well rounded' so to speak)

You look at some of the Asian countries and it seems many kids are like academic bots. So it's a fine line between wanting high academic performance but also pushing for well rounded and diverse kids.

But I still have issue with the lowering of class requirements and standards. I'm not saying all kids have to get A's, far from it, but they still need to take and be exposed to these classes. We talk about the lack of black & Latin X and women in STEM jobs, and companies hiring more people from overseas than Americans for these jobs, but I don't see how we fix that by lowering standards and the classes kids have to take. To me, we can do things to help those in need increase their level of performance without bringing down the overall level of learning in the country.