How can we level the playing field of success.

Ricky M · Feb 20, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Or, is the playing field already level, waiting only for those who prepare themselves for success to blossom and grow? Many complain that they don't have "a place at the table" of opportunity. So what is the 'meal ticket' that would grant them a place? Thoughts?

It used to be that we acknowledged the need for different classes, levels, and abilities. And that is a Biblical concept:

1 Cor 12:
12Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by c one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues d ? Do all interpret? 31

Now, if you're not the head, you're not worth having. You're not worth a living wage, you're not worth wasting health care on, you're just a peon who ought to be glad s/he can afford a tent and ramen noodles.

Not everyone has the skills and abilities to become a Jeff Bezos. It's too bad we now think that if you're not a Jeff Bezos, you're scum.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 20, 2020

Ricky M said:
It used to be that we acknowledged the need for different classes, levels, and abilities. And that is a Biblical concept:

1 Cor 12:
12Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by c one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues d ? Do all interpret? 31

Now, if you're not the head, you're not worth having. You're not worth a living wage, you're not worth wasting health care on, you're just a peon who ought to be glad s/he can afford a tent and ramen noodles.

Not everyone has the skills and abilities to become a Jeff Bezos. It's too bad we now think that if you're not a Jeff Bezos, you're scum.

I don't think many think that way. Even the media and the politicians just say it to keep things stirred up.

ZNP · Feb 20, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Or, is the playing field already level, waiting only for those who prepare themselves for success to blossom and grow? Many complain that they don't have "a place at the table" of opportunity. So what is the 'meal ticket' that would grant them a place? Thoughts?

The key to leveling the playing field is education. Many people are aware that the US is #18 in the world in our high school education but did you know that schools in the top 3% in the US would be in the top 3% anywhere in the world? Our best high schools perform as well as those in Korea, Taiwan, and Finland. The reason we are 18th is that there is a much wider gap between our best and worst high schools. So, if we are going to level the playing field all you have to do is raise the level of the lowest performing high schools up to that of the top.

ZNP · Feb 20, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
This is probably true in every state, but it doesn't erase inequities.

Cuomo contends that in Rochester, for example, poorer schools get $18,000 per student while wealthier schools get $26,000 within the same district.

He offered similar findings for other large school districts, saying in Yonkers that poor school get $17,000 per student in state aid, while wealthier ones get $21,000 per student.

"Let's actually have a law that accomplishes what we want to accomplish," Cuomo said. "We want to make sure that this state can say a quality education regardless of income, race, or ZIP code, and that's how our funds should be distributed."

Money can be used to hire teachers. More money can be used to hire better teachers or more teachers (to reduce class size). Better teachers are better able to help students to learn.

Except for the study I already posted.

In the US the formula for success is money, it doesn't mean you have a better school, or that the teachers are better, it simply means with enough money you can make up for poor practices.

In Taiwan and Korea the formula for success is ridiculous amount of time spent studying by the students. Again, this does not indicate better teaching.

Neither formula is sustainable. The amount of money our best schools spend could never be replicated for the rest of the world's population, and the amount of time spent by students in the Far East is so horrible that even a man who makes $3 million a year running after school tutoring in Korea doesn't want his kids in that system.

Finland does not spend anywhere near what our expensive US schools spend, nor do their kids put in ridiculous hours studying like the far East, yet they are as successful as anyone in the world.

ZNP · Feb 20, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
That's totally unrelated to the funding a school receives.

OK, I'm on board with your plan to fund all schools to the level that currently is only met in rich neighborhoods.

I am a high school teacher in an inner city in Brooklyn, about 50% of my students are black, the rest are hispanic, we have a very high poverty index, 84% of our students are male. Based on that demographic description our kids should score in the bottom 25% of NYC students. However, last year they were in the top 7%. This year, the Lord willing, we will crack the top 5%. That would put us on par with the best high schools in NYC which are also rated as some of the best high schools in the US. I am not on board with a plan to fund all schools to the level that the rich schools are funded.

I explain in detail why I don't think money is the answer on my podcast -- "Count it all Joy" Zaph Naph Paaneah. Here is a link to the first episode -- James 1 -- What it is to be a good and faithful servant. - Zaph Naph Paaneah

ZNP · Feb 20, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
PALO ALTO—Schools in the United States are among the most inequitably funded of any in the industrialized world. These inequities in funding — which impact everything from class sizes to course offerings to teaching quality — create dramatic disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes for children. Students from low-income families and students of color experience the greatest disparities.

A new research brief released today by Learning Policy Institute shows that investing in these students and their schools can reduce those disparities. The brief, How Money Matters for Schools, draws on a large body of research that establishes that school resources are associated with higher student achievement

This is true. This disparity has been very disruptive when they passed NCLB and Hillary Clinton's least restrictive bill. Neither of those laws were funded.

However, our inner city schools are still as well funded as other schools in the Europe and Asia that are rated as the best school systems in the world. I feel that the real problem in the school system is that politicians are involved in the school system, all of the money involved in schools encourages a lot of corruption.

This a podcast that I made which explains this more James 2 Why are people stumbled? What is the cause? - Zaph Naph Paaneah

Salvadore · Feb 20, 2020

High Fidelity said:
There are things a person can do to increase their chances of a lucrative career, but it isn't guaranteed.

Doing well in high school and going to college aren't going to guarantee you a high paying job.

The biggest thing that is within our control is learning skills personally, academically and professionally that adds value to a business. If you can do that then you have as good a chance as anyone whether they went to college or not.

I'm 31 and earn $230,000 a year and I left high school 2 years early and don't have a degree or formal qualifications.

I'd be lying if I didn't say there was some good fortune along the way with being in the right place at the right time, but it can be done. Like I said, it's about adding value.

Things outside of our control as mentioned above are schools being funded unequally. It's true that to a certain extent we all have access to a basic education, but that basic education is immeasurably different between some places to others if they're funded locally.

One thing I don't agree with is 'positive' discrimination. Coloured faces for the sake of ticking boxes and PR shots, or requiring a certain number of women on executive boards. I don't agree with that at all.

Salvadore · Feb 20, 2020

High Fidelity said:
There are things a person can do to increase their chances of a lucrative career, but it isn't guaranteed.

Doing well in high school and going to college aren't going to guarantee you a high paying job.

The biggest thing that is within our control is learning skills personally, academically and professionally that adds value to a business. If you can do that then you have as good a chance as anyone whether they went to college or not.

I'm 31 and earn $230,000 a year and I left high school 2 years early and don't have a degree or formal qualifications.

I'd be lying if I didn't say there was some good fortune along the way with being in the right place at the right time, but it can be done. Like I said, it's about adding value.

Things outside of our control as mentioned above are schools being funded unequally. It's true that to a certain extent we all have access to a basic education, but that basic education is immeasurably different between some places to others if they're funded locally.

One thing I don't agree with is 'positive' discrimination. Coloured faces for the sake of ticking boxes and PR shots, or requiring a certain number of women on executive boards. I don't agree with that at all.

Salvadore · Feb 20, 2020

High Fidelity said:
One thing I don't agree with is 'positive' discrimination. Coloured faces for the sake of ticking boxes and PR shots, or requiring a certain number of women on executive boards. I don't agree with that at all.

I do not think white males should be given precedence over people of color and females. I think it is fair to require a certain number of qualified people of color and females to fill positions. This way companies are made aware that they are not to discriminate. Unqualified people are a different story. This is probably what you meant by your statement.

Salvadore · Feb 20, 2020

High Fidelity said:
One thing I don't agree with is 'positive' discrimination. Coloured faces for the sake of ticking boxes and PR shots, or requiring a certain number of women on executive boards. I don't agree with that at all.

I do not think white males should be given precedence over people of color and females. I think it is fair to require a certain number of qualified people of color and females to fill positions. This way companies are made aware that they are not to discriminate. Unqualified people are a different story. This is probably what you meant by your statement.

High Fidelity · Feb 21, 2020

Salvadore said:
I do not think white males should be given precedence over people of color and females. I think it is fair to require a certain number of qualified people of color and females to fill positions. This way companies are made aware that they are not to discriminate. Unqualified people are a different story. This is probably what you meant by your statement.

It's not about precedence, it's about merit.

If there's a white person more qualified then they should get the job.

If a coloured person is more qualified then they should get the job.

It's not difficult.

ZNP · Feb 21, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
This is probably true in every state, but it doesn't erase inequities.

Cuomo contends that in Rochester, for example, poorer schools get $18,000 per student while wealthier schools get $26,000 within the same district.

He offered similar findings for other large school districts, saying in Yonkers that poor school get $17,000 per student in state aid, while wealthier ones get $21,000 per student.

"Let's actually have a law that accomplishes what we want to accomplish," Cuomo said. "We want to make sure that this state can say a quality education regardless of income, race, or ZIP code, and that's how our funds should be distributed."

Money can be used to hire teachers. More money can be used to hire better teachers or more teachers (to reduce class size). Better teachers are better able to help students to learn.

There are studies that show that the single best indicator of how well a class of students will do is how effective the teacher is that is teaching the class. As a result in NYC they changed the contract to give performance bonus to the most effective teachers (it is a little more complicated than that but essentially the change) and they put in a protocol for putting ineffective teachers on probation and even firing them if necessary. The way it works is half of your observation is from the administrators and half is from the MOSL (measure of student learning -- a standardized exam). Here is the problem, the administrators give highly effective ratings to teachers who they expect will do the worst on the MOSL and they give as low a rating as possible to the teachers they know will do well on the MOSL. As a result they don't have to fire any teachers (which would ultimately cost the school system more money since they would have to raise salaries to hire more effective teachers) and they don't have to pay the performance bonus to the most effective teachers. This is why I don't trust politicians. They use the "failing school" claim as a way to get more money, which they in turn give to those who helped get them elected. This year our small inner city high school in Brooklyn bought $200,000 worth of tables and chairs. Why? Were the old ones broken? Were teachers complaining about the ones we had? No. There is a new fad that wants kids to work in groups of 4, these tables and chairs are ideal for putting into groups of 4, but otherwise they are pretty useless. Teachers either dislike the change or are indifferent (I am indifferent). But I suspect the total amount of furniture that could have been sold to NYC high schools was probably closer to $80 million and that sounds like a much more reasonable explanation for the change than some fad about kids needing to work in groups of 4. I explain all this in my podcast -- James 1 -- What it is to be a good and faithful servant. - Zaph Naph Paaneah
James 2 Why are people stumbled? What is the cause? - Zaph Naph Paaneah and James 3 -- Who can save us? - Zaph Naph Paaneah

Salvadore · Feb 22, 2020

High Fidelity said:
It's not about precedence, it's about merit.

If there's a white person more qualified then they should get the job.

If a coloured person is more qualified then they should get the job.

It's not difficult.

If there are 5 white men working in an office and two qualified applicants apply for a management position; one is a white male and one is a person of color. The person of color, being qualified, should be offered the position. Otherwise you have a white, male-dominated work environment. White people still have an advantage in many places in the world. It is still difficult for people of color to compete. I am just asking that qualified people of color and women be given an opportunity. I agree with a policy that states a % of the workforce should be comprised of qualified women and people of color.

Salvadore · Feb 22, 2020

High Fidelity said:
It's not about precedence, it's about merit.

If there's a white person more qualified then they should get the job.

If a coloured person is more qualified then they should get the job.

It's not difficult.

If there are 5 white men working in an office and two qualified applicants apply for a management position; one is a white male and one is a person of color. The person of color, being qualified, should be offered the position. Otherwise you have a white, male-dominated work environment. White people still have an advantage in many places in the world. It is still difficult for people of color to compete. I am just asking that qualified people of color and women be given an opportunity. I agree with a policy that states a % of the workforce should be comprised of qualified women and people of color.

High Fidelity · Feb 22, 2020

Salvadore said:
If there are 5 white men working in an office and two qualified applicants apply for a management position; one is a white male and one is a person of color. The person of color, being qualified, should be offered the position. Otherwise you have a white, male-dominated work environment. White people still have an advantage in many places in the world. It is still difficult for people of color to compete. I am just asking that qualified people of color and women be given an opportunity. I agree with a policy that states a % of the workforce should be comprised of qualified women and people of color.

No two people are equally qualified. It just doesn't happen unless it's for a position that requires no experience or qualifications, but even then it still comes down to personal attributes.

If there are 5 white men working and 2 applicants apply, one being white and the other being black, race is irrelevant. Hire the most suitable for the job, based on merit. Merit is something that someone's achieved themselves. Being born black, Asian or female is not something you've accomplished, you had no choice in it, so why should it be rewarded?

Do I believe there are some jobs that should be allowed to recruit selectively in accordance to the demands of that specific job? Absolutely. If I were hiring carers for an old people's home and we were short on women then I'd hire a qualified woman or a woman that shows promise, commitment and other attributes that I would develop so that we have more women to help care for the hygiene and other intimate aspects of female patients/residents.

Likewise, if I were hiring for a local group community centre in a mostly black neighbourhood to try and encourage kids off the street, then I'd try and hire a local black male as the majority of those on the streets will be black males and it's someone relatable for them.

So yes, there are times it's beneficial, but beyond that, absolutely not.

Black, white, purple... whatever, if you're qualified and/or the best candidate for the job, you should get the job. You shouldn't get pity points as a reward for something you have no control over.

lordjeff · Feb 22, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Or, is the playing field already level, waiting only for those who prepare themselves for success to blossom and grow? Many complain that they don't have "a place at the table" of opportunity. So what is the 'meal ticket' that would grant them a place? Thoughts?

Equality & equity are 2 different things. The basic problem in today's political debate on the social justice thing is this: some people are looking for guaranteed outcomes & no politician can promise or do that. To do so would dumb down any sense of work ethic or standard. This is what people have confused. Life is not fair & Jesus did not guarantee it either.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 23, 2020

lordjeff said:
Equality & equity are 2 different things. The basic problem in today's political debate on the social justice thing is this: some people are looking for guaranteed outcomes & no politician can promise or do that. To do so would dumb down any sense of work ethic or standard. This is what people have confused. Life is not fair & Jesus did not guarantee it either.

True. Everyone has an equal chance for financial success. However equality of that success (equity) is not guaranteed. Fortunately there are other measures of success that can compensate for less than hoped for financial success.

Speedwell · Feb 23, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
True. Everyone has an equal chance for financial success.

What planet is this happening on? Certainly not Earth.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 23, 2020

Speedwell said:
What planet is this happening on? Certainly not Earth.

I'm basically referring the west, not the teeming masses of the rest of mankind. They have overpopulated themselves out of any hope of success.

Speedwell · Feb 23, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
I'm basically referring the west, not the teeming masses of the rest of mankind. They have overpopulated themselves out of any hope of success.

It's not even true in the USA.

How can we level the playing field of success.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads