Some time ago, researchers reported a discrepency in earnings between people who had graduated from High School and those who earned a GED.
A truely close friend, posited an answer. The answer? People who complete High School have more grit or gumption than those in the GED group.
Researches report that people with a college education earn more than those with only a high school education. But what causes this?
Surely finances play a major part in education. So, president O'Bama proposes to make a two year AA from community colleges free. Hence, the graduates would earn more. Right?
But, does the discrepency in earnings between college educated and non-college educated arise from the education alone or
??? You fill in the blank here.
Yes, free tuition will most likely increase the number of people who make that highly desirable higher income level. And, yes, the B minus requirement will have an impact on the grit issue. But, can we tease out the grit factor from the education factor I believe that we might profit from such a teasing.
We might, also, profit from research which would show us how to teach grit.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Friday, January 9, 2015
Some considerations
HOLD IT
We have virtually band the performance of "Dixie" and the display of the confederate battle flag.
We do so in response to the objetions of peoople of color.
So, why don't we respect the sensitivity of Muslims.
They find the depiction of The Prophet offensive. Never mind questions of extremism.
It almost seems that Europeans want to antagonize Muslims. They go on about freedom of expression.
The French ban the display of crucifixes. They require that Muslim women refrain from wearing the Hi jab.
Is that freedom of religion or freedom from religion.
How does that fit with freedom of expression
The Hi Jab or the Burka disturbs me not because of a religious foxus but because of a cultural focus.
As best as I can feel it so far, the two practices say something about refusing to assimilate. The practice says little to me about modesty. Both practices arise from ancient Bedouin - Arab cultural frameworks.
In other times and in other places, the Arab culture has over run the culture of host countries.
For all that, I find little difference between my characterization of the Arab practices and that of the Stalinist Russian expansionism that still haunts our present world.
If these Arab practices do reflect an expressionist attitude does not the extant culture have a right to object and respond.
If expansionism an Arabist conquest does not lie at the heart of the issue, Wjhy do these people come here yet refuse to leave behind the culture they have fled.,
Not to be dismissive, one can say something in between.
These people have left their homeland and culture behind. They do so voluntarily but with regret.
The well has dried up so to speak at home. The waters of that well have suffered pollution. These peoople can no longer make a living. Yet, they long for what they have left behind. They have moved to suvive. Most of them lack the sophistication of a cultural anthropologist , diplomat, or skilled international business person.,
We of the European ancestral line whose countries seem to offer to these folk a hope for a better life have the obligation of understanding the position of the migrant. This position has many layers and complexities to it. We do ourselves a disservice to approach these questions with simplistic jingoistic peti bourgeois natterings.
The question raised takes on added dimension when an USA American looks to the Mexican border. T he question of respect for American laws -- i. e. imigration law -- really stirs the pot for some of our native born citizens.
I can see the respect issue as truely troubling if that perspective is the only one that informs the conversation. Imagine opening our borders to people who have no intentions of respecting our laws.
I found myself waxing angry at a self-appointed immigrant rights activist who spoke one after noon. Three times in the NPR interview the reporter asked the activist about the question of respect for American immigration law. The activist didn't even attempt to answer the question. Whe simply ignored it and repeated her talking points. I wanted to hear from her a careful exposition of why immigrant rights and or compassion trumped considerations of law. What shall we make of that approach?
In any case, We of the target countries of immigration or migration have the responsibility of considering ion a blanced and judicious manner these questions. We cannot afford to emphazie compassion over self-reservation or visa versa.
We have virtually band the performance of "Dixie" and the display of the confederate battle flag.
We do so in response to the objetions of peoople of color.
So, why don't we respect the sensitivity of Muslims.
They find the depiction of The Prophet offensive. Never mind questions of extremism.
It almost seems that Europeans want to antagonize Muslims. They go on about freedom of expression.
The French ban the display of crucifixes. They require that Muslim women refrain from wearing the Hi jab.
Is that freedom of religion or freedom from religion.
How does that fit with freedom of expression
The Hi Jab or the Burka disturbs me not because of a religious foxus but because of a cultural focus.
As best as I can feel it so far, the two practices say something about refusing to assimilate. The practice says little to me about modesty. Both practices arise from ancient Bedouin - Arab cultural frameworks.
In other times and in other places, the Arab culture has over run the culture of host countries.
For all that, I find little difference between my characterization of the Arab practices and that of the Stalinist Russian expansionism that still haunts our present world.
If these Arab practices do reflect an expressionist attitude does not the extant culture have a right to object and respond.
If expansionism an Arabist conquest does not lie at the heart of the issue, Wjhy do these people come here yet refuse to leave behind the culture they have fled.,
Not to be dismissive, one can say something in between.
These people have left their homeland and culture behind. They do so voluntarily but with regret.
The well has dried up so to speak at home. The waters of that well have suffered pollution. These peoople can no longer make a living. Yet, they long for what they have left behind. They have moved to suvive. Most of them lack the sophistication of a cultural anthropologist , diplomat, or skilled international business person.,
We of the European ancestral line whose countries seem to offer to these folk a hope for a better life have the obligation of understanding the position of the migrant. This position has many layers and complexities to it. We do ourselves a disservice to approach these questions with simplistic jingoistic peti bourgeois natterings.
The question raised takes on added dimension when an USA American looks to the Mexican border. T he question of respect for American laws -- i. e. imigration law -- really stirs the pot for some of our native born citizens.
I can see the respect issue as truely troubling if that perspective is the only one that informs the conversation. Imagine opening our borders to people who have no intentions of respecting our laws.
I found myself waxing angry at a self-appointed immigrant rights activist who spoke one after noon. Three times in the NPR interview the reporter asked the activist about the question of respect for American immigration law. The activist didn't even attempt to answer the question. Whe simply ignored it and repeated her talking points. I wanted to hear from her a careful exposition of why immigrant rights and or compassion trumped considerations of law. What shall we make of that approach?
In any case, We of the target countries of immigration or migration have the responsibility of considering ion a blanced and judicious manner these questions. We cannot afford to emphazie compassion over self-reservation or visa versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)