Giving Poor Kids Computers Doesn't Improve...

[Phased Out]

Scholastic performance....

Source: Slate.com

[QUOTE]So what happens when good fortune delivers vouchers (and hence computers) into the homes of Romanian youths? Obviously a lot more time logged on to a computer—about seven hours more per week for vouchered versus unvouchered kids. Much of this computer time came at the expense of television-watching: Children in families that received a voucher spent 3.5 fewer hours in front of the tube per week.

But computer use also crowded out homework (2.3 hours less per week), reading, and sleep. Less schoolwork translated into lower grades at school—vouchered kids' GPAs were 0.36 grade points lower than their nonvouchered counterparts—and also lower aspirations for higher education. Vouchered kids were 13 percentage points less likely to report an intention to attend college.

And, interestingly, vouchered students who were college-bound were not more likely to express interest in majoring in computer science./QUOTE]

Leftists like to think that all inequalities have to do with wealth and discrimination. They think that there is something that better off parents buy for their children that makes them smarter that poor parents can’t afford. The leftists refuse to comprehend that intelligence is primarily genetic, and then, to make matters worse, their parents teach them lower class values instead of middle class values. (notice I didn't say upper class values, which are just as bad as lower class values).

Teaching middle class values to poor kids would be inexpensive and the most effective possible policy to improve life outcomes of poor kids.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Living in a poor neighborhood and living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't be such a bad thing, provided that you were living among people who had nice, middle-class values. (Try to think of the time you lived in a university community that had crappy buildings).

The problem with being poor is that you have to live in a neighborhood full of poor people who have low class values.

If you were to take the student population at the University of Chicago or MIT and put them in a housing project complex, it wouldn't be a bad place to live.

[Invincible Summer]

Fuck off with your classist "values" shit. It's as scientific and sociological as the eugenics policies in the 19th and early 20th century.

[Bud Struggle]

Leftists like to think that all inequalities have to do with wealth and discrimination. They think that there is something that better off parents buy for their children that makes them smarter that poor parents can’t afford. The leftists refuse to comprehend that intelligence is primarily genetic, and then, to make matters worse, their parents teach them lower class values instead of middle class values. (notice I didn't say upper class values, which are just as bad as lower class values). I agree there--a value system is the most important thing--but the problem is with the labels that you put on the value system. There are people in the lower classes that teach good values to their kids and people in the middle class that teach bad values to their kids. It's not a "class" thing it's a value thing. And for that matter class is becomming less and less a factor in modern America life (I can't speak for Europeans.)


I said it before and I'll say it again. Living in a poor neighborhood and living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't be such a bad thing, provided that you were living among people who had nice, middle-class values.

Again, change "class values" to maybe work ethic--and all this makes sense.

[Morgenstern]

Simply put: The money behind those vouchers should have been used to purchase better books or better school facilities or bring in better teachers. I believe that part of the whole intelligence problem is money as many leftists do.

You will see quite a difference between children who go to a private, Catholic, college preparatory high school and those who go to a public high school in the slummiest parts of Trenton. It is because those children in the private school have better teachers, better classroom resources probably, and every other material thing is better. Also poor kids going to a high school in the slums of a city most likely have a broken home, poverty is tough on a family or could be brought on by harmful habits. Kids who go to a private school on the other hand are less likely to have as much of a broken home. Perhaps some problems in a few homes? Yes. But the problems the private school children face in their household is probably far less than those faced by the children that go to the public one in the slums.

On top of that, if a privileged child doesn't understand his concepts in school the parents could possibly or probably pay for a tutor on top of that! If a poor child can't understand his school work he is, for all intents and purposes, stuck. It isn't a matter of genetics, it comes down to what everything comes down to in our capitalist society and that is capital. Those with capital can afford to have better education for their children and their children don't need to worry about their next meal or having to get a job or any other crimes of capitalism placed upon the poor children. As soon as we rid ourselves of capitalism and standardize the schools to prevent the divide between college-prep level and public in the slums level then we can start to move forward in education.

[Dr Mindbender]

So what happens when good fortune delivers vouchers (and hence computers) into the homes of Romanian youths? Obviously a lot more time logged on to a computer—about seven hours more per week for vouchered versus unvouchered kids. Much of this computer time came at the expense of television-watching: Children in families that received a voucher spent 3.5 fewer hours in front of the tube per week.

But computer use also crowded out homework (2.3 hours less per week), reading, and sleep. Less schoolwork translated into lower grades at school—vouchered kids' GPAs were 0.36 grade points lower than their nonvouchered counterparts—and also lower aspirations for higher education. Vouchered kids were 13 percentage points less likely to report an intention to attend college.

And, interestingly, vouchered students who were college-bound were not more likely to express interest in majoring in computer science./QUOTE]

Leftists like to think that all inequalities have to do with wealth and discrimination. They think that there is something that better off parents buy for their children that makes them smarter that poor parents can’t afford. The leftists refuse to comprehend that intelligence is primarily genetic, and then, to make matters worse, their parents teach them lower class values instead of middle class values. (notice I didn't say upper class values, which are just as bad as lower class values).

Teaching middle class values to poor kids would be inexpensive and the most effective possible policy to improve life outcomes of poor kids.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Living in a poor neighborhood and living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't be such a bad thing, provided that you were living among people who had nice, middle-class values. (Try to think of the time you lived in a university community that had crappy buildings).

The problem with being poor is that you have to live in a neighborhood full of poor people who have low class values.

If you were to take the student population at the University of Chicago or MIT and put them in a housing project complex, it wouldn't be a bad place to live.

its not that we think that higher class children become 'smarter', our grievance lies with the way that the academic institutions and skilled sectors of industry generally have a chauvinist bias towards prospective entrants from an upper class background. Its this ignorance that grinds the gears of social mobility and creates social stagnation. Theres no such thing as 'class values'. If you continually tell someone from cradle to grave they are worthless while sustaining the conditions for that belief they end up believing it eventually; its a self fulfilling prophecy. In my school not only were ambitions of skilled work discouraged there was poor facilities for skilled training while on the other hand we had regular visits from the army seeking cannon fodder as well as perveyors of menial employment seeking vocational apprentices. Working class schools prepare kids for lives of subjection and repetitive low brow labour.

As for idiots in the classes, In my job i encounter a plethora of upper class twits every day.

[Phased Out]

Those with capital can afford to have better education for their children and their children don't need to worry about their next meal or having to get a job or any other crimes of capitalism placed upon the poor children. As soon as we rid ourselves of capitalism and standardize the schools to prevent the divide between college-prep level and public in the slums level then we can start to move forward in education.

Your underlying assumption is that the wealth gap between rich and poor is an education gap. And if only everyone had the best education, then everyone would be in the top 10% of income and there'd be no more gap.

Nonsense.

The reason for the growing wealth disparity is because the value of labor relative to the value of capital is decreasing. This is because the pool of labor is increasing, due to high levels of immigration and outsourcing of labor to low wage countries.

And don't count on a communist revolution in America (the jury is still out for Europe). The working classes are either too stupid or too divided to unite and revolt. But, I know what you're saying. A dramatic decrease in living standards will change all of that.

[Bud Struggle]

.But, I know what you're saying. A dramatic decrease in living standards will change all of that.

I think because of the factors you indicated above the living standards of poor will decrease--but it will be done slowly and just like the frog in the pot of water that is being heated they will never know what is happening to them.

[Dean]

The problem with being poor is that you have to live in a neighborhood full of poor people who have low class values.

There is nothing about these mystical "values" that makes your value system meaningful. Rather, you are relying on an incredibly narrow, immaterial analysis of the world which is clearly tied into petty liberal moralism.

It is clear that, when you discovered this article, instead of extrapolating facts from it (i.e. that the character of computers is not necessarily empowering), but rather that you asserted your own moral compulsion onto the article, and therefore came up with these wild assertions.

Tell me, what values exactly "improve our lot" and by nature of what systems?

Do you even believe that these values have some distinct material character in the furtherance of human interests, or are you purely acting to prove preconceived arguments?

[Comrade B]

The problem here is clearly that people thought that they could just make education better by throwing some computers at kids... they were not utilized in a useful way at all.
Even if they were utilized appropriately, how much of a chance do you think these kids have at getting a higher education? What purpose does this education serve them if their family cannot afford to get them into school?


The problem with being poor is that you have to live in a neighborhood full of poor people who have low class values.

If you were to take the student population at the University of Chicago or MIT and put them in a housing project complex, it wouldn't be a bad place to live.

I have a relative that grew up in a Mafia run neighborhood. When he was a kid he sold coke and was involved with some small time crime. From all the money he made, after a while he managed to get cash to get a nursing license. Now he lives in a small apartment in a decent working class neighborhood, working to support his son's education.

You have some creepy ideas and clearly are totally out of touch with the poor.

Got to tell you. You are treading on thin ice with statements like this.


I said it before and I'll say it again. Living in a poor neighborhood and living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't be such a bad thing, provided that you were living among people who had nice, middle-class values. (Try to think of the time you lived in a university community that had crappy buildings).
I remember one of the university kids from my home town beat a local guy until an ambulance had to come to pick him up. The local guy told the student to stop hitting on the guy's girlfriend. Those damn good middle class values there, eh.

[Scary Monster]

Again with your asinine threads, phased out? Youre clearly completely out of touch with reality and quite retarded. "Intelligence is genetic"? :lol: Goddayum, is all i have to say to that.

[La Comédie Noire]

Because we all know getting good grades in school is the high water mark of existence. Has it ever occurred to you kids don't like school because it's boring and soul numbing?

Getting good grades isn't a mark of intelligence, it shows you have an ability to follow orders. Which is what these awesome "middle class" values really are, the willingness to eat shit. "Sit still, shut up, and do what you're told!"

I've met plenty of straight A students who couldn't tell you what they learned just last week and many of them have panic attacks when they get B's because "now they're going to be homeless".

[danyboy27]

No matter how intelligent an individual can be, its all about the material conditions he is born in.

[RGacky3]

Again, change "class values" to maybe work ethic--and all this makes sense.

Are you claiming that people who live paycheck to paycheck have a bad "work ethic"?


I said it before and I'll say it again. Living in a poor neighborhood and living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't be such a bad thing, provided that you were living among people who had nice, middle-class values. (Try to think of the time you lived in a university community that had crappy buildings).

The problem with being poor is that you have to live in a neighborhood full of poor people who have low class values.

If you were to take the student population at the University of Chicago or MIT and put them in a housing project complex, it wouldn't be a bad place to live.

You know waht the difference is between a College Campus and a Ghetto is? Everyone at the College Campus is there because they want to be, and because they know (or think) that soon they'll be making a tub of money and living it up, people in a Ghetto, will most likely have to stay there.

Also 4 years in a college campus is a lot different from generations in a Ghetto, especially when the college campus kids don't have to struggle to survive.


Leftists like to think that all inequalities have to do with wealth and discrimination. They think that there is something that better off parents buy for their children that makes them smarter that poor parents can’t afford. The leftists refuse to comprehend that intelligence is primarily genetic, and then, to make matters worse, their parents teach them lower class values instead of middle class values. (notice I didn't say upper class values, which are just as bad as lower class values).


Do you have any facts to back up that intelligence is more nature than nurture?

Also, what the hell are middle class values?


It's not a "class" thing it's a value thing. And for that matter class is becomming less and less a factor in modern America life (I can't speak for Europeans.)


Statistics show differently.

Values are Values, but Class is class, I agree they are 2 seperate things and are not entirely related, but to claim that class is becomming less and less a factor in American life is simply wrong, looking at statistics and attitudes.


The reason for the growing wealth disparity is because the value of labor relative to the value of capital is decreasing. This is because the pool of labor is increasing, due to high levels of immigration and outsourcing of labor to low wage countries.

And don't count on a communist revolution in America (the jury is still out for Europe). The working classes are either too stupid or too divided to unite and revolt. But, I know what you're saying. A dramatic decrease in living standards will change all of that.

The reason for the growing wealth disparity is because the ruling class (the top 1%) is privatizing all the gains and socializing all the losses (be it through layoffs, pay cuts or whatever). The reasons you gave are not based on facts at all.

As far as the working clases being do stupid or devided to revolt ... we'll see.


I think because of the factors you indicated above the living standards of poor will decrease--but it will be done slowly and just like the frog in the pot of water that is being heated they will never know what is happening to them.

Historically people will only take so much.

[Bud Struggle]

Are you claiming that people who live paycheck to paycheck have a bad "work ethic"? Not in the least. Because of our economic situation (my dad was a poor, uneducated (that meaning lack of formal education) immigrant that worked in a factory making sneakers all his life but he taught all four of his kids the value of hard work and guess what--we all got "lucky" and became successful. Imagine that.


Values are Values, but Class is class, I agree they are 2 seperate things and are not entirely related, but to claim that class is becomming less and less a factor in American life is simply wrong, looking at statistics and attitudes. I'm not saying that there isn't a differentiation between the classes--I'm just saying that nobody is paying attention to it.

[Richard Nixon]

Because we all know getting good grades in school is the high water mark of existence. Has it ever occurred to you kids don't like school because it's boring and soul numbing?



It may be boring but it's necessary.

Anyways there have been several solutions proposed to get rid of the inequality between wealthy kids and working class kids regarding education-school vouchers, charter schools, stricter standards in schools, and so on.

[Bud Struggle]

Because we all know getting good grades in school is the high water mark of existence. Has it ever occurred to you kids don't like school because it's boring and soul numbing?

Getting good grades isn't a mark of intelligence, it shows you have an ability to follow orders. Which is what these awesome "middle class" values really are, the willingness to eat shit. "Sit still, shut up, and do what you're told!"

I've met plenty of straight A students who couldn't tell you what they learned just last week and many of them have panic attacks when they get B's because "now they're going to be homeless".

My 16yo daughter is in an IB program and just got streaight As for her 1st semester in her Sophmore year. I wanted to buy her a Lotus Elise (--but she wanted a Jeep.)

No matter. Either way it just shows her how the world works.

[mikelepore]

There's an awful lot of correlation being asserted in the original post. Being poor, learning the wrong values at home, plus the other people in the given neighborhood also learn the wrong values at home, and on top of all that, genetic predisposition to be unintelligent. It's not clear how so much that could be correlated. Assuming the oversimplified case that has binary variables for poverty level, geographical location, taught values and genes - that's sixteen possible combinations.

[Drace]

This shit makes me mad because there isn't a easy way refute to refute it other than to look at reality.

Have you ever fucking walked outside your door?

[Outinleftfield]

The leftists refuse to comprehend that intelligence is primarily genetic,

Why is this argument so popular with reactionaries? It actually is a very good argument for communism. If intelligence is primarily genetic then that's even more of a reason to distribute wealth more evenly, because if it's primarily genetic then people can't help that they can't perform as well as others and shouldn't be penalized economically for that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you were to take the student population at the University of Chicago or MIT and put them in a housing project complex, it wouldn't be a bad place to live.And increased unemployment to 30% total and 50% for people in their teens and 20s. And if you offered people no realistic future beyond living paycheck to paycheck. And if police patrolled these communities like they patrol my neighborhood and regularly throw young people up against the wall for panhandling near the subway station. And if when the MIT kids go for job interviews they didn't have any family connections or extra-circular activities (they had none at their schools other than maybe the football and baseball team) and then in the interview had to hide their dialect and any stereotypical body language or clothing from the MIT ghetto. And make sure that the MIT kids parents and grandparents also struggled and lived paycheck to paycheck, and were restricted to certain parts of town and these parts of town and were therefore unable to develop any home equity and therefore good credit.

Then maybe there would be parody between a group of MIT students and poor people from ethic ghettos or rural towns or trailer parks.


Living in a poor neighborhood and living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't be such a bad thing, provided that you were living among people who had nice, middle-class values.This is how I live now and my neighbors are nice and decent people for the most part. My neighborhood is not what makes life hard, the system is; having no power or voice at work is; having a local, state, and national government that is indifferent at best but more often helping the rich at our expense is what makes life hard. Also it's hard knowing that unless things change radically having basic necessities will always be a precarious thing because if I loose my job, then unemployment wouldn't cover my rent.

Get outta here with your silly anachronistic arguments about middle class values... if only Scrooge knew the true meaning of Christmas, exploitation and misery would be history!

[RGacky3]

Not in the least. Because of our economic situation (my dad was a poor, uneducated (that meaning lack of formal education) immigrant that worked in a factory making sneakers all his life but he taught all four of his kids the value of hard work and guess what--we all got "lucky" and became successful. Imagine that.


Its not just luck, there are many material conditions invovled, where you grew up, where you had school, many many other things, if theres one good thing I can say about Marxism, its that they put this into socio-economics, you have to take things into historical and material context.


I'm not saying that there isn't a differentiation between the classes--I'm just saying that nobody is paying attention to it.

Really?? Ask your average American what he thinks about the big Bankers and big buisiness CEOs and their power. I'd say right now America is more class conscious than many parts of europe, the problem is they don't know how to fix it, because there arn't many options presented to them.