<p>
</p>
<p>Different in what way? By racial classification? I was one of two Asians in my graduating class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I support tracking, but I oppose tracking by racial classification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A school that has never produced a student who was Duke TIP recognized or became an NMSF. A school where the URMs are 80% of the population. You went to an average school, above average the year you graduated (2 nmsf in a class of 320). The distance between an average school and the school he attended is the distance between Exeter and your school. Do you remember your Duke TIP or equivalent score?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You dispute that those programs targeted blacks the most?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason they affected blacks the most is because blacks were already at the bottom.</p>
<p>Earlier, you said “NMSF represent between 0.5% to 1% of a class on average.” 2/320 is .625%, which still lies in your average range. So in my year, we were average by your metric, and in prior years, we were often below average.</p>
<p>I do remember my Duke TIP score from 7th grade. I don’t see the point in telling you since (1) it was 10 years ago, and (2) you seem to believe your assumptions about me are right, notwithstanding your 0/7 record.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So in light of the history of these programs, why don’t we just follow Frederick Douglass’s suggestion of leaving blacks alone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would really depend on the state you were in and you would know best. NMSC claims to recognize the top 0.5% of graduates in any state. In any case, you were in a system that produced nmsfs and you were associating with someone who made nmsf too. It is a very different situation attending an 80% minority school in a district neighboring a wealthy white community that has constructed an invisible walls to prevent you from transferring in. It is very different when you attend a school that produces nobody recongnized by Duke TIPs or an NMSF.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do we give money to charity? Why did we spend government money to clean up the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy? Why did we fight a war over the Southern way of life in the first place?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuming you mean 110 points per section, one (per section).</p>
<p>Also, you dodged my question, there.</p>
<p>If not slavery/racism, then what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you should know if you were recognized or not</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many reasons. It may be part of one’s religious tradition to do so. For atheists, it may stem from a desire to VOLUNTARILY help others.</p></li>
<li><p>According to the Heritage Foundation, natural disasters have been “nationalized” over the past two decades.</p></li>
<li><p>President Lincoln wished to preserve the Union.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t dodge anything. I gave you Madaboutx’s answer and I even bolded the portion I thought most relevant: the federal government.</p>
<p>But that’s false. I already explained why. And all you did was respond “then why not get rid of government programs.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remember the outcome. But again, (1) that was ten years ago, and (2) you seem to enjoy assuming things about me, so why should I stop your fun?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you didn’t. Your “explanation” fails to tell me why the black poverty rate fell from 87% to 47% from 1940 to 1960.</p>
<p>Maybe I should repeat myself.</p>
<p>You say government programs explain why Blacks’ academics generally suck. However, those government programs are not “black person” government programs, like, say, initiatives to integrate schools were. They were poverty-aimed government programs.</p>
<p>So blacks were at the bottom of society before government programs did anything. That means government programs are not the cause. What put people in the same group that government programs supposedly negatively affected are what did.</p>
<p>And that was slavery/racism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought we were talking about the reason blacks are still down and out.</p>
<p>From 1940 to 1960, we had a war, and a postwar boom. Every group was doing well during that time. Many more working class jobs. African Americans were, for the first time, able to go to college thanks to the GI Bill.</p>
<p>Things got worse as the proportion of well-paying jobs available requiring no college degree began to drop, leaving a still traditionally poor and undereducated ethnic group screwed over. Attention by politicians to the state of Black America began to taper off as the grouo became less politically active and less attentive to issues of interest to them (even now, they overwhelmingly support a President who things for them has gotten worse under), time went by and fact-ignoring cries that the effects of racism “have ended” obtained more mass credence.</p>
<p>Or something like that. The fact of the matter is that the relative welfare of blacks changes with income inequality. Which sucks right now in america but much better during the 40s-60s due to progressive taxation.</p>
<p>If that’s your answer, first, thanks for summarizing it. Second, we’re back to my question from before: why is it that on several outcomes, blacks far worse than they did 100 years ago, even though we have moved further and further away from slavery and Jim Crow?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>400 -2 600 -1 800 -u 1000 +u 1200 +1 1400 +2 1600</p>
<p>The most you can move is 5 std d, from less than 600 to above 1400</p>
<p>4 from below 800, 3 from below 1000, 2 from below 1200, 1 from below 1400. to above 1400</p>
<p>[Standard</a> deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation]Standard”>Standard deviation - Wikipedia)</p>