Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 274 posts

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#171

Post by seneca »

silicon2401 wrote: post #129
darthvoldemort wrote: post #119

The inconvenient truth about NYC G&T program is that it is 40% Asian. Asians have dominated the G&T program, even "stealing" spots from white kids where 43% of NYC is white, but only 35% of spots taken by white kids. And Asians are dominating the NYC G&T program NOT because of hundreds of years of systemic racism, NOT because Asians wrote the admissions tests an inbueing cultural bias, and NOT by cheating or bribing…

> in NYC, Asians are the poorest demographic by a large margin. Do you have evidence for this? Asians are by far the richest minority in the US so I was surprised by this statement. > Activists have no problems openly discriminating against Asians because whites, blacks and Latinos think of "Americans" as whites, blacks and Latinos. Asians are considered foreigners. So when a prestigious program is dominated by Asian…

> Diversity means increasing representation. In a situation with limited resources, increasing representation for all means decreasing representation for some. This is the natural conclusion to pushing for equality/representation.

This is the natural result of equality of outcomes, which is achieved by dragging down the top to meet those who can't excel. That is not at all what most people mean by equality, and is frankly a perversion of the word.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#172

Post by InitialLastName »

padastra wrote: post #147
InitialLastName wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities. Strangely enough, there were also a very limited number of G&T programs, including none in many of the poorer areas of the city, so if you lived in, say, the…

There are numerous sources in this thread that show that the Asian group, highly selected for here, are predominantly poor. Just parroting a talking point without looking at the data is as idiotic as what we all accuse Trump supporters of.

To counter evidence with evidence, the "Asian" group is very heterogeneous, and more bimodal with respect to wealth than other groups[0][1]. Has anyone presented any data that I missed on which side of that divide the Asian G&T students in NYC schools are being drawn from?

[0]https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-...

[1]https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-grow...

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#173

Post by notwedtm »

darthvoldemort wrote: post #154
notwedtm wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This links to https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/20_poverty_measu... as the original source. On page 28 of this file, you get to the actual statistics. While Asian poverty is certainly high, it is about the same as other minorities, and has been decreasing since 2014.

No, the report says that Asians poverty is underreported in the data. EDIT: I think that the report shows that Hispanics in 2020 have a higher percentage of poverty than Asians, but it seems like a lot of the articles showing Asians had the highest poverty rates came from before 2017. It looks like in the last 5 years prior to 2020, Asians had improved the poverty rates. Regardless even in 2020, Asian poverty in NYC…

I don't know enough about the situation to speak any further on it, I was just as curious about your statement " in NYC, Asians are the poorest demographic by a large margin." as silicon2401 was.

It's a dire situation for sure, but I think using "large margin" is disingenuous.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#174

Post by motohagiography »

kharak wrote: post #155
motohagiography wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leadership and management are like riding a bike in that you can teach children to do it, but if you never learned, it's likely you never will. Management training programs for regular teenagers are common in the fast food industry, and it's a differentiating life skill. I think giving that to exceptional 8-12yr olds is more valuable than exploring their creativity in an isolated class away from their peers. Few peop…

This is quite interesting to me. How would you train children for leadership? And are there any successful training methods for adults? In the military, perhaps?

A two or three standard deviation intelligence kid can likely understand and benefit from the leadership training that someone 5-8 years older than they are gets. Camp counsellor training, mcdonalds restaurant management training, sports coach and instructor training, military cadet officer training, all programs designed for mean level intelligence people. You just need to give younger smarter kids access to them, and much earlier.

Even just instead of merely teaching kids how to do something, teach them how to teach it while they are learning it. Like, "To do this interesting thing, we need to solve these problems to get there. Here's how to ski, or divide large numbers, we're going to space out the repetitions so your brain will become hungry for it, and when you are showing other people, you can use this method to help them understand faster. Smooth is fast, lazy is clever, etc."

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#175

Post by seneca »

darthvoldemort wrote: post #119

The inconvenient truth about NYC G&T program is that it is 40% Asian. Asians have dominated the G&T program, even "stealing" spots from white kids where 43% of NYC is white, but only 35% of spots taken by white kids. And Asians are dominating the NYC G&T program NOT because of hundreds of years of systemic racism, NOT because Asians wrote the admissions tests an inbueing cultural bias, and NOT by cheating or bribing…

> Activists have no problems openly discriminating against Asians because whites, blacks and Latinos think of "Americans" as whites, blacks and Latinos. Asians are considered foreigners.

I don't think this is true. Asians are being punished because they're successful, and their existence bucks the narrative the blank-slate activists want to push.

Sure, as a group they're being punished, but it's not because anyone sees them as exceptionally foreign. It's just because the top has to be brought down in order to achieve equality of outcomes and the fanatics pushing these things don't care who they harm to achieve their goals.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#176

Post by _hilro »

geofft wrote: post #109
_hilro wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a school system or program doesn't have enough black kids in it, it is by definition segregated. No, it is literally not "by definition" segregated. Using the phrase 'by definition' is not that powerful a modifier that every word that surrounds it suddenly becomes true. That's the most nonsense thing ever. Secondly, read the line I quoted: > highly selective and racially segregated program The program is not rac…

I grew up in a school district in the deep south that was racially segregated, as found by the court system, until a month before I graduated. This was in 2006. Not last century. The school district didn't, of course, test people by race or have a Colored Students High School or whatever. What they did was to put schools and school zones in ways that happened to line up with strong demographic differences in swaths o…

Eh, from your own words:

> What they did was to put schools and school zones in ways that happened to line up with strong demographic differences in swaths of the city.

Using geographic lines which correspond with race to determine entry to a school for which geographic location isn't a determining factor in success is racial segregation.

Giving the same standardised test and using the result of that test to gain access to a gifted and talented program is not.

from a linked ny articles in the OP article:

> On the exam, they are asked to finish patterns: For example, if children are shown a triangle, a square and a triangle in sequence, they are asked to name what shape comes next. They are also asked to solve simple arithmetic problems and define words.

I dont have the full test but any of the test parts I've seen do not in any way disadvantage native English speaking African-Americans.

This is devolving into California's "maths is racist" because black kids in California don't score as well as non black kids.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#177

Post by _hilro »

endisneigh wrote: post #98
_hilro wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> word such as segregation, which has connotations of 'by design' My entire comment does not rest on a false premise. 1) My comment commented on the use of the word segregation and it's implications. * and 2) the fact that the program is not racially segregated using any dictionary definition of the word. > Segregation is defined by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as "the act by which a (natura…

Webster, Dictionary.com, Oxford and others define segregation as: > separated or divided along racial, sexual, or religious lines. Perhaps the NYC editor was using that definition. If you use any of those definitions, then yes your comment is objectively incorrect.

For the program to be racially segregated using your above definition(ignoring common usage), then the program itself would have to have separated the races in the program.

The NYTimes article isn't an 8 year old writing their first newspaper article using the dictionary to form sentences.

Their usage of the word is inflammatory and incorrect on multiple levels including your definition.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#178

Post by Zababa »

bitwize wrote: post #167
Zababa wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll preface this by saying that I don't live in the USA, so some of these things are a bit alien to me. I'm sorry if the way I word things here is not the best, the goal here is not to attack or even label something as good or bad, but only understanding. > This movement has moved away from labeling racist a policy that was implemented with racist intent (like segregated schools during Jim Crow) towards labeling rac…

The thing about racism is, a system can be racist without being explicitly so. Even without Jim Crow laws and segregation, even assuming everyone is perfectly colorblind, the historical context where there were slavery and Jim Crow laws for hundreds of years means that whites wield considerably greater social capital than blacks, and that means they have a significant social advantage. The amelioration for this is eq…

Thank you for the clear and honest answer, that's what I was looking for.

> Even without Jim Crow laws and segregation, even assuming everyone is perfectly colorblind, the historical context where there were slavery and Jim Crow laws for hundreds of years means that whites wield considerably greater social capital than blacks, and that means they have a significant social advantage.

How do you reconcile this view with the fact that asians were also discriminated against, but now do better than whites? The way you described it, there is a perverse incentive for people at the bottom to stay at the bottom. Is that considered a problem? That perverse incentive might trap them even more at the bottom, is that being considered? Are those views, in a way, close to universal income? As in, the idea is that you raise the absolute bottom at which you can fall in society? Some kind of glass floor, as opposed to the glass ceiling?

Again, no judgement on those views or any others. I'm thankful for your straightforwardness.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#179

Post by _hilro »

InitialLastName wrote: post #127
0xB31B1B wrote: post #18

I am generally quite liberal but I strongly disagree with he current strain of progressive education reform. There are inherent differences within the capabilities of students, we can detect these early, and we should use them to provide students with appropriate challenges. Our education system should provide avenues for top students to excel, ad hopefully these top students become the people who create businesses o…

The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities. Strangely enough, there were also a very limited number of G&T programs, including none in many of the poorer areas of the city, so if you lived in, say, the…

> The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities.

Spoken so authoritatively that I'm sure you have a source?

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#180

Post by [deleted] »

darthvoldemort wrote: post #159
superflit2 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real thing about the asians is: There is a whole narrative that people are equal and have same capabilities. Anyone can be a sport start if trains enough or a super scientist if study enough. Then looking at statistics it is not true. The same people with cognitive dissonance claim that because social factors, etc. Usually whites get a better treatment thus because and only because of that they have better repres…

Asians are not genetically more intelligent than other races. If this were the case, Asia would be more of a powerhouse than just the "factory workers of the world". Only a small amount of innovation is coming out of Asia compared to the US. Asians in the US are more motivated to study, it's the culture. It doesn't take a lot of dedication to studying to get a major advantage over those that don't study as hard.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN