https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.f7bc8fb6c2e3

Would it kill you to put even the tiniest bit of effort into your threads? Not sure if just lazy or astoundingly presumptuous.

Who would win in a smug-off: George Will or Skalansky?

An article from The Atlantic you may like.
Or not. I dunno, I picked it at random from their homepage, haven't read it and certainly am not going to try to summarise it for you.

Of course he's lazy. I doubt he did more than skim the article.

This is a terrible post. DUCY?

Hi Nichlemn!

Like we get that summarizing a link or providing a few of your own thoughts is far above what your OPs get to, but couldn't you at least provide a useful thread title?

The article takes a simple concept and manages to make it absurdly ponderous yet trite. I think this is because Will is advocating affirmative action and wants to dress it up in enough $.50 words else the cool conservative kids will give him a wedgee.

He ignores how class affects all of this. It isn't just an access issue, and it isn't a question of resources. It is a lot easier to understand and communicate in "standard" English when that is your native dialect, rather than the dialect I used as West Virginia mill trash. The SATs and such require the use of the standard dialect, which for me and some others is about 1/3 of the way to being a foreign language. So I get a perfect score on the math but just ok on the wordy part so I'm borderline elite material rather than full on awesome.

Then once Will does me the solid of getting me into a really nice school with the "nuanced" admission process, it isn't like it disappears. There are a whole slew of issues I could drone on about how this makes ascending to the station in life that Will would have me reach difficult, but feh.

Will's article demonstrates that he is 40-50 years late in understanding the basic premises of affirmative action.

This OP is a bannable offense

That article seems like good fodder for a Chapo reading series episode.

I almost skipped this because the OP was so vague.

The idea that scoring higher on the SATs is some irrefutable sign of higher merit needs to die.

David,

You need to work on your clickbait headlines. Something like 'Suprising! George Will article on a controversial topic that even liberals will agree with. (especially paragraph 4 if you were born in the 80s)'

An article from My Edmonds News you might like:

http://myedmondsnews.com/2018/01/edm...ups-moms-dads/

Pretty pointless article unless you've never taken the first couple weeks of a Sociology 101 course.

Except that he was talking about a group that includes people that are not presently eligible for affirmative action. But there is nothing revolutionary about what he is saying. Phone Booth and others have expressed similar viewpoints on this site. More noteworthy, I thought, was that the views were being expressed by George Will and the possible implications of that fact.

If you search Google for "George Will on affirmative action," you'll get mostly links to articles which spout boilerplate conservative talking points regarding the practice. I wonder what caused his change of heart?

blockchain

Clicked thread because I thought it was about Alcoholics Anonymous. Now I need a drink.

I get a paywall. Cliffs, plz.

NM, found it on Drudge.

It's better than the current alternative.

I totally get how much it sucks that poor kids from poor schools are casualties in this fight but the biggest opponent of standardized testing is and has always been rich dumb kids and their rich dumb parents. There's only so much private tutoring you can buy.

My university does something interesting. High school grades are considered, as a part of a cluster that includes SAT, however traditionally local area high schools were ranked as it was well known some high schools inflated high school grades despite low SAT. The new policy is that if you are in the top 10% of a high school, regardless of SAT, you can get in. For instance, a low ranked inner school that doesn't emphasize SAT and whose students do poorly on SAT can still go to university if you are in the top 10% of that school. This was modeled I believe after a big similar program in texas, but to new for local statics to be measured such as their success in programs.

Like, there was a slew of articles like the below a few years back,

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ivy-le...ss-the-new-ged

when the GED was revamped but here's the thing: that wasn't the news. The same headline could apply in 2002, the previous revamping of the GED. 40% of HS graduates couldn't pass that test so this new one must be brutal (I've never looked at it).