Financial Aid today won't deny anyone an education if they really want it. The wealth excuse for not getting an education just isn't a good one anymore, if you want an education you can get one.

 

I am talking about before college. If I could afford to send my kids to a private school I would. I think we all know that our private schools in this state offer a superior education than a majority of our public schools as well as better preparing you for college. And then you also have the issues of schools like Bryan Station and Dunbar. Even amongst public schools the level of education received may be greater at one than the other. I don't think that can be ignored when factoring in the quality of education received when comparing the top end and the lower end of the chart.

Another factor is opportunity and the opportunity to attain wealth is not the same for lower end of the chart as it is for the upper end. Factor in education and you tell me whose kids are getting a better education. Higher end or lower end?

You're confusing opportunity with horribly poor parenting. The opportunity is there for all, but when kids are not taught responsibility, hard work and the importance of taking advantage of the educational system it becomes nothing more than a continuous vicious cycle.

I am talking about before college. If I could afford to send my kids to a private school I would. I think we all know that our private schools in this state offer a superior education than a majority of our public schools as well as better preparing you for college. And then you also have the issues of schools like Bryan Station and Dunbar. Even amongst public schools the level of education received may be greater at one than the other. I don't think that can be ignored when factoring in the quality of education received when comparing the top end and the lower end of the chart.

 

I actually don't buy that argument. I mean honestly you can get a good education at any school if you pay attention and study on your own at night. My parents taught at one of the "bad" school systems in an impovershed area for years and many of their students went on to do great things. Many more did not, but the ones that had the drive and desire went on to do just fine in life and to compete against the best in great colleges and universities.

 

I spent a majority of my education in schools by the state's standards were behind, but then I went to college did well, scored in the 80 percentile on the LSAT, and was accepted to 7 different law schools. So I mean you can do well regardless of what school you go to before college if you put the effort out. The biggest part of that effort though comes from having parents who are involved and want you to do well.

I am talking about before college. If I could afford to send my kids to a private school I would. I think we all know that our private schools in this state offer a superior education than a majority of our public schools as well as better preparing you for college. And then you also have the issues of schools like Bryan Station and Dunbar. Even amongst public schools the level of education received may be greater at one than the other. I don't think that can be ignored when factoring in the quality of education received when comparing the top end and the lower end of the chart.

 

You're confusing opportunity with horribly poor parenting. The opportunity is there for all, but when kids are not taught responsibility, hard work and the importance of taking advantage of the educational system it becomes nothing more than a continuous vicious cycle.

 

I actually don't buy that argument. I mean honestly you can get a good education at any school if you pay attention and study on your own at night. My parents taught at one of the "bad" school systems in an impovershed area for years and many of their students went on to do great things. Many more did not, but the ones that had the drive and desire went on to do just fine in life and to compete against the best in great colleges and universities.

 

I spent a majority of my education in schools by the state's standards were behind, but then I went to college did well, scored in the 80 percentile on the LSAT, and was accepted to 7 different law schools. So I mean you can do well regardless of what school you go to before college if you put the effort out. The biggest part of that effort though comes from having parents who are involved and want you to do well.

Totally agree with RTS and HT. I would like to add that private schools don't offer a superior education. Their average scores are usually higher because they don't have the bottom group that brings down the average. I would guess that most public scores have kids that score just as high as the privates. The difference is if you are paying $6000 (of whatever the cost is) a year to send your kid to high school then you are probably more likely to stay involved and make sure they are getting everything out of it. There are far too many kids in public schools whose parents think it's 100% the schools job to educate their kid.

You're confusing opportunity with horribly poor parenting. The opportunity is there for all, but when kids are not taught responsibility, hard work and the importance of taking advantage of the educational system it becomes nothing more than a continuous vicious cycle.

 

So if that cycle is never broken at the lower end how can anyone expect there to never be a lower end? How can the lower end ever become smaller when obviously no one in the lower end has been taught about responsibility, hard work and the importance of taking advantage of the educational system? I think people take for granted or assume that all of the smart ones overcome all of the obstacles and maze of distractions to make it out of the lower end when the fact is that a lot of kids get swallowed by the low end through circumstances that are out of their control.

I actually don't buy that argument. I mean honestly you can get a good education at any school if you pay attention and study on your own at night. My parents taught at one of the "bad" school systems in an impovershed area for years and many of their students went on to do great things. Many more did not, but the ones that had the drive and desire went on to do just fine in life and to compete against the best in great colleges and universities.

 

I spent a majority of my education in schools by the state's standards were behind, but then I went to college did well, scored in the 80 percentile on the LSAT, and was accepted to 7 different law schools. So I mean you can do well regardless of what school you go to before college if you put the effort out. The biggest part of that effort though comes from having parents who are involved and want you to do well.

 

There are always the precious few who make it from the "bad" schools but each school has its own culture and if the culture of that school is sending kids to college more kids will make it to college. If the culture is kids dropping out then more kids will drop out. I think the numbers would support that thought.

Totally agree with RTS and HT. I would like to add that private schools don't offer a superior education. Their average scores are usually higher because they don't have the bottom group that brings down the average. I would guess that most public scores have kids that score just as high as the privates. The difference is if you are paying $6000 (of whatever the cost is) a year to send your kid to high school then you are probably more likely to stay involved and make sure they are getting everything out of it. There are far too many kids in public schools whose parents think it's 100% the schools job to educate their kid.

 

 

One of the main things we hear on BGP in public vs private debates is how parents send their kids to private schools for a better education. Now you are saying the education received at a private school is the same as a public school? I have gone to both and I honestly believe a child would get a better education at a private school but that is just my opinion.

I don't really care one way or another, but this thread is case & point why I think Jesus would probably choose a form of socialism.

 

Jesus didn't have to worry about paying for it.

Jesus didn't have to worry about paying for it.

 

I don't think Jesus would worry or complain about paying for it either.

What does personal responsibility have to do with income?

 

Why don't you ask our government. They seem to be a perfect example.

Do I need to post the Stephen Colbert sermon again. One of the most powerful I have seen. A Christian's Personal Responsibility is to take care of the poor.

 

I'm pretty sure we help out the poor. Yes we struggle in some areas and peoples political differences get in the way of us differentiating between helping those in need and enabling laziness/lack of motivation. We are the most generous and charitable nation and capitalism gave us the opportunity to be so.

Why don't you ask our government. They seem to be a perfect example.

 

I might since I've asked in this thread and no one can answer. You can be the most fiscally responsible person in the world, no debt, live in modest, save, clip coupons and still live at or below the poverty line. You can do all of those things and be middle class, personal responsibility has nothing to do with income.

I might since I've asked in this thread and no one can answer. You can be the most fiscally responsible person in the world, no debt, live in modest, save, clip coupons and still live at or below the poverty line. You can do all of those things and be middle class, personal responsibility has nothing to do with income.

 

I think you are the one making this connection. People-from my perspective- were talking about the relationship with being financially responsible with personal responsibility.

 

I mean most Christian principals stress personal responsibility in everything you do and finances are a place a lot of people struggle with personal responsibility

was the quote that I think got us started on this.

 

interesting read BTW http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39416868/

I might since I've asked in this thread and no one can answer. You can be the most fiscally responsible person in the world, no debt, live in modest, save, clip coupons and still live at or below the poverty line. You can do all of those things and be middle class, personal responsibility has nothing to do with income.

 

That is an excellent point.

Poverty causes learning barriers. It is that simply. Not rural poor like most of us experienced, hard poverty. I am telling you guys I live it everyday. And the students I have in my school, while they went to the same schools as my son DO NOT have the same opportunity at learning. Some MAY still make it, and make their lives much better. Others will not, and it will not be entirely their fault - it will not even be mostly their fault. It will be our culture, socio-economic condition, family life - all of those things. But the odds are certainly stacked against them.