NationStates Jolt Archive

Themselves. And their parents.

Link (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-05-21/news/rich-black-flunking/1)
The black parents wanted an explanation. Doctors, lawyers, judges, and insurance brokers, many had come to the upscale Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights specifically because of its stellar school district. They expected their children to succeed academically, but most were performing poorly. African-American students were lagging far behind their white classmates in every measure of academic success: grade-point average, standardized test scores, and enrollment in advanced-placement courses. On average, black students earned a 1.9 GPA while their white counterparts held down an average of 3.45. Other indicators were equally dismal. It made no sense.

When these depressing statistics were published in a high school newspaper in mid-1997, black parents were troubled by the news and upset that the newspaper had exposed the problem in such a public way. Seeking guidance, one parent called a prominent authority on minority academic achievement.

UC Berkeley Anthropology Professor John Ogbu had spent decades studying how the members of different ethnic groups perform academically. He'd studied student coping strategies at inner-city schools in Washington, DC. He'd looked at African Americans and Latinos in Oakland and Stockton and examined how they compare to racial and ethnic minorities in India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and Britain. His research often focused on why some groups are more successful than others.

But Ogbu couldn't help his caller. He explained that he was a researcher -- not an educator -- and that he had no ideas about how to increase the academic performance of students in a district he hadn't yet studied. A few weeks later, he got his chance. A group of parents hungry for solutions convinced the school district to join with them and formally invite the black anthropologist to visit Shaker Heights. Their discussions prompted Ogbu to propose a research project to figure out just what was happening. The district agreed to finance the study, and parents offered him unlimited access to their children and their homes.

The professor and his research assistant moved to Shaker Heights for nine months in mid-1997. They reviewed data and test scores. The team observed 110 different classes, from kindergarten all the way through high school. They conducted exhaustive interviews with school personnel, black parents, and students. Their project yielded an unexpected conclusion: It wasn't socioeconomics, school funding, or racism, that accounted for the students' poor academic performance; it was their own attitudes, and those of their parents.

Ogbu concluded that the average black student in Shaker Heights put little effort into schoolwork and was part of a peer culture that looked down on academic success as "acting white." Although he noted that other factors also play a role, and doesn't deny that there may be antiblack sentiment in the district, he concluded that discrimination alone could not explain the gap.

"The black parents feel it is their role to move to Shaker Heights, pay the higher taxes so their kids could graduate from Shaker, and that's where their role stops," Ogbu says during an interview at his home in the Oakland hills. "They believe the school system should take care of the rest. They didn't supervise their children that much. They didn't make sure their children did their homework. That's not how other ethnic groups think."

It took the soft-spoken 63-year-old Nigerian immigrant several years to complete his book, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement, which he wrote with assistance from his research aide Astrid Davis. Before publication, he gave parents and school officials one year to respond to his research, but no parents ever did. Then Ogbu met with district officials and parents to discuss the book, which was finally published in January.

The gatherings were cordial, but it was clear that his conclusions made some people quite uncomfortable. African-American parents worried that Ogbu's work would further reinforce the stereotype that blacks are intellectually inadequate and lazy. School district officials, meanwhile, were concerned that it would look as if they were blaming black parents and students for their own academic failures.

But in the weeks following the meetings, it became apparent that the person with the greatest cause for worry may have been Ogbu himself. Soon after he left Ohio and returned to California, a black parent from Shaker Heights went on TV and called him an "academic Clarence Thomas." The National Urban League condemned him and his work in a press release that scoffed, "The League holds that it is useless to waste time and energy with those who blame the victims of racism." The criticism eventually made it all the way to The New York Times, where an article published prior to the publication of Ogbu's book quoted or referred to four separate academics who quarreled with his premise. It quoted a Shaker Heights school official who took issue with the professor's conclusions, and cited work by the Minority Student Achievement Network that suggested black students care as much about school as white and Asian students. In fact, the reporter failed to locate a single person in Shaker Heights or anywhere else with anything good to say about the book.

Other scholars have since come forward to take a few more swipes at the professor's premise. "Ogbu is just flat-out wrong about the attitudes about learning by African Americans," explains Asa Hilliard, an education professor at Georgia State University and one of the authors of Young, Gifted, and Black: Promoting High Achievement Among African-American Students. "Education is a very high value in the African-American community and in the African community. The fundamental problem is Dr. Ogbu is unfamiliar with the fact that there are thousands of African-American students who succeed. It doesn't matter whether the students are in Shaker Heights or an inner city. The achievement depends on what expectations the teacher has of the students." Hilliard, who is black, believes Shaker Heights teachers must not expect enough from their black students.

What a surprise, the community doesn't get the answer it wanted (i.e. White Man's fault) and so resorts to attacking the researcher. It's a distrubing trend that current pop culture denotes learning as something "white people do" and therefore should be avoided.

Themselves. And their parents.

Link (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-05-21/news/rich-black-flunking/1)


What a surprise, the community doesn't get the answer it wanted (i.e. White Man's fault) and so resorts to attacking the researcher. It's a distrubing trend that current pop culture denotes learning as something "white people do" and therefore should be avoided.

The community aren't the only ones criticising the researchers outcome

Themselves. And their parents.

Link (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-05-21/news/rich-black-flunking/1)


What a surprise, the community doesn't get the answer it wanted (i.e. White Man's fault) and so resorts to attacking the researcher. It's a distrubing trend that current pop culture denotes learning as something "white people do" and therefore should be avoided.
Man.... you are about to be eaten alive.

The community aren't the only ones criticising the researchers outcome
Which still doesn't make it not the correct outcome. The black community tends to close in upon itself to attack any one who asserts that any black community could be less than the hardest working and most caring people on the planet who are vested in their and their children's education.

Which still doesn't make it not the correct outcome. The black community tends to close in upon itself to attack any one who asserts that any black community could be less than the hardest working and most caring people on the planet who are vested in their and their children's education.

Yes so my point is that we can't take these results as perfectly true when they're being debated by other scholars

Yes so my point is that we can't take these results as perfectly true when they're being debated by other scholars
Other scholars can debate whatever they want, without a directly conflicting study of the same area, it's pretty irrelevant what they complain about.

I think a similar study, focussing on students of all ethnicities who have come from a lower class background than the one they are now in, is warranted.

Think about it. You used to live in X. Your parents came into some money and moved to Y, and sent you to Y High School. You're less than pleased with the move, and miss your old friends back in X. You begin to resent your parents and the people of Y in general. You rebel against them. They want you to do good in school, you show up in school with no intention of doing jackshit except acting as "X" as possible.

I'm far from a sociologist, but it doesn't seem impossible to me.

*awaits people pointing out that it is, in fact, impossible*

This is my theory:

It's not a black culture problem, it's a "poor culture" problem, because from what i've seen, you have less incentive to learn if you're poor whether you are black or white. Now considering that a large majority of urban black families are, well, poor, they are just merely doing the same as poor white folk. It's unfashionable to do well academically because it's something that middle class people do (i.e. white people). So what do you think about that theory?

This is my theory:

It's not a black culture problem, it's a "poor culture" problem, because from what i've seen, you have less incentive to learn if you're poor whether you are black or white. Now considering that a large majority of urban black families are, well, poor, they are just merely doing the same as poor white folk. It's unfashionable to do well academically because it's something that middle class people do (i.e. white people). So what do you think about that theory?

That, and wealthier neighborhoods have wealthier schools, so long as they're paid for by property taxes. I think we're at the point where the word "voucher" is a curse word, especially to democrats here in the U.S. - but it's not without some common sense. ;)

This is my theory:

It's not a black culture problem, it's a "poor culture" problem, because from what i've seen, you have less incentive to learn if you're poor whether you are black or white. Now considering that a large majority of urban black families are, well, poor, they are just merely doing the same as poor white folk. It's unfashionable to do well academically because it's something that middle class people do (i.e. white people). So what do you think about that theory?

I like that more than "Black people are inherently lazy". It has the benefits of being similar to what I said, and robbing the racists of something to be right about.

Yes so my point is that we can't take these results as perfectly true when they're being debated by other scholars

True enough-
It quoted a Shaker Heights school official who took issue with the professor's conclusions, and cited work by the Minority Student Achievement Network that suggested black students care as much about school as white and Asian students.

"Education is a very high value in the African-American community and in the African community. The fundamental problem is Dr. Ogbu is unfamiliar with the fact that there are thousands of African-American students who succeed. It doesn't matter whether the students are in Shaker Heights or an inner city. The achievement depends on what expectations the teacher has of the students."-Asa Hillard

It's easier to blame some sort of hegemonic idea that is permiated throughout a race than relatively obvious institutional elements. It relieves anyone of doing anything.

FELLOW CRACKERS-Get over yourselves. Instances of institutional racism or inequality does not put a whip in your hand and a slave in your plantation. It's just acknowledging a structure that existed before you where born and still affects people to this day. And yes it was set up by people who look like you and while you didn't purposefully exploit it it did give you a statistical advantage. ALL that is being asked is that it be corrected so that we all have the same advantages. Stop looking at these things like you're being personally accused of Jim Crow. It's just fucking sad.

Other scholars can debate whatever they want, without a directly conflicting study of the same area, it's pretty irrelevant what they complain about.

Except-
cited work by the Minority Student Achievement Network that suggested black students care as much about school as white and Asian students.

This is my theory:

It's not a black culture problem, it's a "poor culture" problem, because from what i've seen, you have less incentive to learn if you're poor whether you are black or white. Now considering that a large majority of urban black families are, well, poor, they are just merely doing the same as poor white folk. It's unfashionable to do well academically because it's something that middle class people do (i.e. white people). So what do you think about that theory?

I would like to see the exact study this guy did, because it says in the article the he did not attribute the problem to socioeconomics (which is what you are doing). I can not discount his entire study without seeing it, but it's interesting how many people here can.

I would like to see the exact study this guy did, because it says in the article the he did not attribute the problem to socioeconomics (which is what you are doing). I can not discount his entire study without seeing it, but it's interesting how many people here can.

I don't discount it but I would question it and not give it the same kind of certainty the OP seems to.

I don't discount it but I would question it and not give it the same kind of certainty the OP seems to.

Indeed. One sociological study certainly doesn't "prove" anything.

I would like to see the exact study this guy did, because it says in the article the he did not attribute the problem to socioeconomics (which is what you are doing). I can not discount his entire study without seeing it, but it's interesting how many people here can.

According to the article, it was basically an ethnographic study where he interviewed the students and parents for their own attitudes about the problem and added his own observations. Same methodology for studying culture used by many anthropologists, so it has a few of the same flaws. He doesn't interview the white students or families, he doesn't rely on examinations of other factors besides what he can see from interacting with his subjects. As such, these reasons for poor performance could be primary causes of bad grades or secondary effects of much more serious problems, like socio-economic difficulties. As such, the reasons the researcher gives for the poor grades may not be unique to the black students and limited by his methodology.

I would like to see the exact study this guy did, because it says in the article the he did not attribute the problem to socioeconomics (which is what you are doing). I can not discount his entire study without seeing it, but it's interesting how many people here can.

Perhaps poorer white folks find it easier to integrate with the richer white kids thus making it seem less nerdier to do well. But it's all just speculation.

Except-

What work? Passing references arn't going to cut it.

Take a look at why asians, particularly children of refugees, excel on these same measures. I bet the differences between asian and black would be the most stark and more easily interpreted.

Indeed. One sociological study certainly doesn't "prove" anything.

true. I have seen people grab hold of one survey (of which they haven't even seen the question asked) and hold it as "ultimate truth" before. Some of the same people in this thread who entirely throw out this study, without seeing it. I wonder how 'rational' that is.

Perhaps poorer white folks find it easier to integrate with the richer white kids thus making it seem less nerdier to do well. But it's all just speculation.

I got the feeling from the article that these were middle class to upper middle class kids.

The researcher here is living proof that when paid to do a study, you should ask which conclusion you're supposed to reach before publishing results.

The criticism eventually made it all the way to The New York Times, where an article published prior to the publication of Ogbu's book quoted or referred to four separate academics who quarreled with his premise. It quoted a Shaker Heights school official who took issue with the professor's conclusions, and cited work by the Minority Student Achievement Network that suggested black students care as much about school as white and Asian students. In fact, the reporter failed to locate a single person in Shaker Heights or anywhere else with anything good to say about the book.Okay, I guess it's possible that reporter was biased and refused to locate a single academic to support the book.

Out of curiosity, can you?

Other scholars have since come forward to take a few more swipes at the professor's premise.Same question. Your own article only mentions other academics who have criticized the work. Judging by the language the author of the article supports the work--why couldn't she find anyone else to back it up?

This is science. One study rarely proves anything, especially when it comes under heavy criticism with little to no support from the academic community.

I'm not saying I'm unwilling to believe that the students at this particular school district do poorly at least partially (perhaps largely) as a result of cultural factors. It is, however, a little hard to buy on this evidence alone; and I would argue, moreover, that one needs also to look at the causal factors resulting in such a culture. "Culture" is not an explanation for anything, because "culture" does not come out of nowhere.

true. I have seen people grab hold of one survey (of which they haven't even seen the question asked) and hold it as "ultimate truth" before. Some of the same people in this thread who entirely throw out this study, without seeing it. I wonder how 'rational' that is.
Indeed. As I understand it, it's an argument occasionally employed by creationists. People blindly accepting what someone with a doctorate tells them.

Though more often than not it's simply people employing a confirmation bias. If a study comes out that agrees with you, then it's right. And vice versa.

Interestingly, if you look at the full body of John Ogbu's work, you will find that he agrees with my argument: "culture" is not an explanation, but rather something that needs to be explained. He argues, in fact, that minorities develop an "oppositional" mentality toward the dominant culture as a way to cope with racism and ethnic prejudice.

While I have not read his book on this particular study, based on what he says elsewhere I suspect that his argument may go something like this: relatively wealthy blacks move into a wealthy neighborhood so their children can go to a better school. But their children are... well, children. They don't "fit in" with the white kids, who probably don't make it easy for them. If there are any poorer, local blacks--in that neighborhood or nearby--they are not likely to "fit in" with them either unless they make some show of rejecting the relatively privileged lifestyle their parents have provided for them. The "solution" for them (not a very great one, but again--we're talking about children here), on a cultural and psychological level, is to reject the "white" ethics of an education.

Now, are they to blame? Well, it wouldn't hurt them to really devote themselves to learning, whatever the social costs to their community; and it wouldn't hurt the community to take a more active role in opposing the "education = white" mentality... but can we look at the situation absent the context of racism? I think not.

Given that Professor Ogbu was a well respected anthropologist overall, I suspect that his methods were not inherently flawed. I suspect that the reaction against this book is, in fact, a reaction against conclusions which read the wrong way appear to indict the victims of racism. And I suspect that his critics should be more careful in their analysis.

Then again, I also suspect that the article posted to this thread was rather skewed in its analysis.

But, it's hard to draw strong conclusions, since I would have to read the book. And I already have too much on my plate. Suffice it to say that, as a social scientist myself, I am rather confident in my conclusion that the article posted here does not shed a very illuminating light on the issue.

Having a piss poor attitude about school results in bad grades!?!? Well else have you figured out Sherlock?

Other scholars can debate whatever they want, without a directly conflicting study of the same area, it's pretty irrelevant what they complain about.This only demonstrates how little you know about social science.

In social science, studies of a specific area are ALMOST NEVER replicated. This is, to a certain extent, a shortcoming: replication is an ideal method for testing the results of research. But, there are several reasons that studies are not replicated:

1) Unless you are using an experimental design, replication in a strong sense is literally impossible: you are dealing with human beings who know the results of earlier research, and that knowledge is going to affect their behavior around future researchers, their answers to questions, even their willingness to participate in research. Indeed, whether they care about the results or not, they are not likely to continually allow people to invade their homes and their classrooms in the name of perfect research.

2) This kind of research is extremely expensive, and replicated research is not nearly as glamorous as testing fresh, new ideas. It's simply hard to get funding to repeat a study that someone else has already done.

3) As long as the original researcher was reasonably careful in his data collection, there is rarely a pressing need to collect the data over again: we can "replicate" his study by reanalyzing his original raw data. When replication does happen in the social sciences, this is almost always how it's done.

4) Finally, we generally don't care quite as much about the results for a specific small area as we do about results that are fairly well generalizable: we want to know what causes black students to perform poorly in general so that we can devise systemic solutions to the problem. While this particular school district obviously cares very deeply about its own problems, researchers want to know whether those problems persist elsewhere. Thus, the second kind of "replication" that we do is to find a similar school similarly situated (well-off minorities moving to a good school district) to find out of the problem crops up there as well, and why.

Most importantly, you demonstrate your ignorance in that you fail to understand that scientists very well can legitimately criticize the results of a study without any replication at all: science is built on something called the "scientific method," and criticism of methodology amounts to a valid criticism of results.

But to restate my earlier point, I'm not so sure Professor Ogden was wrong as that he has been radically misunderstood. Based on what I can find of his other work, he seems to argue that oppositional minority cultures (including an oppositional culture that rejects education as "acting white") are a response to racism.

Themselves. And their parents.

Link (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-05-21/news/rich-black-flunking/1)


What a surprise, the community doesn't get the answer it wanted (i.e. White Man's fault) and so resorts to attacking the researcher. It's a distrubing trend that current pop culture denotes learning as something "white people do" and therefore should be avoided.

i think it goes a bit deeper...like abject poverty,no parental involvement...etc.

if you want to turn this into an us vs. them thing,i am afraid you have no leg to stand on.

i use to work in ghettos everyday,for years that i want to forget about,and i will say...the kids that came up to me and said hi mister where no different then me or anyone else.
the difference is and always will be..i went to an all white school mostly,that i had a dad,the simple fact that i knew,did not even consider that i could be on the street....they do not have the luxury.

i did not have pop culture shoving down my throat every waking moment that the guy with bling gets the girl,and the girls taught that your ass is you asset alone.
i have seen things that have made me wretch,and it has nothing to do with the color of the person,it has to do with society as a whole,and last i looked..your part of it.as am i
come on...you cant be so daft to not realize that if your born into poverty,daddy is in jail,living off the welfare tit is your mom,that you aint exactly got a leg up on the world?
i saw these poor beautiful kids and wanted to cry..cause i know most will just go to jail or continue the cycle of kids born into an untenable situation.
hell,the computer your typing on was not built by the kids in the ghetto...either it was outsourced so some kid in china will build it for nothing so some asshole can get rich..or..

rant off..this pisses me off

sorry

Did it occur to anyone else that that rant would be more credible if it had proper punctuation, capitalization and spacing?

Did it occur to anyone else that that rant would be more credible if it had proper punctuation, capitalization and spacing?

Credibility =/= grammar, although I do agree that proper punctuation, capitalization and spacing would have been nice.

Credibility =/= grammar,
Depends the subject.

Depends the subject.

An argument about grammar?

I would like to see the exact study this guy did, because it says in the article the he did not attribute the problem to socioeconomics (which is what you are doing). I can not discount his entire study without seeing it, but it's interesting how many people here can.

Much as I would...

Depends the subject.

Relating to this subject credibility =/= grammar.

Interestingly, if you look at the full body of John Ogbu's work, you will find that he agrees with my argument: "culture" is not an explanation, but rather something that needs to be explained. He argues, in fact, that minorities develop an "oppositional" mentality toward the dominant culture as a way to cope with racism and ethnic prejudice.


I'd argue that as an addendum to your hypothesis, one might also include that the perception of racism is what spawns this attitude, whether or not racism actually exists.

I'd argue that as an addendum to your proposition, one might also include that the perception of racism is what spawns this attitude, whether or not racism actually exists.Yes, but it would be rather difficult indeed to claim that racism does not exist in the United States.

Of course, racism takes on many different forms: discrimination and prejudice, for example, which may not always go hand in hand. There are also more subtle forms of racism, as in the many ways in which racial minorities are culturally depicted as "Other" or outsider without actually explicitly denigrating them. While this may not seem as devastating as refusing someone a job or assuming that someone is stupid on the basis of race, research has shown that it can be extremely devastating to the psychological well-being and self-esteem of minorities--especially when they experience it as children.

Think about the classic dolls experiment--which, speaking of replication, was recently redone. Black children are presented a white doll and a black doll and asked which is prettier, which would be more fun to play with, which is their favorite: 9 out of 10, even today, choose the white doll. Now ask them which doll looks like them: I tell you, their reaction will bring you to tears. They want to show the researcher the white doll, but they already know this is wrong. You can see in their faces how absolutely crushing it is to face the fact that they are not like the good, idealized, preferred doll. And they are all of five years old.

The article above suggests that Professor Ogbu found no discrimination in the school: teachers were not harder (or easier) on black students; there was, according to him, no evidence that their poor performance could be blamed on differential treatment by school officials.

That does not mean they have no experience of racism. If not in their school (and that seems unlikely) or their neighborhood (even more unlikely), then in a thousand media outlets, hundreds of times a day.

Yes, but it would be rather difficult indeed to claim that racism does not exist in the United States.

Of course, racism takes on many different forms: discrimination and prejudice, for example, which may not always go hand in hand. There are also more subtle forms of racism, as in the many ways in which racial minorities are culturally depicted as "Other" or outsider without actually explicitly denigrating them. While this may not seem as devastating as refusing someone a job or assuming that someone is stupid on the basis of race, research has shown that it can be extremely devastating to the psychological well-being and self-esteem of minorities--especially when they experience it as children.

Think about the classic dolls experiment--which, speaking of replication, was recently redone. Black children are presented a white doll and a black doll and asked which is prettier, which would be more fun to play with, which is their favorite: 9 out of 10, even today, choose the white doll. Now ask them which doll looks like them: I tell you, their reaction will bring you to tears. They want to show the researcher the white doll, but they already know this is wrong. You can see in their faces how absolutely crushing it is to face the fact that they are not like the good, idealized, preferred doll. And they are all of five years old.

The article above suggests that Professor Ogbu found no discrimination in the school: teachers were not harder (or easier) on black students; there was, according to him, no evidence that their poor performance could be blamed on differential treatment by school officials.

That does not mean they have no experience of racism. If not in their school (and that seems unlikely) or their neighborhood (even more unlikely), then in a thousand media outlets, hundreds of times a day.

My reasoning for focusing on the perception of racism, though, is to remove certain levels of subjectivity out of it.

While there is no way would I deny that there persists a form of institutional/cultural racism in the US, I think if we could gauge an individuals perception of it we might be able to develop further insights, especially in regards to your addendum.

Their project yielded an unexpected conclusion: It wasn't socioeconomics, school funding, or racism, that accounted for the students' poor academic performance; it was their own attitudes, and those of their parents.

Unexpected by whom? It should have been common sense... :rolleyes:

Take a look at why asians, particularly children of refugees, excel on these same measures.

They've more to prove, maybe? And they hav no "gangsta" culture, which is among the worst things that any minority can inflict upon theirselves.

I like that more than "Black people are inherently lazy". It has the benefits of being similar to what I said, and robbing the racists of something to be right about.

Except that's not what the study was saying; it had nothing to do with the black people but instead a culture that encourages "lazy" behaviour.

And on a seperate tangent, grammer = credibility. No one is perfect, but the less the reader has to struggle to understand what you're trying to say, the more they'll listen to and understand your ideas.

And on a seperate tangent, grammer = credibility. No one is perfect, but the less the reader has to struggle to understand what you're trying to say, the more they'll listen to and understand your ideas.
Does spelling also equal credibility then?

My reasoning for focusing on the perception of racism, though, is to remove certain levels of subjectivity out of it.

While there is no way would I deny that there persists a form of institutional/cultural racism in the US, I think if we could gauge an individuals perception of it we might be able to develop further insights, especially in regards to your addendum.Ah, in that case we're probably much closer to the same page.

I think we should focus on the subjective aspect to the extent that one part of a general corrective clearly involves attempts by minorities and minority communities to rethink their own position vis-a-vis racism: research such as Ogbu's implies that one very "natural" or immediate reaction to racism may be a kind of oppositional culture that results in many minorities shooting themselves in the foot. This is not to blame the victim precisely because it simply states what would tend to happen to any group subject to the same conditions.

But the "natural" reaction is never an inevitable reaction--because human beings have free will and by extension human groups, when organized, can begin to make rational decisions about how they want to behave and how they want to think of themselves.

The key issue here that I think many racists miss when they try to blame minority communities for their negative attitude is that rational group decisions require organization to fight the causal tendency of the group--a tendency that may be circumstantial rather than innate.

White people do not need to organize to develop white self-esteem and positive self-image associated with values such as education. Black people may need to organize to develop black self-esteem and positive self-image associated with the same values--not because black people are innately lazy or opposed to education, but because of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Obviously it's going to be harder for the group that has to do something than for the group that doesn't. (Meanwhile, of course, white majorities do have a great deal of responsibility to change our own images and practices to establish a truly multi-ethnic multi-racial society without racism.)

But to return to your point, if minority communities are going to organize effectively to combat the oppositional culture studied by Ogbu, then we need more research into the subjective experience of that culture: what values does it rely on, how do individuals within the culture perceive themselves, what anchors can the community hold onto as it tries to shift its values?

This is the other myth held by many racists (many of whom, of course, do not realize they are racists): that a person or a community can "just decide" to change. Human minds and cultures are far more fragile than that, and the wrong kind of aggressive "go to school" campaign could backfire in the worst ways. We need to understand the subjective experience in order to understand what will work. In a certain sense this is why we have clinical psychology: because each individual, based on her/his subjective experience, may need different tools with which to change. Anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists may need to become a bit more like clinicians: we need to ask, of a particular culture, what tools its people need to effect the sort of changes they would care about and value.

Finally proof that whites are superior!

Weeeeeeee I'm elite!!!

Does spelling also equal credibility then?

Compare one mistake vs. Secret aj man's mish-mash of grammer and such. You could still understand what I was saying easily, despite the single mistake. That's why I said "no one is perfect" ;)

Ah, in that case we're probably much closer to the same page.

I think we should focus on the subjective aspect to the extent that one part of a general corrective clearly involves attempts by minorities and minority communities to rethink their own position vis-a-vis racism: research such as Ogbu's implies that one very "natural" or immediate reaction to racism may be a kind of oppositional culture that results in many minorities shooting themselves in the foot. This is not to blame the victim precisely because it simply states what would tend to happen to any group subject to the same conditions.

But the "natural" reaction is never an inevitable reaction--because human beings have free will and by extension human groups, when organized, can begin to make rational decisions about how they want to behave and how they want to think of themselves.

The key issue here that I think many racists miss when they try to blame minority communities for their negative attitude is that rational group decisions require organization to fight the causal tendency of the group--a tendency that may be circumstantial rather than innate.

White people do not need to organize to develop white self-esteem and positive self-image associated with values such as education. Black people may need to organize to develop black self-esteem and positive self-image associated with the same values--not because black people are innately lazy or opposed to education, but because of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Obviously it's going to be harder for the group that has to do something than for the group that doesn't. (Meanwhile, of course, white majorities do have a great deal of responsibility to change our own images and practices to establish a truly multi-ethnic multi-racial society without racism.)

But to return to your point, if minority communities are going to organize effectively to combat the oppositional culture studied by Ogbu, then we need more research into the subjective experience of that culture: what values does it rely on, how do individuals within the culture perceive themselves, what anchors can the community hold onto as it tries to shift its values?

This is the other myth held by many racists (many of whom, of course, do not realize they are racists): that a person or a community can "just decide" to change. Human minds and cultures are far more fragile than that, and the wrong kind of aggressive "go to school" campaign could backfire in the worst ways. We need to understand the subjective experience in order to understand what will work. In a certain sense this is why we have clinical psychology: because each individual, based on her/his subjective experience, may need different tools with which to change. Anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists may need to become a bit more like clinicians: we need to ask, of a particular culture, what tools its people need to effect the sort of changes they would care about and value.

You saved me 2,501 keystrokes...hooray!

Compare one mistake vs. Secret aj man's mish-mash of grammer and such. You could still understand what I was saying easily, despite the single mistake. That's why I said "no one is perfect" ;)
True, but you could at least stop making the mistake after having been corrected. :p

Themselves. And their parents.

OH MY GOD I CAN'T SEE!!!

Oh...Wait...Okay, I'm fine now. It's just the flash of the obvious was pretty sudden.

What work? Passing references arn't going to cut it.

So a study that shows the exact opposite isn't good enough for you, huh?

Yay, another study misses the obvious reason.

Gangs and gang activity.

So a study that shows the exact opposite isn't good enough for you, huh?

The phantom study no one has managed to cite yet? Yeah, that's not good enough.

So a study that shows the exact opposite isn't good enough for you, huh?
One point: The study that showed the opposite is a general overall study. It's not specifically about Shaker Heights.

I have no doubts about his conclusion. We have to stop seperating ourselves by skin color, which is irrelevant.

The phantom study no one has managed to cite yet? Yeah, that's not good enough.

What, your Google broken? It's in the same article, has the same backup.

EDIT: Since you seem incapable of using Google, and for some reason will take a reference to the study of the first person but for some reason would think that the study that shows the opposite would be 'made up,' I'll spoon feed you once again.

A simple copy and paste, and using this thing called Google, you've heard of that, right? and Voila! (http://www.msanetwork.org/research.asp), the study and it's methodology.

Now, certainly you bothered to look up the study and methodology of the articles report, since you have to be spoon fed this kind of thing, right? Or is this just more of you sticking your head in the sand?

Interestingly, if you look at the full body of John Ogbu's work, you will find that he agrees with my argument: "culture" is not an explanation, but rather something that needs to be explained. He argues, in fact, that minorities develop an "oppositional" mentality toward the dominant culture as a way to cope with racism and ethnic prejudice.


This is precisely true. As a 24 year old black male, this is very much what our culture tends to do. This is perhaps one reason why there is such a tendency towards such concepts as dating within the race, 'you're selling out if you're not listening to rap', etcetera. However, as I go on, please do not think that I am saying this merely because I am black as if I am saying, "Well what do you know?" No, my point of view is that I would like to give information that is the result of having lived in these shoes, and maybe it can shed some light on both sides of the argument.

I know that Ogbu's general assertion, that it is the result of the parents' attitudes and those of the children is most likely correct. I know that in high school, both my sister and I had to deal with this. I have quite literally been asked, "Man, why you talkin' white?" By 'talking white' I imagine the question to be, "Why are you using proper diction and grammar?" Its nothing more than having been around books and having the privilege of being able to read whatever I wanted and not having adult role models who put on the stereotypical 'negro attitude' that seems to be preferred by many young blacks today, or that is perpetuated through music videos or images of blacks in the media (portrayals that we allow to continue, so they are the fault of all involved, not one group or another). Being confronted with this type of comment on a regular basis lends towards a 'dumbing down', if you will, of the student who has the potential to succeed.

The tendency of the district and others surveyed, particularly if they were a part of the black community, to say that something is wrong with Ogbu's work simply shows that the community can not handle criticism of itself. How long has it taken before top rap moguls have come forth and said that the lyrics are promoting violence within the community? How long have people of multiple colors been pointing this out? Exactly.

The bit about the attitudes of the parents being transferred to the students is entirely correct. In my family, and those of families that were similar to mine, we were pushed to succeed both academically and in whatever outside aspirations that we may have had. While I didn't do anywhere as near as I could have, I did far better than the majority of my ethnic peers.

The thing that Ogbu did not say was that socioeconomics directly impacts this. Parents who have more education and possibly more money are less likely to tell their children to scrape by so they can 'just get a job' when they graduate, and are more likely to invest their time into their child's education. The child is looks to the parents and (generally) sees that he or she has a certain standard to live up to. Statistically speaking, most people stay in the same class into which they are born, and that may help to explain why. I would assume that this is true across the board however. Yet, black parents are more likely to push their child to succeed in a sport or other entertainment related field, I believe, when compared to those of other ethnicities. These types of families are more likely to be made up of parents who had little or no college (more likely the latter) and so were not exposed to the advantages that come with receiving a higher degree.

So, I think that ultimately, socioeconomics plays a large part in this problem, and is part of a complex matrix that comprises parental education level and multicultural boundaries. This ends up having the unfortunate result that Ogbu found.

Outside of the US, the 'acting white' is taken a little further.

Even the concept of how we eat, with a family sitting round the table with knives and forks can be seen as forcing 'white man values' on the black community. I've had friends from Africa point this out to me, that to succeed in this world one must be the 'white man', get the 'white man's job', dress in the 'white man's clothes' and drive a 'white man's car'.

This makes the accusation of 'acting white' run deep. It's infers not being proud of being black.

Read the Joy Luck Club for an Asian American's thoughts on growing up between the dichotomy of living a modern American life with a traditional Asian upbringing and the conflictions it entails - to be ashamed or embarrased by who you are and where you come from is tough to deal with and something white people rarely have to do.

It's not so much about skin colour, because if anyone works according to traditional ideal of grades, university, job, married, wife, kids and car they have as equal chance as another.

Yet that can lead to the accusation of selling out your race, and that's a hard burden to bear.

Compare one mistake vs. Secret aj man's mish-mash of grammer and such. You could still understand what I was saying easily, despite the single mistake. That's why I said "no one is perfect" ;)

You're also showing a propensity to not learn from your mistakes. Does that make you willfully ignorant? Are you afraid to "act smart"?

Students perform poorly because schools destroy any joy that might have been derived from learning in the first place.

The researcher here is living proof that when paid to do a study, you should ask which conclusion you're supposed to reach before publishing results.

can i kiss you?

Of course not, I'm just a stickler for grammer :D

Grammar.

EDIT: Jolt time warp really destroyed the comic effectiveness of this post :(

EDIT EDIT: ...and now The Nazz has made the same point on the following page, which means this will never be seen by anyone and another chance to make history goes sailing out the window for me, not that I'm bitter of course and not that this is anything to be bitter about and I suppose I'm going on about it a bit too much but there you go, history's full of the little people who made their mark but were ignored and forgotten due to circumstance, I'll join the back of that cue I guess...bah humbug!

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Oh and now CToaN has gone and congratulated The Nazz on his post, why they'll be feting him with champagne soon and calling for him to run for the presidency while poor little Barringtonia, consigned to the dustbin of history, gets no recognition at all, it's all a conspiracy I tell you, keeping the poor n00b down, we need some affirmative action here that's what we need.

You're also showing a propensity to not learn from your mistakes. Does that make you willfully ignorant? Are you afraid to "act smart"?

Of course not, I'm just a stickler for grammer :D

Of course not, I'm just a stickler for grammer :D

Then why is there a grammatical error in the above construction?


Hint: it's a comma splice.

Then why is there a grammatical error in the above construction?


Hint: it's a comma splice.

Life's little lessons, don't mess with an English professor...at least when it comes to English

Life's little lessons, don't mess with an English professor...at least when it comes to EnglishPfft. My girlfriend's an English professor, and I make up words all the time just to mess with her. :p

I am constantly disappointed by people who react irrationally to something which disagrees with indoctrinated positions. This anthropologist was so well respected by this community that it was they who sought him out and asked him to conduct the study. Despite this, people immediately react with cries of racism and 'blaming the victim' when he comes to a conclusion that these students were not just the victims of racists giving them poor grades based on skin color. As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing with his data or methodology, just that his conclusions do not conform to orthodox ideological explanations.

A study showing black kids in another state 'care' about education just as much as their white peers does not in any way invalidate his findings. If you want to show that his conclusion is wrong, you must either dispute the data he collected or dispute his evaluation of that data (and show why his conclusion was incorrect). He studied one particular community and their children; unless your studies are on those same children, you have little ability to dispute the behaviors of those particular kids. His conclusions were not that 'all blacks are lazy idiots who refuse to learn', yet ideological conditioning prompts people to react as if he did.

What is wrong with his data?
What was wrong with his methodology?
How did he reach the wrong conclusions?

Point out where the error lies if you want to dispute a study - ideological screaming is no substitute for rational evaluation.

Pfft. My girlfriend's an English professor, and I make up words all the time just to mess with her. :p

If it was good enough for Shakespeare to do it, its good enough for me.

Did it occur to anyone else that that rant would be more credible if it had proper punctuation, capitalization and spacing?

sorry if i cant spell well...lol..that rhymes..and i flunked english(as my first language)but my point remains...go figure an idiot to have a point.



you can go on without me,as i am just a twit that does not know grammer...lol.

I am constantly disappointed by people who react irrationally to something which disagrees with indoctrinated positions. This anthropologist was so well respected by this community that it was they who sought him out and asked him to conduct the study. Despite this, people immediately react with cries of racism and 'blaming the victim' when he comes to a conclusion that these students were not just the victims of racists giving them poor grades based on skin color. As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing with his data or methodology, just that his conclusions do not conform to orthodox ideological explanations.

A study showing black kids in another state 'care' about education just as much as their white peers does not in any way invalidate his findings. If you want to show that his conclusion is wrong, you must either dispute the data he collected or dispute his evaluation of that data (and show why his conclusion was incorrect). He studied one particular community and their children; unless your studies are on those same children, you have little ability to dispute the behaviors of those particular kids. His conclusions were not that 'all blacks are lazy idiots who refuse to learn', yet ideological conditioning prompts people to react as if he did.

What is wrong with his data?
What was wrong with his methodology?
How did he reach the wrong conclusions?

Point out where the error lies if you want to dispute a study - ideological screaming is no substitute for rational evaluation.

i would cast doubt on his methodology..lol..spelling rears it's ugly head..but i will say with more then enough first hand knowledge..your incorrect...social situations do have an affect,and to think other wise is foolish.

I am constantly disappointed by people who react irrationally to something which disagrees with indoctrinated positions. This anthropologist was so well respected by this community that it was they who sought him out and asked him to conduct the study. Despite this, people immediately react with cries of racism and 'blaming the victim' when he comes to a conclusion that these students were not just the victims of racists giving them poor grades based on skin color. As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing with his data or methodology, just that his conclusions do not conform to orthodox ideological explanations.

A study showing black kids in another state 'care' about education just as much as their white peers does not in any way invalidate his findings. If you want to show that his conclusion is wrong, you must either dispute the data he collected or dispute his evaluation of that data (and show why his conclusion was incorrect). He studied one particular community and their children; unless your studies are on those same children, you have little ability to dispute the behaviors of those particular kids. His conclusions were not that 'all blacks are lazy idiots who refuse to learn', yet ideological conditioning prompts people to react as if he did.

What is wrong with his data?
What was wrong with his methodology?
How did he reach the wrong conclusions?

Point out where the error lies if you want to dispute a study - ideological screaming is no substitute for rational evaluation.



damn your smart....alot smarter then me.

and if he said so..he must be right..lol

I bet its because the Rich White Man (AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!) peed in their koolaid, and now they can't succeed at school until the Rich White Man (AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!) pays them money because of slavery.


The "culture of success" where kids are expected to do well in school, to speak like they're educated, to read, to do their homework, to get good grades or pay the consequences, to act respectable, to get a good job and live the good life produces the best students.

And the alternative doesn't.

Oh dear me oh my!

Themselves. And their parents.

Link (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-05-21/news/rich-black-flunking/1)


What a surprise, the community doesn't get the answer it wanted (i.e. White Man's fault) and so resorts to attacking the researcher. It's a distrubing trend that current pop culture denotes learning as something "white people do" and therefore should be avoided.

your op is rascist and i want no part of this so called discussion.

your op is rascist and i want no part of this so called discussion.
Hence your four posts so far in this thread? Yes, a perfect way not to participate in a discussion.

Hence your four posts so far in this thread? Yes, a perfect way not to participate in a discussion.


good point

but i will avail myself the ability ti just fucking go..it is going nowere,,,so i cant be involved with something never was a party to....have a good evening all.

I think a similar study, focussing on students of all ethnicities who have come from a lower class background than the one they are now in, is warranted.
...


I'd say that the traditional culture plays a role when it comes to ethnical school issues - I don't know if this can be applied to black people in America, I don't think that their culture is so separated from the mainstream as the culture of recent immigrants in Europe is.

Anyway I give you an example from my mother's experience - she's been teaching in Milan's high schools since about 20 years, after other 20 in the lower grades.

Sons of Arabic immigrants perform poorly at school.
Generally they have poor and undercultured families, only 1 parent has a job (the father, generally) because the mother is "forced" by culture and tradition to stay at home - it is a sort of point of honour for the husband to work for the whole family.
Strong conflicts between parents and children - often ending in beatings.
Parents, when confronted by the teachers about the poor outcome of their sons, usually scoff or even yell at the teacher.

Sons of Chinese immigrants perform great at school.
Generally they have undercultured families, but both parents have a job.
Children usually obey to the parents.
If the teachers say something about "poor outcome" of their sons at schools, the parents will apologize to the teacher, punish the son, and have him work harder for school.

My two bits, of course. And no, this isn't racism against the arabic immigrants.

Soon after he left Ohio and returned to California, a black parent from Shaker Heights went on TV and called him an "academic Clarence Thomas."

Since when is comparing someone to one of America's most successful legal experts a bad thing?

Since when is comparing someone to one of America's most successful legal experts a bad thing?
you should read up a bit on his history, specifically his anti-EEO (among other things) stance.

you should read up a bit on his history, specifically his anti-EEO (among other things) stance.

I am aware of his history.

Opposing the EEO does not evil make.

I am aware of his history.

Opposing the EEO does not evil make.
possibly not, but you can well imagine how the black community took it - especially the more radical ones. His name's the 21st century equivalent of 'Uncle Tom'.

possibly not, but you can well imagine how the black community took it - especially the more radical ones. His name's the 21st century equivalent of 'Uncle Tom'.

Yeah, but that only means that people are stupid.

Which was my point all along.

What, your Google broken? It's in the same article, has the same backup.

EDIT: Since you seem incapable of using Google, and for some reason will take a reference to the study of the first person but for some reason would think that the study that shows the opposite would be 'made up,' I'll spoon feed you once again.

A simple copy and paste, and using this thing called Google, you've heard of that, right? and Voila! (http://www.msanetwork.org/research.asp), the study and it's methodology.

Now, certainly you bothered to look up the study and methodology of the articles report, since you have to be spoon fed this kind of thing, right? Or is this just more of you sticking your head in the sand?

The study shows that at Shaker Heights, the only school I already know about and don't have time to look up the others now, non-white/asian students have a higher percentage of people who agree with "My friends make fun of people who try to do really well." Maximized in the latino and mixed race populaces with black just below them. Looks like their study supports the findings of Ogbu - in mixed race schools, minority students don't "live up to their academic potential because of the fear of being accused of 'acting white'."

your op is rascist and i want no part of this so called discussion.

1. Learn to spell what you're accusing people of.
2. He's right. The students are at least partially responsible. He also has a point about pop culture.
3. Read "Freakonomics", which has an interesting explanation of a possible reason why black students tend to do worse than white students.
4. Also, the parents are almost certainly partially responsible if their students do not do well. Failure to make sure the kid does their homework, for example. Or simply not providing a stable environment to grow up in, or simply not raising their child to be responsible.
5. Of course, some teachers are certainly sexist or racist. These teachers are most likely in the minority, however. In my experience, at least mildly sexist teachers are rather common in elementary schools, but are considerably less common after that point.

Themselves. And their parents.

Link (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-05-21/news/rich-black-flunking/1)


What a surprise, the community doesn't get the answer it wanted (i.e. White Man's fault) and so resorts to attacking the researcher. It's a distrubing trend that current pop culture denotes learning as something "white people do" and therefore should be avoided.

To say society as a whole doesn't have a major effect on minority performance is naive.

I think Ogbu raises a good point, regardless of whether or not it explains all of the differences between whites and blacks in academic settings. Cultural explanations lie not only in the surrounding culture, but also in the culture of the group being studied, and while Ogbu may be pointing out some unpleasant truths, that doesn't make them any less valid.

As for those seeking socio-economic explanations, the study cites that there were no significant socio-economic differences between blacks and whites, or between blacks and any other minority. Ogbu's biggest point is that there is a certain "mindset" that allows one to succeed in school and academic fields, and that black culture does not embrace that mindset, and even actively discourages it as being "white". Interestingly enough, he notes that immigrant cultures see the mindset simply as one required to be successful - i.e., that it need not be a cultural detractor, as blacks see it. This mindset of success includes things such as valuing school work and strong parental encouragement to do well in school.

Based on my own personal experiences, Ogbu is very correct. I grew up in an almost all-white community (90-95%), yet you still see drastic differences in academic success that cannot be explained by socio-economic differences. Almost all of the kids who did poorly in school had unsupportive families who couldn't give a rat's arse about education. Meanwhile, kids who weren't any richer did well in school because their parents pushed them to succeed. Further supporting Ogbu's arguments in Shaker Heights specifically are the strong supportive measures Shaker has implemented to reduce the achievement gap as much as possible. Shaker has been held up as an exemplar of reducing the achievement gap, except that the gap is still there, and while it was being reduced through the early 2000s, is now growing again. Add in the fact that all students receive the same opportunities regardless of race, and it becomes apparent to me that socio-economic factors cannot explain the achievement gap, at least not on their own. Even if black culture does not like it, there is, indeed, a certain mindset that promotes academic success. The teachers can have high expectations, and the school can have great funding, but if the students don't care and the parents don't care, there won't be any academic achievement. One simply cannot sit there and expect to do well in school - one must work hard to achieve good grades (unless there's a ridiculous amount of grade inflation, which is occurring in some parts of the US - but that's a different discussion).

The study shows that at Shaker Heights, the only school I already know about and don't have time to look up the others now, non-white/asian students have a higher percentage of people who agree with "My friends make fun of people who try to do really well." Maximized in the latino and mixed race populaces with black just below them. Looks like their study supports the findings of Ogbu - in mixed race schools, minority students don't "live up to their academic potential because of the fear of being accused of 'acting white'."

What, you mean the part where their average comes out to 11% of the sample size? Where their number is actually the consistent with all the students surveyed? Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Shaker Heights- Proportion who agree: "My friends make fun of people who try to do really well in school" (whole numbers are sample size)
Black: .11 White .09 Latino .19 Asain .07 Mixed Race .11 Total .11

Yeah, color me underwhelmed that .11 of the sample size are afraid of being made fun of for doing well, or that they are a whole .02 above white students. Four of the five categories are within .05 points of each other. The only possibly notable out lier is the Latino population, and even they don't reach a significant majority, barely even a notable minority.

So by what stretch do you imagine .11 of a sample size as a majority that supports Ogbu's conclusion?

EDIT: Holy fucking monkey crap. One page later-
Proportion who agree: "Studying a lot tends to make you less popular."
Black .13 White .19 Latino .33 Asain .22 Mixed Race .16 Total .16

Lowest group of those sampled.

i would cast doubt on his methodology..lol..spelling rears it's ugly head..but i will say with more then enough first hand knowledge..your incorrect...social situations do have an affect,and to think other wise is foolish.

What was misspelled? Methodology is the correct spelling.
When casting such castigation, you should at least make the effort to use some semblance of proper grammar.

You have firsthand knowledge of the black kids at Shaker Heights?

I did not, in any way, say that social situations have no affect on education.
I actually stated that I was appalled that people denounce this study based purely on the findings not being the orthodox position of the black community as a whole.

I did not even say that I agreed with the study (I have not looked at it closely enough to evaluate it, but I will give it more weight than the opinion of highly biased parents of a failing children).

I only stated that it was reprehensible to dispute the findings of a study based on nothing more than you finding it personally offensive.

Its nice to hear the claims of 'racism leads to black children failing at white schools'

But then ask the same people why it is that asian and chinese pupils on average outscore their white classmates?

It has to be cultural, which means its the envioment that the children are brought up in to blame for low educational achievement (and that goes for some white kids I know who are barely able to read and write and do maths) rather than 'racism'

Its a shame, but until all parents realise that they are responsible for the education of their kids, the situation will never change

El-Presidente Boris

Spelling and granma are purely optionail in this massage :D

What, you mean the part where their average comes out to 11% of the sample size? Where their number is actually the consistent with all the students surveyed? Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
Don't you get tired of being a close-minded, knee-jerk elitist?
The study you linked that proved him wrong proved his assertion correct.

Yeah, color me underwhelmed that .11 of the sample size are afraid of being made fun of for doing well, or that they are a whole .02 above white students.
What color is "I refuse to admit to being wrong"? Maybe, blue green...

Proportion who agree: "Studying a lot tends to make you less popular."
Black .13 White .19 Latino .33 Asain .22 Mixed Race .16 Total .16

Lowest group of those sampled.
I'm sorry, but that's a different question (and that fact is supported by the results).

I'd say that the traditional culture plays a role when it comes to ethnical school issues - I don't know if this can be applied to black people in America, I don't think that their culture is so separated from the mainstream as the culture of recent immigrants in Europe is.

Anyway I give you an example from my mother's experience - she's been teaching in Milan's high schools since about 20 years, after other 20 in the lower grades.

Sons of Arabic immigrants perform poorly at school.
Generally they have poor and undercultured families, only 1 parent has a job (the father, generally) because the mother is "forced" by culture and tradition to stay at home - it is a sort of point of honour for the husband to work for the whole family.
Strong conflicts between parents and children - often ending in beatings.
Parents, when confronted by the teachers about the poor outcome of their sons, usually scoff or even yell at the teacher.

Sons of Chinese immigrants perform great at school.
Generally they have undercultured families, but both parents have a job.
Children usually obey to the parents.
If the teachers say something about "poor outcome" of their sons at schools, the parents will apologize to the teacher, punish the son, and have him work harder for school.

My two bits, of course. And no, this isn't racism against the arabic immigrants.

Just curious. What exactly do you mean by undercultured?

Don't you get tired of being a close-minded, knee-jerk elitist?
The study you linked that proved him wrong proved his assertion correct.
Again, explain how .11 of the sample size proves him correct, or the fact that that blacks scored in the same range as the rest of the populations and not even close to a standard deviation off. Please, I'd love to hear it.


What color is "I refuse to admit to being wrong"? Maybe, blue green...
I don't know, take a look in the mirror and let me know.


I'm sorry, but that's a different question (and that fact is supported by the results).
What the fuck? The question also relates to how others view their studying and doing well, and blacks scored lower than any other group and that supports it? Please please please, explain that. I'd love to see how your mind works...maybe you learned to count backwards or something, it'd be a great case study.

Don't you get tired of being a close-minded, knee-jerk elitist?
The study you linked that proved him wrong proved his assertion correct.Umm, no. You're the one being closed-minded and obtuse. You also have no idea how to interpret statistics.

Again, explain how .11 of the sample size proves him correct, or the fact that that blacks scored in the same range as the rest of the populations and not even close to a standard deviation off. Please, I'd love to hear it.
Since you obviously reject any opinion but your own, why bother?

What the fuck? The question also relates to how others view their studying and doing well, and blacks scored lower than any other group and that supports it? Please please please, explain that. I'd love to see how your mind works...maybe you learned to count backwards or something, it'd be a great case study.
Then explain why the answers to the two different questions were so disproportionate.
Never mind the fact that the researchers asked both instead of just one.

Umm, no. You're the one being closed-minded and obtuse. You also have no idea how to interpret statistics.

Most accurate statement so far in the thread.

Since you obviously reject any opinion but your own, why bother?
You're kidding, right? What have you provided?

You said-The study supports Ogbu in the question "My friends make fun of people who try to do really well in school." Without quoting the results or demonstrating how that is the case other than to say that they scored 'higher.'

I provided the actual results to the study, show that not only a small fraction of the community replied that they did (.11 of the population, meaning .89 or a much more dominant majority don't believe that) but that it is within the range of four of the five other groups, making the differences statistically irrelevant.

You say my quoting of the actual results is "closed minded elitest" and without any actual argument added restate that the study proves Ogbu.

Now, really. Who is rejecting what?


Then explain why the answers to the two different questions were so disproportionate.
Never mind the fact that the researchers asked both instead of just one.
Disproportionate to what? They're both in the range with the other groups asked. Are you sure you're looking at the same thing as the rest of us?

How do .89 of the sample size, to put it another way, saying their friend do not make fun of them for doing well in school support Ogbu?

And how is the researchers having related questions to establish a broader, more complete picture somehow making it less relevant?

Why does the article assume that academic indifference is not a socio-economic problem?

Disproportionate to what? They're both in the range with the other groups asked. Are you sure you're looking at the same thing as the rest of us?
They are disproportionate relative to each other but you are putting them together like they are the same question.


And how is the researchers having related questions to establish a broader, more complete picture somehow making it less relevant?
If they are related, how did the answers turn out so disproportionate?

Studies have always found that the major cause of a child's educational success was parent involvement. If we can get families involved in seeing their children succeed academically, it will be the first big step.

In the meantime, anyone heard of the "Brown Eye/Blue Eye" experiments? They explain a lot more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott) than any other explanation. If you tell a group that it is an academic failure, they will come to beleive it. Other studies have confirmed that this affects academic performance based on skin-color and gender.

They are disproportionate relative to each other but you are putting them together like they are the same question.
No, I'm putting them together because they are related questions pertinent to the study we're comparing them too.




If they are related, how did the answers turn out so disproportionate?

And for the black community they're within .02 of each other, how is that disproportionate? That doesn't seem disproportionate to me. You're going to have to clarify.

Studies have always found that the major cause of a child's educational success was parent involvement. If we can get families involved in seeing their children succeed academically, it will be the first big step.

In the meantime, anyone heard of the "Brown Eye/Blue Eye" experiments? They explain a lot more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott) than any other explanation. If you tell a group that it is an academic failure, they will come to beleive it. Other studies have confirmed that this affects academic performance based on skin-color and gender.

That's pretty intriguing. Sort of akin to that whole 'Wave' thing. I'll have to see if I can track down those films.

And for the black community they're within .02 of each other, how is that disproportionate? That doesn't seem disproportionate to me. You're going to have to clarify.
Who is being obtuse now.

Never mind the fact that the researchers asked both instead of just one.Generally speaking, in social science research more information is better than less.

This is especially true in survey research, which has been under rather heavy attacks in recent years from psychologists who argue that it is literally impossible to interpret the responses to most kinds of questions: the operational definitions are literally incoherent.

Thus, if we're going to get at these intangible "attitude" variables with ANY kind of believability, it helps if we ask several different questions that approach the variable we're trying to capture from different angles. When the answers have a tendency to cluster in plausible ways, we can feel somewhat confident that we're capturing a real attitude.

When responses purportedly measuring the same attitude conflict, however, we should be especially careful about drawing conclusions from any of them in isolation.

Who is being obtuse now.

...

Before we go any further...do you have any idea how statistics work?

EDIT: Against my better judgment I'll try again.

The questions are not exactly the same but measure similar attitudes. One measures attitudes about how well a student does and the other measures the affect on popularity 'a lot' of studying has. These are both related to attitudes towards school measured in groups-they are not the exact same question and do not measure the exact same thing, but both relate (and I think you might have to look that word up since it's causing you difficulty) to the over all subject at hand.

Given that, the answers for the black community are still within .02 of the sample size of each other, which is relatively statistically irrelevant. So again, in the hopes that you might break pattern and actually answer a question, what the fuck do you mean?

Who is being obtuse now.

Still you.

Do you know what the word "disproportionate" means?

Have you had basic statistics in high school yet?