"Lisa Cook of Michigan State University, one of the economics profession’s few prominent black women,"
I stopped reading there
I'm a non-white person and I upvoted that. #IStandWithUhlig Uhlig is not a racist person. He is just a too logical thinker. He has low people skills. Like most mathematically oriented people. He doesn't understand political correctness, only logic.
Holy mother of Gaad.
HU is breaking the narrative in a way that will boil the woke's blood.
"American blacks? Somewhere, way down that list. There is actually too much of that in the Hollywood movies already. I watched Hollywood movies when living in Europe, and the only way to understand the obsession of Hollywood with American-black themes, which is by itself rather uninteresting to the rest of the world, was by allowing those Hollywood movie makers a rather provincial perspective."
<\blockquote>
Alpha AF. Hear-hear!
I didn't make that assumption. High spending schools can be poor.
But you implicitly made it when you brought up PTAs and fund raising.
No. Budget tells you nothing. The entire budget could go to paying pensions. I gave examples of what PTA money at schools buys at public school in rich neighborhoods "Public schools in rich neighborhoods raise over 1M, paying for for teaching assistants, science labs, tutoring, chess coaches, etc. A parent at a rich school might donate their expertise in architecture to design a roof garden. Another parent will write a grant to fund said roof garden."
These are supports for already well-supported students.
After 5th grade students in NYC must apply middle and high school, and though this screening, are now sorted not by neighborhood but on test scores and grades.
How do you think that works out for the poor kids?
You don't need to stop a poor kid from getting an education, you just need to limit their options to the local, poorly-performing school while allowing rich families to bolster the supports for their well-supported kids in their already well-performing schools.
When you then turn around and make the kids compete head to head a few years later, is anyone surprised of the outcome?
If you are saying, well, nobody is physically stopping that poor kid from getting a good education. I am saying YES, THEY ARE.
Look at this
Holy mother of Gaad.
HU is breaking the narrative in a way that will boil the woke's blood."American blacks? Somewhere, way down that list. There is actually too much of that in the Hollywood movies already. I watched Hollywood movies when living in Europe, and the only way to understand the obsession of Hollywood with American-black themes, which is by itself rather uninteresting to the rest of the world, was by allowing those Hollywood movie makers a rather provincial perspective."
<\blockquote>
Alpha AF. Hear-hear!
No. Budget tells you nothing. The entire budget could go to paying pensions. I gave examples of what PTA money at schools buys at public school in rich neighborhoods "Public schools in rich neighborhoods raise over 1M, paying for for teaching assistants, science labs, tutoring, chess coaches, etc. A parent at a rich school might donate their expertise in architecture to design a roof garden. Another parent will write a grant to fund said roof garden."
These are supports for already well-supported students.
Here you are arguing against yourself, not me.
I've noticed that you don't pay attention to what I write. You seem to be arguing with some internal monologue of things you want me to say.
If you read what I wrote, I agreed that well-funded schools could produce poorly educated students, but that is true no matter what the students' race is.
The real point is that urban districts are generously funded poor schools. Lack of money isn't the problem. It is unruly students, corrupt politicians, bloated administrations, teacher union rules, etc.
But race per se isn't the issue.
After 5th grade students in NYC must apply middle and high school, and though this screening, are now sorted not by neighborhood but on test scores and grades.
How do you think that works out for the poor kids?
I doubt that sorting is a problem. The lack of order and security is a huge problem. It is really the only problem until it is fixed.
You don't need to stop a poor kid from getting an education, you just need to limit their options to the local, poorly-performing school while allowing rich families to bolster the supports for their well-supported kids in their already well-performing schools. ...
I wouldn't limit their options. I strongly favor school choice. It is the Ds who want to restrict them to failing public schools.
But even with this restriction, there are still plenty of ways that parents can improve their kids education. See my previous post -- that you keep studiously ignoring -- on methods to get your kid a better education.
The problem with poor kids' education is not that rich kids have a lot of resources. We could lock all the rich kids in a closet and it wouldn't make the poor kids better off.
When you then turn around and make the kids compete head to head a few years later, is anyone surprised of the outcome?
If you are saying, well, nobody is physically stopping that poor kid from getting a good education. I am saying YES, THEY ARE.
Well, you are incorrect. No one is stopping those kids or their parents from getting a good education.
But getting a good education requires changes in behavior on at least the individual level and perhaps the societal level for maximum effect.
whatever you think of econtwitter, they started a movement and are close to getting some result. So it is a much better medium for economists to affect change than this site
Disagree. Misinformation spread on Twitter has lead to thousands of deaths. Historians will cite it as one of the primary drivers of WW3.
I think this is right. Not only is posting informal comments on Twitter stupid, but it's not academic. Our job is to reason carefully and make well supported arguments, not to make off the cuff comments. I don't think it's good for our profession to say anything outside of academic papers after they have gone through peer review. On the other hand, I think it completely overboard to fire someone for making cranky and insensitive remarks.
Twitter and blogs are exclusively media for communicating with idiots aiming to make things go viral.
Its fine to have bad takes. But if you're communicating your takes by writing them into the idiots-making-things-go-viral platform, its hard to feel too bad for you when you get a viral mess of idiocy as a result.
He could have just told his takes to his colleagues and friends if he wanted to have a calm academic discussion about them. Or written them up more formally and put them in a newspaper. Or considered them very carefully and put them in an academic paper. If he did any of those other things, he would not be in danger of facing the mess he is in now.I am sure you have never had a bad take in your life, and you’d be perfectly ok with a public linching for your wrongthink if you did. This is pure and simple about politics and taking down a conservative-leaning centrist economist to replace him with someone with more wokeness.
The problem wasn't voicing his opinion, it was his lack of judgment. He used horrible examples, and when he first became aware of the uproar of w.r.t. past comments, his tweets were ill-conceived, at best. Hard to imagine someone with such poor judgment is making editorial decisions at a top 5.
lol enjoy your retirement Uhlig...
Let it be a lesson to the rest of you. Never stand up for you beliefs or challenge the prevailing dogma. It's the current year 2020 after all.
from the article:
"There are no black professors in the main economics department at Chicago, Mr. Uhlig’s employer, which is one of the most storied departments in the country."
there are also no native americans, pacific islanders, central asians, ...
also:
"Economics journals are still filled with papers that emphasize differences in education, upbringing or even IQ rather than discrimination or structural barriers."
wtf?! why wouldn't you study differences in education? and what are these IQ papers they are talking about?! they don't bother with citations or links. just lazy, lazy journalism.
Chicago produced Thomas Sowell.