Re: dogs in japan
in article e65959$i1f$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/7/06 10:12 AM:
> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article e63vqp$ait$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/6/06 10:26 PM:
>
>
>> If you live in the Bay area, did you hear the KQED forum program recently on
>> education and the court decision (later stayed) that the schools had to let
>> people graduate even though they failed the new exit exam. The program was
>
> Yes.
>
> And the decision is being appealed.
>
> Not sure how that applies to the public/private issue...
It relates to the issue you raised challenging my statement that some public
schools are disasters.
>>> Actually, the schools are doing better and better WRT the rest of the
>>> state, and have been for some time.
>
>> The schools in San Francisco bay area may have done better than Los Angeles
>> (where it was not unknown for the school system to graduate people who were
>> functionally illiterate), but that doesn't some the public schools are not
>> disaster areas, especially in the City of San Francisco and in some
>
> And some private schools are 'disasters' as well.
I volunteered that long before you began your tirade.
>> districts in the East Bay. The schools in North Bay and the Peninsula seem
>> to be much better, both in safety and in quality of education.
>
> They are different, in having a different demographic; fewer immigrants,
> and fewer low-income types.
>
> This is does mean the schools are better.
No, what makes them better is that the children are able to eat their
lunches without paying protection money to a fellow classmate, and that
their chances of being able to read after graduation are improved.
By the way, don't you think it is a tad bigoted to imply that a mark of a
good school is one with fewer immigrants and fewer "low-income types"?
>>> This is odd; almost all of the complaints against HS placement involve
>>> kids not being able to attend neighborhood schools.
>
>> Usually that occurs when the neighborhood school is one of the better
>> schools. As I said before, it all depends on which school you can get into.
>
> No, it actually occurs most often because most of the HS are about the
> same, with a very few exceptions, but the 'racial balancing' is done
> regardless.
"Racial balancing" may be the reason for the SF system of school
distribution, but the complaints I have heard on public radio and in real
life are that the current system prevents one from assuring that their kids
have good schools based on their residence.
>>> I'm sure that the Marin educational system is the reason Marin County
>>> enjoys the reputation it does.
>
>> It is sufficiently good that people often cite the school system as a reason
>> for why they moved to Marin from San Francisco.
>
> And, of course, assiduously avoid Marin City.
Agree, Marin City is the exception. It's reputation is as bad as the
non-magnet schools of San Francisco.
The bad schools in San Francisco is often cited as one of the many reasons
why the City is considered not a good place to raise children. If you really
did live in the Bay area as long as you claim, you would know that already.
>
>>>> Lowell was the high school that had the quota.
>>>
>>> Actually, they don't.
>
>> Are you sure?
>
> I am certain. They have 'allowances' for certain diversity categories,
> as do most private schools.
Then they must have changed it in the past five years.
>
>> They used to have one, and I haven't seen any item in the
>> Chronicle that they don't any more.
>
>> The quota is quite high, but it was "justified" on the grounds of diversity.
>> Otherwise the school would be "simply Oriental."
>
> No. The number of black students would decrease, however.
It looks like you are like Kaz in being in denial. The diversity also
applies to whites and Latinos and other non-Asian groups..
>
>>> Among other reasons, they don't have the money to attend them, as they
>>> frequently cost tens of thousands of dollars.
>
>> They may not attend, as a whole, as much other groups do, but there is no
>> indication that the number is "VERY FEW."
>
> Last I saw, the % of Chinese/CA students in SF public schools is over
> 50%. In private schools, less than 10.
Less than 10% does not mean "VERY FEW". All you have shown is that other
races and cultures are more likely to remain in public schools, rather than
enter private schools. You definitely have NOT shown that some SF schools
are NOT disaster areas, and you have NOT shown that those remaining in those
schools have not suffered from it.
>> It sounds like you are going with stereotypes, and one of the classic
>
> Unlike you, I actually did volunteer work in LA and SF Chinatowns,
> Mr Schaal.
Then why the stereotypes? Aren't you aware that plenty of Chinese live
OUTSIDE the Chinatowns? Aren't you aware that not every Chinese immigrant is
poor? Some from Hong Kong, and Taiwan are very rich.
>
>> As for the comment about "they don't have the money to attend them," it
>> makes me wonder if you really do live the Bay Area. While there are many new
>
> Yes. SF is where the immigrants first get their feet on the ground. They
> save their money, and move out to more affluent communities. This is not
> unique to the Chinese, though their numbers are higher here.
>
> If you actually lived here as long as you claimed, you would know this.
If you really lived in the SF Bay area, you would realize that SF is not
necessarily the place where immigrants first get their feet on the ground.
For one reason, the cost of housing is too expensive for that. Many
immigrants flock to San Jose, Oakland, East Bay, and other areas that have
immigrant communities in combination with cheaper accommodations.
San Francisco is gradually becoming less and less important to the San
Francisco Bay Area, as the demographics, the economic power, and the
political power diffuse throughout the entire area. San Francisco isn't even
the largest city in the San Francisco Bay Area and hasn't been for years.
>
>>>> That does not seem to agree with what I have heard from KQED radio, or from
>>>> professional people living in the area. What is your source of information?
>>>
>>> Uh, I live here? I read the articles in the paper? I see them on TV?
>>> (And, of course, one could look at the demographics for UC enrollments.)
>
>> If you live there, read the local paper, watch local television, then how
>> come your knowledge of the situation seems not to jell with that experienced
>> by others in the Bay area?
>
> I'm guessing because you never actually did anything in the Chinese
> community there, and you list yourself as 'others' .
>
> Mike
I am not Chinese, but then I assume that you aren't either. I don't see
anything in your responses to indicate any superior knowledge on the topic.
On the contrary, you seem to be spouting off stereotypical myths of Chinese
uniformity. There is a great diversity in the Chinese immigrants, from the
very rich to the very poor, and you don't seem to be aware of that.
You also seem to be assuming that the Chinese immigrants constitute the
Chinese community in San Francisco. Immigrants have children, who also have
children, etc. The descendants from Chinese immigrants have assimilated into
mainstream culture better than their immigrants have, and the descendants
should not be stereotyped with what you see in your feel-good missions in
Chinatown.
You claim to have done some work in Chinatowns in LA and SF, and it sounds
like you are under the impression that they are the only places where
Chinese reside. Haven't you ever heard of the Richmond District?
Overall, your reaction to the statement that some SF schools are disaster
areas shows a particular set of biases that deny the obvious.
Maybe I moved in better circles, but the Chinese Americans I met with, were
friends with, and worked with don't fit the mold that you seem to be wanting
to force them into.
If you want to continue with your rants, feel free to do so, but don't
expect me to buy what you say.
Fnews-brouse 1.9(20180406) -- by Mizuno, MWE <mwe@ccsf.jp>
GnuPG Key ID = ECC8A735
GnuPG Key fingerprint = 9BE6 B9E9 55A5 A499 CD51 946E 9BDC 7870 ECC8 A735