The real problem is all of high schools are not operating at the same high level as these ellite high schools are. That's what happens when you spend the better part of 30 to 40 years undercutting spending on schools, bashing on teachers and absolving parents any responsibility in raising their children.

@1 Maybe we could feel that they and their parents are under siege from racist profiling. I do.

From wiki:
Asian Americans make up 11.8% of New York City's population.
Immigrant Africans, Caribbeans, and African Americans make up 25.1% of New York City's population.
Hispanics and Latinos make up 27.5% of New York City's population.

from NYCLU stats:
In the first six months of 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 337,434 times
179,449 were black (53 percent).
107,812 were Latino (32 percent).
31,891 were white (9 percent).

leaving 6 percent for an Other that I'd guess would include Asians

@1

Free test prep classes are offered by the city. Poor blacks and latinos have their shot. If they prepped as hard as the Asians (many of whom are poor), they'd be able to set up their futures too.

Charles is right. We could learn a lesson or two from the Asians and their industriousness and focus.

@1
You are the person who claimed that a black firefighter is more likely to commit a crime than a white firefighter.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"I think this makes African Americans less inclined to follow society's rules."

There is a great deal of research studying the effects of race and standardized testing. African Americans do worse on some tests simply because they've been discriminated against in the past. @2 touched on it, but everyone should read about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_…

Well you'd sure the fuck hope nobody hates the Asian families for showing how education is a best handled as a family's responsibility. So fucking sad government can't get "serious" and force parents to give a shit about their kid's education.

@8
"So fucking sad government can't get 'serious' and force parents to give a shit about their kid's education."

How would the government do that?

We can learn a good lesson from every parent, regardless of race, that makes education a priority for their children. Some have an easier go of it than others (especially if they can afford to have one parent at home full-time), but even in the absence of socioeconomic privelege, many parents around the country are still doing their best to help their kids succeed in school.

Charles is right, we should take pride in American families who are serious and supportive of their kids' education. And we can do that without ignoring privelege or bias.

@9 - They obviously can't. I was ridiculing Mudede's logic that acknowledges family is paramount to education and then saying "serious" government is somehow the answer.

Given that they frequently would rather be victims than actually try, we'll just do what we've been doing: lowering workplace standards to give them a "fair" shot.

@8, @9 Government can, and does, give incentives to parents of children who are successful in a traditional school framework. Honors students get scholarships, which are increasingly required for middle & lower income families to get quality educations, now that government funding of education is decreasing.

I know it's not forcing parents to give a damn, but it's certainly in their economic best interests to have kids who can behave & focus for 10-15 minutes at a time.

Our public schools do a great job for students who arrive at school prepared, supported, and motivated. Because they are members of cultures which put a very high value on education, a disproportionate number of Asian students arrive prepared, supported, and motivated.

For whatever reason - it doesn't matter what - a lot of students arrive without the requisite preparation, support, or motivation to succeed at school. Traditionally these elements are provided by the students' families. Those born in to families that provide them, get them. Those born into families that don't provide them, don't get them.

The solution is not to sigh and bemoan the birth family lottery, but for us to expand our vision for the role of the school so that it includes providing the necessary preparation, support, and motivation that students need to succeed academically when the family fails to provide it. That's certainly the solution that makes sense.

We have not implemented this solution, however, because a lot of people oppose this expanded role of the school. They have a variety of reasons: too expensive, outside the proper role of government, too much work, or just too fixed in the traditional role to change it.

Nevertheless, that's the solution.

@12, I was with you in your earlier post. Apparently I also misunderstood what you were saying.

It is indeed too fucking bad that no one (including the government) can force parents to be actively involved in the education of their children. It's too fucking bad that many parents regard school as daycare, a place to send their children while they are at work or otherwise engaged. It's too fucking bad many parents are opposed to paying higher taxes to fund the schools where their children are educated. It's too fucking bad that so many parents see the education of their children as not their job, problem, or responsibility.

Moreover, it's too fucking bad that there's a good chance that the moron who thinks class size is irrelevant and that education funding should be slashed may be elected.

Um, a couple of key points from real "Asians" I know and have or do work with at the U.

Example a. Grad student, grew up in Shoreline, American. Technically Asian. But Tiawanese etc mix.

Example b. Grad student, grew up 150 miles from Beijing, Chinese. Technically Asian.

Example c. Grad student, grew up in South Korea, married. Both technically Asian.

Only racists and really old people (e.g. those who hate our President "for unspecified reasons") actually give a flying frack about this. Now stop whining and going on beer binges and crack down on your studying.

@10
"Funny how the cops tend to bother people who commit crimes."

You must have missed the continuing saga of the Seattle police department.
Not to mention how many convictions have been overturned once DNA evidence is considered.
Cops tend to bother people who can be easily convicted.

But we've been over this all before.

An admissions "process" based solely on the score of a 95 question test is not a good one.

@20
"Yep, and your as willfully ignorant as ever."

You can address the facts or you can ignore them.
But you are the one claiming that a black firefighter is more likely to commit a crime than a white firefighter.

"The effectiveness of aggressive police tactics like stop and frisk at reducing violent crime is a generally accepted fact for anyone who isn't an ACLU dido head."

No. As has been pointed out before, you're confusing correlation with causation.
Because you want to believe that a black firefighter is more likely to commit a crime than a white firefighter you accept that racist enforcement of anti-crime laws show that blacks are the cause of the crimes.
And that is the issue here.
You are using racist circular-logic.

The reality is that the decline in violent crime had been going on for DECADES.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycr…
Violent crime peaked around 1990 and has been declining ever since.
Correlation is not causation.
The real statistics show that you are wrong.

Yes friend, "aggressive police tactics are generally accepted fact" by anyone who parrots police talking points. Never mind that differential enforcement ("aggressive police tactics") in drug law leads to the prison statistics which (circularly) support the "aggressive police tactics" that create these disparities. Which is important, because praising our blue crusaders in their quest to keep niggers from giving looks at your daughter gives a veneer of social legitimacy to festering racist shit-bags like yourself.

@21: Holy shit, did you just say something that makes a lick o sense and isn't overtly racist? Daaaaamn.

@26
Gotta love that racist circular-logic.

"Yep, but, thanks to stop and frisk, violent crime has gone down a lot more in New York than in other cities."

Correlation is not causation.
Violent crime was ALREADY in decline BEFORE stop-and-frisk was implemented.

"The article I linked to back @20 explains this so clearly that even you might be able to grasp it."

No. It relies upon the same racist circular-logic that you use.
Which is probably why you think it has any meaning here.
The violent crime rate has been in decline for DECADES.
That is a fact.
Yet you will continue to claim that black firefighters are more likely to commit crimes than white firefighters.
But you will be unable to explain the decline in violent crime PRIOR to stop-and-frisk being implemented.
That's racist circular-logic.