Everyone Everywhere is Wearing a Mask In Public.

[UsualName]

Why is it cherry picking? It’s a legit comparison, you just don't like what it tells you.

It’s cherry picking because you’re picking the poorest areas out of the state when discussing the state’s policy. It’s a nonsense argument. We certainly can discuss issues of education within the context of inner cities, suburbs or rural areas individually but that is not overall state policy.

Please think this stuff through.

 

[UsualName]

No. My issue is not masks in schools. As I said it’s an inconvenience at most. My issue is remote learning. We simply cannot have that again.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1702009826698572186

 

[gwb-trading]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1702009826698572186

It should be noted that using masks, Covid testing, and social distancing allowed schools to stay open for in-person learning which is far more effective than remote learning.

The schools in red districts which did not use masks, Covid testing and social distancing were quickly overrun with Covid and had to close down -- and then scramble to go back to remote learning.

 

[UsualName]

Imagine being a man and having to worry about your makeup all day long…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1704831285171261712

 

[Tsing Tao]

It’s cherry picking because you’re picking the poorest areas out of the state when discussing the state’s policy. It’s a nonsense argument. We certainly can discuss issues of education within the context of inner cities, suburbs or rural areas individually but that is not overall state policy.

Please think this stuff through.

If its cherry picking to compare the poor parts of NJ to the richer parts of NJ, then its just as much cherry picking to compare the poorest states of the US to some of the richer ones - as you did below. The comparison is apples to apples. You can't have it both ways (which you seem to want to do).

Please think this stuff through.

And thanks for bumping this. I had missed your response until now.

You’re living in lala land. For example, NJ is on par with Japan in terms of education whereas Mississippi is on par with Russia. I think NJ has the 5th most “diverse” population too. So you don’t get to play that race card. It’s about leaderahip and investment.

But education comes through in almost all areas in quality of life. Whether it’s income, life expectancy, employment, crime, health, blue states by and large have better outcomes than red states. And yes it’s all about education. If your state is t investing in education then your state is going to have a grim outlook.

 

[UsualName]

If its cherry picking to compare the poor parts of NJ to the richer parts of NJ, then its just as much cherry picking to compare the poorest states of the US to some of the richer ones - as you did below. The comparison is apples to apples. You can't have it both ways (which you seem to want to do).

Please think this stuff through.

And thanks for bumping this. I had missed your response until now.

No it’s not. Policy is set at the state level. That includes things like curriculum, teacher pay, state testing, etc. and schools implement accordingly.

It is true that poorer students tend to underperform. Even in the poorest districts the more affluent students tend to do well.

This is why I keep telling you on an “adjusted” basis. This has already been thought through beyond what you’re thinking. What you’re thinking is much too simplistic.

 

[Atlantic]

Imagine being a man and having to worry about your makeup all day long…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1704831285171261712

"he" is such a ridiculous pussy.

 

[Tsing Tao]

No it’s not. Policy is set at the state level. That includes things like curriculum, teacher pay, state testing, etc. and schools implement accordingly.

It is true that poorer students tend to underperform. Even in the poorest districts the more affluent students tend to do well.

This is why I keep telling you on an “adjusted” basis. This has already been thought through beyond what you’re thinking. What you’re thinking is much too simplistic.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever admitted error in any post on this forum in your entire time here? You go to such great lengths and gymnastics to twist your way out of even the most obvious errors. What's that expression about what one is supposed to do when one notices one is in a hole?

The fact that one example is at the state level doesn't negate the comparison one bit. Not. One. Iota.

You got caught in a comparison you simply didn't like.

 

[UsualName]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever admitted error in any post on this forum in your entire time here? You go to such great lengths and gymnastics to twist your way out of even the most obvious errors. What's that expression about what one is supposed to do when one notices one is in a hole?

The fact that one example is at the state level doesn't negate the comparison one bit. Not. One. Iota.

You got caught in a comparison you simply didn't like.

State policy set from the legislature and implemented by the governor absolutely is the driving factor in state education disparities. Our education system is decentralized, meaning the implementation and execution of education is a state prerogative, minus some bare minimums set for federal funding. The truth is we do need a national standard, such as was proposed by the common core initiative to raise up the poorly performing states.

Now to your point. It is absurd to compare the poorest school districts in one state to an entire state. It’s cherry picking. We know that poor areas have lower performing education systems. There are obvious sociological factors that impede education performance in these areas. Now if you were advocating comparing the poorest districts on a state by state basis, you might have a point of actual substance.

You’re too narrow minded on all of these issues but you’re too much of a narcissist to understand this.

 

[Tsing Tao]

State policy set from the legislature and implemented by the governor absolutely is the driving factor in state education disparities. Our education system is decentralized, meaning the implementation and execution of education is a state prerogative, minus some bare minimums set for federal funding. The truth is we do need a national standard, such as was proposed by the common core initiative to raise up the poorly performing states.

Fascinating, but has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Now to your point. It is absurd to compare the poorest school districts in one state to an entire state. It’s cherry picking. We know that poor areas have lower performing education systems. There are obvious sociological factors that impede education performance in these areas. Now if you were advocating comparing the poorest districts on a state by state basis, you might have a point of actual substance.

Comparing the poorest school districts in one state to the entire state is not what I did. I compared the poorest school districts in NJ to the richest ones in NJ. Just like you compared the poorest state in the country (Mississippi) to one of the richest (New Jersey) in this quote:

For example, NJ is on par with Japan in terms of education whereas Mississippi is on par with Russia.

I said "Yeah, but seperate Camden scores from Cherry Hill. Its Cherry Hill, Upper Saddle River and the like carrying the Camden and Newarks. In Mississippi, there just aren't any Allendales or Wyckoffs."

So if we can compare Mississippi to New Jersey and exclude income from the comparison, then we can do the same for Camden vs. Upper Saddle River. If we can't, we can't. But what we absolutely cannot do is what you opine, which is to include the one but exclude the other. That's your problem. That, and your arrogant, know-it-all attitude which is often dead wrong.