jerseyhoya wrote:This month's South Jersey magazine has a bunch of charts with facts about 23 high schools I guess mostly in Burlington and Camden counties. The highest ranking school, Haddonfield, has an average SAT (reading+math+writing) of 1,768. The lowest, Camden, has an average SAT of 1,014. The highest per pupil expenditure, Camden, is $25,575. The lowest per pupil expenditure, Haddonfield, is $15,344.

Correlation between average SAT score and per pupil spending at a solid -0.41.

They'd probably have similar outcomes, with happier kids, by paying students in Camden $5k/year to attend school.

I have a girl in my class from Belarus. She said it's pretty safe there. Even though everyone is unemployed, they are mostly drunk and happy.

I guess those Camden kids are just dumber! !!

pacino wrote:I guess those Camden kids are just dumber! !!

That's probably a lot of it, yes. You have 14 more slots left on the list that you can use.

Dumbass Camden kids

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... lfare.html

I tend to lean towards this way of thinking. Debunk away.

- SATs are stupid
- Bloated educational bureaucracy is stupid
- Contemporary methods of educating are stupid
- Pretending "market forces" can or would sort out the ugly implications of the education spending/"educability scoring" correlation presented is stupid
- Imagining that it is useful to narrowly look at what is spent on "per pupil spending" as the sole driver to implicate in the SAT scoring results is ... not useful (ha fooled you)

10 more free!

I like you bucky

Bucky wrote:http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1526-5-surprising-insider-facts-about-welfare.html

I tend to lean towards this way of thinking. Debunk away.

It's a pretty solid article, even if it goes for quantitative data when it suits the argument and anecdotal reports when it doesn't.

It begins by describing welfare as a whole broad series of taxpayer funded payments, but most of the argument focuses on just traditional welfare.

There will always be angry populists making the welfare queen argument - but that's really not worthy of debate.

The unproven point here is the suggestion that welfare is not demotivating.

If you feel that welfare is demotivating, that is not a reason to end it. Social safety nets are essential. Leftwing critics howled when welfare was trimmed under Clinton - but the reforms were useful. Useful not so much to save taxpayers money, but to encourage people to take control of their own lives.

Welfare - with the small or the capital W - should stay, but we should continue to tune the structure so that people can get on their feet. When you depend on the government check, you keep a very low ceiling on your life opportunities.

TomatoPie wrote:Welfare - with the small or the capital W - should stay, but we should continue to tune the structure so that people can get on their feet.

yes

TomatoPie wrote: When you depend on the government check, you keep a very low ceiling on your life opportunities.

One of the squeals from objectors to things like broadening health coverage or min wage activism is that people are only transitorily in need anyway, so why bother extending it.

Seems like that same assertion would, if sound, apply to welfare 'dependency', in the opposite direction: 'relatively few are on it for extended periods anyway, so why try to marshal political will to shrink it significantly'

How does the data shape up these days? I'm not dependent on a gov't check , but I'm still too lazy to dig around myself

All I know is Kansas is getting mocked for their new law henpecking how & where welfare recipients spend their allotments

drawing too straight a line between where one obtains one's basic material supports and the strength of one's motivation to pursue one's "true" 'life opportunities' risks constraining humankind to a limited-dimension 'homo economicus' definition - increasingly problematic the more post our post-industrial world becomes.

At least one of our tech overlords (and one of the planet's luckiest humans ever), Peter Thiel, waxes rueful about where the nouveau-obscenely rich are placing their venture bets anymore. Why, one might conclude they've misplaced their obviously, naturally abundant and almost genetically encoded motivation to accomplish anything of genuine merit

they're going to use nitrogen gas as a backup to kill prisoners in Oklahoma. fucking gas chambers

New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation - Could be good stuff. Not just the broad strokes mentioned here, but the bit about the Times, Post, and Fox News already latching on to leads from the book is especially interesting.

Gee if it sells well enough the author can quit his day job

Chris Wallace with the hard-hitting question for Lindsey Graham: Why are you single? Have you just not found the right lady yet? (paraphrased)

What a dumb thing to harp on about Graham; he has so many other problems. Being a bachelor isn't one of them. We all know why. What matters are his votes.

pacino wrote:Chris Wallace with the hard-hitting question for Lindsey Graham: Why are you single? Have you just not found the right lady yet? (paraphrased)

What a dumb thing to harp on about Graham; he has so many other problems. Being a bachelor isn't one of them. We all know why. What matters are his votes.

What an asshole question.

hasn't the "Lindey is gay" rumors/speculation bullshit been going on for over a decade now?

who other than his mom would part with a single dollar to support a Lindsey for POTUS campaign

Soren wrote:http://www.khaama.com/isis-taliban-announced-jihad-against-each-other-3206

now just find a way to herd them together and wager on which ones eat the other ones' faces off