Pry-bit skool antics

[Embar Angylwrath]

I would say the data is incomplete.

It doesn't show how many of those kids are school-age, and how many of the school-age kids in general are in school, then the breakdown by race of kids in any school.

The numbers of whites I gave you (78%) was the percentage that captures people in an age range of 1 - 18. Pretty much school age kids, wouldn't you agree?

And Partha cited 77% white kids already in school, so we can assume that those are "school-age".

Whether or not the kids attend school is irrelevant. We're talking school discrimination. The question to you is this. Its a yes or no question. Do the numbers indicate that private schools practice racial discrimination?

[maltheos]

Your number is of little use

First off, it includes children 1-4, which are not of school age, and as the US is becoming more and more ethnicly mixed this means that the younger the group the more predominantly ethnic its population. Also kids in an age range != kids attending school in an age range. . As Aabe says the private schools could all be 100% discriminatory and as a pool the numbers may well come out right. It also does not directly address the issues in the report.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Your number is of little use

First off, it includes children 1-4, which are not of school age, and as the US is becoming more and more ethnicly mixed this means that the younger the group the more predominantly ethnic its population. Also kids in an age range != kids attending school in an age range. . As Aabe says the private schools could all be 100% discriminatory and as a pool the numbers may well come out right. It also does not directly address the issues in the report.

Matheos - So by your analogy, a public school that has a large percentage of black kids (or white kids) is discriminatory?

Oh, and I don't buy the argument of the ethnicity change affecting the overall percentages that much.

[maltheos]

Matheos - So by your analogy, a public school that has a large percentage of black kids (or white kids) is discriminatory?

Oh, and I don't buy the argument of the ethnicity change affecting the overall percentages that much.

No, but any school with an ethicity distribution different than that of the surrounding comunity is probably discriminatory, or feeling the effects of discrimination else wherein the comunity.

It proabably doesnt shift the percentage by more than 1 or 2% , probably less.

[Relbeek Einre]

Maltheos fielded it for me.

Basically Embar, your statistics are non sequitur to your conclusions.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Maltheos fielded it for me.

Basically Embar, your statistics are non sequitur to your conclusions.

That wasn't the question, which you keep dodging.

Do the statistics presented by myself and Partha indicate racial discrimination by private schools?

Yes or no.

[Relbeek Einre]

That's not the question you asked, that's a different question.

Do the statistics presented by you indicate racial discrimination by private schools? That's the question you asked, more or less.

And the answer is, as I said, no -- and neither do they indicate a lack thereof.

Do the statistics presented by Partha indicate racial discrimination by private schools?

That's a new question. And the answer, also, is no -- but they do indicate a racial disparity which could have one or more causes, one of which is racial discrimination.

That clear enough for you, or do you need diagrams?

[Embar Angylwrath]

So you'd agree then that Patha's speculation that private schools engage in racial discrimination is, at this point, unsubstantiated and unfounded?

Yes or no.

[Relbeek Einre]

No.

I would have said 'yes' if you had said 'based on the aforementioned data.'

As I said before, it's a tautology to say that there are private schools that engage in racial discrimination.

But Partha's data, while it shows a definite racial disparity between private and public schools, does not yield conclusions as to whether prejudice is a significant factor in that disparity.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Which is a kind way of saying he's just pulling shit out of his ass?

[Relbeek Einre]

Less so than you are.

You slapped together two uncorrelated pieces of data and drew a conclusion that the data didn't show.

Partha at least showed a racial disparity - he just reached too far and concluded racial discrimination was the cause.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Partha attributed it to outright discrimination, when it's obvious that it's most probably an artifact of class mix.

For example: if you locate a school in a predominantly white neighborhood, the mix will be predominantly white. If its located ina black neighborhood, then the mix will favor blacks. If it locared in a racially mmixed neighborhood, then you'll see a mix.

But if the overall population of white kids mirrors the overall population of white kids in private schools, then there is absolutely no way one can say private schools (as a whole) practice racial discrimination.

[Relbeek Einre]

But if the overall population of white kids mirrors the overall population of white kids in private schools, then there is absolutely no way one can say private schools (as a whole) practice racial discrimination.

This is not a true statement, at all.

For example, the overall amount of black vs. white kids in public school in the South in the 50s may well have mirrored population values, but as we know, most schools were entirely segregated.

Further, as has been explained, your data do not directly relate to each other, so the fact that they don't support your conclusion is kinda moot.

Basically, Partha made a correct evaluation of data (there is a disparity in racial proportions of public vs. private schools) and drew a possible cause of his observations as the definite cause. He pulled a Michael Moore.

You took two pieces of data that didn't mesh (school age students are 5-18, not 0-18, and not all children are in school, some are homeschooled, some are truant), and drew a conclusion the data did not support. In short, you stacked nonsequiturs together to make an entirely false argument. You pulled a Rush Limbaugh.

[Partha]

Y'know, not only do you commit the three strikes, Embar, you also have adopted Eidolon's argument style.

This is what I said:

And one thing about private schools that no one touches on - they're not known for embracing minorities or the poor.

Now, if that were untrue, they would have a higher proportion of minorities than public schools, and they would have more poor students proportionally than public schools. Neither is true. I also took pains to note:

And you can talk about 'the vast majority' of private schools, but yet that's a sad rejoinder when you consider NO public school is segregated.

Oh, and had you read the report OR my post, you'd have seen no accusations against Catholic schools about racism, since the report specifically states that Catholic schools most closely among all private schools mirrors public school ethnicity data, and since I didn't say a goddamned word about Catholic schools as a seperate entity.

In return, since you can't argue with the FACT that 1 in 7 private schools has not ONE minority of ANY race, you want to twist my argument and rebut it - not with a factual study, but with a PROJECTED census that DOES NOT REFLECT the reality of the HARD DATA in my link.

In your blind hatred of public schools, you've completely went off the rails, and tried to smear me. Well, perhaps if your school had trained you a little better in hard research and debate, you wouldn't get your ass handed to you by a lil' ol public schooler.

[Embar Angylwrath]

In return, since you can't argue with the FACT that 1 in 7 private schools has not ONE minority of ANY race, you want to twist my argument and rebut it - not with a factual study, but with a PROJECTED census that DOES NOT REFLECT the reality of the HARD DATA in my link.

In your blind hatred of public schools, you've completely went off the rails, and tried to smear me. Well, perhaps if your school had trained you a little better in hard research and debate, you wouldn't get your ass handed to you by a lil' ol public schooler.

Fact 1: The census was not projected, it's actual numbers from an actual count. It's hard data. You cited the fact that student make-up of private schools is 77% white OH NOES RASHUL DISKRIMINASHUN, while being oblivious to the fact that 78% of the school age population is white. Again, hard data and hard fact.

Fact 2: You cite the fact that 1 in 7 private schools have no minorities in them, yet using the same data one can say that the overwhleming majority (6 in 7) of private schools are integrated. (And you also neatly gloss over the fact that there are public schools with no minorites in them, because, well, no minorites live near them)

Fact 3: You've yet to provide any credible evidence that private schools on the whole discriminate against minorities, or turn away economically disadvantaged students.

Fact 4: If your public school had done a better job, they would have taught you the difference between logical thought and the rampant speculation you're engaging in.

[Partha]

Fact 1: Your census has hard figures for 1996, anything past that is a PROJECTION. It even says so in the table you point out to us, numbnuts. PROJECTION. Look it up. My data is more current - therefore, if you want to make an argument based on data, you should be using the most current data, numbnuts - not projections.

Fact 2: Name one public school without a minority. One. That's all I'm asking. ONE example. Then, even with one example, explain how one school in the whole country equates to 14%, numbnuts. Oh wait, that's right, it's faith based arithmetic.

Fact 3: I said 'not embracing minorities' - YOU'RE the one obsessed with 'discrimination'. There is a difference between the two, as anyone with a reading comprehension greater than Rsak's would understand. We have two facts in evidence, numbnuts - the fact that minorities are a smaller portion of private schools than of public schools, and that 1 in 7 private schools have NO minorities. That's my hypothesis. Can you break it down factually, numbnuts, or can you just run to the same old tired discredited strawmen and try stuffing them one more time?

Fact 4: Pot, kettle. At least my hypothesis has some factual data to back it up, numbnuts, and not vaucous faith based wishhopepraying. Bring some REAL data, chucklehead.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Fact: Guess you can't read (or comprehend) either. The numbers I used were from 2000, not 1996, chucklehead. Statistically relevant data.

Fact: Do a Google on Nebraska and school integration, then come back here and tell me there are no schools that are without minorities.

Fact: You're trying now to wiggle out of your own word usage, because we all know you didn't intend to use "embracing" as in "giving them a hug".

Keep trying though, you just keep digging your own hole deeper.

[Partha]

The title of your little link, numbnuts.

TRENDS IN THE WELL-BEING OF
AMERICA'S CHILDREN & YOUTH,
1997 Edition

Amazing how they got 2000 data in 1997, eh?

Oh, and I read your article. Now, can you prove from the text of that article that there are no minorities in those public schools?

[Relbeek Einre]

I can't believe you left these slide, Partha.

while being oblivious to the fact that 78% of the school age population is white. Again, hard data and hard fact.

0-18 is not school age, as has been said several times, but you engage in a very familiar tactic in response - ignoring the facts.

Fact 2: You cite the fact that 1 in 7 private schools have no minorities in them, yet using the same data one can say that the overwhleming majority (6 in 7) of private schools are integrated.

This is only credibly possible if you include having as few as one minority student in a school "integration".

Partha's logic has a few holes in it, Embar, but you have, as he correctly observed, gone off the rails in your crusade to lionize private schools and demonize public ones.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh, and I read your article. Now, can you prove from the text of that article that there are no minorities in those public schools?

Can you prove that there aren't?