Now it is my task to evaluate how these differences impacted the quality of the course.  My initial thoughts are these:

1. I think the quality of the writing and research in the blog format was far superior to anything I have read in about a dozen sections of the course.  There were stronger and weaker posts, of course.  And the comments or responses were pretty weak, overall.  But I think the posts were better thought out and supported with evidence than the average paper in the past.  I can attribute this to several factors (less overall writing in the course, fear of embarrassment, collaborative work, good modeling by other students), so I’ll have to figure out if the blog format was a necessary (and/or sufficient) condition for this outcome.

2. The conversation drift toward consensus bothers me.  It seemed most issues produced only one point of view.  Since I think sociology is a discipline–and this class is a forum–in which multiple viewpoints contribute to more robust understandings, I’m tempted to view the “comments” as a pedagogical failure.

3. I was surprised at how much difficulty many of you had figuring out the technology.  Even after sending out multiple emails that included directions on how to post and comment, and links to wordpress’s step-by-step directions, we still had loads of last minute “how do I…?” emails.  Answering these requests drains our instructor resources–it literally takes time away from more and interesting work we could do for you, so that was a bummer.

4. While we did have some comments from people outside the course, I’d rather have a lot more public discussion take place.  I should probably think about ways to stimulate that.  One thing that would clearly have to change is that posters would be responsible for monitoring the comments on their post and responding in order to spur dialogue, resolve confusion, and add new ideas.  I did have students approach me complaining about others’ misunderstandings of their  post, and I never really understood why they didn’t just engage those commenters on the blog.

5. It is important, I think, that the conversation in the blog influence and be influenced by, the conversations in class.  While I tried to draw upon online conversations in class discussions, my questions were rarely engaged by you.  Moreover, I don’t remember any student ever drawing upon blog conversations in their comments in class.  This disconnect suggested to me that students just valued the blog as a mechanism to earn a grade, but not as a forum for learning.  That is perhaps the most serious concern I have about using the blog format in future sections.

I know you’re completing your instructor reviews right now, but there’s no question on that survey that would solicit your opinions about specific aspects of our class.  I really do welcome your thoughts on this topic, and hope you’ll post them in the comments.  If you’d rather discuss it one-on-one, just let me know.

Thanks for your hard work on this experiment.  Good luck in the future.

Prof Lena

Michael Behe, supporting the argument of intelligent design, contends that most scientists refuse to consider the obvious hypothesis that molecular machines could conceivably appear to look designed because they really are designed. On the other hand, Stephen Jay Gould proposes that the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design collapses not as a consequence of the scientific community being closed to it but rather a result of the most basic reasons: it is overwhelmingly contradicted by scientific evidence. The issue of truth, moreover, persists in evolutionary theory discussion. In the American vernacular, theory often means imperfect fact. There is a common misconception that a theory is less true than a fact (Gould, 49). In scientific terms, facts are simply data and theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Theories, such as evolution, are never fully proven, and can be adapted and changed as new facts and data become available. Evolutionary theory, in turn, fits well with Dalton Conley’s use of the term normative science. Following from unbiased and neutral proofs and facts, normative science is the framework by which personal ideas and opinions of scientists are unchanged (Dalton and Conley 2008, p. 663). Conversely, countless attempts are being made to rectify the hypothesis of intelligent design, reflecting a very subjective approach. As seen with the gaps in the fossil record, in addition to such high degrees of complexity among organisms, intelligent design doesn’t have the ability to generate testable scientific hypotheses. Currently, however, most biologists have concluded that intelligent design promoters display either ignorance or intentional false accounts of evolutionary science, thus arriving at false conclusions based off of untrue premises. Responding to Phillip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991), Barbara Forrest (2002) makes it clear that the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture has no empirical research program and, consequently, “has published no data in peer-reviewed journals to support their intelligent-design claims.” Johnson exclaims that his support for intelligent design is not a response to scientific debate; it is about religion and philosophy. Unfortunately for the Discovery Institute, scientific evidence trumps faith-based claims and falsities: evolution is a scientific theory that we must accept as being scientifically logical in the development of our past, present, and future. Conversely, both science and faith are different ways of knowing, and both have deep and rich meanings for individuals. If, however, promoters of intelligent design are going to attempt to use science in order to counter evolution by natural selection, shouldn’t they be obligated to do so in the proper way?

What other sources might lead this argument in an alternative direction, that being supportive of intelligent design?

When faced with contrasting stories by different scientists, how do we decide who is more credible, and which stories to believe? Does it have to be truth-apt, or can the research reflect moral and ethical issues?

Sorry to make things difficult, but the majority of these sources were either found in the library, or in-print (from newspapers). Listed below is the Literature Cited.

Behe M. 2002. The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. Action Bioscience Journal: p. 2-3.

Brinton HG. 2009, February 16. How to Honor Religion and Science. USA Today, p. 11A.

Gould SJ. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.

Johnson P. 1991. Darwin on Trial. New York: Intervarsity Press.

Conley D. 2008. You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, p.

Charles Darwin

According to Conley (627), the most common reason for individuals to file for bankruptcy is because of health problems in the family. Ironically, the companies that formerly provided health care to their employees to keep them out of that situation are now going bankrupt. Thousands of Americans are finding themselves without jobs, without healthcare, and without a way to provide for their families. In an interview with the Star Ledger, Robert Meehan of Horizon BlueCross BlueShield said that healthcare between jobs is crucial, because an ER visit can cost over one thousand dollars. These visits can be incredibly damaging to a family working on little over a thousand dollars a month.

In the same article, the plight of workers at the hundreds of closed Circuit City stores across the country is discussed. These workers are not eligible for government COBRA benefits because their place of employment no longer exists. Without Medicaid (a joint federal and state program that helps to cover medical costs for poor people) or employer subsidized health insurance, the people dependent on the coverage provided are left without any sort of safety net. (There are many state-sponsored plans for children including Family Care in New Jersey or Cover Tennessee)

To counteract the sudden loss of health insurance for many Americans, a few companies have announced plans to provide free coverage for select procedures. Walgreens is going to give free access to its Take Care Clinics for minor problems throughout the rest of the year. Through this service, Walgreens is giving many people the opportunity to seek care when they may not have been able to otherwise. Conceived as an experiment, Walgreens is looking to see whether or not people will take advantage of the service while it is available.

The United States is in a peculiar situation regarding health care when compared to many other prosperous countries. Unlike Canada or several Western European nations, the United States does not provide its citizens with universal health care (Conley 625). According to an article by Thomas Farley published in the American Journal of Public Health, the Americans experience a considerable higher mortality rates than the denizens of other high-income developed countries (50% higher than the median rates of these countries). Farley asserts that it would be hasty to assume that the lack of universal health care in the United States causes this discrepancy. Conley states that general health care does not play a significant role in predicting mortality rates or life expectancy (628). Critics, however, can argue that many deaths such as those caused by homicide are largely outside the control or influence of the medical system. Thus, Farley contends that a more accurate comparison would be between the health care system and mortality from causes that can be effectively treated by modern medicine, which comprised approximately a quarter of the total deaths. Interestingly, there seemed to be an inverse relationship between mortality from “amenable” causes and the number of hospitals and physicians in the area.

So, what can Americans do to improve their health? Both Conley and Farley acknowledge that American health care centers more on specialized remedial treatment rather than primary preventative care. Conley points out that since Americans wait until they are sick to see a doctor, the medical system plays a very small role in everyday health. Farley mentions a study in which American counties with the most primary care physicians had a 2 to 3% decrease in mortality rates. Furthermore, differences in socioeconomic standing play a major role in general health and longevity as put forth in the Whitehall Study. Farley points to a study where American counties with high income inequality also had 11 to 13% higher mortality rates than their lower income inequality counterparts. This phenomenon could be explained by the higher degrees of social stress present in areas with high income inequality, but many confounding variables do exist such as the underlying causes of income inequality and lifestyle choices. Lifestyle choices, according to Mary Bassett in her editorial for this month’s issue of the American Journal of Public Health, should be the primary concern in public health. This view is echoed by Farley who that a population wide decrease in sodium would be the most cost-effective way to decrease the number of strokes in the nation. Additionally, scientists at the National Cancer Institute believe that the decline in cancer rates in the past years is due more to a general decline in smoking than to the increase of biomedical research and treatment.

In this current economic and political climate, perhaps it is a good opportunity to rethink our approach to health care. Merely pumping more funds into the existing model would probably not significantly improve public health in general. Instead, we believe that health care reform should center be a multi-pronged approach. First, we should shift the emphasis of the medical system from remedy to prevention. This would include a higher number of primary-care physicians but more importantly, it would require an alteration in our society’s view on the purpose of doctors. Second, sociological conditions and choices should be modified or at least advised. While the government and medical organizations could influence and incentivize certain changes such as healthier meals in the public school system, such a sociological shift should and would rest largely on the shoulders of the public in the form of personal decisions and paradigms. What do you think is the best solution for American health care in this economic climate and in the near future? Moreover, how and should we bridge the disparity in health care received by those of a higher socioeconomic bracket and those of a lower one.

Abraham Wang and Matthew Taylor

Further Reading and Sources

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2009/04/coffee_break_health_care_optio.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/31/walgreen-free-care-for-jo_n_181178.html

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=1668847061&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239285247&clientId=2335

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=9&did=1668847031&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239283989&clientId=2335

While the policymakers could not account for the problem of inequality within the healthcare system, the increase in wealthy people using MRIs suggests that the plan, itself, was intrinsically flawed. Why would healthy people have a sudden increase in need for MRIs? In other words, the government misallocated its resources. These results, while demonstrating inequality among classes in relation to healthcare, also portray an inefficiency arising from the socialized nature of the healthcare system. ICES scientist Dr. John You states that “our study highlights the need for simultaneous strategies that aim to improve the appropriateness of MRI scanning, so that access is based on medical need,” which means that the Canadian system of healthcare is flawed. Although the Canadian health care system is free for its citizens, the government policymakers neglected the fact that increasing the availability of a free service increases not only the use of the service but the abuse of the service. The American system of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) might be a smarter solution. The HMO system is set up to cut the costs of healthcare by paying the doctors based on the number of patients they diagnose. This is an incentive for the doctor to be more deliberate in diagnosing a patient. For instance, if a patient needs an MRI, the doctor ensures that the MRI is absolutely necessary before prescribing this treatment. This contrasts the nature of the Canadian system in which patients might be given MRIs on a “whim,” because they are free.

In conclusion, the bureaucracy that comes with a free system of healthcare not only succeeds in widening the gap between rich and poor by making healthcare harder to find for those that need it but also succeeds in inefficiently allocating the resources of a country. In this policy what do you think was a more prominent factor contributing to its failure, the financial inequality among the citizens or the misallocation of MRI machines? What could potentially be a more efficient solution in lieu of the Canadian health care system that will not alienate the poor? As no healthcare system is without its flaws, what are some potential obstacles that face an HMO system if it were to replace the present system in Canada, a socialized system of healthcare?

For further reading please see the following documents:

The article describing the report:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/inequities_in_socialized_healt.html

The Report itself:

http://www.chrgonline.com/news_detail.asp?ID=106405

The state of Canadian healthcare now:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080301.wheart01/BNStory/National/home/

The Ugly Truth of the Canadian Health Care system:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Andrew Venkatraman and Anson Wilks

One question that this study inevitably raises is, how poverty is defined. In trying to fight poverty, it is first necessary to know what truly qualifies as poverty before it can be fought effectively. There are a few ways to define poverty. Absolute poverty is a food-based measurement that defines poverty as the “point at which a household’s income falls below the necessary level to purchase food to physically sustain its members.” (Conley, p. 599) This measure is calculated by dividing the cost of food by the percentage of income that goes to purchasing that food, and has been used to make the US poverty line since the 1960s. With such factors as inflation, a decrease in income spent on food, increase in income spent on housing, and other variations over time and place, many argue that this absolute measure is not very indicative of poverty. In addition, this method does not take into consideration the differences in cost of living from one area to another. The US Department of Health & Human Services set guidelines for poverty in the United States—a table of their standards for 2007 can be seen at (http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/07poverty.shtml)

While Alaska and Hawaii have different guidelines, amounting to a $500—1,000 difference for each individual, the other 48 states and D.C. are clumped into a single category. The problem arises when trying to compare people living in places like New York or California to those in Alabama or North Dakota—the cost of living in these areas is drastically different. Perhaps an income of $12,000 would be plenty for someone living in Mobile, Alabama, but that same income in San Francisco, California does not go nearly as far. On a larger scale, the same principles can be applied to definitions of poverty in different countries. Poverty is generally thought to be associated with the inability to meet the basic needs of life; however, the definition of these “basic needs” is socially constructed and, therefore, varies widely across borders, both domestic and international. (Absolute Poverty v. Relative Poverty: The Search for Survival, Volkov & Deneburg)

Many people, therefore, may turn to relative poverty for what they may consider a more accurate measure of poverty. The definition of poverty in this case is based on “a percentage of the median income” in a given area. (Conley, p. 603) The question then is where are the lines to be drawn in considering given “locations?” Should poverty be relative to state? City? County? Neighborhood? While the “relative poverty” system at least tries to take variations in location into account, it still experiences many problems such as defining the boundaries of relativity. Furthermore, relative poverty falls under criticism for being an income-based system of measurement. As people with the same income can actually be in very different circumstances in terms of debt and savings, some argue that net worth (a person’s total assets minus their total debts) is much more indicative of poverty.

The question that arises in considering all these different measurements of poverty is, can there ever really be an absolute measurement of poverty? Yes, distinctions can be made based on location, but how do you define what count as necessities? Food and shelter seem obvious conditions, but what about phones, cars, computers, or the Internet? Relative needs are socially constructed, regionally distinct, and perpetually changing, and it is difficult to decide on a single definition that will prove useful for any significant amount of time.

In his article Rethinking the Sociological Measurement of Poverty, David Brady presents us with five criteria to take into account when measuring poverty. Brady writes,

“First, scholars should use measures of poverty that effectively gauge comparative historical variation. Second, analysts should measure poverty as relative rather than absolute. Third, poverty should be conceptualized as social exclusion. Fourth, poverty indices should measure the depth and inequality among the poor. Finally, analysts should incorporate taxes, transfers, and state benefits when calculating household resources.”

(http://www.jstor.org/)

Do you agree with Brady’s list of five criteria? If not, which one(s) would you remove? Would you add any criteria? In conclusion, is there any absolute measure of poverty or is there a “relativity” factor inherent in even the most absolute definitions?

For further readings on this topic, see:

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594075?&Search=yes&term=poverty&term=States&term=United&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpoverty%2BUnited%2BStates%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dpoverty%2Bline%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=2&ttl=90384&returnArticleService=showArticle

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566726?&Search=yes&term=poverty&term=States&term=United&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpoverty%2BUnited%2BStates%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dpoverty%2Bline%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=7&ttl=90384&returnArticleService=showArticle

]]> http://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/what-is-poverty/feed/ 16 02scottstrohm http://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/millionaire-matchmaker/ http://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/millionaire-matchmaker/#comments Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:25:29 +0000 02careyspitzer http://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/?p=420 Continue reading →]]>

Historically, the upper class has been composed of the aristocracy, the wealthy, the elite, and the landowners. The only way to join this sphere was by birth or occasionally through marriage. According to Bravo TV’s “Millionaire Matchmaker,” however, these days, being a member of the upper class really is just as easy as getting hitched.

The basic premise of this hit documentary-series begins with Patti Stanger, the owner of the Los Angeles-based elite matchmaking service, Millionaire’s Club, in which she helps wealthy men (what she refers to as “certified millionaires”) find the women of their dreams. Due to the increased amount of women in the workforce today, Patti has also added a twist by included female millionairesses to the drama.

Socioeconomic status (SES) is used to describe an individual’s place in society. People are classified into certain groups depending on their occupation, income, wealth, and education. The upper class, as mentioned above, is a division of SES and represents the highest degree of SES.

The term, equality of opportunity, is used by Conley to describe a standard of equality. Equality of opportunity believes that as long as everyone plays by fair rules, some people will be wealthier than others and that is just the way life is. Just as in the game of Monopoly, in this world, everyone is trying to maximize their holdings of wealth, and some people choose to do it in different ways. While some find that working hard to be successful is the most truthful, honest and fair way to gain wealth, others use different routes, such as marriage, to rise in SES.

The elite-mass dichotomy system refers to a group of governing elite who broadly hold the power of society. As Millionaire Matchmaker suggests, the ones with the most money are the ones that hold the most power, therefore forcing women to believe that in order for them to gain power, they must marry the wealthy.

The concept of this show may seem petty or inconsequential to most critics, but in fact, it is a great representation of vertical social mobility and the idea that one can change social classes simply through marriage and that there are even services with that specific purpose. What happened to true love one might ask? It has been replaced with the idea that happiness will result from money so with the right clothes, the right looks, and the right matchmaker, you’re on your way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2008/01/22/2008-01-22_marry_rich_with_millionaire_matchmaker.html

http://www.bravotv.com/the-millionaire-matchmaker/season-2/about

Although forms of stratification vary throughout the world, perhaps the most prevalent in modern American society is that of the status hierarchy system, in which people are ranked based on their social prominence and the value of their lifestyles (Conley 556). Unlike in a system based on political or religious factors, upward social mobility is highly possible for those in a status hierarchy system. As Conley suggests, “Often, individuals seek to assert their status or increase their status not just through their occupation but also through their consumption, memberships, and other aspects of how they live” (Conley 557). One interesting example of a large group of people increasing their status can be found in the gradual stratification of the middle class. In Thomas Kostigen’s 2008 MarketWatch article, The ‘middle-class millionaire’: Those with net worth of $1 million to $10 million reshape U.S. culture, the author sheds light on how a growing upper middle class is making lifestyle choices that were once available only to the elite upper class. According to a recent study by Russ Alan Prince and Lewis Schiff, “7.6% of American households [. . .] are middle-class millionaires” and “62% believes that networking, or knowing many people, is the key to financial success” (Kostigen). Middle-class millionaires often work long hours to earn their “new-money” status, and place great importance on their children’s academic success. In fact, “Seventy-five percent of this group chose their home because of its school system” (Kostigen).  To these parents, having a child who attends an Ivy League university is just as valuable of a status symbol as having a high income.

To a large degree, the class system is correlated with a person’s level of educational achievement. Class system is a classification based on economic status and loose social mobility.  However, there exists the question of whether social inequality between the classes is determined by other factors before receiving a college education and then college just propagates this inequality, or if higher education breeds inequality on its own. The article “White, middle-class families dominate top university places” shows that students who are already categorized as middle to upper class are the overwhelming majority to attend college. This fact combined with the shocking statistic mentioned in the book, that only 25% of Americans actually earn their bachelors degree (Conley, 568), could mean that the socially defined middle class will eventually shrink since it is now generally accepted that a college degree is required to pull the income and educational prestige required for the middle class bracket. It seems that higher education and the middle class go hand in hand. “People’s status ratings of occupations was attributed to the education necessary for the position and not the income corresponding to that position.” (Conley, 557) However, education is often correlated with income, and income affects class system ranking, and class system ranking affects whether your children attend college. The article “College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S.” also brings out the issue of the cost of higher education; only the middle to upper class will be willing and able to pay for this expensive way up the class ladder. America’s “equal opportunities” might not be so equal after all.

Many economists would agree with Elliot Essman that “America is a middle class nation” (Conley, 564).  This middle class, however, is difficult to define because it is becoming so stratified within itself.  The growth of the upper middle class has led many to view education, career, and lifestyle as important factors in achieving a high status in society, with a significant emphasis on educational achievement. Thus, middle class millionaires strive to make use of resources that hint at wealth: “’From life coaches to luxury vacation rentals, concierge medical care to high dollar prep course into the Ivy League [these things] are making their way downstream, steadily becoming available to a much broader population’” (Kostigen).

Why do you think that middle-class millionaires place so much importance on the academic achievements of their children? Is it a means of continuing their upward social mobility? As a student at Vanderbilt, a higher level university, do you think that your attendance here will change your social class status for the better or not at all? Do you expect your class to match that of your parents?

Links for further reference:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rise-middle-class-millionaire-reshaping-us/story.aspx?guid=%7B6CF2AF9B-7A4C-487E-8AD1-8B49A6A87104%7D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/03/universities-admissions-social-mobility

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html

http://www.mpaa.org/researchStatistics.asp

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/5/675

Jill Scheschuk and Wilhelmina Ross

The United States, with each passing year, has become an increasingly pluralistic society. Dalton Conley, in You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist, defines such a society as one with “several unique and different ethnic groups” (p. 519). According to the 2000 census, the most represented foreign-born population in America since the 1980’s has been Mexico, with a whopping “7.48 million” (p. 519). However, immigrants to this country are often met with racism. This “belief that members of separate races possess different and unequal traits” (p. 491) has permeated American society ever since the colonists fought wars with the Native Americans. America’s history has been stained by the heinous practices of slavery, the virtual genocide of Native Americans, and Japanese internment camps. One practice, though, that people may be surprised to learn still exists in today’s world is segregation. Segregation, as defined by Dalton Conley, refers to the “legal or social practice of separating people on the basis of their race or ethnicity” (p. 520). Though the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as discussed by the U.S. government’s archives website, outlawed segregation in schools, public places, and occupations, it still exists in our society. Conley sites Massey & Denton when he writes of the “culture of segregation” that exists, especially in America’s ghettos.

Conley defines residential segregation as “maintaining an urban underclass in perpetual poverty by limiting its ties to upwardly mobile social networks…” (p. 521). The article “The New American Ghetto” by Frederique Krupa discusses the ten-year plan started by the Koch Administration. In 1986, it intended to provide the New York City with “84,000 new and 168,000 renovated apartment units.” The total cost of the project, since the city at the time was thriving, was 5.1 billion dollars. Vegara explains, though, that by dumping “the new shelters and apartment buildings in devastated, minority neighborhoods on the outskirts of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, Harlem and the Lower East Side, the city was able to avoid many lawsuits from powerful community groups.” Further, these housing projects were put into neighborhoods (such as the South Bronx) that are also “drug trafficking centers where violent crime is rampant, and effective programs dealing with these problems are rare.” With this adversity in mind, it is hard to imagine how the residents of this area, most being minorities, can escape. Conley explains that for the residents of these ghettos, “it’s no big deal to sell drugs, drop out of school, depend on welfare, or run with a gang” (p. 522). Segregation, in addition to existing in our nation’s ghettos, still exists in our nation’s schools.

According to Jonathan Kozol in his article “Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Education Apartheid” presents some frightening statstics. In one Seattle school he visited, “where approximately half the families were Caucasian, 95 percent of students at the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School were black, Hispanic, Native American, or of Asian origin.” Further, in many schools named for influential black leaders, hardly anyone children other than African-Amreicans attend. For example, a high school in Cleveland named for Dr. King, “black students make up 97 percent of the student body.” In Philadelphia, another school named for Martin Luther King Jr. has a “98 percent black student body.” Unfortunately, schools with these high minority populations often have low graduation rates. The aforementioned school in Cleveland “had a graduation rate of only 35 percent.” Obviously, something has to be done to fix this inequality. My high school, a Catholic all boys school, had a 100 % college attendance rate for my class. However, the overwhelming majority of students were Caucasian. Why does this culture of segregation in our nation’s schools seem to disproportionately harm minorities? Do the ghettos across our nation themselves a product of segregation of culture, cause this problem? Finally, what can we, a pluralistic nation, do to solve a problem that will not go away on its own?

Links for further reference:

<http://www.translucency.com/frede/ghetto.html>

<http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/>

<http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm>

Posted by: Matty Roberts

The Felson et al. article:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX8-4PP7R3Y-&_user=86629&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000006878&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=86629&md5=ebecac64045561fbed00962e7d88babb
*Due to link problems, go to www.sciencedirect.com and enter title: “Do theories of crime or violence explain race differences in delinquency?” and enter auther Richard Felson

For more information:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9599&page=243
http://books.google.com/books?id=YMUola6pDnkC&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=racial+deviance&source=bl&ots=ct584W5aqu&sig=RE9k01l6yZw0L0vFixczQu-29BY&hl=en&ei=5mDISd_tBqbpnQf7562RAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=results