Comments on: The Place of Religion http://iswhatido.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/ like it says Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:03:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Mary http://iswhatido.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-39 Mary Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:31:23 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-39 Dave's suggestion that UC relax its two-accredited-science-class requirement for the Calvary Chapel students overlooks the reality of university enrollment in California. The UC system is supposed to be able to enroll the top 12.5% of California's graduating high school seniors. Thanks to dwindling state funding and a growing population, only about 10% of the state's high school students can be accommodated. If I understand the latest incarnation of the admissions policy correctly, the system tries to get diversity by grouping high schools by geographic area and student socioeconomic status, then taking the top 10% of each group. Unfortunately for Calvary Chapel, it is located in suburban Los Angeles. That means its students are being grouped with the other middle- and upper middle class kids from the six or seven closest public high schools. While some inner city and rural public schools in California offer a poor education, many suburban school districts are easily the equal of a very good private prep school, and they usually offer more advanced and specialized elective classes than the smaller private schools (excluding classes in religious doctrine, of course, which are not considered in UC admissions decisions). As a practical matter, some 50% of the middle class high school seniors in suburban Los Angeles have probably met the minimal qualifications to attend a UC campus, and have applied. Since the UC system can only accept 10%, the admissions office must reject a staggering 80% of the FULLY QUALIFIED applicants from the area. They're not looking for students who have two years of science, one of them in a course that flunked its accreditation review. They're looking for a way to eliminate kids who took three or four years of rigorous science classes and got straight A's in them. So where does that leave the kids from Calvary Chapel? Their parents were wealthy enough to shell out about $6000 per year for tuition and fees. For their trouble, they got a kid who will have to take a year of remedial courses at the local community college just to complete the basics they could have gotten for free at their local public high school. Parents who can afford Calvary Chapel's tuition can probably afford that without too much difficulty, but it's got to be a rude awakening. The big loser is Calvary Chapel's high school. Almost all parochial schools have a significant percentage of students who do not belong to the sponsoring denomination, but whose parents feel that a private school will provide a better education. If those parents discover that Calvary Chapel's students aren't getting into UC, but the local public school kids are, they're going to start asking some hard questions about what's being taught in those expensive classrooms. The school might even find itself being sued for fraud. Of course, my sympathy for the parents is limited. If they had opened their kid's textbooks half as often as they opened their checkbooks, they would have had ample warning that the education their kid was receiving was worthless. Dave’s suggestion that UC relax its two-accredited-science-class requirement for the Calvary Chapel students overlooks the reality of university enrollment in California.

The UC system is supposed to be able to enroll the top 12.5% of California’s graduating high school seniors. Thanks to dwindling state funding and a growing population, only about 10% of the state’s high school students can be accommodated. If I understand the latest incarnation of the admissions policy correctly, the system tries to get diversity by grouping high schools by geographic area and student socioeconomic status, then taking the top 10% of each group.

Unfortunately for Calvary Chapel, it is located in suburban Los Angeles. That means its students are being grouped with the other middle- and upper middle class kids from the six or seven closest public high schools. While some inner city and rural public schools in California offer a poor education, many suburban school districts are easily the equal of a very good private prep school, and they usually offer more advanced and specialized elective classes than the smaller private schools (excluding classes in religious doctrine, of course, which are not considered in UC admissions decisions).

As a practical matter, some 50% of the middle class high school seniors in suburban Los Angeles have probably met the minimal qualifications to attend a UC campus, and have applied. Since the UC system can only accept 10%, the admissions office must reject a staggering 80% of the FULLY QUALIFIED applicants from the area. They’re not looking for students who have two years of science, one of them in a course that flunked its accreditation review. They’re looking for a way to eliminate kids who took three or four years of rigorous science classes and got straight A’s in them.

So where does that leave the kids from Calvary Chapel? Their parents were wealthy enough to shell out about $6000 per year for tuition and fees. For their trouble, they got a kid who will have to take a year of remedial courses at the local community college just to complete the basics they could have gotten for free at their local public high school. Parents who can afford Calvary Chapel’s tuition can probably afford that without too much difficulty, but it’s got to be a rude awakening.

The big loser is Calvary Chapel’s high school. Almost all parochial schools have a significant percentage of students who do not belong to the sponsoring denomination, but whose parents feel that a private school will provide a better education. If those parents discover that Calvary Chapel’s students aren’t getting into UC, but the local public school kids are, they’re going to start asking some hard questions about what’s being taught in those expensive classrooms. The school might even find itself being sued for fraud.

Of course, my sympathy for the parents is limited. If they had opened their kid’s textbooks half as often as they opened their checkbooks, they would have had ample warning that the education their kid was receiving was worthless.

]]> By: Dave http://iswhatido.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-37 Dave Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:35:19 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-37 As far as the Christian H.S. courses go, there can be little doubt that they are biased. So what? As long as the kids who take them get good enough SAT scores and meet the other, "normal," criteria for admission to CA colleges, I say let 'em in. If they flunk Biology because they insist on standing up in mid-lecture and screaming about holes in Darwin's theory, too bad for them. They belong in a seminary somewhere anyway. Adapt or perish, knowhutta mean, Vern? Let's all be brave and take our chances here. CA's approach impresses as parallel to that much-maligned preemptive war strategy we all are being told is nasty, evil, Republican(pardon my French), etc. This refusal by CA to give them the same chance for an education as anyone else does indeed smack of prejudice from my angle. They go out of their way to admit other "disadvantaged" students, so why not treat these poor brainwashed evangelicals the same way? Sounds political to me, not pedagogical... P.S. Having some Yahweh nut scream about holes in Darwin's theory would not necessarily be a bad thing if it led to earnest discussion of topics like what constitutes proof of a theory, the difference between theory and fact, and where Evolution stands on the theoretical continuum between the two poles. Evolution is generally presented as a Given(like Euclid's postulates in Geometry) in science classes across the educational spectrum. I propose to you that this is not a good thing. Serious believers in Evolution, I among them, entertain detailed debates on the very same questions that the unbelievers point to as holes in Darwinism. It is a fact that many, many holes exist in the fossil record, due either to chance or a very busy Devil who put all those rocks in that order just to fool us all. These holes need to be explained, not ignored. The rocks will still be there. The fossils will still appear in the same order. Our ancestors will still be apes--why do you think they called it the Monkey Trial in 1925 anyway?--and nothing about any god or set of gods influencing its course will be settled. It does not matter. All the babbling of all the hominids at all the typewriters in all of history cannot change whatever actually happened. Trying to figure it out...aye, there's the rub. Let the kids scream if they want. It will be educational. If you are interested in Evolution,do a search of "punctuated equilibrium," just for starters. Fascinating stuff. And get a great book, "Bully for Brontosaurus." You may soon find yourself hooked. As far as the Christian H.S. courses go, there can be little doubt that they are biased. So what? As long as the kids who take them get good enough SAT scores and meet the other, “normal,” criteria for admission to CA colleges, I say let ‘em in. If they flunk Biology because they insist on standing up in mid-lecture and screaming about
holes in Darwin’s theory, too bad for them. They belong in a seminary somewhere anyway. Adapt or perish, knowhutta mean, Vern? Let’s all be brave and take our chances here. CA’s approach impresses as parallel to that much-maligned preemptive war strategy we all are being told is nasty, evil, Republican(pardon my French), etc.
This refusal by CA to give them the same chance for an education as
anyone else does indeed smack of prejudice from my angle. They go out of their way to admit other “disadvantaged” students, so why not treat these poor brainwashed evangelicals the same way? Sounds political to me, not pedagogical…
P.S. Having some Yahweh nut scream about holes in Darwin’s theory
would not necessarily be a bad thing if it led to earnest discussion of topics like what constitutes proof of a theory, the difference between theory and fact, and where Evolution stands on the theoretical continuum between the two poles. Evolution is generally
presented as a Given(like Euclid’s postulates in Geometry) in science classes across the educational spectrum. I propose to you that this is not a good thing. Serious believers in Evolution, I among them, entertain detailed debates on the very same questions that the unbelievers point to as holes in Darwinism. It is a fact that many, many holes exist in the fossil record, due either to chance or a very busy Devil who put all those rocks in that order just to fool us all. These holes need to be explained, not ignored. The rocks will still be there. The fossils will still appear in the same order. Our ancestors will still be apes–why do you think they called it the Monkey Trial in 1925 anyway?–and nothing about any god or set of gods influencing its course will be settled. It does not matter. All the babbling of all the hominids at all the typewriters in all of history cannot change whatever actually happened. Trying to figure it out…aye, there’s the rub.
Let the kids scream if they want. It will be educational.
If you are interested in Evolution,do a search of “punctuated equilibrium,” just for starters. Fascinating stuff. And get a great book, “Bully for Brontosaurus.” You may soon find yourself hooked.

]]> By: richard http://iswhatido.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-35 richard Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:05:18 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-35 Thanks, Alex. Are you an Alex Blumberg? My son is an Alex Blumberg. Which reminds me of a story (what doesn't these days)... Years ago, when my son was still in high school, he was working one summer as a carpenter with a construction crew. I had pulled into a gas station, and the car in front of me had a bumper sticker, "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter". As I was filling my tank, the woman who was driving that car came out of the station, and I told her that I couldn't help but notice her bumper sticker; she smiled. And I said, "It's really a coincidence. My son is a Jewish carpenter." She looked at me like I was really, really dangerous, jumped into her car, and sped off. Richard Thanks, Alex. Are you an Alex Blumberg? My son is an Alex Blumberg.

Which reminds me of a story (what doesn’t these days)…

Years ago, when my son was still in high school, he was working one summer as a carpenter with a construction crew. I had pulled into a gas station, and the car in front of me had a bumper sticker, “My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter”. As I was filling my tank, the woman who was driving that car came out of the station, and I told her that I couldn’t help but notice her bumper sticker; she smiled. And I said, “It’s really a coincidence. My son is a Jewish carpenter.” She looked at me like I was really, really dangerous, jumped into her car, and sped off.

Richard

]]> By: Alex http://iswhatido.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-34 Alex Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:40:05 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/2005/11/21/the-place-of-religion/#comment-34 I think this is pretty well said. It's a secular school, so I am confused why a Christian would push for such classes. I came across your site wasting time searching for sites with "blumberg.xyz" and I came across yours. It was my pleasure. I think this is pretty well said. It’s a secular school, so I am confused why a Christian would push for such classes.

I came across your site wasting time searching for sites with “blumberg.xyz” and I came across yours. It was my pleasure.

]]>