<p>The ruling elite of the Roman Empire managed to retain their wealth and power and were considered highly intelligent and civilized despite having a diet heavy in lead. </p>
<p>A heavy metal which tends to have mental retarding properties when ingested over long periods of time. </p>
<p>On the flipside, the Goths, Huns, and Vandals were considered lacking in intellect and uncivilized despite the fact they’ve repeatedly outmaneuvered and outsmarted the Romans when it came to diplomacy and playing regional geopolitics of their day. More importantly, they didn’t cook their foods using lead-based cookware to the same extent as the Roman ruling elite. </p>
<p>Re Pizzagirl’s #2534: Of course I support having better levels of math proficiency for all. Our family is putting some of our money and some of our time in support of that. However, I don’t think that’s relevant in the specific context of “top” school admissions.</p>
<p>I admit to being fascinated by highly gifted mathematicians. lookingforward raises other areas of excellence, in #2535. As it happens, women’s gymnastics is the only university sport that our family supports financially at all. But I don’t think it has anywhere near the same value as challenging mathematics. </p>
<p>I am also fascinated by talented artists, and think that art does have equal value with mathematics. </p>
<p>Translating Latin poses a bit of a conundrum for me–I love Latin, actually. I think that Robert Fagles’ translation of the Aeneid enriches the human spirit, although (snobbism alert) I think it is much better to read it in Latin. There are untranslated mathematical works of Euler, written in Latin, which could usefully be translated. (An Euler translation project is being run on the web, out of Dartmouth, I think. Contributed translations are invited. I have no connection with this.)</p>
<p>When it comes to perfecting debate skills–there are some debate skills that have extremely high carry-over value, such as analyzing cases, conducting background research and compiling materials for quick access, and responding fluently within a short time frame. On the other hand, some high-level collegiate debaters have a hard time letting go of the debate framework, and I am not sure that the debate approach is so useful in advancing knowledge.</p>
<p>Don’t many affluent parents choose the towns where they live largely on this basis? Isn’t the marriage market one reason for the existence of expensive and exclusive residential colleges?</p>
<p>When we talk about providing maximum academic resources to those who can benefit:</p>
<p>1) It makes sense to me to talk about making auto admits of the super snowflakes to programs where they are going to be working at the highest level, doing graduate level work while undergraduates, and going on to be the major scholars of their generation. It makes sense to me to use their time as efficiently as possible so they can accomplish as much work as possible during their lifetimes. However, some don’t see this type of scholarship as a good or useful to society. I am okay if we decide it isn’t a good.</p>
<p>2) It also makes sense to me to concentrate resources on those students so disadvantaged that they don’t stand a chance in competitive college admissions. Those resources may make much more difference in their individual lives, and the lives of their present and future families that this may be a much better use of resources. I doubt many would argue this wouldn’t be a huge benefit to society.</p>
<p>Where exactly do the middle class or upper middle class “normal bright” fit into this picture? How does providing them the resources benefit society over providing them to group 1 or 2?</p>
<p>I understand this is all broad stereotypes.<br>
…
re. “let me eat cake”</p>
<p>imho - the sort of student (super bright or normal bright) who will take most advantage of academic resources at college is someone who seeks out those opportunities on her own before college. This student is obviously limited by a non-enriched background, but I don’t think it is unusual to see some sort of successful attempt to obtain necessary resources by the individual.</p>
<p>If a “normal bright” is seeking out educational opportunities in a self-motivated and self-directed way, I believe they are probably part of my group 1.</p>
<p>Really stupid off-point post? Not worth responding to?</p>
<p>I know jym doesn’t want us to talk but are you done, too? If it is just about having the last word, just say. You can have it, as far as I’m concerned. You and I have serious differences of opinion and I don’t think either will change the other’s mind. </p>
<p>If it isn’t too arrogant of me to ask, I do wish you would consider if there is really any difference between gay slurs (which I know you object to and I really appreciate those objections) and “robotic” “textureless grind” etc used to describe the really special snowflakes who may or may not have aspergers.</p>
<p>Actually what I find mind boggling is that the handful of you still masticating on this issue find something worth talking about ad nauseum. Over and over and over. Its not that I care whether or not you talk about it, alh, its just been beaten to death.</p>
<p>Its as if this too were some sort of CC thread olympiad. No one has to win here, really.</p>
<p>Oh heavens, alh. You edited your post and are now adding in a new potential flame topic-- trying to equate “gay slurs” to descriptors that you are inferring may relate to Aspies. Really now.</p>
<p>aspie slurs * gay slurs (in my mind equally a problem) Negative stereotyping of any group is a problem for me. That is the thread I have been participating on for some time. That is one of my loops. That is the main reason I have participated in any of the MIT threads. All negative stereotypes are equally a problem imho. Anti-intellectual stereotyping whether aspie or not is something worth objecting to, imho.</p>
<p>I am sure I am guilty of stereotyping others It is something I work on everyday.</p>
<p>But you are implying that phrases such as “textureless grind” is a reference specifically to Aspies, and it simply isnt true.</p>
<p>I also find referring to ones kids a “snowflakes” peculiar, but hey, thats JMO. When I was a camp counselor, another counselor referred to the little campers as “giblets”. That has stuck in my head for decades. Little kids are “giblets” to me.</p>
<p>I believe PG first brought “special snowflakes” into the discussion as a term of derision. I apologize to PG if that is incorrect. I know it wasn’t first used as a positive descriptor. I was attempting to “own it”</p>
<p>I really am done now. I really don’t think I have anything else to add.</p>
<p>I certainly wouldn’t care if my children dated / married people of any socioeconomic class, as long as they were hard-working, good people who treated my children nicely. There are many types of smarts in this world, and academic smarts are only some of them. And of course, I wouldn’t care how much their parents made, at all. Ewwww. Classless.</p>
Who said that? Seems like another overgeneralization. Never said any such thing.
I was not planning to re-enter this thread, and thought it had finally stopped perseverating. But an autonotification hit my email that referenced me, and it makes me uncomfortable when someone ascribes a thought or feeling or belief to me that is not correct.</p>
<p>How did it get back to slurs? Why?<br>
And who’s insulting Aspies? Who is it who brought up, over and over, phrases like robotic or grinds? All in the guise of just trying to clear things up?</p>
<p>Who are you quoting in #2553?? No clue who said that, but is almost sounds like, by your responding to me, that I said that. I did not, and its confusing.</p>
<p>BTW- slurs arent nice no matter who they reference, but the implication that descriptors such as “robotic” and “textureless math grind” are (a) slurs and (b) directed at aspies is inaccurate.</p>
<p>*** crossposted with lookingforward, who is saying the same thing.</p>
<p>Aspergers, iirc, came up because of the seeming editorial choices of the British series. If we’re going to draw lines, let’s try to connect dots.</p>
<p>alh- youve edited/changed/reworded post # 2553 so now the follow-up comments dont make sense. I am departing this thread again. Please, the few of you still rattling around in here, don’t drag my name back into it.
Thanks.</p>
<p>PizzaGirl,
I’m going to ask you a question that you may not want to reply. If this is the case, please simply ignore. On another thread you mentioned that you are Jewish. I wonder if you would be fine with your kids dating/marring non-Jewish. The reason I’m asking is because I know several Jewish people (usually our generations or older) who really wish their kids would marry Jews. They are only a few people, so I’m not going to generalize. I’m just curious about you, seeing that you are pretty liberal in your views. I’m guessing you wouldn’t care. Please ignore if this is too personal.</p>
It is something I work on everyday.</p>