posted by Sam and Michelle
Post your 450 word (minimum) comment and 100 word (minimum) response to a classmate. You should be responding to the two lectures about social inequality. You can write anything you want about whatever you hear in the lectures.
6/6/10
This lecture was incredible to say the least and I think Sam did an amazing job teaching it. I have a rather interesting life that I never noticed up until this lecture. Now I don’t know if I am the acceptation or now but I am a white female who grew up in the city of Philadelphia with little to no money and moved to the suburbs (which I hate) to live what I always thought of as the “good life.” I am a white female who hopped around majority of my life. Living with a single mother we had to jump from place to place in order live in a place in which her salary was enough to pay the bills. I lived in North Philly and went to a public school in the city only to move to South Philly when I was 12. I went to an all Catholic girl’s high school in Center City Philadelphia named John W. Hallahan High School. When I was younger my dad was in an explosion at Scott toilet paper and nearly died. He received a decent check and decided to move to the suburbs after living a very poor life in South Philly.
[Reply]
(con't) Still living with my mother, she became addicted to drugs and I was forced to move with my father in the middle of my senior year of high school to the suburbs. It was so hard to adjust to the “suburban lifestyle” and quite frankly I hated it. I was scared because it was so quiet 24/7 and the neighbors and children around me seemed stuck up and not friendly at all as compared to the city life I was used too. Honestly I know my life was a struggle from time to time but I always thought I was living the life and never looked at it as bad until I saw the suburb lifestyle of rich wealthy people. Watching the Oprah episode of the inner city high school vs. the suburb high school made me look at life in general.
[Reply]
(con't)I look at my little brother and sister who have grown up in the suburbs with a pretty decent family wealth wise. They are so smart and definitely smarter than I ever was at their age. It makes me think of what Sam said in the lecture is it true the wealthier you are the smarter and more successful you will be as compared to the less fortunate children? I never actually thought about it until this lecture. I got the grades I wanted because of my free will to do it. I try my hardest in school because I was not raised with money and although I am surrounded it by now does not mean anything has changed because I believe I earn my grades because I didn’t want to have to struggle like my parents had to growing up. I do believe one can be successful and have money if they decide too. I am 20 years old and although my father has money now I work to jobs, one full time and one part time and still go to school. I think if you want something real bad you can get it and that’s what I plan to do.
[Reply]
Lesson 5
Dr. Richards starts out this lesson with a very interesting and thought provoking question. He asks, “How unequal are we?” This to me was a question I never really thought of until this class, then, it really got me thinking about the various advantages I have compared to other people both of my color and just in general. Then he pulled up some of the facts. Some of the things such as median family income and the individuals living in poverty really shocked me. It amazed me that nearly 21% more blacks and Native Americans live in poverty compared to white people. These facts truly amazed me because I would have thought that they were to be closer to being equal rather than so spread out and so far apart.. As for the last video in the lecture with the Asian men getting hit in the balls, I felt from an amusement level I give it 10 out of 10. From an inequality standpoint, I feel like this video had nothing to do with it other than the last man got the shaft.
[Reply]
. I really enjoyed Dr. Richards second lecture because it made you think more and it made me realize that we have a free will, we always have the ability to do what we want when we want. I couldn’t agree more with this free-will perspective. Without this, we don’t have the ability to make choices for ourselves. We all have this ability to overcome obstacles, to make our own decisions, to put the work in that will accomplish the American dream. The harder one works, the better stance someone puts themselves in and the better outcome they can get. As much I like this stance though, I feel that it is a combination of this and the determination position. I feel like we can only control some of the factors that we have put in front of us. We could have things come up in our lives that aren’t expected. The examples such as a sibling getting diagnosed with cancer compared to worrying about your soc 119 grade. I am currently writing this as he speaks and honestly, I must have been looking into his mind.
[Reply]
The one thing that really hit me and influenced me was the Oprah show. She truly showed the two different sides of the spectrum comparing the different opportunities that are presented to inner city schools compared to a school in suburbia. I coming from North New Jersey have seen both sides of the spectrum dealing with the inner city schools in Newark, or dealing with the prep schools such as Don Bosco or Seton Hall Prep where parents are paying college tuition for their kids to get a high school education.
[Reply]
6/6/2010
The discussion about sports also has to take into affect the cultural standpoints, of the sports. I’m glad you stated how much money is involved to play certain sports. People will naturally do what they can afford, and what will be the most fun. I stink at Hockey and am good at basketball which most people would expect, but when people find out I’m even better at Tennis I get a sideways look. Any person can be good at a sport if they dedicate the right amount of time and energy into their craft. Look at Larry Bird for instance, it made me angry when I heard Isaiah Thomas say “Bird would just be another good player if he was black.” Statements like that which completely discredit a person’s skill and talent annoy the hell out of me. Larry revolutionized his position as he was 6’8 and had a vertical leap of seemingly 12 inches but still was effective and an all around good teammate. The same goes with Pistol Pete Maravich who owns the “white guy” record with most points scored in a NBA game with 63, and that’s before they even had the 3 point line. It’s well documented how much time and practice they put into their craft and to not to get respect for them to be playing a “black man’s game” is just stupid. The point of a game is too have fun, and when people try to dictate who and what sports someone should just be playing eliminates the whole point of sportsmanship and fun all together. I’ve always thought Baseball was dominated by Latin Americans due to the sheer amount of people needed to actually get a good game going, and how most Latin American areas have empty fields where playing baseball is more suited, same for soccer, it’s much harder to dribble a basketball on dirt than it is a football. Funny how you mentioned Rugby, as I never understood the sport until I was watching it on NBC yesterday afternoon, it was a college tournament and Penn State was actually one of the teams competing, the makeup of our team seemed to be incredibly varied to my surprise, and the same went for other colleges as well there was a Native American who played for Arizona, and a Samoan who played for another team I can’t recall, I guess because Rugby isn’t a sport many people know about it, it’s hard to form a stereotype on what type of people “should” be playing the game. The other lecture about obstacles spoke volumes about just life in general. Hard work is incredibly rewarding in itself. You can also never measure how much a person desires anything, if they really want something, they will make it happen by any means necessary. The lecture really did motivate me. The intellectual middle is so hard to see though, blaming yourself is so much harder than blaming the world, and if it is every done that medium not knowing when its not your fault is one of the hardest things to judge. But the key to most things in life are just finding that perfect balance and also having a little bit of luck and timing. The Oprah clip was rather enlightening, but its Oprah I’m sure there was some creative editing or half-truths being told, but the major message was received. Inequality in our society is so transparent that it’s laughable. I remember playing Tennis for school and the schools we would travel to ranged from the greenest grass, and bluest skies that could ever seen, to courts with gigantic cracks in the middle when we went to play at a poorer school, sports can’t even be played the way they should, and it’s even worse that it translates to academics.
[Reply]
6/6/10 I found it very interesting to learn about the explanations of whether biology can explain the inequality of ancestral groups. Looking at the statistics regarding the various racial groups solidified and in a way “painted a picture” in my head the extent of these differences and which factors influence them. I was surprised to learn that African American immigrants are wealthy who come to the United States. I found the section about sports being predominately one race or another very fascinating. I am not a sports fanatic so I was very interested to know that hockey is perhaps dominated by people of European ancestry. Also, that basketball is dominated mainly by African Americans because of their body type. Dr. Richards choosing the two students to compare their body structures put this into context for me. Watching part 2 of lesson 5, I caught myself having to repeat many segments of the lecture. Many things that Dr. Richard mentioned caught my attention and in order to make sure I thoroughly understood the concepts, I had to rewind it many times. It was interesting to, in a way, “dissect” certain situations and look at potential explanations for them. The fact that they work together is important. Learning about two very opposite perspectives, freedom vs determinism, provided me with a better understanding of both views. It allowed me apply these understandings to real life events that has made me view them in a different and new way. Oprah’s video segment “trading schools” was very real. We find ourselves discussing all of these potential differences and the difference that having money makes. The video was raw footage of that exact reality and I found it very upsetting. Comparing the different charts with test scores and races provided me with another visual that really helped me “visual” the concept. I always knew that race, in a way, had a correlation with test scores etc. but I did not know the extent to which they did. As Dr. Richards said, “What does it mean that black and brown people score lower?” It is a true reality that some groups are flourishing whereas others are struggling. Personally, I feel that all children should have the same opportunities for education. Even if one in poverty decided to break out of the family norm and continue his education. Unfortunately, he would face many restrictions, as it is almost impossible it seems for one to do that. Even though I have strong feelings about equal education for all, funding would be the number one issue that would arise. I would hope that eventually, no matter how long it takes; funding would be shifted in such a way that would provide more resources for those who are clearly struggling.
[Reply]
June 6, 2010 Social Inequality
This lesson broke down the simple process of assumption. I never realized how once you generally know something about a person’s background, the assumptions you make will be completely different. When Sam showed the group of people standing up front and asked, “who is an alcoholic?,” I wasn’t sure who I would have picked, but when he asked the girl if she was Russian and she replied yes, I realized if I would have known that, I would have made that as an assumption. I myself am Lithuanian, and I know that countries such as Russia, Poland, Lithuania etc, have a reputations as drinkers. I never really thought about the fact that I did make assumptions based on something like that. The fact is though assumptions I previously had were totally wrong. Things like “who are the wealthiest immigrants?,” surprised me when I heard the answer. I would never have guessed that the wealthiest immigrants to come to America were in fact from Africa. I would have never guessed that to be correct. When Sam began to talk about his IQ and the amount of money he makes, as compared to random students, I wasn’t sure where he was going with it. When he made the point about comparing the differences to race, and then when there is no difference you aren’t sure what to blame it on, I was simply blown away. I never thought of it along those lines. Those assumptions on the reasoning of difference, turned out to actually be nothing because “race is invisible.” I found myself pausing the movie to reflect about that statement.. I never really thought that just because two people were different, that could be the reasoning for certain possible false assumptions. I could have never put that thought together on my own. After the lecture video was over I found myself thinking about this for about 2 hours after words. It was something that seemed so simple, yet it blew me away. Then as I found myself thinking, “well what about physical differences?,” the lecture went right into that very thing. The physical differences that appear in different races, was something I knew was apparent. When Sam began talking about the simple issue of sports. Black people dominate the professional sport of basketball. White people dominate the professional sport of hockey. I thought this was because of two separate reasons. I thought blacks dominated because they were faster and could in fact jump higher. I thought whites dominated hockey because Eastern Europeans and Canadians have been playing hockey all their lives and gradually became better. Today it was made apparent to me that those reasons are both almost all wrong. The way Sam explained things it became very relevant that it is a cultural thing. I never thought of it that way. Black people play basketball because it has became a part of black American culture. Eastern Europeans have always played hockey and not basketball. If blacks and whites were to play both since they were young who knows what would happen. Nothing is due to just race, like I thought.
[Reply]
SaraMae22 Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:51 am
I absolutely agree with you on everything that you said. I found it interesting about the sports like you said. I thought that same thing at you did. I thought that because blacks were good at running and jumping and whites were good at hockey they played those sports, but to find out it was just a cultural aspect is mind blowing. It makes you think about if a majority of whites were playing basketball and blacks were playing hockey what our world would be like? Like Sam said once again it’s a cultural aspect, and racial, we just assume that this race does that sport. Poor blacks played basketball because it was free and the hockey is expensive so rich people are playing the sport; personally I think that this is racial. I also agreed with you about making assumptions about people. I do the same thing when it comes to that, I see a race and I just assume that everyone is alike. It makes you think to learn that you need to get to know people for who they are and not what they look like!
[Reply]
June 6, 2010
After watching this lesson’s lectures, I must say I was not particularly surprised by the numbers and statistics first introduced to the class. We learned in previous readings how Asians usually have the highest family income and how this may be due to the case that there are simply more workers in an Asian household. Moreover, as our nation is highly Eurocentric, it was not surprising to see Whites dominating the wealth numbers. However, I was a little shocked when the slides showed that Blacks and Native Americans had such little wealth, even when owning a house.
[Reply]
June 6, 2010
Before taking this class and listening to the lectures, I always attributed the separation of wealth to biology – that there were some ethnic groups that dominated others. By looking at ethnic groups, we may see such separation, but when looking at individuals, as Dr. Richards said, we can no longer compare such differences. I particularly thought the part of lecture where the four White students and four non-White students were compared was beneficial. I never thought that the wealthiest immigrants were those from Africa. It does make perfect sense though, that Africans and Indians who immigrate to this country would have to have money. Thinking about things now, all of the Indians I attended high school with all had money and all had parents who had high paying jobs, such as doctors or engineers.
[Reply]
June 6, 2010
My views on the distribution of wealth changed when viewing the lecture on the socio-psycho cognitive perspective and socio-structural approach. When explaining individual differences, I am a firm believer that our choices guide our paths. Never have I ever attributed wealth (or lack thereof) to outside forces not under one’s control. However, outside forces have affected my schooling at one point in time. During my sophomore year in high school, my grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer. My grades dropped because my emotions as well as my desire to spend time with my grandfather took precedence to school. While there were certainly outside forces acting on me and my schoolwork, I always felt that the reason my grades may have slipped a little was because I chose to put my grandfather over my studies. I can understand now that this situation was not entirely because of a “wrong” decision, and there are some things that happen to people that they simply cannot escape.
[Reply]
June 6, 2010
I was extremely distraught by the fact that wealthy families stay wealthy. Though I always knew this, I never realized how unfair this was to the rest of society. I have also never realized the role of wealthy families/towns in the education system. Children who grow up in wealthy areas have many more educational opportunities compared to students in poorer communities. Again, this is something present in my area that I have never really paid attention to. Perhaps this is because I was fortunate enough to go to a successful high school. My high school was a blue ribbon school and was ranked seventy-five in the country. We had a state-of-the-art fitness facility, opportunities for all AP courses, rooms with the latest technology, and many school trips that focused on allied health. I felt extremely lucky attending such a high school; students in my class went to universities such as UPenn, Cornell, Columbia, Princeton, and Tufts. We were required to intern in our senior year and were given the opportunity to take college-level courses, which in my opinion gave us an advantage over other applicants when applying to college.
[Reply]
June 6, 2010
In the four years I attended high school, I failed to notice the grave differences between our building and the building of the high school directly across the street from ours. The opposing high school was extremely run-down; its graduation rate was much lower compared to our school’s one hundred percent. The Oprah video of the two high schools shown in lecture almost parallels the differences between my high school and the high school across the street.
I feel extremely bad and fortunate at the same time after watching this lecture. I feel fortunate because I am a white middle-class student who attended an excellent high school, but I feel bad because there are many who have not been given the same opportunities as myself. There are many outside factors that have helped me get to where I am now.
[Reply]
June 6, 2010
However, while I have had some help in pursuing my goals, I also choose to work hard, attend class regularly and be a student who stays in on weekends to complete her schoolwork. I have chosen to go to college and apply to graduate school because I want to further myself. This emphasizes the fact that while we all have free will, forces beyond our control may also play into our “destiny.”
Unfortunately, it seems as though the White population will always be on top and have more opportunities than Blacks and Native Americans in this country. After all, the White population seems to be the wealthiest in the nation, and the rich stay rich. These wealthy students will continue to have an advantage over others, as their standardized test scores will be higher than other groups.
[Reply]
June 6, 2010
One final comment I wanted to make is in regards to sports. My friends and I always joke about how Blacks can jump higher, run faster, etc. I was surprised to see that Africans actually do have longer legs and shorter torsos that aid them in speed. Although, in all other sports, I agree with the Dr. Richards that there is no one physical factor that can be attributed to a certain ancestral group. Therefore, it again makes complete sense that White people dominate hockey because hockey is a more expensive sport. It is sad though, to see that money can control which sport one plays. It seems as if money controls everything in this country and in the world, which is a little discouraging.
[Reply]
For all I know, the random black man I met on the street this morning was wealthier than the random white man. But let’s be hypothetical for a minute. Say I “needed” to make some kind of inference about wealth. Perhaps I’m on a game show, and the host displays a black individual and a white individual in front of me: then asks me to guess which of the similarly dressed men is wealthier. Due to my knowledge of AVERAGE family income of each respective group, I would of course guess that the black man was less wealthy. Based on Sam’s lecture though, my guess wouldn’t truly hold water. I shouldn’t be able to infer the wealth of an individual simply by race, yet I do. I have a statistically better chance of guessing correctly if I choose the black man as being the less wealthy of the two. Now obviously this is a very-farfetched example, but I have some semblance of a point.
[Reply]
I picture many people in this country walking down the street on their way to work, and categorizing individuals into their respective racial groups as they walk past. As soon as such a categorization has been made, the categorizer can make any number of inferences. “That black man must not be so wealthy.” “That white man had daddy pay his way through college so that he could wear the nice suit to work.” As stated, Sam taught us that we cannot make such inferences towards individuals, even if their group statistics stress such a point. However, my point in all of this is simply identifying that there is some logic in our judgments.
[Reply]
People analyze EVERYTHING in their lives both subconsciously and consciously based on what they “know.” The “knowing” might be only a perception of truth, but for it to be a truth in someone’s mind it only needs to be a perception. While I’ll go out of my way to avoid making such categorizations in the future… I understand why so many people do it every single day.
[Reply]
This was a great lesson. It started off with the situation involving the homeless man asking for money. If I were involved in the discussion taking place in that car, I would be leaning to the freedom of choice side of the spectrum. It is interesting how this side is considered the conservative side of the debate, since I always thought I was a democrat. I guess I am a conservative democrat. Those exist, right? I never would have even thought about the other side of the debate, the one which claims that you are shaped by situations that are out of your control, before the beginning of this course. Now that we have been delving into many race issues these past couple of weeks, the thought of the liberal side of the spectrum did enter my mind. However, it wasn’t until we really started discussing this debate that I gave much consideration to the other side’s argument. The Oprah show concerning the two different schools was I opening. I always thought that black people had made certain bad decisions that caused them to live in poorer neighborhoods.
[Reply]
Or that they chose to live in such places because this is how their family had lived and they didn’t know any better. I know that sounds harsh, but this is the stereotype I have been surrounded with. The reading about sundown towns was very informative for me. This is a classic case of the richer getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It is true that, at first glance, the two differences between a sundown town and the next town over are the wealth of each town and the race of each town. Therefore, the easy answer is that the vast difference in wealth must correlate with the difference in race. And this is how I always thought. However, this is not true. The white families originally had more money so they were giving more money to the state than the black families in the other town.
[Reply]
Due to this, the state gave higher funding to the schools in the white town. Since it is very hard for students from a poorly funded school to eventually graduate from college and be very successful, much more of the white children would become rich and successful while most of the black children would struggle to find well paying jobs without having a college degree. However, this is not due to the black children being lazier than the white children. The black children were being affected by situations which were out of their control. But, to truly understand the situation for all races, one must conclude that people’s lives are the results of both their choices in life and forces that are not under their control. Now I can say that I am one of these people that truly comprehends this.
[Reply]
Sunday, June 6, 2010
I always believed that societies are structured in a way that makes some groups that share the same color at a disadvantage when it comes to incomes. What made me believe in that was observing how some people perceived black people in my home country, and their generalizations and stereotypes about this group. They always claimed that black people were: lazier, more suitable for work that demands physical strength rather than thinking. Now I can try to find the reasons why they thought this way, and talk about how terrible their thoughts are all day long, but I would like to focus on my observations regarding these generalizations. What I found out was that many black people in my country actually believe this, and so they enter the competition for work and salaries with the thoughts that they are at a disadvantage. Not all of them would believe the stereotypes by accepting what he or she hears about their group, but to observe what the group is doing in the job market and how the whole group is not making as much dough as the other groups, and that’s because of two reasons, at least those are what I believe are the reasons, the incompetence of the person regardless of his color, or that they believed the false information s/he were told and were repeated to them on and on so that they believe that they have less potential than others. What I have as evidence to support my claim that the reasons and explanations why the black people in my country earn less are all in their heads is that the people who immigrate to my country from places in Africa like Sudan, Ethiopia, Eretria, and other African countries and regions, and the generations that were born to the people who immigrated and did not integrate and become a part of the Saudi culture and embraced many of the myths regarding black people, tend to, on average, have incomes that are not much different than the incomes of other groups. They go to the best schools, study abroad, and this allows them to compete for better jobs than other people. I do not see the difference between the two groups of black people, except that one is more successful in their careers, and the other one is not, and I have failed many times when I tried to look for other reasons for this extreme difference in incomes of those two groups, other than that the society is structured in a way that can make a group of people believe things about themselves and other people that are not true, and then act and adjust themselves so that they are limited to what is said about them, and the people who are not aware or choose not to accept such generalizations and stereotypes, tend to thrive better in the competition for jobs.
[Reply]
6/6/10
This lecture was interesting once again; they are jammed packed with information that has you thinking for days. The thing I found most important to note on was about the type of person you are is depending upon three aspects of biological, choice, and structure. I agree with this because I think as people were genetically made up a certain way. Our body types are built a certain way and how we think as children are biological because we are programmed a certain way. The other thing that I thought was interesting was about choice. You decided how you want to be. If you want to be lazy you are going to be that way and if you are going to be a hard worker you’re going to work hard. As humans and citizen of a free country we have a choice whether to be a certain way or not. .
[Reply]
The structure aspect is what I think is pretty cool. As children we are taught a certain way, told to act a certain way, and punished for things that we have done. Now the interesting part is our neighbor can be completely different. They may be raised different, taught different things and treated different then you are. As a family you have structure and taught how to live that life. Looking at these four aspects its interesting to think that there are over 6 billion people in this world and each person has a different biological make up, choice, and structure to how they live. .
[Reply]
Another thing that I found interesting was about different races and sports and IQ .I thought that it was bold when Sam pulled those people in the front of the room and made assumptions about them. As humans we look at a race and just assume that everyone is like that. We think that whites are rich snobby people and that blacks are poor and live off of food stamps. But that’s not all ways the case. Just because someone is of a certain races doesn’t mean that they are generalized into a category. By looking at their skin you can’t tell what they are and how they are like.
[Reply]
You cant tell if someone is smarter then someone else or how rich or poor they are. It’s kind of a way to make people stop and think about what they really know about someone before they make an assumption. People really need to know someone for who they are and not the color of their skin. I think we put blinders up and don’t want to put ourselves out there to know someone because we were structurally told not to hang out with that group. We need to realize and except people for who they are and not what they look like and their skin color. God put us on this earth to do something and everyone has a purpose.
[Reply]
I really liked these two lectures. Sometimes I do not always agree with what Sam says. However with that being sad I thought these lectures were cool classes. I am glad he finally talk about difference between whites and blacks, even worse how the native Americans have been treated throughout history. He also explain how is came to be and explained exactly how it happen. I thought it was good for him to do so because this is how I felt for many years. People have this preconceived notions about other races especially African Americans because we built this country from the ground up and receive nothing but ridicule. This makes me think about my future and my family for the money situation as well the recession we a facing now. I knew that Africans were way better at running than Koreans for obvious reasons, because of the longer legs and are built completely different than Koreans. They also have smaller torso, unlike the Koreans who are the opposite. When he started to talk about the possibilities of why black people dominate basketball I was so excited. A lot of the things that he discusses in class is something that I already knew, but I never applied it to life or thought about it the way the Professor does and that is why I enjoy this class so much. When he started talking about what kind of professor he was I started to laugh. He stated was not an ivy league professor, but plain old Penn State professor was so funny. He made me feel like he was just like everyone else. He made it seem like he grew up in a working class family and not a rich upper class family. For that I really and truly respect him. I thought it was interesting to why white people play hockey and other expense sports because of the cost of how much the equipment may cost or for lessons, but basketball is free all you need is a ball. When the girl in the front of the room stated the reason why was because white people more than the blacks come from cooler climates which I think explains a lot more than just sports. So they have ice as well as access to other things, unlike the blacks where it is hot where they live. I never thought of the reasons of the cause of inequality and how it can be related to people’s choices. It just made me wonder should I start concentrating more on society as well as my own personal life. Also how things related to people’s socioeconomic differences. According to what Professor Richard's said in lectures biological differences can be explain social inequalities and different climates.
[Reply]
“We see the world not as it IS. but as WE are.” (Shadowboxing 63) This is a very interesting and hard to grasp concept. I’m definitely guilty of seeing certain situations in a way that benefits me and “my group”, without really knowing I’m doing it; because at the time I can’t see that, which I feel is true for most people. A lot of us have bias that we don’t really know about, or that only emerge in certain situations. Some of them are free choices we have made in the past, through our experiences and some may be from the environment we grew up in. Either way these ideas all contribute to how we see the world and others in it. In Article 11: Whose “Fault” is It?; the topic of a homeless person was brought up. This is a very common debate among my circle of friends and family. Some of them say it’s his fault, he is there and that he made choices that put him there. They start coming up with the scenario of what his life went like, pretending that they know him and the things he did. The other half begin bringing up the ideas that Sam talked about in class, with family income and their correlation to graduation from high school; which ultimately leads into them not being able to secure a job because of past and present discrimination. It is hard to maintain that middle ground in those types of arguments. Depending on the topic, I find can find myself on either side of the discussion. The topic I always get stuck on is the idea of people who commit crimes; i.e. psycho-paths, murderers, and just overall violent individuals. Many of the people who end up violent grew up in a home where they were exposed to it their whole lives. But like Sam says, “everyone ultimately has a choice”. But where is the line drawn for freewill and determinism. If a little boy grows up in a household where domestic abuse occurs everyday. His father beats his mom and him when he tries to interfere; that little boy grew up thinking that was the way the world worked, because that was the way his world worked. He can choose to not be like his father, but when that is all you know, is it really a choice anymore? I think it is, but then at the same time, I never had to grow through anything like that, where I had to make a choice that was completely against everything that I grew up learning. I understand that if we say a person is violent because of determinism, it would be really hard to convict anyone of a crime, because it really wouldn’t be there fault. I just see how it can be near impossible for someone to not be like there father (in the scenario I gave above).
[Reply]
Blog Comment for Grade. Lesson 5. Social Inequality (Lectures 1 and 2). 6/6/10 2139
I thought these two lectures were great. I was not surprised that the white race was on top for the wealth slides; that has been a topic of discussion for as long as I can remember. I was curious why Asians weren't included with the all the races though, especially since their numbers dominated on all the other slides. I thought the three different "causes" for inequality were interesting (biological, socio-psycho cognitive, and socio-structural). I am surprised that biological is even taken in to consideration because I, personally, think that is a joke. When Dr. Richards brought up whites having more money, as a group, it made me wonder how that data was collected. What I mean is, is it not possible that they have more money in statistics because they have more numbers, they are larger in numbers for population is what I mean.
When Dr. Richards brought up the differences in numbers in regards to college attendance and graduation I shifted towards the thought of some races may place a higher significance on college than others. Not to say that one race thinks college or education is important and others don't but some believe that working and doing all you can to help support your family (even extended family) is what is paramount. I am not naive I do know that there is also difference in numbers because some have more personal fortitude and desire to go to college, some have more money at their disposal and can easily afford it, etc etc…I don't think there is any ONE answer or reason for college attendance differences. I agreed with Dr. Richards when he refuted that "fact" that body types may explain one races domination in a particular sport. I also agreed with the student who said an influence is also the geographical locations of races (e.g. hockey is huge in New England = whites being dominant in hockey). I believe that income plays a factor as well; some sports require a large amount of equipment and fees/funds and some families may not be able to afford that. I remember watching a special on baseball players from the DR and I recall seeing the youth in such a desolate area use just about anything to try and practice baseball (which also ties into the later part of the lecture where Dr. Richards explains the obstacles and one's personal decision to overcome it).
[Reply]
Blog Comment for Grade. Lesson 5. Social Inequality (Lectures 1 and 2). Part II 6/6/10 2230
I most agree with the Socio-Psycho Cognitive or "Free Will" explanation for social inequalities. I think this is the most logical because of my own life and what I have and don't have is because of my own free will and my personal decisions. Dr. Richards explained this to be that people are always free to think and act other than the way they do. The Achievement Ideology states that every American has an equal chance of "making it." That particular part I don't agree with; I don't think everyone has an EQUAL chance of making "it" but I do believe every American has THE chance to making "it." I think those are two distinctly different terms. I agree that every American has the chance if s/he works hard enough and puts in the time and effort. If you have to work harder than someone else, so what? I think victory is much sweeter when it is achieved through hard work; I know I personally feel so much more validated and accomplished after doing something that took longer or harder work than another. The amount and amazing emphasis Dr. Richards put on this part of the lecture was what really got to me. I found myself talking to my computer as if I was in the actual classroom lecture. I think a lot of problems with people is they want to blame a person, a group, a race, an economical obstacle for their lack of climbing up the ladder. I get so frustrated when I see people wanting someone else to bail them out because of their own bad decisions. Don't blame the government for choosing to sell drugs and end up jail instead of finishing high school. Don't blame lack of affluence for not going to college; the military is always an option if you have a diploma/GED and no felonies but the problem with that is, is the military is HARD WORK and a tough DECISION to make – so what you have there is someone who is not using every resource available to them, they are only wanting the resources that don't provide a hard/er path. Anyone can go to the library and do research for grants and scholarships. So many grants and scholarships go unrewarded because people do not apply for them, because they do not know they exist.
[Reply]
Blog Comment for Grade. Lesson 5. Social Inequality (Lectures 1 and 2). Part III 6/6/1- 2234
I can see, too, how the Determinist-Communitarian Position can play a role – but not a dominant role. I don't really believe that there are /a lot of things outside of our control. I do agree with Dr. Richards that this explanation says that some have better enablers than others but I also think some of that [enablers] is controlled by the decisions we've made (in the bigger picture). For example, I had an amazing job at an amazing company a few years ago. I got my foot in that door because of a fellow Marine who got off of Active Duty and began working there; I gave him my resume and submitted it for me. So, according to this explanation my friend was an enabler that I had that most don't. Okay, I get that BUT in the bigger picture I only had that enabler because of MY DECISIONS; my decision to join the Marine Corps, my decision to make him a friend, my decision to stay in contact with him. When Dr. Richards started discussing the SAT scores and how those who have more money have higher scores, I thought the most logical explanation for it was just that those who have more money can obviously provide more qualified tutors and better study guides/means. For those who money is no object and college is a must, it would be nothing to hire the best of the best tutor and supply the best study guides.
I thought the video on the Chicago schools was amazing! I mean, I have always known there are inequalities in the schools, so that wasn't a real eye opener for me but the huge inequality was shocking. It seemed like both schools were at the very ends of the school line and by that I mean one school was at the poverty/desolate end and the other was in the most affluent/have everything end. I just can't understand why they wouldn't want to make every school, no matter the city and no matter the state, equal. Why is it that one school has to have the worst computers and one have the most top of the line, why can't they ALL have a basic computer that fits the basic needs of the curriculum? Why does one school have to have a ridiculous pool and the other a disgusting one? Why can't they both have a pool that fits the needs of swimming as a class and as a sport? What I also don't understand is when Dr. Richards went in to the discussion about higher level families wanting their money to go towards their community and their community's education. Okay, wait, I do understand that but I don't agree with it. Don't people understand that if we, as incoming-earning adults, invest in the education of our youth we benefit from that? Higher educated youth grown into higher educated adults who may be the very person to find the cure for cancer or the common cold or Alzheimer's Disease?
[Reply]
So I thought these lectures were brilliant. It especially hit home with me. I attended University Park back in the day and did not complete my degree. My priorities were not in order at all. I was an athlete (can't use the term student-athlete because that wasn't a priority). I went out a bunch. I chose not to go to class or do my work and I thought all the time that I will somehow get it done. As far as "road blocks", at the time I thought there were many. I thought people were trying to hold me back. I never wanted to admit that it was all on me. So for my personal instance I have to say that the free will idea was the one that I was leaning towards. I was getting bad grades as I saw my peers and teammates succeeding. Why was this all happening to me? I definitely could not admit to myself that it was all on me. My parents provided what I needed to succeed but it was my decision to live the "college life" and be as social as possible and think that my athlete status would get me out of tight spots. I saw other friends who were taking out loans and working jobs during school excelling. I didn't understand why they didn't attend the last party on Saturday or come hang out for a few hours with friends. So I am 30 now. It has taken me that many years to figure out that I am the one who has to get my own shit together. I have a family now. I was a selfish as I could be back in the day but now certain factors have guided me in the right direction. Am I doing this to make my parents proud? Am I doing this to prove to people that I have finally applied my potential? Is this for my family? No. It's for me. I need it, I want it. Is that selfish? Not to me.
[Reply]
I absolutely loved and was so grateful for this lecture! Thank heavens someone is teaching this to people today.
As a young black woman I have experienced both many of the things that impoverished people of all colors have had to endure, as well as many opportunities that more affluent members of society have the had the luxury of participating in. These opportunities don’t even necessarily have to be things like expensive trips, material possessions, etc. We can discuss it from a mostly educational standpoint, as did Professor Richards in the lecture, or lavish lifestyles in general. I say this interestingly enough because my personal experiences have caused me to have this debate of free will versus determinism on many occasions.
Given my complicated personal background of basically raising myself since the age of 12 and experiencing a host of emotional hardship, I had any number of excuses available to me to lean on and cry “victim” at any point in my life. And sometimes I did. Yet in the end, I accepted responsibility for my life and made choices, some personal and most academic, that afforded me the opportunity to see a potential way out that many in my same shoes have not been able to envision. And this is not to say that I my struggles were in some regards not in vain because at the age of 28 I still haven’t graduated college, I am a single mother who lives pay check to pay check, and has to work full time on top of taking six courses a semester so as to be able to afford (with a mountain of debt) a basic college education, etc, etc. Nonetheless, I gave myself a fighting chance by making some of the individual choices that I made despite the socio-structural constraints that I was surrounded by. So I know that a way out of one’s circumstance can be found; and if one is able to have the discipline to make even better personal and academic decisions than myself, it can be done very well. So I have always understood the argument that sometimes people just need to “pick themselves up by the bootstraps”, or “just have a little discipline” because like the achievement ideal logy of the socio-psycho cognitive perspective dictates, in America, work hard and you can make it!
However, conversely, it has always brought me great pain and a host of long-winded and heated debates to try to impart upon others that consideration of the socio-structural component in one’s life is an equally important factor. I mean c’mon, how can people not give this perspective equal weight in their daily arrogant and uninformed judgments of others?! Perhaps it can be difficult to understand at first if you have come from one background (say of vast privilege) as opposed to another (extreme poverty), but people have to understand two vital things in this regard. One, as our Professor so profoundly pointed out, this perspective carries just as much weight as the other – equally. The fact is that the world is not an equal place for all, and yes some people are dealt cards out of their control that they have to play, but all of us that play poker know that sometimes a 7 deuce just won’t cut it and you have to work extra hard to stay in the game at that point! And two, that even when people do try, there can sometimes be such an insurmountable number and never-ending wave of continual obstacles in one’s path that as emotional beings, sometimes people, spent, just eventually crack under the pressure. Thus, it is imperative to always when tempted to only want to debate the right foot, try walking in both shoes of the person or people that you’re judging because as Professor Richards pointed out until you live that life and have to trudge through it yourself, you can never guarantee that you would end up with the same hand that you are currently “lucky” enough to be playing.
[Reply]
6/6/2010
The part of the lecture where Sam compared himself to the white student and asked why he would be less wealthy or educated then he was very eye opening. He mentioned that when we can’t see race, we never attribute our differences to it. For one it is one of the many examples of sociological perspectives that seem like simple common sense but we never take the time to stop and ask. The system of society is self-perpetuating and the norms and stereotypes will persist unless enough people go against the grain and say ”hold on a second…”
I liked the quote from the article “Whose Fault Is It?” that” We see the world not as it Is, but as we are–and also as other people who are like us see it” This I feel sums up what the study of sociology is about, that being the interplay between freedom and determinism, both being absolutely crucial in determining any human behavior. It can never be one or the other, that’s just not how humans operate. We have a specific amount of freedom to act in society as we want to, we can always break laws if we so choose, and there is currently nothing keeping us from thinking whatever we like. At the same time an almost infinite amount of unnoticed circumstances are influencing us, shaping us, pushing us towards success or pulling us down into failure. These factors forces are not only outside our control but often outside our own consciousness, we don’t even notice that some of them even exist.
I found the video clip from Oprah to be alarming. How can two public high schools in the same state only an hour away from each other have such incredible differences in quality of education, safety, etc. It’s sad how hard working some of the students were in the Harper school and yet when they realized how behind they were in comparison to the rich school they questioned how’d they pass college. It’s no wonder the cities have such low rates of college education; the students don’t have the basic building blocks to comprehend higher educational thought. That is only if they can manage to afford college, afford student loans, and afford the after school tutoring necessary to reach the levels of their suburban counterparts, as Sam said, their competitors. One of the girls from the city school said “I’m glad that if we don’t have it, somebody has it” I feel this speaks volumes for her character, even though she has been denied so many opportunities, she is not bitter about it, she’s happy for the suburban kids being so lucky and having so many enabling factors.
[Reply]
I find it difficult to find a reason behind these differences. One part of me wants to just say that everyone is equal, because that makes everyone happy. The other part of me has common sense and thinks outside of ideal situations. In a real sense, I think that the solution has something to do with cultural advantages. I think that certain traditions help to give people the necessary traits for success in different situations. This may sound like one of the ideals I mentioned before, but hear me out. People from a culture that places emphasis on farming and industry, where children have to go out everyday and help out with the family’s livelihood, are more likely to learn habits of hard-work than people who grew up in a culture that focuses on something else. If you can’t already tell, my opinion tends to fall in the “Nurture” standpoint for everything that can’t be simply explained by physical limitations. I’ll give you an example. I’m from a very rural part of Pennsylvania. In Greene County, there is an unspoken rule that has been passed down since the time that the first people came here: Whatever your father does for a living, that’s where you will ultimately end up. All of my friends took this rule as universal. They just assumed that there was no way to break the cycle. So when I graduated from my high school (in a class of 28 people, I should add), only 5 of us went on to college, and I’m the only one that decided to go on to a university that wasn’t within the County itself. Those of us who went to college came from families whose parents had gone on to college as well, and achieved jobs that were outside of the coal mines or factories within the county-line. Going through school, we were always the ones that were highest in rank, we were the only members of the National Honor Society, and we participated in a variety of different clubs and sports-teams at the school. The rest of our classmates poked fun at us for trying to break the cycle. They just couldn’t understand why we didn’t just get our diploma or G.E.D. and then get a job through our dad or mom’s connections at the coal mine or the bank. I fully believe that my choice to go on to college and get an education comes from my parents. My father is a nurse, who was on his way to going to med-school before he became disabled, but he never pressured me to go to college or to become a doctor myself. He simply encouraged me to read, to debate, and to do whatever I wanted to, in order to reach my goals in life. I think that this attitude at home is the source to my traits that have helped me to succeed in life. Sure there may be physical limitations between races, like the Korean/West African runners example Sam used in the lecture, but our cultural helps to form habits in us that give us advantages in certain situations, even over other people in our race that weren’t raised with the same traditions.
[Reply]
I absolutely loved and was so grateful for this lecture! Thank heavens someone is teaching this to people today.
As a young black woman I have experienced both many of the things that impoverished people of all colors have had to endure, as well as many opportunities that more affluent members of society have the had the luxury of participating in. These opportunities don’t even necessarily have to be things like expensive trips, material possessions, etc. We can discuss it from a mostly educational standpoint, as did Professor Richards in the lecture, or lavish lifestyles in general. I say this interestingly enough because my personal experiences have caused me to have this debate of free will versus determinism on many occasions.
Given my complicated personal background of basically raising myself since the age of 12 and experiencing a host of emotional hardship, I had any number of excuses available to me to lean on and cry “victim” at any point in my life. And sometimes I did. Yet in the end, I accepted responsibility for my life and made choices, some personal and most academic, that afforded me the opportunity to see a potential way out that many in my same shoes have not been able to envision. And this is not to say that I my struggles were in some regards not in vain because at the age of 28 I still haven’t graduated college, I am a single mother who lives pay check to pay check, and has to work full time on top of taking six courses a semester so as to be able to afford (with a mountain of debt) a basic college education, etc, etc. Nonetheless, I gave myself a fighting chance by making some of the individual choices that I made despite the socio-structural constraints that I was surrounded by. So I know that a way out of one’s circumstance can be found; and if one is able to have the discipline to make even better personal and academic decisions than myself, it can be done very well. So I have always understood the argument that sometimes people just need to “pick themselves up by the bootstraps”, or “just have a little discipline” because like the achievement ideal logy of the socio-psycho cognitive perspective dictates, in America, work hard and you can make it!
However, conversely, it has always brought me great pain and a host of long-winded and heated debates to try to impart upon others that consideration of the socio-structural component in one’s life is an equally important factor. I mean c’mon, how can people not give this perspective equal weight in their daily arrogant and uninformed judgments of others?! Perhaps it can be difficult to understand at first if you have come from one background (say of vast privilege) as opposed to another (extreme poverty), but people have to understand two vital things in this regard. One, as our Professor so profoundly pointed out, this perspective carries just as much weight as the other – equally. The fact is that the world is not an equal place for all, and yes some people are dealt cards out of their control that they have to play, but all of us that play poker know that sometimes a 7 deuce just won’t cut it and you have to work extra hard to stay in the game at that point! And two, that even when people do try, there can sometimes be such an insurmountable number and never-ending wave of continual obstacles in one’s path that as emotional beings, sometimes people, spent, just eventually crack under the pressure. Thus, it is imperative to always when tempted to only want to debate the right foot, try walking in both shoes of the person or people that you’re judging because as Professor Richards pointed out until you live that life and have to trudge through it yourself, you can never guarantee that you would end up with the same hand that you are currently “lucky” enough to be playing.
[Reply]
6-6-2010
It is very interesting to see how much inequality there is in the world even in today’s society. Rarely do you see issues of the Native Americans in the news or how they have the lowest median family income from whites, blacks, Hispanics or Asians and have the highest percentage of individuals living in poverty. Seldom are these issues ever advertised. I feel that in the media, there is so much news about the inequality of blacks and whites that there isn’t so much coverage on certain groups such as Native Americans. I think that this lecture also reiterates the issue of racism. Looking at groups of people and judging them before you even know who they are. When Sam picked random people in the crowds, it is so easy to judge a person whether they are passive, etc. I do also think it is true that collectively people are always judging or have opinions on a group.
Sam does make an interesting observation with sports and a particular race. What I do think is that playing sports can be a cultural or socioeconomic thing. If all the kids in your neighborhood all play a sport at the park at school and all your friends are about the same race, it can become a cultural thing. If you live in a Spanish neighborhood and all the boys play soccer, their Spanish parents would also be involved. They can throw parties and surround all the kids with their culture. Soccer can be something to bring the culture together within the Spanish neighborhood.
I think that even though people argue that there are only biological, only socio-psycho cognitive, or only socio-structural differences that cause inequality, I do believe and agree that inequality is a mix of all three. I think that people do have the choice and can make decisions that can alter their lives. People can choose to live a different way. Having a certain DNA does not make a whole group of people do the same things. People decide what they want to do and there are always exceptions to a group. Like Sam has said in the lecture, political and economic circumstances are primarily shaped by decision-making. No matter how many obstacles people have, some people choose to move forward.
My family has migrated to the United States because they wanted to escape poverty. I do believe that if people want to change their lifestyle and are really serious about it, they can. Because the country were I am from is filled with individuals who are in poverty, collectively people are always looking to stray away from it and live a better life. People can always find a way to live a better life if they are willing to work hard.
[Reply]
I found this week pretty interesting. The part I really liked the best was the idea of our biological differences factoring into our lives so much. The slide Dr. Richards went over after comparing himself to Brandon was most shocking. 99.9% the human genome is the same in everyone, leaving only .01% for variety. That blew my mind. To think that we are all so alike, yet so incredibly different is a really interesting thing to think about. My favorite part of the lecture was the comparison between the body types for athletes (especially the fact that Rugby players were mentally ill =P). I have always been involved in sports. In high school, I played basketball (actually, I lived, breathed, and ate basketball), field hockey, tennis, and ran track for a year. Although it was only high school, the range of different body types of girls in these sports was amazing. Now there was variety within each sport, mostly lying in the fact that sports were open to anyone and my high school didn’t “cut” players. But the differences between the best players of the league in each sport were extreme. For example, the best basketball players were tall, long, and quick. The best field hockey players were broad in the shoulders, muscular, and could be deemed “tough”. Dr. Richards description of the “track star” was spot on. In my high school, our best sprinter was one of the top in the state – and was the exact description given in class. What was also interesting during the discussion of sports was the aspect of money. I never really thought that what sports people played could be so directly related to money. But when you really think about it, some sports are much more expensive than others – which does correlate directly to income.
The second aspect of this lecture that I wanted to touch on was the differences between schooling relating to income and race. The statistics that 9 in 10 graduates of families earning at least 80 grand go on to take college class versus the 6 in 10 of those with less that 33 grand really sums up the issue. Although I agree that everyone does have to work hard and give an effort to make things happen for them in live, but money does go a hell of a long way. It all pretty much boils down to opportunity. Basically, more money equals more opportunity. It’s a sad thing to have to come to terms with but it is true.
Once again, this lecture kept me interested and wanting to hear and investigate more. It was amazing to really sit back and take it all the aspects of our everyday life that are directly related to financial status.
… I know my blogs are like a big run on sentence but this class makes my head spin!
[Reply]
When I first started listening to the lecture I immediately thought that it would be interesting to look at the education level of individuals in relation to their poverty level, especially regarding blacks/Hispanics in comparison to whites/Asians. It would also be interesting to look at geographic areas where those races are the greatest and the corresponding relative population levels and the relative income levels in regards to the standards and costs of living within those areas. If blacks and Hispanics have greater dropout rates and lower levels of education it would make sense that they not only live in greater levels of poverty but don’t make as much money either in comparison to whites and Asians who have shown to have a higher level of education.
So as the lecture continued, my initial thought about the dropout rate proved to be true when you put up the slide about completed high school education. So for anyone in the nation today if you don’t complete high school there’s a very small chance that you’ll be successful in life compared to someone who does and completes college. And I think this should make sense. There is absolutely a select few who make it work off little to no education, who have something fall into their lap or start their own business and see it become successful. But the majority of people are going to be required to have substantial education in order to meet the competition level necessary to beat out other individuals in their line of work.
It’d be interesting to see a breakdown of the income for immigrants compared to American born citizens for each of the ethnic groups listed on the charts, whites included. I would be curious to see if it’s actually the immigrants who are increasing the average income levels or if it’s really just based upon the groups themselves. It’s not entirely surprising that American Indians are at the bottom of the totem pole for income. I say this based solely on the fact that they have fewer employment options than many other American citizens while living on pre-determined reservations. On the same token, though, these individuals are essentially given housing, to some small extent, so they ironically have a lower “homeless” rating.
Moving on to the next topic of the lecture, I think that the status of many, not all but many, begins with the lifestyle they are born into and what their family has to support them. But I think that where most people end up is, to a great extent, due to personal choices, not biology. You can claim that biological differences influence things like laziness or drive but at the end of the day it’s someone choice if they want to do something to better their life.
[Reply]
I have never thought about how you explain how unequal society is. The statistics shown during the lecture really puts in perspective on average the difference in income in the United States. How on average whites have more income than Hispanics and African Americans. The data is only on the averages so it is hard to talk about how the wealth is distributed. The real picture from a small sample of people is probably a lot different than the picture of the average income levels. However because in the world today we tend to categorize things we look at a group of people rather than the individual we see the average looks like white people have all the wealth in the world. Though on an individual stance this is not true overall these tendencies seem to shape the American society today. I don’t believe that one race biologically dominates another group because of genetics. I think genetics is so much less of a factor than most ever think. The statistics have shown it in this lecture. People have these tendencies to say oh its genetics but I think that is a cop out and people use that to make it all okay. People say that so they do have to think about the real reasons why such unequal tendencies exist within our own country.
[Reply]
Inequality. Inequality has been around for so long that is it hard to fathom how it came to be and if its existence will ever cease. The socio-psycho perspective talks about free will and decision-making. Yes we all have free will and make decisions but I don’t believe that only one factor can cause anything. It takes many factors to lead to any one thing. I also don’t believe saying it is someone else’s fault means it actually is everyone deserves a little of the vault. We make our own decisions though factors can influence these decisions we cant place all of the blame on other things or people we need to realize some of the vault is on ourselves. I think for most it is about 50/50 on both other factors and decisions we make ourselves. There is probably always an exception to every rule about how much each factor influences a specific individual.
[Reply]
People are still going to make the decisions they make and sometimes I believe people will blame their circumstances without trying to overcome them. Though obstacles are in a lot of peoples ways sometimes I believe people do not event try because they have the excuse of the outside factors the shape their worlds. Overall I consider that both free will and outside factors will shape the reality of a person’s situation. I do believe that people still need to try to be proactive in whatever circumstances that are placed in their lives.
[Reply]
I absolutely loved and was so grateful for this lecture! Thank heavens someone is teaching this to people today.
[Reply]
I absolutely loved and was so grateful for this lecture! Thank heavens someone is teaching this to people today.
As a young black woman I have experienced both many of the things that impoverished people of all colors have had to endure, as well as many opportunities that more affluent members of society have the had the luxury of participating in. These opportunities don’t even necessarily have to be things like expensive trips, material possessions, etc. We can discuss it from a mostly educational standpoint, as did Professor Richards in the lecture, or lavish lifestyles in general. I say this interestingly enough because my personal experiences have caused me to have this debate of free will versus determinism on many occasions.
[Reply]
Given my complicated personal background of basically raising myself since the age of 12 and experiencing a host of emotional hardship, I had any number of excuses available to me to lean on and cry “victim” at any point in my life. And sometimes I did. Yet in the end, I accepted responsibility for my life and made choices, some personal and most academic, that afforded me the opportunity to see a potential way out that many in my same shoes have not been able to envision. And this is not to say that I my struggles were in some regards not in vain because at the age of 28 I still haven’t graduated college, I am a single mother who lives pay check to pay check, and has to work full time on top of taking six courses a semester so as to be able to afford (with a mountain of debt) a basic college education, etc, etc. Nonetheless, I gave myself a fighting chance by making some of the individual choices that I made despite the socio-structural constraints that I was surrounded by. So I know that a way out of one’s circumstance can be found; and if one is able to have the discipline to make even better personal and academic decisions than myself, it can be done very well. So I have always understood the argument that sometimes people just need to “pick themselves up by the bootstraps”, or “just have a little discipline” because like the achievement ideal logy of the socio-psycho cognitive perspective dictates, in America, work hard and you can make it!
[Reply]
Given my complicated personal background of basically raising myself since the age of 12 and experiencing a host of emotional hardship, I had any number of excuses available to me to lean on and cry “victim” at any point in my life. And sometimes I did. Yet in the end, I accepted responsibility for my life and made choices, some personal and most academic, that afforded me the opportunity to see a potential way out that many in my same shoes have not been able to envision. And this is not to say that I my struggles were in some regards not in vain because at the age of 28 I still haven’t graduated college, I am a single mother who lives pay check to pay check, and has to work full time on top of taking six courses a semester so as to be able to afford (with a mountain of debt) a basic college education, etc, etc.
[Reply]
Nonetheless, I gave myself a fighting chance by making some of the individual choices that I made despite the socio-structural constraints that I was surrounded by. So I know that a way out of one’s circumstance can be found; and if one is able to have the discipline to make even better personal and academic decisions than myself, it can be done very well. So I have always understood the argument that sometimes people just need to “pick themselves up by the bootstraps”, or “just have a little discipline” because like the achievement ideal logy of the socio-psycho cognitive perspective dictates, in America, work hard and you can make it!
[Reply]
However, conversely, it has always brought me great pain and a host of long-winded and heated debates to try to impart upon others that consideration of the socio-structural component in one’s life is an equally important factor. I mean c’mon, how can people not give this perspective equal weight in their daily arrogant and uninformed judgments of others?! Perhaps it can be difficult to understand at first if you have come from one background (say of vast privilege) as opposed to another (extreme poverty), but people have to understand two vital things in this regard. One, as our Professor so profoundly pointed out, this perspective carries just as much weight as the other – equally. The fact is that the world is not an equal place for all, and yes some people are dealt cards out of their control that they have to
[Reply]
play, but all of us that play poker know that sometimes a 7 deuce just won’t cut it and you have to work extra hard to stay in the game at that point! And two, that even when people do try, there can sometimes be such an insurmountable number and never-ending wave of continual obstacles in one’s path that as emotional beings, sometimes people, spent, just eventually crack under the pressure. Thus, it is imperative to always when tempted to only want to debate the right foot, try walking in both shoes of the person or people that you’re judging because as Professor Richards pointed out until you live that life and have to trudge through it yourself, you can never guarantee that you would end up with the same hand that you are currently “lucky” enough to be playing.
[Reply]