lets say you hold the power to hand out grants to afterschool programs in an urban city. the money is limited in such you can only pick certain programs to fund. lets say its for the city of oakland, a city with A LOT of students who are WAY below state and federal standards in test scores.

would you fund the program who targets "at risk" kids. or would you fund the programs that helps the top percentage students, excel even further?

and why?

 

you mean black people?

 

At risk fo sho. Smart kids, being smart and all, can most likely help themselves.

 

I'd put the money towards shorter skirts for cheerleaders h:

 

joking or no?

well, the program is for a public school in oakland...i would break the percentage down as:

30% black
30% brown
30% asian
10% white


a lot of the funders ive talked to say at risk also. but i see it as, you can be a smart kid. but thats it. theres nothing out there to elevate them any more than that. they arent being challenge. i want to start a program that helps the smart get smarter.

 

You know what would be better? Not fund cheerleader skirts so that they have nothing to put on

 

or not fund any uniforms, flying muffs everywhere!!!























I'm going to hell h:

 

That said, the smart kids can challenge themselves to learn.

Think about this:
Would you rather have little extremely smart kids or have a lot of equally smart average kids? Average GPA of that area will increase, bia.

 

I dont think funding should be split up for certain races. Everyone wants equal treatment for all races yet things like affirmative action and funding for certain races allows racism to stay around

 

See you there cac! :rockon:

Naw but we should fund razors and stuff. Hairy cheerleaders suck.