there are no generalizations here. the article says that the author of the forbes article (as well as you), as a person or privilege, does not understand poverty and thus has no idea how to solve the problem. if anyone is making "hasty generalizations", its the author of the forbes article, who thinks that poor kids simply aren't trying hard enough.
> the use an outlier scenario
how do you know this is an outlier scenario?
> having goals and knowing that there is a prize to win at the end of the race, is a strong motivator
i doubt anyone would disagree with this statement, but it's irrelevant.
the original forbes article suggests that having goals and determination are sufficient for escaping poverty. this article makes the argument that even with goals and determination, escaping poverty is still extremely difficult; furthermore, the very condition of poverty undermines the ability to develop goals and determination.
Just for reference, since you're now directly comparing two schools (yours and the one in the linked article) here, how would you characterize the similarities or differences between your school and one described as
"a primarily low-income, high-minority middle school serving sixth- through eighth-graders"?
However, I find it very hard to believe that any school in the world can attribute most of it's student unruliness to children trying to get kicked out so that their mothers cannot be prostitutes.
Misleading vividness is the use of a dramatic event that is not in keeping with the majority of the population group.
Hasty generalization is much the same, by weighting the effect of an outlier in an effort to substantiate an argument or counter. I was not using that phrase in literal. It is a type of logical fallacy. I was simply observing that the use of an outlier argument does not negate the position of the OP.
I conceded that the original article was naive. Meaning that it did not provide enough scope to truly address the issue, but the importance of having vision in an environment that allows little is very important.
what?
> hasty generalization
there are no generalizations here. the article says that the author of the forbes article (as well as you), as a person or privilege, does not understand poverty and thus has no idea how to solve the problem. if anyone is making "hasty generalizations", its the author of the forbes article, who thinks that poor kids simply aren't trying hard enough.
> the use an outlier scenario
how do you know this is an outlier scenario?
> having goals and knowing that there is a prize to win at the end of the race, is a strong motivator
i doubt anyone would disagree with this statement, but it's irrelevant.
the original forbes article suggests that having goals and determination are sufficient for escaping poverty. this article makes the argument that even with goals and determination, escaping poverty is still extremely difficult; furthermore, the very condition of poverty undermines the ability to develop goals and determination.