[UCGal]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Punt:
Both are equally important.
I have friends who are EXTREMELY involved parents – practically homeschooling their children in addition to the school’s education. But the kids didn’t test GATE. They perform as well or better, academically, than the GATE kids in their classes.

I have other friends who are busy, busy, busy. Nanny takes care of the kids – and english isn’t her first language. The kids test off the charts, but perform mediocre in school.

I think it’s got to be a combo of both.

I know that SDSU uses the Raven test – which tests abstract thinking (puzzle/problem solving rather than knowlege/facts/literacy). I’m not sure how parental involvement would improve scores other than an involved parent makes sure the child is well rested, well fed, and confident when they go to take the test.

[UCGal]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Punt:
Both are equally important.
I have friends who are EXTREMELY involved parents – practically homeschooling their children in addition to the school’s education. But the kids didn’t test GATE. They perform as well or better, academically, than the GATE kids in their classes.

I have other friends who are busy, busy, busy. Nanny takes care of the kids – and english isn’t her first language. The kids test off the charts, but perform mediocre in school.

I think it’s got to be a combo of both.

I know that SDSU uses the Raven test – which tests abstract thinking (puzzle/problem solving rather than knowlege/facts/literacy). I’m not sure how parental involvement would improve scores other than an involved parent makes sure the child is well rested, well fed, and confident when they go to take the test.

[UCGal]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Punt:
Both are equally important.
I have friends who are EXTREMELY involved parents – practically homeschooling their children in addition to the school’s education. But the kids didn’t test GATE. They perform as well or better, academically, than the GATE kids in their classes.

I have other friends who are busy, busy, busy. Nanny takes care of the kids – and english isn’t her first language. The kids test off the charts, but perform mediocre in school.

I think it’s got to be a combo of both.

I know that SDSU uses the Raven test – which tests abstract thinking (puzzle/problem solving rather than knowlege/facts/literacy). I’m not sure how parental involvement would improve scores other than an involved parent makes sure the child is well rested, well fed, and confident when they go to take the test.

[UCGal]

I invest (actually, I look at it as charity) with Kiva. But I try to be careful on what countries I lend in. Some of the areas and “regional partners” have such high interest rates it’s almost like you’re ripping off the person trying to change their life. (And the kiva lender doesn’t see the interest – that goes to the regional lender.).

But I don’t look at it as investment. I look at it as a charitible contribution that gets reused over and over again. If I can help fund a small business that changes a family’s economic situation – that’s a good thing. And when I get the money back, I reinvest it again.

It fits my charitable goal of “helping hand” vs “handout” philosophy.

[UCGal]

I invest (actually, I look at it as charity) with Kiva. But I try to be careful on what countries I lend in. Some of the areas and “regional partners” have such high interest rates it’s almost like you’re ripping off the person trying to change their life. (And the kiva lender doesn’t see the interest – that goes to the regional lender.).

But I don’t look at it as investment. I look at it as a charitible contribution that gets reused over and over again. If I can help fund a small business that changes a family’s economic situation – that’s a good thing. And when I get the money back, I reinvest it again.

It fits my charitable goal of “helping hand” vs “handout” philosophy.

[UCGal]

I invest (actually, I look at it as charity) with Kiva. But I try to be careful on what countries I lend in. Some of the areas and “regional partners” have such high interest rates it’s almost like you’re ripping off the person trying to change their life. (And the kiva lender doesn’t see the interest – that goes to the regional lender.).

But I don’t look at it as investment. I look at it as a charitible contribution that gets reused over and over again. If I can help fund a small business that changes a family’s economic situation – that’s a good thing. And when I get the money back, I reinvest it again.

It fits my charitable goal of “helping hand” vs “handout” philosophy.

[UCGal]

I invest (actually, I look at it as charity) with Kiva. But I try to be careful on what countries I lend in. Some of the areas and “regional partners” have such high interest rates it’s almost like you’re ripping off the person trying to change their life. (And the kiva lender doesn’t see the interest – that goes to the regional lender.).

But I don’t look at it as investment. I look at it as a charitible contribution that gets reused over and over again. If I can help fund a small business that changes a family’s economic situation – that’s a good thing. And when I get the money back, I reinvest it again.

It fits my charitable goal of “helping hand” vs “handout” philosophy.

[UCGal]

I invest (actually, I look at it as charity) with Kiva. But I try to be careful on what countries I lend in. Some of the areas and “regional partners” have such high interest rates it’s almost like you’re ripping off the person trying to change their life. (And the kiva lender doesn’t see the interest – that goes to the regional lender.).

But I don’t look at it as investment. I look at it as a charitible contribution that gets reused over and over again. If I can help fund a small business that changes a family’s economic situation – that’s a good thing. And when I get the money back, I reinvest it again.

It fits my charitable goal of “helping hand” vs “handout” philosophy.

[UCGal]

The 3 or more bathroom thing may be a factor also – south of 52 is older construction for the most part – and 2 baths were the norm in the 70’s and older stock.

[UCGal]

The 3 or more bathroom thing may be a factor also – south of 52 is older construction for the most part – and 2 baths were the norm in the 70’s and older stock.

[UCGal]

The 3 or more bathroom thing may be a factor also – south of 52 is older construction for the most part – and 2 baths were the norm in the 70’s and older stock.

[UCGal]

The 3 or more bathroom thing may be a factor also – south of 52 is older construction for the most part – and 2 baths were the norm in the 70’s and older stock.

[UCGal]

The 3 or more bathroom thing may be a factor also – south of 52 is older construction for the most part – and 2 baths were the norm in the 70’s and older stock.

[UCGal]

And in the 1930’s a lot of people with large houses rented out rooms in them for income.

I just spent the weekend reading my grandmother’s diary from 1931-1933. It has her moving from a boarding house room, to a 3 room flat that was the top floor of a house (the owners lived downstairs). Jobs were tight, my grandfather was on the road for work much of the time…

It had a deja vu feeling to it. Mind you, my grandparents were both college educated and came from upper middle class to wealthy backgrounds.

If you don’t have enough income – you rent out rooms. If you don’t have enough income, you downsize your living accomodations.

I did a google map/street view of the places she rented – most are back to single family residences. But during the depression – they were boarding houses.

[UCGal]

And in the 1930’s a lot of people with large houses rented out rooms in them for income.

I just spent the weekend reading my grandmother’s diary from 1931-1933. It has her moving from a boarding house room, to a 3 room flat that was the top floor of a house (the owners lived downstairs). Jobs were tight, my grandfather was on the road for work much of the time…

It had a deja vu feeling to it. Mind you, my grandparents were both college educated and came from upper middle class to wealthy backgrounds.

If you don’t have enough income – you rent out rooms. If you don’t have enough income, you downsize your living accomodations.

I did a google map/street view of the places she rented – most are back to single family residences. But during the depression – they were boarding houses.

[Author]

Posts