Why Can't They Figure it Out?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tokenconservative said:
I warn you that I would give any Vogon a run for his money...
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

Tokenconservative said:
Silly is as silly does.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

Tokenconservative said:
Oh, of course you were! Whenever I, as a non-IT (that's what we call it here) professional run across someone on the interwebby who does work in IT, they simply LOVE to tell me how much better at computery stuff they are than am I! Brag away! If you actually work in that industry, I hope to Gaia you ARE much better'n me! It's always a curiosity to me though, that none of these folks seem to be better doctors or lawyers or plumbers...or better at my job than me....
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

Tokenconservative said:
And I love to projectile vomit. It's a marvelous way to cleanse the body of toxins.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

You haven't earned more than a template response, because you still haven't got a clue. ;)
 
bpesta22 said:
...I think testing in general and IQ testing specifically has been psychology's only real contribution to humanity (whatever our second place contribution is, it pales in comparison)...
Click to expand...
I guess you are unfamiliar with the areas termed "applied behavior analysis" or "behavior therapy". I've had many students who have made important contributions to the lives of developmentally disabled and autistic children and adults. Or is this a case of only having a hammer, so everything looks like a nail?
And as to your later statement that from 0 to 25% of IQ variation is due to the environment, hows abouts a reference. And not Cyril Burt or Phillipe Ruston.
 
Surely its not the case that the genetic and environmental contributions to intelligence are the same in all environments. I'm sure there are some covariance effects. Eg high heritibility in higher socio economic grous, but very low heritibility in the impoverished environments of children rised in poverty.

Admitedly its a long time since I read about this, but am I roughly correct?
 
bpesta22,

I really do believe children with low IQ scores and high IQ scores should have the same academic opportunities, just as I believe tall students and short students should have the same basketball opportunities, and both weak and strong students should have the same opportunities to participate in Greco-Roman wrestling.

Acceptance into institutions of higher learning is based on academic merit, and standardized academic aptitude test scores. While the smarter students clearly have an advantage, there is no substitute for hard work and good teachers. Using IQ scores to decide whether students should even be educated in the first place is the essence of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In my opinion, the point of educating children is to equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to engage in whatever field they choose in adulthood, and to give them more choices than they would otherwise have.

Refusing to educate the students with low IQ scores serves no one's interests. Education is not a zero-sum game where "smart" students are harmed if "dumb" students are taught. Even if IQ scores were an accurate measure of intelligence, intelligence no more assures academic success than strength assures athletic success.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
bpesta22,

Refusing to educate the students with low IQ scores serves no one's interests. Education is not a zero-sum game where "smart" students are harmed if "dumb" students are taught. Even if IQ scores were an accurate measure of intelligence, intelligence no more assures academic success than strength assures athletic success.
Click to expand...

I assume you are being sardonic and facetious with the other bits in here....I know that I sucked at basketball and wrestling, had no interest in either (pretty heterosexual so that whole rolling around on the ground with another sweaty guy never much appealed to me) so I'd hate to think a school team would be foreced to put me on the team.

This last is an ideal. This is not the way it works in American public schools (mostly), though the schools will eagerly tell you otherwise, when they turn their "public" Janus-face to you.

The reality is that the schools (mostly) have standing orders to teach to the lowest common denominator. Yes, yes...it all sounds like so much hoary repitition of a cliche, but that does not change its reality. The schools are charged with educating ALL American kids (including those who are, in actual fact, NOT Americans). And more importantly to them, they want to APPEAR to be educating all. Each generation of teachers taught in this way (since circa mid-60s), then teaches their students in this way until today, a standard 10th grade English class looks very much like a 6th grade English class did circa 1940. Seriously. I subbed in a 10th grade Lit class (15-16 yr-olds) a year or two ago where the student's "big" (semester end) project was their choice to either "draw/color a picture" of a scene from Hamlet, or work the lines from same into a Hip Hop/Rap "song" to be performed in front of the class.

No, smart kids will not be harmed by the teaching of dumb kids...elsewhere. But they will be harmed when a teacher is forced to level all students in a class and not teach beyond the slowest student's ability. That leaves smart kids to flounder about, bored stiff, daydreaming and often this is reflected in lowered grades for these kids. This was going on when I was in middle and high school in the 70s, and was apparently so successful that it continues today.

Yes, yes...it may "damage" the "self-esteem" of the dumb kids and truly will damage kids who aren't "dummies" but are identified as such by the best possible analysts: public school teachers. But the whole self-esteem bit (protecting that of the teachers, I mean) is why our schools suck so badly, anyway.

Of course that's just unedjamacated (yeah), Evangelical (um...no), dumb old Tokie saying that. Which is why I subbed for an AP English class this week (11th 12 grade--17-18 yr-olds) who were unable to effectively analyze a couple of poems because of their lack of knowledge about some pretty basic, cultural myths and symbols. One student even told me after class "you are way better than our regular teacher; she doesn't know any of this history and mythology stuff." How does one lead the analysis of literature not on the Oprah list at what is supposed to be the equivalent of "college level" without a pretty solid understanding of this stuff?

Tokie
 
You are succumbing to a "Golden Age" fallacy. In the past, we educated a smaller portion of students. Today we educate all students with the goal of having them achieve a standard high school diploma. We educate the most academically successful, the least, and the profoundly mentally henadicapped. Educational systems in the 1950's, to pick a baseline, where far less ambitious.

Source

The Census Bureau maintains that educational attainment has steadily improved.

As you have unfailingly demonstrated an aversion to reading, I'll post the pretty picture here.

6958470639c0a0aab.jpg


See? Adults have higher educational attainment now than at any time since 1947. Clearly we are not failing to prepare our children for educational success.

You know what, just to forstall any complaints, here's another pretty picture for you.

Source

695847063b6c553e7.jpg


If you have evidence to present to show that the educational system of the past was better, present it.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
You are succumbing to a "Golden Age" fallacy. In the past, we educated a smaller portion of students. Today we educate all students with the goal of having them achieve a standard high school diploma. We educate the most academically successful, the least, and the profoundly mentally henadicapped. Educational systems in the 1950's, to pick a baseline, where far less ambitious.

Source

The Census Bureau maintains that educational attainment has steadily improved.

As you have unfailingly demonstrated an aversion to reading, I'll post the pretty picture here.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6958470639c0a0aab.jpg[/qimg]

See? Adults have higher educational attainment now than at any time since 1947. Clearly we are not failing to prepare our children for educational success.

You know what, just to forstall any complaints, here's another pretty picture for you.

Source

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/695847063b6c553e7.jpg[/qimg]

If you have evidence to present to show that the educational system of the past was better, present it.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure how to appraoch something that's this tenditioius....

The differences between what America was in the 50s and what it is today are so profound, it's likely someone plucked from 1947 to 2007 would not believe that this IS America.

Running raw numbers of "how many" people graduated high school or got a college degree in 1947 and comparing those raw numbers to those who do the same today...you see nothing wrong with that?

If you don't, I guess nothing I can say with words or pretty pitchurs is likely to...enlighten you.

You know, I'll bet that if you get the raw numbers of say...buggy whips produced in say, 1870, and compare them to the raw numbers of buggy whips produced in say...2007, you'll find that the buggy whip manufacturers in 1870s were apparently much better businessmen than are those who make those thing today!

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
I'm not even sure how to appraoch something that's this tenditioius....

The differences between what America was in the 50s and what it is today are so profound, it's likely someone plucked from 1947 to 2007 would not believe that this IS America.
Click to expand...

Yes, poor white students were neglected, and minorities were given a substandard education even below that.

Running raw numbers of "how many" people graduated high school or got a college degree in 1947 and comparing those raw numbers to those who do the same today...you see nothing wrong with that?
Click to expand...

It's not raw numbers, it's a proportion of the total population.

If you don't, I guess nothing I can say with words or pretty pitchurs is likely to...enlighten you.
Click to expand...

Try, because the data clearly show that you're bemoaning a problem which does not exist. The educational system of the past decades was not superior to the present.
 
As a teacher of yutes, I assert that a college degree today is worth-- maybe-- what a highschool diploma was in the 1950s. We've dumbed down our curriculum so much, it frankly embarasses me. Worse, grade inflation now makes a B pretty close to a D decades ago.

Anyone here teach at a large urban university-- share your experience?

The bimodal distribution of ability is amazing. About half the class doesn't merit being there and will be lost if you teach college level. The other half do belong and are bored / lose out when you teach to the LCD.

The hardest thing about teaching for me is the vast difference in ability from student to student.

I think the philosophy today-- everyone deserves a college education-- is moral and reasonable, but unfortunately ignores nature (our cruel master) which dictates that no 85 will ever be a rocket scientist. It might be the right thing to do, but then don't scratch your head after when "education" results in people being even more spread out in terms of achievement, based only on their ability before they opened a book.
 
bpesta22 said:
As a teacher of yutes, I assert that a college degree today is worth-- maybe-- what a highschool diploma was in the 1950s. We've dumbed down our curriculum so much, it frankly embarasses me. Worse, grade inflation now makes a B pretty close to a D decades ago.

Anyone here teach at a large urban university-- share your experience?

The bimodal distribution of ability is amazing. About half the class doesn't merit being there and will be lost if you teach college level. The other half do belong and are bored / lose out when you teach to the LCD.

The hardest thing about teaching for me is the vast difference in ability from student to student.

I think the philosophy today-- everyone deserves a college education-- is moral and reasonable, but unfortunately ignores nature (our cruel master) which dictates that no 85 will ever be a rocket scientist. It might be the right thing to do, but then don't scratch your head after when "education" results in people being even more spread out in terms of achievement, based only on their ability before they opened a book.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's nice. So, do you have any facts to share, or just your opinion?
 
ID

Most of the post was based on my experience teaching-- doesn't generalize to anyone else-- but it's a fact re my experience teaching.

What would constitute a fact for you? My experience is anecdotal-- anecdotes are not proof of anything, but just because it's an anecdote doesn't immediately make it false.

Anyone here teach and feel that education today is superior to what it was in the past?

FWIW, this topic comes up a lot. I can't recall talking to any professor who has disgreed with the statement that education today is weaker than it was years ago.

I could cite articles on the role of g in determining academic success (2 recent ones by Linda Gottfredson), but then someone will claim she's a racist and immediately discard it.
 
bpesta22 said:
I could cite articles on the role of g in determining academic success (2 recent ones by Linda Gottfredson), but then someone will claim she's a racist and immediately discard it.
Click to expand...

Considering she's been a vociferous defender of The Bell Curve despite its lack of scientific merit, what else would you expect? Your proposed source writes frequently about race and intelligence. She is a racist.
 
bpesta22 said:
As a teacher of yutes, I assert that a college degree today is worth-- maybe-- what a highschool diploma was in the 1950s. We've dumbed down our curriculum so much, it frankly embarasses me. Worse, grade inflation now makes a B pretty close to a D decades ago...
Click to expand...
Not in my experience with da yutes today. But that's my experience at a large suburban private U.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Considering she's been a vociferous defender of The Bell Curve despite its lack of scientific merit, what else would you expect? Your proposed source writes frequently about race and intelligence. She is a racist.
Click to expand...

Oh gawd, I guess that makes me a racist too. The bell curve's been vindicated in the academic literature. The results in it are well replicated (not too much in the bell curve was even new, in terms of data). Obviously, the claim that race differences are genetic is controversial, but the bell curve will stand the test of time as a scientific contribution.

It's amazing too that all these racists get their racist ideas published in the best journals.

The naive empiricists must marginalize the whole field. It's the only way to throw out 100 years worth of data, yet still think their world view is correct.
 
bpesta22 said:
As a teacher of yutes, I assert that a college degree today is worth-- maybe-- what a highschool diploma was in the 1950s. We've dumbed down our curriculum so much, it frankly embarasses me. Worse, grade inflation now makes a B pretty close to a D decades ago.

Anyone here teach at a large urban university-- share your experience?

The bimodal distribution of ability is amazing. About half the class doesn't merit being there and will be lost if you teach college level. The other half do belong and are bored / lose out when you teach to the LCD.

The hardest thing about teaching for me is the vast difference in ability from student to student.

I think the philosophy today-- everyone deserves a college education-- is moral and reasonable, but unfortunately ignores nature (our cruel master) which dictates that no 85 will ever be a rocket scientist. It might be the right thing to do, but then don't scratch your head after when "education" results in people being even more spread out in terms of achievement, based only on their ability before they opened a book.
Click to expand...


And yet, apologists and defenders such as ID will shriek out of the woodwork anytime you point up these obvious facts.

A TEACHER of circa 1950 was equivalent to many liberal arts profs of today. I have a collection of textbooks ranging from the 1870s to today, and just the difference in language is astounding...they actually expected kids as young as 10 or 12 "back in the day" to be able to read "big woids."

Not only that, a history or geography or English textbook did not spoon feed the kids OR the teacher anything. It presented the information and the TEACHER was expected to come up with homework, papers and other tasks based on what the student was supposed to have read.

You've seen teacher editions...do they leave ANYthing up to you?

My experience as a 5th grade teacher showed me very clearly (and yes, it is anecdotal and yes, it was only that one school--another common defense of schools, because of course parents don't have any experience with the school across town...) that I as a teacher was NOT to allow the kids to progress beyond a certain point.

My experiences as a sub are equally dismal...10th grade English lit students drawing pitchurs and putting Willie S to a Hip Hop beat as a final paper?

Tokie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom