|
|
| Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success (895296) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (895584) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:13:06 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 03:41:26 2012. Are Asians simply naturally smarter than everyone else?East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, & Koreans) have the highest average IQs in the world save for the Ashkenazi Jews, at about 106. However, their pattern of mental strengths is different from Europeans; they show pronounced mathematic and visuospatial ability and somewhat weaker verbal ability. |
|
|
| (895591) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:25:16 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 5 04:21:01 2012. The whole basis of the US education system is the separation of income classes, not education.No, that's not its goal, but it is an inevitable consequence of equality of opportunity. The more non-genetic barriers to success are removed, the more genetic forces play a role. Society has sorted itself along genetic lines, something that Charles Murray (co-author of the infamous book The Bell Curve) laments about, that the cognitive elite is pulling away from mainstream American life. Half Sigma goes even further to equate this new elite to the SWPL crowd, which I think is partially correct, but being a liberal, I don't particularly care if this group is unfamiliar with what's going on in middle America.... ;P The premise of the upper-class white American parent is to make sure that their kids, no matter how stupid, never mix with the riff-raff (of any race) at school or outside of it and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen, whether it's paying overpriced private school tuition, crippling property taxes for exclusive communities or sky-high real estate prices in urban neighborhoods where their local schools fall within the "right zoning". THAT is what nobody wants to talk about. I'll talk about it, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I wouldn't want my kids associating with lower-IQ people of any race, be they Black, Latino, Asian or Redneck. But, see above. |
|
|
| (895592) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:33:43 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 04:27:57 2012. That's a good question. As an Asian, I think it's part natural, but I also think it's a lot cultural.Behavioral genetic tests done on Asians seem to indicate that the shared environment component (i.e., parents and the home environment) contributes nothing to their outcomes, as it shows with Western Whites. That is, their higher IQ is just as heritable as it is for other groups. Historically, Asians (and Eastern European) have been more family dependent than Western Europeans, and this may have selected for a different sort of behavioral traits, but that's different from saying that parental forces really matter much in their outcomes. Besides, I don't think it's good to generalize all Asians as really smart - you may have been focusing on the really smart Asians and not on the ones who weren't so smart People have problems thinking statistically. Probably because it's a useful shorthand to think that since Asians are smarter than average than Whites, that all Asians are smart (even though that's false). That said, considering that the mean E. Asian IQ is 106, and the SD about 14, only 1/3rd of all E. Asians have an IQ less than 100 (as opposed to half of all Whites). |
|
|
| (895594) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:39:37 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 5 08:11:21 2012. I got an answer this summer, when I went to a local pizza shop for lunch. An academy had just let out for lunch. The place was packed with students from the academy. There are about half a dozen such academies within a five block radius of my home. Those kids were studying the same courses they get in high school.There may be a genetic factor but I believe that the Asian achievement differential is the result of hard work. That hard work isn't limited to the public school system As Malcolm Gladwell beautifully illustrates in Outliers (and in so doing, proving the exact opposite of what he was trying to), East Asians have been selected for a willingness to work hard and intelligence more so that most other groups, owing to their history as rice farmers. Hard work cannot make up for a lack of talent, especially at the higher levels. East Asians may work hard, but they achieve because they have the brains to make that work pay off. |
|
|
| (895600) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassalage status |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 5 11:25:37 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Scorpio7 on Thu Jan 5 04:47:35 2012. "Act" in terms of what?And don't use run-on sentences. |
|
|
| (895601) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassal status |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 5 11:26:29 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Wed Jan 4 20:54:38 2012. which has what to do with my OP?Absolutely everything. |
|
|
| (895605) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassalage status |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 11:29:45 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassalage status, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 5 11:25:37 2012. Hey whether it be to the Swedes, to the Russians, or apparently now to the Germans, the Finns are always someone's vassal... :p |
|
|
| (895606) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassal status |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 5 11:30:27 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassalage status, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 11:29:45 2012. Willing vassalage is the most dangerous, especially to the vassal state. |
|
|
| (895607) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassal status |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 11:32:42 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassal status, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 5 11:30:27 2012. No, historically it was often a wise choice, and had allowed the vassal state to survive, often perfectly intact. |
|
|
| (895608) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 5 11:33:18 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 5 08:19:06 2012. They are all inside playing video games and stuff.Your point is well taken. However, it does not explain the strange coincidence that these kids magically appeared in a nearby pizza shop during a nearby academy's lunch hour. Nor does it explain the large number of such academies which did not exist 50 years ago. |
|
|
| (895611) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Jan 5 11:36:21 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 5 10:12:21 2012. It was a constant barrage of bake sales, smokers, casino nights and other fundraisers. That's not some fancy prep school.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (895614) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 5 11:58:05 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 5 07:34:12 2012. I asked AEM-7ac #901 if he went to a private school.Changing the subject, tuition at most Catholic high schools is probably around $7,000-$8,000 a year per child. That's not "elite" but certainly more than most NYC kids parents can afford. |
|
|
| (895616) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 5 12:00:41 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Fred G on Thu Jan 5 10:05:06 2012. I attended Catholic school for 12 yearsWhen did you become an atheist? Around 8th grade? and I'm far from elite as well You are elite, but not because you went to a private school. |
|
|
| (895617) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 5 12:04:07 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 03:41:26 2012. Are Asians simply naturally smarter than everyone else?No. |
|
|
| (895621) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 12:06:25 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Wed Jan 4 21:46:05 2012. Once upon a time, learning used to be fun. Now, all people care about is getting A's.Dunno, I almost always thought going to school was a drag. Learning became more fun (or at least more fulfilling) as I got older. But that's the way I am. |
|
|
| (895626) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:18:35 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:13:06 2012. and somewhat weaker verbal abilityFalse. The Asians at Stuyvesant do well in both the verbal and math SAT (though they do slightly better in math). |
|
|
| (895627) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:23:41 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 5 08:11:21 2012. An academy had just let out for lunch. The place was packed with students from the academy. There are about half a dozen such academies within a five block radius of my home. Those kids were studying the same courses they get in high school.This is what I'm talking about. These prep schools give them an advantage on the Specialized High School exam and SAT. How many of these academies are in Brownsville or Washington Heights? |
|
|
| (895630) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:25:32 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:39:37 2012. East Asians may work hard, but they achieve because they have the brains to make that work pay off.Thank you for finally speaking the truth that no one wants to admit. I learned this lesson spending 4 years in a predominantly Asian high school. |
|
|
| (895632) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 5 12:26:46 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:23:41 2012. LOL. You are an amazing poster. But your train/bus video and photos are awesome. |
|
|
| (895661) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 5 13:13:52 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:18:35 2012. How is that false? |
|
|
| (895663) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 13:25:23 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:39:37 2012. Hard work cannot make up for a lack of talent, especially at the higher levels. East Asians may work hard, but they achieve because they have the brains to make that work pay off.Really? I was under the impression it can, to a certain extent. It's my belief that talent alone isn't enough; hard work is needed to exploit that potential. Someone who works hard will likely go farther than someone who is talented but otherwise doesn't work hard. To put it in physiological terms, the "work" exercises the brain, forcing it to build more connections to deal with the effort. Naturally, if the talented and untalented person work hard, the talented person will likely go farther. |
|
|
| (895669) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Thu Jan 5 13:34:43 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 09:50:59 2012. Handicapping them with watered-down curricula and a flurry of tests won't solve this problem - hell, we've discussed this before at length.Here's the secret and the piece of the puzzle that I think you're missing: education doesn't make you smarter, it only makes you more knowledgeable. Intelligence, particularly the g-factor (the meat of IQ tests) appears to be largely innate, and poorly affected by learning. Smarter students can learn more at a faster pace, hence, they have more hefty curricula. By contrast, less intelligent children learn more slowly and generally can only handle the "watered-down" curricula. This is why if you compare a middle school in the South Bronx to one in Helsinki, you'll notice a world of difference of what is taught and how quickly. Good point, but it's exactly this secret that bolsters my argument - namely, that the current state of education lends itself to mediocrity. The current policies that encourage watered-down curricula implicitly hold back the gifted (high IQ) students by not giving them the opportunity to attain higher-level knowledge when they're clearly ready for it. In the Atlanta cheating thread we discussed IQ and motivation; would a gifted student be motivated to learn in an environment where they're unable to demonstrate their gift? Would they not become bored and indifferent due to the fact that they're not being challenged? That said, while their intelligence may enable them to overcome and succeed later on, we do ourselves no favors by denying them the opportunities to do so in exchanged for easier tests. Allowing for more gifted/talented programs and bringing back music, the arts, etc. (along with related extracurriculars) will give them the opportunity to explore their talents and gifts; I believe re-opening these channels will enable more students (especially those of low SES and/or IQ) to succeed. (And yes, I know some simply won't make the cut even then, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go for it.) Yes, sorry about that, I as yet haven't found a free link to that particular paper. The main point that Lynn makes about the PISA test is that scores on the PISA correlate about as well with scores on IQ tests (~0.85), about as well as IQ tests correlate with each other, and about as well as scores of one individual taking the same test multiple times correlate. In other words, the PISA is really an IQ test, and doesn't measure the effectiveness of education per se, but rather students' ability to learn. Thanks for the synopsis; however in my (brief) research of IQ tests I found that there are some that are more culturally sensitive (i.e. the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS)) than others (i.e. Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices). If one took different IQ tests and obtained (slightly) different results, which would be more accurate (or do we simply take a weighted average of results)? One thing we can do is enact immigration reform, we should make sure that people moving here will only be those capable of contributing to our society (i.e., high IQ) and shut off the flow of illegal Mexican and other Latino immigrants (who have a lower average IQ than the White population here). So long as "shutting off the flow" entails fighting (and ideally ending) illegal immigration and not suppressing legal immigration, I agree completely. As a man whose mom LEGALLY immigrated here from D.R. several decades ago, it pisses me off to no end when illegals get this and that while legal immigrants have to endure bureaucratic gymnastics and other nonsense. Unfortunately, this is one of the things where the wisdom of the "Serenity Prayer" comes in handy. Eliminating social inequality is impossible in a free, meritocratic society, as long as innate differences between people exist. They have not even eliminated it in Finland and the other European countries; it's just that they don't have the wild extremes that we do because of their homogenous (and high IQ) population. I love the Serenity Prayer; as a believer in God it's quite encouraging! Pertaining to social inequality, even if we can't eliminate it per se, we can certainly do something about these "extremes," which brings me to... I am however one of the apparently rare liberal believers in HBD. I'm all for social welfare programs that help the underprivileged. However, they should have realistic expectations—just as none of the nations in sub-Saharan Africa will rise to First World standards in the foreseeable future, no matter what the developed world does for them, requiring us to accept that we in the developed world must resign ourselves to look after them, so we must we do for the underclasses in our own country. ...this point of yours. As I'm sure you've seen in the media, there is a concerted effort to slash these programs in the name of cost-savings. While there are abuses (i.e. people who "game" the system) that must be curtailed, full-on elimination of these programs and initiatives is something we cannot afford to let happen. This is particularly true of healthcare reform, since evidence suggests that SES (and I guess IQ, according to Jensen) is a significant determinant in assessing child health and predicting their well-being into adulthood. As Jianghong Li et al. state: Given the pervasive impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on health and the fact that many aspects of this influence are amenable to policy intervention, especially at the macro-level (such as universal education), unless justified, all studies of population health should include robust measures of the current socioeconomic status of its participants. The increasing evidence for intergenerational and early life impacts on adult health underscores a growing need to include measures of socioeconomic status from the previous generation and of the participants’ childhood. Information on individual level socioeconomic status should also be included in the routine population level data collections, such as existing linked administrative data bases for health, education, child protection and crime in Western Australia as an example (Glauert et al., 2008). Even with the evidence you've presented suggesting that one's SES is related (predicted?) by his/her IQ, policies which risk the exacerbation of poverty should be avoided IMHO. Or put another way, if the financial barriers were removed here, as they were in Finland, would we see higher achievement amongst underperforming groups? So the short answer is no, as the failure of programs like Head Start demonstrate. In fact, as we see on the PISA charts, all racial groups in America do better than they do in their ancestral homelands (indeed, American Blacks average IQ is about 85, significantly better than the average African average IQ of 70). While the PISA results indeed demonstrate that all races in America perform better on the average than elsewhere, wouldn't this be more of a testament to IQ than to the strength of American education, based on your evidence? It doesn't necessarily mean that the American education system itself is better or that it doesn't need improvement. NOTE: This isn't to say that America's education system is the worst; clearly, our ed. system is better than that of many countries, but still in need of improvement IMHO. Think of this: IQ is highly heritable (70%-80% so, especially in late life) and not really subject to environmental manipulation. As well, IQ has an impact on life achievement both academically and economically. As such, it necessarily follows that children coming from higher SES parents have higher average IQs than those from lower SES backgrounds, and those from wealthier backgrounds will perform better as a group. This is especially true in today's world that is awash in opportunities and people of all sort of backgrounds have a reasonably fair shot at succeeding. The earlier era of people ascending into the middle and upper classes was due to new opportunities being provided to people who previously lacked them, such as poor rural dwellers like Charles Murray who praised the SAT for identifying his talent and opening the door to better schools. However in the current generation, this process is now largely complete; the children of the higher classes remain in the higher classes because of their talents, and the children of the lower classes remain there because of their lack of talent. The main reason that we have far less social mobility in today's world isn't because we don't have a level playing field, but precisely because we do. Yet economic disparities are widening. The playing field may have become more "level" in terms of opportunities, but in terms of earning potential it's not. Mayhap it's time to encourage creation of opportunities - exploration of gifts - SOMETHING to make a positive impact on communities, especially those riddled with poverty (like the very borough I live in, which STILL has one of the highest poverty rates in the NATION). It is because of these facts and more that I'm so passionate about education and why I believe a comprehensive, enriched one is fundamental to success. my blog |
|
|
| (895677) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 13:43:32 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:18:35 2012. I didn't say E. Asians don't do well in verbal ability. Only that they are weaker in verbal ability than they are in visuospatiual reasoning. Indeed the mean IQ of E. Asians of "~105" comes from averaging their visuospatial score (109) with their verbal score (101)! East Asians are comparable to Whites in their verbal ability.But in America, historically there has been a phenomenon of Asians performing more poorly on the verbal sections of the SAT relative to Whites:  ...a gap that seems to narrow as you go up the income scale. But since success may be more linked to verbal IQ than to overall IQ, that might explain this phenomenon. Of course, Asians have been improving their SAT scores as of late, probably because of coaching. Such practice won't necessarily improve Asian outcomes in America, since such practice only has the effect of lowering the g-loading of the SAT even further. |
|
|
| (895680) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 13:45:19 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:25:32 2012. I never said hard work wasn't important. Indeed, IQ tests are predictive in part because higher IQ individuals tend to work harder, even on the tests themselves, so IQ tests also measure determination to a degree. |
|
|
| (895681) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 13:48:47 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 13:25:23 2012. Have you been reading Malcolm Gladwell's stuff? Yes, success takes talent+plus hard work. It's hard to achieve without hard work, even with a lot of talent, but talent can compensate for hard work to a degree. The reverse is not true however, hard work can only get one so far without talent. Try becoming the next Michael Jordan at basketball by practicing your jump shot if you don't believe me. |
|
|
| (895690) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 14:05:25 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 13:48:47 2012. No, I haven't read Malcolm Gladwell's stuff. Another person also recommended "Outliers" to me, might have to schedule a visit to the library... |
|
|
| (895693) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jan 5 14:08:57 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 5 12:23:41 2012. If the people in Brownsville and Washington Heights wanted to send their kids to these academies, they'd open up there to fill the demand. |
|
|
| (895696) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassalage status |
|
|
Posted by Scorpio7 on Thu Jan 5 14:13:30 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's vassalage status, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 5 11:25:37 2012. ""Act" in terms of what?"In terms of that. |
|
|
| (895717) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Thu Jan 5 14:44:44 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 10:08:16 2012. If I were to implement this sort of program, I wouldn't use an IQ cutoff per se, I'd use a success cutoff. Not all low-IQ people are unsuccessful nor are all high-IQ people successful (since there's more to success than IQ). If a person is a high-school dropout, has little record of decent employment, and has been a receiver of welfare for a long time (a few years say), I'd make them eligible for a one-time payment of $10,000 in exchange for undergoing sterilization. That doesn't sound exorbitantly expensive (less than a year's welfare payment) and reduces the number of future welfare recipients.The problem I have with sterilization as a solution is that it counts on a person's future children also inheriting the same low IQ/unmotivated/unsuccessful outlook as the person in question. Even if the probability that one's children will live a meager life is increased by the meager life of the potential parent, you still discount the possibility that such children may actually have a higher IQ and/or success in life. Moreover, your idea of success may vary from that of the lawmakers who'd be charged with implementing such a policy if it came to fruition; you say such should be voluntary, but what's to stop one from proposing mandatory sterilizations? Or for men with little job prospects or education but who owe tons of child support for armies of illegitimate children, I'd forgive his debt and offer say $5,000 for them to undergo sterilization. Or for any person with a criminal record, especially for violent crime, they could be offered $2,000 and a reduced sentence to undergo sterilization. This would apply to people of all races (even some races will be more represented than others as per IQ). These are interesting cases, which is why I'm addressing this part of your post separately even though it's still on the topic of sterilization. In case 1 (dude with "armies of illegitimate children"), sterilization may stop him from having kids but it won't stop him from being promiscuous; he and/or his sex partners could still catch STDs, which leads to health care costs either they and/or the taxpayers have to foot. Moreover, if he owes lots of child support, that $5,000 may not be enough of an incentive, which potentially eats away at any savings. I may sound prudish for saying this, but I'm gonna say it anyway: TEMPERANCE (i.e. abstinence, self-control) should be encouraged; this isn't to say that abstinence-only sex ed is the way to go, however. In a discourse on methods of contraception and their efficacy rates, both the rates in the lab and in the field should be discussed so that the true risks of sexual activity can be elucidated (and cement the FACT that abstinence remains the ONLY guaran-damn-teed way to avoid pregnancy; I would say STDs too, but people can be born with those). This might help abate the scenario in case 1, but ultimately such depends on one's ability to control his/her impulses. For case 2 (violent offenders), what if the offender has a high IQ? Will sterilization still be an option in a plea bargain? I still have reservations because choosing to sterilize may not motivate him to stop committing crimes if he's released - and you still have to contend with the possibility that the (future) children will not make the same mistakes the parent(s) did. Yes, I would do away with standardized tests and I would certainly end making teacher and school funding dependent on such tests, owing to IQ. I'd be in favor of making IQ testing used earlier to help identify gifted students in otherwise under-performing populations and get them out of there earlier. Kinda like Bronx Science and the like, but at the middle school level. You mean something like the WISC? I can agree with IQ testing being used as a way to screen for gifted students, though I'm not sure how much help they would be for one looking to enter a specialized arts/music program, for instance. my blog |
|
|
| (895718) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 14:45:48 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Thu Jan 5 13:34:43 2012. Good point, but it's exactly this secret that bolsters my argument - namely, that the current state of education lends itself to mediocrity. The current policies that encourage watered-down curricula implicitly hold back the gifted (high IQ) students by not giving them the opportunity to attain higher-level knowledge when they're clearly ready for it. In the Atlanta cheating thread we discussed IQ and motivation; would a gifted student be motivated to learn in an environment where they're unable to demonstrate their gift? Would they not become bored and indifferent due to the fact that they're not being challenged?So basically what you're saying is that we need a better way of identifying gifted students that happen to be in impoverished districts and getting them out of there. I whole-heatedly agree. While IQ tests are somewhat less reliable in young children (since the heritability of IQ increases with age), bright children in a low-IQ background will stand out. I'm in favor of setting up specialized middle schools, like Bronx Science and the rest, only at the middle school level. Allowing for more gifted/talented programs and bringing back music, the arts, etc. (along with related extracurriculars) will give them the opportunity to explore their talents and gifts; I believe re-opening these channels will enable more students (especially those of low SES and/or IQ) to succeed. (And yes, I know some simply won't make the cut even then, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go for it.) All for it. That's a matter of convincing government to fund education more and stop wasting money on NCLB and Race to the Top and all that rubbish. however in my (brief) research of IQ tests I found that there are some that are more culturally sensitive (i.e. the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS)) than others (i.e. Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices). If one took different IQ tests and obtained (slightly) different results, which would be more accurate (or do we simply take a weighted average of results)? You get a score of whatever test you took (which is always scored on a relative scale; i.e., your z-score is converted to an IQ score with μ = 100 and σ = 15). The IQ test isn't perfect and in any one individual there will be a degree of noise in the data, as all sorts of things (how you feel that day, dumb mistakes in filling in, etc...) can influence the result. That said, more culture fair tests (like the Ravens) increases the gap between racial groups. Actually, oddly enough, people in lower SES's are in poorer health only partly because of poorer access to healthcare (though in the States especially this is a major problem), they are in poorer health also because they have low IQs and are less able to properly take care of themselves. While the PISA results indeed demonstrate that all races in America perform better on the average than elsewhere, wouldn't this be more of a testament to IQ than to the strength of American education, based on your evidence? It doesn't necessarily mean that the American education system itself is better or that it doesn't need improvement. I suspect that this is due to both the American education system and the high standard of living in American society. As well, it's hard to know what the test taking attitude is all these countries, as while it's not so easy to score higher on tests, it's very easy to score lower. Yet economic disparities are widening. The playing field may have become more "level" in terms of opportunities, but in terms of earning potential it's not. Of course. Equality of opportunity does not translate to equality of outcome. Having higher IQ (and other heritable traits relevant to income and success) compounds in a way, as the benefits of wealth and talent work together. As well, the lower-IQ segment of the population is the fastest growing, meaning that proportionally more people are born without the goods to succeed. Mayhap it's time to encourage creation of opportunities - exploration of gifts - SOMETHING to make a positive impact on communities, especially those riddled with poverty (like the very borough I live in, which STILL has one of the highest poverty rates in the NATION). As a expat. of the South Bronx myself, I can tell you that the Bronx is poor not because of a lack of opportunities, but because of a lack of ability. It would not surprise me if the average IQ of the population south of Fordham Rd is in the 70s, especially when I was growing up there. What's more insidious, the more ways out you give the smart kids, the worse off the neighborhood becomes. Draining impoverished areas of their smartest members only lowers the genetic potential of the people who remain, further consigning them to poverty. Though I can tell you from my visits there that the S. Bronx is far better than it was in its darkest days in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but I suspect that this is due to the mass imprisonments that resulted from the police crackdown of the Giuliani era. As I'm sure you've seen in the media, there is a concerted effort to slash these programs in the name of cost-savings. While there are abuses (i.e. people who "game" the system) that must be curtailed, full-on elimination of these programs and initiatives is something we cannot afford to let happen. This is particularly true of healthcare reform, since evidence suggests that SES (and I guess IQ, according to Jensen) is a significant determinant in assessing child health and predicting their well-being into adulthood. I've seen. The many elements of White majority no longer want to pay for the welfare-bound underclass, and justify it by believing that shutting off the pipeline will get them to behave like Whites. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream. Indeed, it is the presence of NAMs (non-Asian minorities), as well as America's heterogeneous history that prevents social welfare programs from taking root here. |
|
|
| (895730) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 15:04:27 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Thu Jan 5 14:44:44 2012. The problem I have with sterilization as a solution is that it counts on a person's future children also inheriting the same low IQ/unmotivated/unsuccessful outlook as the person in question. Even if the probability that one's children will live a meager life is increased by the meager life of the potential parent, you still discount the possibility that such children may actually have a higher IQ and/or success in life.Considering the high heritability of IQ, yeah I'd rather play the odds. The next great genius is extremely unlikely to come from someone who would be offered this program. In case 1 (dude with "armies of illegitimate children"), sterilization may stop him from having kids but it won't stop him from being promiscuous; he and/or his sex partners could still catch STDs, which leads to health care costs either they and/or the taxpayers have to foot. Which are far cheaper than the whole other generation he would spawn who would do much the same. Moreover, if he owes lots of child support, that $5,000 may not be enough of an incentive, which potentially eats away at any savings. He would be relieved from having to pay child support. I may sound prudish for saying this, but I'm gonna say it anyway: TEMPERANCE (i.e. abstinence, self-control) should be encouraged ... This might help abate the scenario in case 1, but ultimately such depends on one's ability to control his/her impulses. Unfortunately, impulsivity and poor foresight are themselves correlates of low IQ. You face a poor chance of encouraging such behavior from the ones you'd want to reach most, as the current situation demonstrates. In a discourse on methods of contraception and their efficacy rates, both the rates in the lab and in the field should be discussed so that the true risks of sexual activity can be elucidated (and cement the FACT that abstinence remains the ONLY guaran-damn-teed way to avoid pregnancy; Discourse? Hehe, are you forgetting what LOW IQ means? For case 2 (violent offenders), what if the offender has a high IQ? Will sterilization still be an option in a plea bargain? Fuck 'em. Yes, it would still be an option to violent offenders regardless of IQ. I would argue violent high-IQ individuals are of greater concern since they are potentially much more dangerous. I still have reservations because choosing to sterilize may not motivate him to stop committing crimes if he's released Probably wouldn't. That's what tough jail sentences are for. and you still have to contend with the possibility that the (future) children will not make the same mistakes the parent(s) did. There's always a possibility, but it's always better to play the odds. A violent, high-IQ criminal is probably who we'd least want to reproduce. |
|
|
| (895773) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 5 16:28:20 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 5 10:12:21 2012. Yeah but your HS has a kick-ass basketball tradition for both boys and girls. |
|
|
| (895775) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Thu Jan 5 16:29:08 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 14:45:48 2012. So basically what you're saying is that we need a better way of identifying gifted students that happen to be in impoverished districts and getting them out of there.This is almost what I'm saying; however I still leave room for the possibility that some gifted cats from said impoverished districts may come back and help (or at least try) to turn things around. Might be the idealist in me though... While IQ tests are somewhat less reliable in young children (since the heritability of IQ increases with age), bright children in a low-IQ background will stand out. I'm in favor of setting up specialized middle schools, like Bronx Science and the rest, only at the middle school level. In addition to these, gifted programs within existing middle schools is something I'd favor - especially if these specialized middle schools do not meet the entire demand of gifted middle schoolers. That's a matter of convincing government to fund education more and stop wasting money on NCLB and Race to the Top and all that rubbish. One can only hope. Actually, oddly enough, people in lower SES's are in poorer health only partly because of poorer access to healthcare (though in the States especially this is a major problem), they are in poorer health also because they have low IQs and are less able to properly take care of themselves. With all of the aspects of life (SES, education, health, etc) that are correlated with IQ, does this mean that such individuals are up the creek? I'd like to think not (I know, it's the idealist in me again, but I don't favor policies which leave such people up the creek). I suspect that this is due to both the American education system and the high standard of living in American society. As well, it's hard to know what the test taking attitude is all these countries, as while it's not so easy to score higher on tests, it's very easy to score lower. This is true (at least anecdotally), as I've experienced such misfortune (namely, getting lower scores on tests due to stupid mistakes) several times in the course of my education. However, I wonder if one's attitude toward tests contributes significantly to the results thereof... As a expat. of the South Bronx myself, I can tell you that the Bronx is poor not because of a lack of opportunities, but because of a lack of ability. It would not surprise me if the average IQ of the population south of Fordham Rd is in the 70s, especially when I was growing up there. As much as I'd like to think this isn't true based on my being born, raised, and still living in The Bronx (and knowing some smart individuals here), the way some cats behave and comport themselves unfortunately supports a low-IQ assumption (I sure hope it ain't that low)... What's more insidious, the more ways out you give the smart kids, the worse off the neighborhood becomes. Draining impoverished areas of their smartest members only lowers the genetic potential of the people who remain, further consigning them to poverty. Which is why community-based incentives should be encouraged. (I would say politics, but the fact that such has become quite a circus makes me hesitant.) While gifted members of a community are under no obligation to "give back," when they do (whether through volunteer work, forming local organizations or groups specializing in areas such as education and health, or another way), it can help a community emerge from the hell of poverty. Of course, the flip side is that you need a level of understanding within; if no one can grasp the benefits of these initiatives, programs, etc. there's not much hope left IMO. Though I can tell you from my visits there that the S. Bronx is far better than it was in its darkest days in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but I suspect that this is due to the mass imprisonments that resulted from the police crackdown of the Giuliani era. Gentrification is also playing a part in the turnaround, though I suppose you could argue that this crackdown "planted the seed." *** As an aside, in the thread you linked to, I must highlight something you said in one of your responses: In any case, small differences in average IQ doesn't rule out larger differences in typical behavioral traits. Native Americans, and by extension Latinos, who have higher IQ's than American Blacks (~90 vs 85, respectively) still perform much more poorly than their IQ's alone would suggest (even considering mostly Mestizo Latinos like Mexicans, as opposed to more Mulatto ones of the Caribbean). Aside from what we've discussed in this thread, why do you think this is? Is it solely other biological/genetic factors or are other environmental/societal forces at play? my blog |
|
|
| (895779) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 5 16:36:25 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Fred G on Thu Jan 5 11:36:21 2012. LOL!! We had a "senior smoking area" right outside the cafeteria where seniors were allowed to smoke - legally. The teachers would also hang out there smoking. The bathrooms were a step above subway bathrooms....seriously...graffiti, no doors on any of the stalls, and of course the Freshmen, Sophomores, and Juniors would smoke in there - illegally, lol.... |
|
|
| (895780) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 5 16:37:14 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 5 16:28:20 2012. Yes. We also had a good football team when I went there. |
|
|
| (896166) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Fri Jan 6 13:19:13 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Thu Jan 5 16:29:08 2012. however I still leave room for the possibility that some gifted cats from said impoverished districts may come back and help (or at least try) to turn things around. Might be the idealist in me though.I think Geoffrey Canada and his KIPP schools demonstrate that some folks are trying, as meager as their results are. In addition to these, gifted programs within existing middle schools is something I'd favor - especially if these specialized middle schools do not meet the entire demand of gifted middle schoolers. That won't do quite what you want it to, since part of the problem is exposure to low-IQ (and often violent) students itself. The gifted students need to be completed isolated from the low IQ rift-raft. With all of the aspects of life (SES, education, health, etc) that are correlated with IQ, does this mean that such individuals are up the creek? I'd like to think not (I know, it's the idealist in me again, but I don't favor policies which leave such people up the creek). Which brings me to this point, if your goal is having them live just like middle class Americans, then yes, they are up the creek. Look at sub-Saharan Africa. Look at Haiti. Look at Jamaica. American Blacks live considerably better than their brethren in these other countries. One of the reasons lower IQ people tend to be more more careless in terms of sexual behavior is that they need to be more fecund to make up for their (in pre-modern times, anyway) much poorer survivability. There is little hope of significantly improving the lot of the lowest IQ segments of the population (including among Whites as the   <>...destitution of Appalachia attests to). However, I wonder if one's attitude toward tests contributes significantly to the results thereof... Yes, several studies have shown you can get marginal improvement from lower-IQ individuals by motivating them to work harder. As much as I'd like to think this isn't true based on my being born, raised, and still living in The Bronx (and knowing some smart individuals here), the way some cats behave and comport themselves unfortunately supports a low-IQ assumption (I sure hope it ain't that low)... Tell me about it. I would say at least as late as the late 90s, that the average IQ in the "darkest" parts of the Bronx was about 75-80, or maybe a bit higher thanks to the Puerto Rican and Dominican presence there. Gentrification is also playing a part in the turnaround, though I suppose you could argue that this crackdown "planted the seed." Both police crackdowns (which removes the most violent and lowest-IQ elements) and gentrification (where higher-IQ individuals move in) serve to raise the average IQ of a neighborhood, but this is entirely due to replacing the neighborhood's residents. Typically the condition of the neighborhood improves accordingly. >>>>In any case, small differences in average IQ doesn't rule out larger differences in typical behavioral traits. Native Americans, and by extension Latinos, who have higher IQ's than American Blacks (~90 vs 85, respectively) still perform much more poorly than their IQ's alone would suggest (even considering mostly Mestizo Latinos like Mexicans, as opposed to more Mulatto ones of the Caribbean). Aside from what we've discussed in this thread, why do you think this is? Is it solely other biological/genetic factors or are other environmental/societal forces at play? Different ethnic groups (even in the same major race) can have fairly significant differences in personality traits. The Native Americans for example—despite having higher IQs than Black Americans—have a much lower economic standing because of these traits. Particularly, Natives have had less time to develop traits of those accustomed to civilization and have much less resistance to addiction, especially to alcohol. These personality traits can have a rather large impact on society and how it develops, as we are currently exploring. |
|
|
| (896176) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 13:51:05 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 15:04:27 2012. Considering the high heritability of IQ, yeah I'd rather play the odds.While IQ is indeed highly heritable, it is less so in children, and there is evidence that the contribution to (verbal) IQ by non-shared environmental factors (i.e. environmental factors causing behavioral differences among siblings) among children and adolescents is statistically significant. In case 1 (dude with "armies of illegitimate children"), sterilization may stop him from having kids but it won't stop him from being promiscuous; he and/or his sex partners could still catch STDs, which leads to health care costs either they and/or the taxpayers have to foot. Which are far cheaper than the whole other generation he would spawn who would do much the same. Cheaper it may be, but screwed up it will be, because... He would be relieved from having to pay child support. ...of this. While it's certainly an incentive for the dude in question, it leaves the mamas and their kids up the creek (unless they have other streams which can meet the need). Worse still, I see this incentive exacerbating the absentee father dilemma, as it gives some dudes an avenue through which they can duck the responsibility of providing for their children. Discourse? Hehe, are you forgetting what LOW IQ means? Heh - no, I haven't forgotten; though I don't believe all low-IQ people are "unreachable" in this regard (though it'd certainly be more difficult, as you stated)... I would argue violent high-IQ individuals are of greater concern since they are potentially much more dangerous. Based on watching shows like World's Dumbest (Criminals) and Forensic Files, I'd say you have a point. my blog |
|
|
| (896185) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 14:17:12 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 13:51:05 2012. While IQ is indeed highly heritableIs it? What's the IQ gene, then? In case 1 (dude with "armies of illegitimate children") What, a pro-family argument? How anti-Marx. |
|
|
| (896186) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Fri Jan 6 14:19:31 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 13:51:05 2012. >>>>Considering the high heritability of IQ, yeah I'd rather play the odds.While IQ is indeed highly heritable, it is less so in children, and there is evidence that the contribution to (verbal) IQ by non-shared environmental factors (i.e. environmental factors causing behavioral differences among siblings) among children and adolescents is statistically significant. But that all peters out to zero by the time the children grow up. Think of it this way, a child's environment might give him a leg up (home full of books) or be a handicap (broken down ghetto), but ultimately he will settle to his genetic IQ, one way or the other. Here's a chart:  >>>He would be relieved from having to pay child support. ...of this. While it's certainly an incentive for the dude in question, it leaves the mamas and their kids up the creek (unless they have other streams which can meet the need). The mom and children would receive welfare as usual. The cost in supporting this generation is recouped by not having to pay for future generations. Worse still, I see this incentive exacerbating the absentee father dilemma, as it gives some dudes an avenue through which they can duck the responsibility of providing for their children. How is that any different from what we have currently, other than the fact that it is perpetuated from generation to generation? >>>Discourse? Hehe, are you forgetting what LOW IQ means? Heh - no, I haven't forgotten; though I don't believe all low-IQ people are "unreachable" in this regard (though it'd certainly be more difficult, as you stated)... No, they're not all unreachable but the reality of situation shows that this is a wasted effort. HBD explains why this is so. >>>I would argue violent high-IQ individuals are of greater concern since they are potentially much more dangerous. Based on watching shows like World's Dumbest (Criminals) and Forensic Files, I'd say you have a point. You got that right. Nothing is as dangerous as a smart criminal... |
|
|
| (896188) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Fri Jan 6 14:21:19 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 14:17:12 2012. Is it? What's the IQ gene, then?The list of identified genes continues to grow. Many different genes contribute to IQ. |
|
|
| (896272) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 18:37:16 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Fri Jan 6 13:19:13 2012. I think Geoffrey Canada and his KIPP schools demonstrate that some folks are trying, as meager as their results are.Interesting that you mention KIPP schools; nice to see some effort... That won't do quite what you want it to, since part of the problem is exposure to low-IQ (and often violent) students itself. The gifted students need to be completed isolated from the low IQ rift-raft. You have a point, but what of those gifted students who either narrowly miss the mark (i.e. a few points below the cutoff of an admission exam) or choose not to attend the specialized middle schools (due to distance, etc.)? Remember that one of the problems our education system faces is a weak curriculum; even if the balance of students at the non-specialized schools have a lower average IQ than current, you'd still need something to challenge the brighter among them. Hence, my advocating these programs. (To further mitigate the violence problem, incorporate after-school programs or courses that'd separate the dismissal of most students from that of the gifted). Which brings me to this point, if your goal is having them live just like middle class Americans, then yes, they are up the creek. Look at sub-Saharan Africa. Look at Haiti. Look at Jamaica. American Blacks live considerably better than their brethren in these other countries. Which is a shame (the up the creek part), though I guess this must be accepted; even the Bible talks about the poor always being around (cf. John 12:8). Given this, the social programs become even more imperative (though something must be done about the rampant abuses...) One of the reasons lower IQ people tend to be more more careless in terms of sexual behavior is that they need to be more fecund to make up for their (in pre-modern times, anyway) much poorer survivability. Is sexual impulsivity still driven by a need to survive even now (at least in civilized societies)? One would think civility would lend itself to higher degrees of temperance on the average... ...speaking of temperance, since I brought it up and you brought up the need to separate high-IQ students from potentially violent ones, you might find the results of this study interesting. (I sure did.) In short, as you said, people with lower IQs tend to have lower self-control; indeed, they determined that there are neurobiological factors that can modulate self-control. Interestingly, there was also a wider temperance gap between female offenders and female nonoffenders versus male offenders/nonoffenders. Different ethnic groups (even in the same major race) can have fairly significant differences in personality traits. The Native Americans for example—despite having higher IQs than Black Americans—have a much lower economic standing because of these traits. Particularly, Natives have had less time to develop traits of those accustomed to civilization and have much less resistance to addiction, especially to alcohol. These personality traits can have a rather large impact on society and how it develops, as we are currently exploring. So let me see if I understand this correctly: individual and group traits contribute to the formation of various types of societies, which in turn determine the efficacy of said individuals and/or societies (especially when it comes to civilized societies); this, then, should explain why certain groups/societies with higher average IQs may not perform as well economically as those with slightly lower average IQs... my blog |
|
|
| (896319) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 20:21:56 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 14:17:12 2012. What's the IQ gene, then?Hmm? I didn't say anything about an IQ gene... What, a pro-family argument? Are you surprised? I'm not anti-family, ya know... my blog |
|
|
| (896332) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 21:38:30 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Fri Jan 6 14:19:31 2012. But that all peters out to zero by the time the children grow up. Think of it this way, a child's environment might give him a leg up (home full of books) or be a handicap (broken down ghetto), but ultimately he will settle to his genetic IQ, one way or the other. {Emphasis mine.}I think it's safe to say, on the average, that by the time a person settles to his/her genetic IQ, he/she will no longer be dependent on parents. Moreover, since a child's environment may indeed give him/her a leg up, shouldn't we encourage a stable home environment? We have enough problems in this country with broken homes and/or families as it is IMHO... Also, while I see your chart shows that shared environmental factors cease to contribute to IQ variance by age 12, I specifically mentioned non-shared environmental factors (unless those too dissipate around the same time; the study I linked to in the previous post agreed that contributions by shared environmental factors were not significant). Worse still, I see this incentive exacerbating the absentee father dilemma, as it gives some dudes an avenue through which they can duck the responsibility of providing for their children. How is that any different from what we have currently, other than the fact that it is perpetuated from generation to generation? It's not much different - and that's the problem. I know you're suggesting voluntary sterilization as a solution to the IQ problem and not the deadbeat dad problem; I highlighted this to show how it could feed another problem (or mayhap other problems) and is thus not an optimal solution. As for what would be the optimal solution(s)...I cannot say with certainty - but on a personal note, I'll most likely continue using tutoring/education as a way of being a solution. my blog |
|
|
| (896339) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 6 22:34:49 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 21:38:30 2012. Worse still, I see this incentive exacerbating the absentee father dilemma, as it gives some dudes an avenue through which they can duck the responsibility of providing for their children.But facts are facts. If it's true, then people will find out eventually. We can't hide the truth just because it achieves some social agenda. Do that enough, and you're in North Korea. |
|
|
| (896345) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 23:29:31 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 6 22:34:49 2012. We can't hide the truth just because it achieves some social agenda.I'm not saying the truth should be hidden; rather, I'm stating my objection to sterilization as a solution to the IQ problem based on the potential problems it could magnify (e.g. the deadbeat dad issue, which I raised when JayMan talked about the kinds of people who would qualify for voluntary sterilizations). Also, I'm not convinced that sterilization is the optimal solution to this problem... my blog |
|
|
| (896349) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Sat Jan 7 00:00:38 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 04:15:30 2012. I agree that the tests do not cover the full scope of what a student should be learning. However, since I'm proposing a top-down approach, the tests should be the last part to change. Improve the administration, teachers, curricula, then the tests, which ideally, the students would then ace.Clearly exams should be structured around curricula and not the other way around. However, if you reform the curricula without reforming the tests, you could run into problems - namely, students taking an exam that's (potentially) unrelated to the curriculum and thus an ineffective barometer with which one can measure their progress. That said, this is a more of a transition problem (i.e. "teething" problems, as is said regarding implementation of new ideas)... I agree, better pay and benefits aren't enough by themselves. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the details of what goes on inside the schools to know what will make teaching "a worthwhile profession", but I have a hint based on what Sahlberg said. He mentioned "cooperation" which to me implies something like a "small business" or a "team" mentality. From my experience, people in a close, well-run team will have a higher morale than someone who's just a member of a massive, faceless bureaucracy, kind of like the current Board of Ed. Cooperation IS key. If there is a disconnect between the teachers and higher-level officials - and especially between them and the students - it could interfere with the learning process. While a student's cognitive ability will be the main driver of their learning potential, having teachers that don't (or perhaps aren't allowed to) challenge them academically will not exercise the full potential of said cognitive ability. As for expanding the curricula, is it the standardized testing requirement that's preventing it, or is it the budget (including inefficiencies, corruption, etc.)? Though I don't keep up on the news coming from the Board of Ed, it seems to me the usual reason for cutting a program is budget not irrelevancy. If anything, at least the current tests make sure there is some kind of concrete goal that teachers have to aim for. It's a mixture of both; budget cuts are the main driver of music/arts/extracurricular cuts or reductions, while rigorous testing requirements (and the fact that teachers' jobs/pay depend on the results of these tests) cause many teachers to "teach to the test;" oftentimes parts of gen ed curricula (sometimes even important ones) are sacrificed in favor of test prep. While the current testing system provides a common barometer, it is inadequate; as JayMan and I were discussing, the tests are actually easier than before (a lowering of standards), which prevents particularly gifted students from being challenged as they should (i.e. through higher-level coursework). but if we're gonna measure merit, let's look at how much students are learning and understanding/successfully applying (i.e. in later courses) as opposed to solely what they score on an exam. Unfortunately, an exam (or series of exams) are the only way to measure it/put a number on it/etc. If there's a better objective method, I'd like to hear it. Strengthen/enrich the curricula, then design tests to match the curricula and adequately test what students have learned. This also means reducing the number of standardized tests students may receive per year; note that I'm not advocating a complete elimination of testing or even standardized tests - only higher standards and less emphasis on said tests. I think also that Bloomberg has actually tried to make some of those top-down reforms, by trying to inject new teachers and introducing changes on how the schools work via the charter schools. It would also help if that bureaucracy would be a little more helpful for once and run some interference on the teachers' behalf. There's no doubt that he has tried, though the results have been mixed. Between the cheating scandals and the lowered standards, I tend to be skeptical of results which suggest "significant improvements" (especially due to testing). Now don't get me wrong - some improvements may be legit, but a system which stunts learning isn't the most effective IMHO. my blog |
|
|
| (896350) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 00:36:30 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 23:29:31 2012. Even if it's not an optimal solution, doesn't mean it's not a solution. If we only sought the optimal solution for everything, nothing would ever get done. |
|
|
| (896353) | |
Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Sat Jan 7 00:50:27 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What the Education Establishment keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 00:36:30 2012. That's a good point; the NYC subway is a testament to this (first thing that came to my mind). I still have my reservations on sterilization though...my blog |
|
|
| (896392) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Sat Jan 7 11:24:55 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jan 6 18:37:16 2012. In an effort to streamline the discussion, I'm consolidating all my responses into one post. but what of those gifted students who either narrowly miss the mark (i.e. a few points below the cutoff of an admission exam) or choose not to attend the specialized middle schools (due to distance, etc.)? In a way, the KIPP schools perform this function. The reason that KIPP schools work (and they don't work anywhere near as well as you might think) is not because of the long hours or the pledges they make kids do or any of that rubbish, it is that the KIPP draws from a select group of kids. Parents who have heard about KIPP schools make an effort to get their kids in. These families will no doubt have higher IQs and greater consciousness than the average ghetto family. As well, for students that just miss the mark on entrance exams, many of them may well be better off not going to a gifted program, because their place in the academic pecking order would plummet; the kids go from being at the top of their class at normal schools to the very bottom in a gifted class. That might serve to demotivate them to achieve more. Bear in mind that for the most part, very few children in a typical ghetto would qualify as "gifted" by White standards (i.e., IQ ≥ 130; I am one of those few), by virtue of the lower mean and lower standard deviation of the Black IQ curve (μ = 85, σ = 12), much less than 1%. Which is a shame (the up the creek part), though I guess this must be accepted; even the Bible talks about the poor always being around (cf. John 12:8). Given this, the social programs become even more imperative (though something must be done about the rampant abuses...) I have a principle of taking care of everyone as much as possible. But when you consider the likes of Gingrich or Santorum, White Americans are aware of the overrespresentation of Blacks and Latinos on welfare rolls are unlikely to want to continue to support it. This is quite likely to become more acute of a problem if knowledge of race differences became well known. >>>>One of the reasons lower IQ people tend to be more more careless in terms of sexual behavior is that they need to be more fecund to make up for their (in pre-modern times, anyway) much poorer survivability. Is sexual impulsivity still driven by a need to survive even now (at least in civilized societies)? One would think civility would lend itself to higher degrees of temperance on the average... But a "freer" society mitigates that. Before the sexual revolution, when marriage was much more of a stricter requirement for children and to a lesser extent sex, the level of Black illegitimacy was much lower than today. However, society isn't going to go back to the 1950s, and a liberated society that allows all people to live as they choose leads people to pursue their genetic proclivities more. So let me see if I understand this correctly: individual and group traits contribute to the formation of various types of societies, which in turn determine the efficacy of said individuals and/or societies (especially when it comes to civilized societies) Exactly. Part of the tension in any society comes from when the environment changes from what it had been. Individuals then face difficulty with minds and bodies that have been adapted to one environment that are then required to adapt to a new one. Some individuals are more able to adapt to the new environment than others, and over time, these individuals become more numerous in the population. this, then, should explain why certain groups/societies with higher average IQs may not perform as well economically as those with slightly lower average IQs... You should read The 10,000 Year Explosion. Civilization itself place a whole new set of demands on people, and caused human evolution to rapidly accelerate in its wake. I think it's safe to say, on the average, that by the time a person settles to his/her genetic IQ, he/she will no longer be dependent on parents. Moreover, since a child's environment may indeed give him/her a leg up, shouldn't we encourage a stable home environment? I think you're missing something important. Allow me to illustrate: If a person is a born with a "genetic" IQ of 80, and is given some sort of intervention early on (like Head Start, for example), he will initially test higher than this during his childhood. But slowly but surely, as he gets older, his tested IQ will fall and approach 80; that is, he will have had retained no lasting benefit from the earlier intervention, and will perform as does a person with an IQ of 80. The reverse is true of a smarter person who is held back from enrichment opportunities early on. His tested IQ will rise to his genetic potential IQ. Also, while I see your chart shows that shared environmental factors cease to contribute to IQ variance by age 12, I specifically mentioned non-shared environmental factors (unless those too dissipate around the same time; the study I linked to in the previous post agreed that contributions by shared environmental factors were not significant). As far as behavioral genetics is concerned, the different contributions to IQ in adulthood are heredity: 80%, shared environment: 0%, unique environment and measurement error: 20%. In youth, the shared environment term is larger and the heredity term is lower, but the shared environment quickly falls to 0 as children age. See here. >>>Worse still, I see this incentive exacerbating the absentee father dilemma, as it gives some dudes an avenue through which they can duck the responsibility of providing for their children. >>>How is that any different from what we have currently, other than the fact that it is perpetuated from generation to generation? It's not much different - and that's the problem. I know you're suggesting voluntary sterilization as a solution to the IQ problem and not the deadbeat dad problem; I highlighted this to show how it could feed another problem (or mayhap other problems) and is thus not an optimal solution. As SP pointed out, waiting for the optimal solution is often not the optimal solution (statisficing). One has to think statistically. If a program of incentivized voluntary sterilization was offered those whose progeny are most likely require social spending (be it either from welfare or prisons), would there be more such children or fewer of them than the status quo? What about in the future? This would end the issue of funding "welfare queens"; welfare moms would only be paid welfare if they agree to undergo sterilization once they become pregnant with their third child or remain on the dole longer than five or six years, whichever comes first. |
|
|
| (896721) | |
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Sun Jan 8 17:37:11 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Sat Jan 7 11:24:55 2012. Forgive the late response; I had a busy Saturday and I was in church earlier today. I must say that this convo's been quite stimulating; though further responses may be fewer and farther between (for now) due to other responsibilities I must tend to. That said...In a way, the KIPP schools perform this function. The reason that KIPP schools work (and they don't work anywhere near as well as you might think) is not because of the long hours or the pledges they make kids do or any of that rubbish, it is that the KIPP draws from a select group of kids. Parents who have heard about KIPP schools make an effort to get their kids in. These families will no doubt have higher IQs and greater consciousness than the average ghetto family. Except this "select group" is mostly drawn from a population of disadvantaged youth. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the pool of potential KIPP students would have higher average IQs than that of the remaining population because low-IQ families lack the initiative needed to apply. Wouldn't the same be said for applying and/or testing into specialized schools and gifted programs? This brings me to... As well, for students that just miss the mark on entrance exams, many of them may well be better off not going to a gifted program, because their place in the academic pecking order would plummet; the kids go from being at the top of their class at normal schools to the very bottom in a gifted class. That might serve to demotivate them to achieve more. ...your next point. Certainly, a student who struggles through a gifted class may become discouraged and demotivated. However, I'm not sure they'd all be at the bottom, since curricula in the gifted programs at normal schools (save for AP courses) may not be as rigorous as those at specialized schools. In short, it may still be possible for students who narrowly miss the cutoff for specialized middle or high schools to do well in a gifted program at a normal school. Even absent additional gifted programs, however, the "standard" curricula at normal schools should still consist of more than just rudiments or glorified test prep. Bear in mind that for the most part, very few children in a typical ghetto would qualify as "gifted" by White standards (i.e., IQ ≥ 130; I am one of those few), by virtue of the lower mean and lower standard deviation of the Black IQ curve (μ = 85, σ = 12), much less than 1%. Do we have a junior genius/genius in our ranks? Out of curiosity, are you involved with any of the high-IQ societies (such as Mensa)? FTR, I don't know my exact IQ score and I can't remember whether some of the evaluations I took as a child were in fact IQ tests (though I've every reason to believe it's at least above average)... As for the Black IQ curve, I thought σ was set to 15 (or is that just for Whites)? I have a principle of taking care of everyone as much as possible. But when you consider the likes of Gingrich or Santorum, White Americans are aware of the overrespresentation of Blacks and Latinos on welfare rolls are unlikely to want to continue to support it. This is quite likely to become more acute of a problem if knowledge of race differences became well known. Yes, I have considered; it's pretty scary that potential candidates for President are essentially saying "We don't want to help blacks" (not to mention the stereotyping). Now, you stated in a previous reply that you were "one of the few liberal believers in HBD." Maybe I haven't paid close attention to the arguments in the media, but is there a concerted effort among conservatives to use HBD to justify cutting some social programs based on (1) the overrepresentation of Blacks/Latinos and (2) the perception that "most" of them may be perpetually dependent on such? But a "freer" society mitigates that. Before the sexual revolution, when marriage was much more of a stricter requirement for children and to a lesser extent sex, the level of Black illegitimacy was much lower than today. However, society isn't going to go back to the 1950s, and a liberated society that allows all people to live as they choose leads people to pursue their genetic proclivities more. I sure as heck wouldn't want society to regress to that of the 1950s (especially given that segregation was still legal and interracial marriage still wasn't)! I guess this means any hope of fostering temperance (not just sexual) will depend a person's (or group's) willpower and/or understanding of risks and consequences, which I suppose brings us back to IQ... I think it's safe to say, on the average, that by the time a person settles to his/her genetic IQ, he/she will no longer be dependent on parents. Moreover, since a child's environment may indeed give him/her a leg up, shouldn't we encourage a stable home environment? I think you're missing something important. Allow me to illustrate: If a person is a born with a "genetic" IQ of 80, and is given some sort of intervention early on (like Head Start, for example), he will initially test higher than this during his childhood. But slowly but surely, as he gets older, his tested IQ will fall and approach 80; that is, he will have had retained no lasting benefit from the earlier intervention, and will perform as does a person with an IQ of 80. The reverse is true of a smarter person who is held back from enrichment opportunities early on. His tested IQ will rise to his genetic potential IQ. Mayhap I did miss it; though I'd still advocate for a stable/positive home environment on account of morale and/or self-esteem during youth. As a matter of educational policy, I'd invest more resources in the initiatives that I mentioned before (gifted programs, music/arts, etc.) than in programs like Head Start since I believe the former will achieve a similar (likely greater) effect than the latter. As far as behavioral genetics is concerned, the different contributions to IQ in adulthood are heredity: 80%, shared environment: 0%, unique environment and measurement error: 20%. In youth, the shared environment term is larger and the heredity term is lower, but the shared environment quickly falls to 0 as children age. So as far as environmental effects are concerned, a person's peers will have more influence (especially at adulthood) than family/parents; this does not surprise me. Interestingly, the paper you linked to stated that teaching to the test "has the effect of denuding a test of its g-loading." This, to me, means that teaching to the test renders the test less effective at gauging student's aptitude and cognitive ability (and possibly real understanding of material as well) - which is exactly why I oppose test-based curricula and the lowered standards it often comes with! As SP pointed out, waiting for the optimal solution is often not the optimal solution (statisficing). One has to think statistically. If a program of incentivized voluntary sterilization was offered those whose progeny are most likely require social spending (be it either from welfare or prisons), would there be more such children or fewer of them than the status quo? What about in the future? "Statisficing," eh? Just learned a new word! :) Anyhow, I don't have the answer regarding more or less such children (though I'm guessing not much different from status quo); I suppose you're saying we should try this... This would end the issue of funding "welfare queens"; welfare moms would only be paid welfare if they agree to undergo sterilization once they become pregnant with their third child or remain on the dole longer than five or six years, whichever comes first. ...because it could also act as a deterrent to being a so-called "welfare queen" (e.g. "motivate" individuals to seek employment or other routes through which they can better themselves) and/or being sexually reckless (at least where pregnancy risk is concerned; as I said earlier sterilization doesn't preclude this). my blog |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||