Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (204459)	11/22/2001 8:39:38 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

gobble gobble

To: Neocon who wrote (204459)	11/22/2001 9:48:48 PM
From: Walkingshadow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Hi Neocon, << ...we may merely be diluting our measures by including a lot of weaker students in these assessments. >> If the total number of students who actually make it through high school with a high school education is steadily decreasing---whatever the cause---there is a problem. The "dilution" effect assumes that people enter school as good students, bad students, etc. and then remain that way..... that success in school is predominantly predetermined and a more or less simple function of the innate intelligence of those entering, and if that decreases then so too will educational achievement. I just don't believe this is so. For one thing, it is clear to me that success in school is far more a function of diligence and persistence than overall "intelligence." In other words, while those who are more intelligent may have an easier time of it, the vast majority of those with lesser intelligence are nevertheless completely capable of learning what needs to be learned, albeit with more effort. And even those with superior intelligence will get diminishing returns in terms of educational achievement with time, because as you get further along in the educational system disciplined work habits become increasingly more important. I doubt that anybody, no matter how intelligent, ever graduated from any postgraduate professional school or PhD program by doing anything other than working very hard at their studies. Although a certain level of intelligence is required, this can in large measure be acquired, and innate intelligence just seems to have a decreasing effect as a determinant of educational success. And this is an important lifetime lesson that all students should learn: that you will be good at some things, not very good at others, but you can still achieve things if you work hard even if you are not very good at them at first. So just because you find something difficult does not at all mean it is time to give up and find something easier to do. It is simpler to look at it another way I think: all students enter school without a high school education. The education system has 13 years to give them one. The percentage in whom they successfully do so is a direct measure of the effectiveness of our educational system. The major criticism I would have of both your explanation and mine is that neither considers the role of parents, and I just don't think the educational system can be held fully accountable for the results in complete disregard of the role of parents. Admittedly, this is a much harder task---rating parental effectiveness. There are no standardized tests to appraise this critical factor, and even if there were, it is far from clear what ought to be done about the results. But still, no small problem at all..... But, as always, JMVHO...... Walkingshadow