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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193254)	1/17/2007 8:12:50 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793955

The dishonest and cruel pretence is that if they just work hard enough, the low g people can do well too at anything they, or somebody advising them, think seems like a good idea to do. In a perfect world, they would learn what they are capable off. Right now, our school system won't admit it publicly, but it believes they can't learn. The truth is it takes the best teachers to reach below average children and teach them. But they would rather spend their time with the bright kids. It's more rewarding. The bright kids don't need the best teachers, they can almost teach themselves. So we need a school system that recognizes this problem and pays and allows for it. We can't get one.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193254)	1/19/2007 12:06:28 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

More on cognitive ability D-Ed Reckoning blog The trio of Charles Murray articles has certainly gotten the blogosphere all atwitter. I'd say that Murray's biggest misstep, among many, was his characterization of the left half of the bell curve as a bunch of dullards who are only capable of learning simple things and who are incapable of engaging in sophisticated reasoning skills. It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity This is the problem when you deal with IQ abstractly and make value judgments without taking into account the failings of our horrendous education system. It may be true that the typical low-IQ student with a typical K-12 education exhibits the behaviors consistent with Murray's observations. But, that is as much an indictment of how that child was educated as much as the child's diminished cognitive ability. In Murray's view, these low-IQ kids are cognitively crippled and incapable of higher learning. This is the conventional wisdom. It is also flatly wrong. The false belief that characterizes the conventional wisdom about teaching is that lower performers learn in generically different ways from higher performers and should be held to a lower or looser standard. Evidence of this belief is that teachers frequently have different "expectations" for higher and lower performers. They expect higher performers to learn the material; they excuse lower performers from achieving the same standard of performance. Many teachers believe that lower performers are something like crippled children. They can walk the same route that the higher performers walk, but they need more help in walking. These teachers often drag students through the lesson and provide a lot of additional prompting. They have to drag students because the students are making a very high percentage of first-time errors. In fact, the students make so many mistakes that it is very clear that they are not placed appropriately in the sequence and could not achieve mastery on the material in a reasonable amount of time. The teachers may correct the mistakes, and may even repeat some parts that had errors; however, at the end of the exercise, the students are clearly not near 100% firm on anything. Furthermore, the teacher most probably does not provide delayed tests to assess the extent to which these students have retained what had been presented earlier. The information these teachers receive about low performers is that they do not retain information, that they need lots and lots of practice, and that they don't seem to have strategies for learning new material. Ironically, however, all these outcomes are predictable for students who receive the kind of instruction these students have received. High performers receiving instruction of the same relative difficulty or unfamiliarity would perform the same way. Let's say the lower performers typically have a first-time-correct percentage of 40%. If higher performers were placed in material that resulted in a 40% first-time-correct performance, their behavior would be like that of lower performers. They would fail to retain the material, rely on the teacher for help, not exhibit self-confidence, and continue to make the same sorts of mistakes again. The primary differences between low-IQ kids and high-IQ kids is that the high-IQ kids learn faster and need less rehearsals (practice) to master the material taught. Low-IQ kids are capable of learning the same material, they just need more time and practice to learn it. The problem is that our schools were not designed to teach low-IQ children. Rosy progressive rhetoric notwithstanding, the song remains the same today. Murray's observations are inaccurate because he's viewing the cognitive ability of low IQ kids through a filter of poor instruction. He should know better. He should know that you shouldn't draw conclusions from a failed experiment (other than it failed), in this case the failed experiment is the education of low-IQ kids. Let's look at the behaviors exhibited by low IQ kids when they have been successfully educated. A good example comes from educator Jerry Silbert who wrote the following in response to Murray's article: When the authors of Reasoning and Writing C and Reasoning Writing D were trying out the programs during their development, we found something very interesting. Reasoning and Writing C is a program that focuses mainly on teaching narrative writing. Reasoning and Writing D is a program that focuses on critical thinking and writing on exercises involving critical thinking. As we looked at the try out feedback for Reasoning and Writing C with second and third grades, we saw significant differences in the paper's of students from more high income populations and those of kids from lower income populations. The differences were in the vocabulary used and sentence structures used by the kids. This is known as the vocabulary deficit. Low IQ kids know less vocabulary and background knowledge because they learn slower. To compound the problem, these kids typically get far less exposure to language at home (low IQ parents) so it is a bit of a double whammy for them. A deadly combination of both a nature (genetic) and a nurture shortcoming. Ultimately, this vocabulary and background deficit will result in diminished reading comprehension which will do these kids in in the later grades. It's not that these kids are incapable of learning vocabulary and the underlying concepts; it's that such learning is not easily accelerated. And, slow learners need to have their learning accelerated to keep pace with the higher-IQ kids. Silbert's observations were predictable. The higher IQ kids had picked up significantly more background knowledge, vocabulary, and language familiarity in the five years before they started formal education and the four years of formal education. It was these skills that were being relied upon in the narrative writing exercises. Predictably, they performed better. But let's see what happened when the playing field was leveled and skills were taught that were new to both the high IQ kids and the low IQ kids. When we did the try outs of the Reasoning and Writing D programs we saw much less difference between the performance of the kids. The more advantaged kids initially had a good deal of difficulty writing about the problems involving faulty arguments, misleading statements and advertisements, contradictions and directions that were too general or inaccurate. The kids from more advantaged homes and less-advantaged homes both had little idea of how to clearly express themselves when it came to critical thinking. When we looked at the kids' papers from the tryout, kids from lower income schools learned the content as quickly as kids from higher income schools. The most important factor seemed to be the quality of teaching. The point here is that though some kids come into school with much more vocabulary and background knowledge than other kids, that good instruction can bring most of the kids who come in behind to high levels of performance on important skills. In the Reasoning and Writing C program, we also saw great and rapid growth of narrative writing skills in low-income schools when the teaching was solid. I am familiar with level D of Reasoning and Writing. It teaches difficult reasoning and argument making skills that are rarely taught at the undergraduate level, much less at that K-12 level. Certainly, these skills are not taught to young children in the homes of the affluent. So, for these skills, the playing field was leveled and both the low and high IQ kids were capable of learning at a sufficient pace with good instruction. Which is not to say that the performance of the high-IQ kids couldn't have been further accelerated. It most likely could have, but now we are talking at a faster than grade level pace which is outside the bounds of Murray's argument. Low-IQ kids are not cognitively crippled. They just learn at a slower pace. They are capable of learning sophisticated, complex material at a grade level pace given adequate instruction. At least up to the K-12 level. But the fact of the matter is that these kids aren't getting anything close to adequate instruction at the K-12 level. This instructional inadequacy taints Murray's underlying premise and renders his conclusion spurious. Had Murray qualified his argument by stating "It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity given the typically crappy instruction present in most schools," he'd be much closer to the truth. But, then it would be obvious that the defect lies as much in the schools as it does with the cognitive ability of the students. Thus exposing the flaws in Murray's conclusions. d-edreckoning.blogspot.com

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193254)	1/22/2007 7:11:02 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

For Whom the Bell Curves: America's Education Dilemma By Arnold Kling : 22 Jan 2007 iq education "...it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges... What they really need is vocational training. But nobody will say so." -- Charles Murray I believe that education is ripe for reform, and I agree with Charles Murray that there is a mismatch between the mission and practices of the typical college and the needs of many students. However, in many respects, I find his diagnosis and recommendations too simplistic. He argues for limiting educational expectations for children with modest IQ levels and for reviving the notion of a "classical education" for the elite. IQ-ism Murray's analysis is contained in a three-part series in the Wall Street Journal. The quote above is from part two. See also part one and part three. Murray's analysis reflects IQ-ism. That is, it reduces human talent to a one-dimensional measure, IQ. One problem with IQ-ism is that it does not explain how people come to acquire particular talents, in chess or art or salesmanship. If one really takes seriously the one-dimensional concept of IQ, then the clay of a high-IQ child could be molded into a genius in any field. Yet many otherwise-talented people are severely limited in some dimensions. Even within a specific subject such as mathematics, different sub-fields come more easily to different experts. I am willing to talk about IQ as a measure of general ability. That does not make it the measure of ability. There is a role for practice and dedication. A New York Times Magazine article by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt reports on research by Anders Ericsson and colleagues on expert performance. Their work, compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect. Even taking IQ as a one-dimensional measure of ability, Murray's analysis is skewed. He tends to treat IQ as if it were a measure of one's capacity to hold knowledge, like the volume of a container. According to Murray, a high-IQ jar can hold advanced physics. A low-IQ jar can only hold, say, 4th-grade mathematics. The container metaphor implicit in Murray's essays could be misleading. Instead, IQ might be a measure of the speed with which someone can absorb knowledge, rather than a measure of how much they can absorb. A high-speed car will get to the destination faster, but a low-speed car will still get there, if given enough time. If the jar metaphor is correct, any resources devoted to trying to teach calculus to an average-IQ student are wasted. However, if the car metaphor is correct, and it is really important to teach calculus to the average-IQ student, then we should be putting more resources into doing so. The economic approach to education would be to maximize benefits minus costs. Murray's IQ-ism implies that this can be achieved by strictly matching the complexity of subjects taught to the IQ of the student. However, his prescription may be wrong if ability is multi-dimensional or if the jar metaphor is incorrect. Typists and TV Repairmen? Murray claims that many students go to college who are not capable of handling the material that is taught there. This is indeed a problem, one that I have noted as well. However, it is not clear that vocational school is the answer. The challenge is that we live in a rapidly-evolving economy, so that vocations are not stable. Thirty years ago, a vocational school for typists or for TV repairmen would have made sense. Many professionals used secretaries for typing, and many people took broken televisions to the shop for repair. However, not many people could have spent their entire careers doing typing or TV repair. Today, people throw out broken televisions (unless they are under warranty), and most people do their own typing on computers. Granted, it is better to train people for specific occupations than to have them waste four years earning what I call the "Wizard of Oz" diploma. However, in a dynamic economy, we have to recognize that vocational school is far from a panacea. Tracking Historically, European and Japanese youth were subjected to very severe tracking. An exam taken in one's early teens would determine whether the person is destined for higher education or for trade school. What Murray is suggesting strikes me as similar. Formal tracking is distasteful, for a number of reasons. First, I believe that it is better to have multiple, competing elites than to go the route of having an "upper class" and a "lower class." Disparate elites are more easily penetrated by outsiders, which is important. Disparate elites also provide natural checks and balances. A unified elite would be a frightening proposition. Second, the American narrative rests on equal opportunity. We know that people are born with advantages and disadvantages, but we like to think that we provide reasonable chances for people to overcome disadvantages and move up the social and economic ladder. Making college accessible to as many people as possible may represent a misguided attempt to err on the side of providing opportunities for upward mobility that are not realistic. However, formal tracking policies err in the other direction, by restricting opportunity. As an American, I see holding someone down with an artificial ceiling as a much more serious offense than extending a futile helping hand that fails to lift someone up. Exploring Alternatives I would like to see more students and parents exploring alternatives to standard K-12 education and college. Government funds and alumni contributions go to the entrenched establishment. Innovators are starved for funds. The best sign of a vibrant education sector would be more institutional failure. With sufficient competition and innovation, we would see colleges and universities fold or merge at the same rate as ordinary businesses. We would see schools shut down because parents send their children elsewhere. We would see large layoffs in some school systems, with hiring taking place among successful start-ups. I do not know what education models would emerge in a dynamic market. However, unless human ability is as rigid and one-dimensional as Charles Murray presumes, a dynamic market would produce diverse educational methods and opportunities rather than tracking into an educational hierarchy.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193254)	11/17/2007 10:05:38 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Mq, looks like NZ is REALLY controlling their Citizens. Hitler never went this far. New Zealand Denies Immigration to U.K. Wife Because She's Too Fat Saturday , November 17, 2007 NEW YORK — New Zealand immigration officials are keeping a U.K. wife from joining her husband "down under" because they say she is too fat, the Daily Mail reports. British citizens Rowan Trezise, 33, and Richie Trezise, 35, are living apart as she tries desperately to shed the pounds needed to comply with New Zealand guidelines that immigrants maintain a healthy BMI, or body mass index. BMI is a weight-height ratio that estimates percentage of body fat. The New Zealand Immigration Service requires all applicants to undergo a complete medical examination, which includes body size measures like "waist circumference." The regulations were supposedly put into place for budget reasons. The country's health care system cannot afford to open its doors to overweight immigrants, a spokesman for New Zealand's Fight the Obesity Epidemic explained to the Daily Mail. Over half of New Zealand adults and nearly one-third of New Zealand children are already overweight or obese, according to the group. Those figures are expected to rise, as are the health problems associated with being overweight, such as high blood pressure and diabetes. Richie Trezise managed to trim two inches off his waistline, the Daily Mail reports, bringing his BMI down and allowing him to take the first step toward the couple's dream of resettling in New Zealand. Rowan Trezise is alone at home and still struggling. In an interview with the paper, Richie Trezise admitted his wife is having trouble losing the weight — a difficulty which may force the couple to abandon their overseas plans and stay in the U.K. for good. They've set Christmas as their deadline. foxnews.com

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193254)	11/8/2008 1:44:13 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

New Zealand the corner By Michael Rubin Congratulations to John Key and the National Party which has ousted Helen Clarke's Labour Party after its nine-year tenure. I had the pleasure to travel to Wellington and conduct briefings to many on the National Party's team two months ago; they have assembled an impressive bunch. Clarke, who has distingusihed herself with quiet anti-Americanism and moral equivalency, will now seek to transfer herself to the United Nations, where she aspires to be the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.