Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jul 29, 2016 14:00:11 GMT -5
Suppose you want the kids with the most intelligence and motivation to go to the best colleges. Is a kid who tests perfectly an indication of these traits, or is it indicative of a kid who has been spoonfed these answers their entire lives and pushed and funded by their well-off parents? It is hard to determine these qualities, definitely, but you're losing a lot if you're going off a test scores--that merely indicate how well that kid performed on that particular test.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 29, 2016 14:00:25 GMT -5
I'm not saying you can't make a good living without going to an Ivy league school.
I'm saying I think we need to funnel our very brightest minds into the best programs. If you have a kid with the mental and physical ability to be one of the top neurosurgeons, do we want him doing a two year program at the community college learning to be an EMT because that's what he can qualify for and afford? Certainly he would earn a decent living if he did, but could he be a better asset to society if he could make some break throughs in neurosurgery?
We don't have that many really talented, smart kids. If some of them need some extra tutoring and help to get into the top programs, I don't mind making some allowances for them, because society wins in the long run. I don't like wasting talent.
How would you know who the underlying braniacs from a bad school are versus the others who would never cut it in a medical school program? I don't want to waste money tutoring all kids who can't meet standards. I have a lot of friends who are teachers. Good teachers can tell whether a kid is gifted or not. IQ tests that are geared to measuring intelligence (rather than SAT's that are geared more to how much knowledge someone has) would also help. Send them to be interviewed by a panel of educators to see which ones have the potential to do really well, if given the chance.
Better than our current system of seeing who has the parents who can pay the tuition fees and the extra programs and tutoring needed to get the best SAT scores, or who can afford to send their kid to a prep school.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 29, 2016 14:04:39 GMT -5
I know this is not a popular viewpoint on YM, but not all of the college experience is about academics or training for a job. Yes, you can get an education that leads to a good job just about anywhere, but a lot of the benefits realized by college (especially the Ivy Leagues and related schools) involve networking and exposing yourself to ideas and people you'd have missed if you lived at home and went to CC.
We talk about getting kids out of the ghetto so they can break the cycles of generational poverty/welfare/violence... but keeping them in their communities and sending them to CC with other people who likely have the same attitudes/life experiences probably isn't the best way to accomplish that. Getting them out into the world to gain new insight (and then giving them some incentive to move back to their communities and use the lessons they've learned, mentor teens, etc.) is key to solving a lot of the generational issues IMO. And on the other side of that coin, the kids who grew up in very privileged households can learn from those who didn't and maybe gain some empathy for those who have had different paths in life.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Jul 29, 2016 14:09:03 GMT -5
I don't really see how you could see who is "most deserving" out of the smart underachievers who came from poor families and/or bad areas. Do you sit them down one by one and have them tell you how hard they had it growing up? At the end of the day if someone doesn't test as well as other students they still have plenty of options outside of top tier schools. I may not have the cheap housing Miss T does but like her I'm doing pretty well and I went the JC to state school route. I was raised by a single parent with nothing but a high school diploma and I don't think that meant I should have had a leg up on the kids who had 2 parents that owned a house if those kids tested better. Teachers can figure out the really exceptional kids. It isn't who is the 'most deserving' it's the kids who have exceptional talent that we need to identify and move into the best programs, even if it means some other kids who are more qualified (on paper) get bumped.
Of course, we need to improve schools in the lower income/rural areas so that even the 'regular' kids have the ability to continue to a 2 or 4 year degree program if they want to. Every kid who comes through the public school system ought to be literate enough they can complete the kind of program required for the job they want - and no, a four year degree is not necessary for financial success, nor is going to a top rated school necessary, either.
So teachers in high school decide which underachieving kids from bad areas/backgrounds get in to colleges over more deserving kids? Some of what you're talking about needs to be addressed in middle/high school and not college. No child left behind had teachers having to deal with disruptive students they had to teach down to. I know a lot of teachers didn't like this because it took away from the kids you're talking about that need to be in better programs and/or challenged more. As far as improving schools goes as someone else already mentioned there's little correlation between money spent and test results. Other developed countries spend less than the US when it comes to per pupil spending but have better results. Even in the US if you compare schools in different areas a lot of ones that test better are in nicer areas but they aren't testing better because they're spending more it's because a higher percentage of parents take an interest in their kids education. I'm not for throwing more money at a problem that money won't fix.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 29, 2016 14:12:01 GMT -5
I always thought the lessening of requirements was because the requirements were put in place to keep specific people OUT and weren't necessarily an actual requirement to be able to do the job or whatever....
Now, I understand not changing the requirements for being something like a Rockette (you need to be female, have dancing skills, and probably need to fit some physical requirements height, leg length, body type) I get that. But what if they had a requirement about being single? or not having had any kids? or were required to be hetrosexual?
I always thought Affirmative action didn't say someone with a 2.0 GPA was automatically Medical School material simply because they were non-white. I thought Affirmation Action was to remove skin color, economic background, maybe even religion from the list of considerations when choosing students or job applicants or whatever...
I may need to do some research on Affirmative Action. Cause if it's true that I can just apply for and be assured I'd get any old high paying job because I'm a woman... even if I have no qualifications/skills - I've been doing it wrong for 30 years!!!
You are incorrect. There have been many lawsuits over the years because lesser qualified (whatever the qualification is for the situation) minorities have gotten in over whites.
Google is your friend
Here is just one of many articles out there. alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448
I would be somewhat ok with it if we said "after meeting the exact same qualifications, the make-up of the college has to be the same as the racial demographics of the country". But to have standards in place for white people and lesser standards for black people just doesn't sit well with me. Having standards in place for men and lesser standards for women just flat out pisses me off.
In the school system I taught in, to get into the Gifted program you had to score 130 or above. If you were black, it was 110.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jul 29, 2016 14:20:19 GMT -5
How would you know who the underlying braniacs from a bad school are versus the others who would never cut it in a medical school program? I don't want to waste money tutoring all kids who can't meet standards. I have a lot of friends who are teachers. Good teachers can tell whether a kid is gifted or not. IQ tests that are geared to measuring intelligence (rather than SAT's that are geared more to how much knowledge someone has) would also help. Send them to be interviewed by a panel of educators to see which ones have the potential to do really well, if given the chance.
Better than our current system of seeing who has the parents who can pay the tuition fees and the extra programs and tutoring needed to get the best SAT scores, or who can afford to send their kid to a prep school.
I believe teachers think they know who all of the smartest kids are, but I don't think they can spot all of them. They're biased towards the non-troublemakers, for instance. With more recognition of ADD these days, it may be getting better, however.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 14:20:25 GMT -5
I know this is not a popular viewpoint on YM, but not all of the college experience is about academics or training for a job. Yes, you can get an education that leads to a good job just about anywhere, but a lot of the benefits realized by college (especially the Ivy Leagues and related schools) involve networking and exposing yourself to ideas and people you'd have missed if you lived at home and went to CC. We talk about getting kids out of the ghetto so they can break the cycles of generational poverty/welfare/violence... but keeping them in their communities and sending them to CC with other people who likely have the same attitudes/life experiences probably isn't the best way to accomplish that. Getting them out into the world to gain new insight (and then giving them some incentive to move back to their communities and use the lessons they've learned, mentor teens, etc.) is key to solving a lot of the generational issues IMO. And on the other side of that coin, the kids who grew up in very privileged households can learn from those who didn't and maybe gain some empathy for those who have had different paths in life. this is where we disagree (our streak had to end! ). The only one responsible for me breaking the generational poverty was me. Sending me to an Ivy league school that I was ill-prepared for (I was extremely bright but my education was lacking because school was not a priority to me in high school) would have been a disaster. That is setting a kid up for failure. While I am quite capable of learning I would have walked into Harvard so far behind my peers that I would have dropped out/flunked out. What purpose would htat have served other than for the liberals to feel good about sending a poor kid to Harvard? Meanwhile, a kid who was actually prepared for Harvard would have not had a spot because a kid like me was there.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 14:21:42 GMT -5
You are incorrect. There have been many lawsuits over the years because lesser qualified (whatever the qualification is for the situation) minorities have gotten in over whites.
Google is your friend
Here is just one of many articles out there. alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448
I would be somewhat ok with it if we said "after meeting the exact same qualifications, the make-up of the college has to be the same as the racial demographics of the country". But to have standards in place for white people and lesser standards for black people just doesn't sit well with me. Having standards in place for men and lesser standards for women just flat out pisses me off.
In the school system I taught in, to get into the Gifted program you had to score 130 or above. If you were black, it was 110. What in the world was the reasoning behind that?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 29, 2016 14:22:21 GMT -5
In the school system I taught in, to get into the Gifted program you had to score 130 or above. If you were black, it was 110. What in the world was the reasoning behind that? To try to help more qualify and get in.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 14:26:15 GMT -5
What in the world was the reasoning behind that? To try to help more qualify and get in. Then the threshold should have been 110 for everyone.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 29, 2016 14:27:08 GMT -5
Too many white kids would get in
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jul 29, 2016 14:29:06 GMT -5
IQ tests aren't perfect either. They're culturally biased.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 29, 2016 14:34:09 GMT -5
I'm not saying you can't make a good living without going to an Ivy league school.
I'm saying I think we need to funnel our very brightest minds into the best programs. If you have a kid with the mental and physical ability to be one of the top neurosurgeons, do we want him doing a two year program at the community college learning to be an EMT because that's what he can qualify for and afford? Certainly he would earn a decent living if he did, but could he be a better asset to society if he could make some break throughs in neurosurgery?
We don't have that many really talented, smart kids. If some of them need some extra tutoring and help to get into the top programs, I don't mind making some allowances for them, because society wins in the long run. I don't like wasting talent.
How would you know who the underlying braniacs from a bad school are versus the others who would never cut it in a medical school program? I don't want to waste money tutoring all kids who can't meet standards.Tutoring kids is never a waste of money.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 14:43:18 GMT -5
IQ tests aren't perfect either. They're culturally biased. How exactly are they culturally biased?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 14:44:05 GMT -5
How would you know who the underlying braniacs from a bad school are versus the others who would never cut it in a medical school program? I don't want to waste money tutoring all kids who can't meet standards.Tutoring kids is never a waste of money. Tutoring kids for the purpose of getting them into a school that they aren't prepared for is not something the taxpayers should be funding.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jul 29, 2016 15:10:31 GMT -5
I thought it was a joke but then noticed it is apparently for real so here's my response: I carry extra Nature Valley bars to hand out to homeless when they ask for money, so far appreciated. I run Wardrobe for Opportunity drives, also appreciated. FWIW: I don't care how much melanin they have I would NEVER participate on a site like that and I have nothing to feel guilty about. My family wasn't here until 20th century and we didn't own slaves in the Ukraine. Blacks, American Indians, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, disabled, LGBT all experienced discrimination. So who's left? The Irish -- both here and the Catholics at home in Ireland. ;-) And short people. And left-handed people.WOOT! Who wants to send me a left handed can opener and some lefty notebooks?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 29, 2016 15:11:31 GMT -5
I know this is not a popular viewpoint on YM, but not all of the college experience is about academics or training for a job. Yes, you can get an education that leads to a good job just about anywhere, but a lot of the benefits realized by college (especially the Ivy Leagues and related schools) involve networking and exposing yourself to ideas and people you'd have missed if you lived at home and went to CC. We talk about getting kids out of the ghetto so they can break the cycles of generational poverty/welfare/violence... but keeping them in their communities and sending them to CC with other people who likely have the same attitudes/life experiences probably isn't the best way to accomplish that. Getting them out into the world to gain new insight (and then giving them some incentive to move back to their communities and use the lessons they've learned, mentor teens, etc.) is key to solving a lot of the generational issues IMO. And on the other side of that coin, the kids who grew up in very privileged households can learn from those who didn't and maybe gain some empathy for those who have had different paths in life. this is where we disagree (our streak had to end! ). The only one responsible for me breaking the generational poverty was me. Sending me to an Ivy league school that I was ill-prepared for (I was extremely bright but my education was lacking because school was not a priority to me in high school) would have been a disaster. That is setting a kid up for failure. While I am quite capable of learning I would have walked into Harvard so far behind my peers that I would have dropped out/flunked out. What purpose would htat have served other than for the liberals to feel good about sending a poor kid to Harvard? Meanwhile, a kid who was actually prepared for Harvard would have not had a spot because a kid like me was there. This is what I meant earlier. Yes individual responsibility is extremely important, but whether you realize it or not, you ARE affected by intelligent poor children who are unable to fulfill their potential because of racial or socioeconomic barriers. Using that logic, you should want us to find ways to enrich them so society can reap the benefits of their talents. If it keeps more people off the streets, out of jails, and off welfare, I think it's well worth the tax dollars.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 15:16:53 GMT -5
this is where we disagree (our streak had to end! ). The only one responsible for me breaking the generational poverty was me. Sending me to an Ivy league school that I was ill-prepared for (I was extremely bright but my education was lacking because school was not a priority to me in high school) would have been a disaster. That is setting a kid up for failure. While I am quite capable of learning I would have walked into Harvard so far behind my peers that I would have dropped out/flunked out. What purpose would htat have served other than for the liberals to feel good about sending a poor kid to Harvard? Meanwhile, a kid who was actually prepared for Harvard would have not had a spot because a kid like me was there. This is what I meant earlier. Yes individual responsibility is extremely important, but whether you realize it or not, you ARE affected by intelligent poor children who are unable to fulfill their potential because of racial or socioeconomic barriers. Using that logic, you should want us to find ways to enrich them so society can reap the benefits of their talents. If it keeps more people off the streets, out of jails, and off welfare, I think it's well worth the tax dollars. But it doesn't start at the college level...and it certainly doesn't mean just throwing more money at it. We spend so much more than other countries so spending tax dollars is not the answer
www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — which groups the world's most developed countries — writes in its annual report that brand-new and experienced teachers alike in the United States out-earn most of their counterparts around the globe. But U.S. salaries have not risen at the same pace as other nations.
The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report
Spending, of course, only tells part of the story and does not guarantee students' success. The United States routinely trails its rival countries in performances on international exams despite being among the heaviest spenders on education.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 29, 2016 15:35:32 GMT -5
This is what I meant earlier. Yes individual responsibility is extremely important, but whether you realize it or not, you ARE affected by intelligent poor children who are unable to fulfill their potential because of racial or socioeconomic barriers. Using that logic, you should want us to find ways to enrich them so society can reap the benefits of their talents. If it keeps more people off the streets, out of jails, and off welfare, I think it's well worth the tax dollars. But it doesn't start at the college level...and it certainly doesn't mean just throwing more money at it. We spend so much more than other countries so spending tax dollars is not the answer
www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — which groups the world's most developed countries — writes in its annual report that brand-new and experienced teachers alike in the United States out-earn most of their counterparts around the globe. But U.S. salaries have not risen at the same pace as other nations.
The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report
Spending, of course, only tells part of the story and does not guarantee students' success. The United States routinely trails its rival countries in performances on international exams despite being among the heaviest spenders on education.
I think a lot of that money is lost in administration and prep for standardized testing. And I agree, it needs to start way earlier than college prep.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 15:42:26 GMT -5
But it doesn't start at the college level...and it certainly doesn't mean just throwing more money at it. We spend so much more than other countries so spending tax dollars is not the answer
www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — which groups the world's most developed countries — writes in its annual report that brand-new and experienced teachers alike in the United States out-earn most of their counterparts around the globe. But U.S. salaries have not risen at the same pace as other nations.
The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report
Spending, of course, only tells part of the story and does not guarantee students' success. The United States routinely trails its rival countries in performances on international exams despite being among the heaviest spenders on education.
I think a lot of that money is lost in administration and prep for standardized testing. And I agree, it needs to start way earlier than college prep. Totally agreed. I think the entire system needs to be scrapped and we start over. Focusing on a country with great results because what we are doing just isn't working. What I don't know how we overcome is the family life a lot of the kids come from. That is hard to overcome.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jul 29, 2016 17:04:40 GMT -5
IQ tests aren't perfect either. They're culturally biased. How exactly are they culturally biased? What comes to mind is testing people in an agricultural based society with a test that assumes knowledge of industrial society. (Sorry, my kids are driving me nuts right now, so I can't go into it further.) Here is a pretty good article, and there are many various articles on it, if you care to Google: www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testing-accurate-or.html
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jul 29, 2016 17:09:16 GMT -5
Hell, my 3 year old was dinged when tested for preschool for not knowing what a jacket/coat is.
He doesn't own one. Neither of his parents wear one. Thus, we have never used the word in his presence.
A kid in a cold or wet climate still isn't of necessity smarter than my son.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 29, 2016 17:25:49 GMT -5
Hell, my 3 year old was dinged when tested for preschool for not knowing what a jacket/coat is. He doesn't own one. Neither of his parents wear one. Thus, we have never used the word in his presence. A kid in a cold or wet climate still isn't of necessity smarter than my son. I hate that you don't ever wear a coat.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 17:26:24 GMT -5
How exactly are they culturally biased? What comes to mind is testing people in an agricultural based society with a test that assumes knowledge of industrial society. (Sorry, my kids are driving me nuts right now, so I can't go into it further.) Here is a pretty good article, and there are many various articles on it, if you care to Google: www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testing-accurate-or.htmlI think it is fair to say that the Asian culture is different than the white culture and they are kicking our asses on SAT's. So why are they doing so much better than whites and why isn't that included in any of these articles?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 17:30:15 GMT -5
The Irish -- both here and the Catholics at home in Ireland. ;-) And short people. And left-handed people.WOOT! Who wants to send me a left handed can opener and some lefty notebooks? Forget the can opener. I need lefty scissors. Right-handed ones suck! And you will have to pry my lefty notebook out of my cold dead hands. With no ink smears, I might add.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jul 29, 2016 17:45:46 GMT -5
Hell, my 3 year old was dinged when tested for preschool for not knowing what a jacket/coat is. He doesn't own one. Neither of his parents wear one. Thus, we have never used the word in his presence. A kid in a cold or wet climate still isn't of necessity smarter than my son. I hate that you don't ever wear a coat.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 18:33:28 GMT -5
Then the threshold should have been 110 for everyone. Why? It depends on how the test is used, and I don't think anyone here understands the purposes of a lot of tests. In these cases - it isn't (or shouldn't) be/ing used as a "gold star" for achievement - with the "prize" awarded is here - go to the nifty program. The test is being used for it's predictive value in predicting who can be successful in the program. So if you have one kid from a relative financially secure origin. Parents and other family members with college educations, etc. and nice educational toys and museum outings, etc. from an early age and you have another kid from a poor background, less educated family, etc. less other advantages, it could very well be that a 110 on a particular test predicts the same ability to be successful in a program as a 130 on the test for a kid who came from the more educated family. In terms of the cultural bias, historically, the test has been written from a particular cultural perspective that may not be fair to all kids. Many attempts are now being made to remove cultural bias from these tests, but without knowing the particular test - or even what decade this story is from, it's difficult to say. However, from a predictive sense - race does impact the predictive utility of the scores. I'm kind of amazed that these essential points about how testing and scores are used isn't well know. These are concepts I learned in an undergraduate psych course 30 years ago. And measurement theory and practice has become infinitely more sophisticated since then. On a more sociological note - when do we STOP kicking the can down to the next generation to deal with these inequalities? Why isn't racial parity in the top schools not a goal everyone can get behind? There is a debt that it is owed, and the interest is compounding. Yeah - it sucks that the debt been growing for 2-300 years. It sucks that asshole ancestors of some people thought they could buy and sell human bondage without having to pay the price. It sucks that other asshole decided to drag this out after the civil war. But they did. Can we not be the next generation of assholes who don't fix it? I asked someone else a question and never got an answer. Why do Asians do so much better on these tests?
And the 110 versus 130 that zib mentioned wasn't because of income disparity. It was only due to race. I can tell you that I was a poor kid with an uneducated mother yet I scored high enough to get in the gifted classes (7th grade, long before I became someone that didn't give a shit about school). I didn't need the gifted program to be dumbed down for me even though I clearly didn't have the background that wealthier kids had. FFS, I spoke in double negatives until I got to college because that's what I knew. To this day I don't have the best grammar but I get by. I wasn't a reader so we can't say I got exposed to whatever it is the wealthy get exposed to via reading.
And does that mean that Asians should have to score 150 to get in because they do so much better than the whites on these tests?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 18:39:44 GMT -5
I was raised by an uneducated mom too, a good lady but just didn't have the chance, dad was a reader and so was I. In college they said I suffered from southern Indiana English.
No I would not donate to reparations, to many years ago. I was some of the poor irish that weren't treated much better.
Many have pulled their way up, others could too if they would value education.
I'm not demeaning the horrible things they and their ancestors went through either, just been to long ago. Should I ask for money because my ancestors were kept down? I doubt they had enough money to own a slave. They probably were endentured servants themselves.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 29, 2016 19:09:19 GMT -5
I asked someone else a question and never got an answer. Why do Asians do so much better on these tests?
And the 110 versus 130 that zib mentioned wasn't because of income disparity. It was only due to race. I can tell you that I was a poor kid with an uneducated mother yet I scored high enough to get in the gifted classes (7th grade, long before I became someone that didn't give a shit about school). I didn't need the gifted program to be dumbed down for me even though I clearly didn't have the background that wealthier kids had. FFS, I spoke in double negatives until I got to college because that's what I knew. To this day I don't have the best grammar but I get by. I wasn't a reader so we can't say I got exposed to whatever it is the wealthy get exposed to via reading.
And does that mean that Asians should have to score 150 to get in because they do so much better than the whites on these tests?
Do you understand inferential statistics? predictive validity? regression analysis? This isn't about making it harder or easier for any particular subgroup. It's about predicting who is going to be successful in the program. You don't want "to throw money at the problem" - the program is expensive. the test is expensive. sending a kid who doesn't benefit from the program and can't handle it is a waste of time. So - do we want to make the most out of all these investments, and try to send the kids with the best chance of benefiting from the program? Or should we make you feel better using the same cutoff score across groups even though we know that isn't the best use of the resources? Yes. Please just make me feel better And why do the Asians not have the same issue? They are culturally different than white
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jul 29, 2016 19:37:01 GMT -5
I was going to say...all Asians are not culturally the same. (I was also going to say that my family has a tradition of "disappearing" kids who do poorly on tests, but that is an extremely inappropriate joke. ) I'm not studied up on this, but I'm sure some of this is a linguistic issue. I know that kids of all sorts of backgrounds from Hawaii do poorly on the English portion of standardized tests because the local pidgin is such a strong influence on how kids learn the English language. Any culture with extremely strong slang is going to have issues based on that alone.
|
|