“Over time, we began to realize that many teachers had been grading kids for compliance — not for mastering the course material,” [middle school principal Katie] Berglund said. “A portion of our A and B students were not the ones who were gaining the most knowledge but the ones who had learned to do school the best.”....How did the word "exclusively" get into that last question? It seems obvious to me that schools should give achievement in learning the primary place it deserves and should also demand appropriate behavior. Students need to be decently well-behaved, diligent, and organized, but it's wrong to treat teacher's-pet-type students as if they are the best. That drives many smart kids into rebellion. And, frankly, it's likely to create unnecessary problems for lots of boys. And it doesn't do girls any favors either, since real careers aren't about handing in all the homework and pleasing the authority figure.
As test scores fast become the single and most powerful measurement by which educational outcomes are being judged, more schools might find themselves engaged in what has become a pivotal debate: Should students be rewarded for being friendly, prepared, compliant, a good school citizen, well organized and hard-working? Or should good grades represent exclusively a student’s mastery of the material?
ADDED: I'm told that the Week In Review pieces like this are properly referred to as news "analysis," and not "op-eds."
Posts
243 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243John Henry said:
Until we get history teachers that studied history, math teachers that studied math, science teachers that studied science and so on, replacing the teachers will do no good at all.
You simply replace one inappropriately trained set of people with another inappropriately trained set.
Well said! My experience in ed. school was that entirely too much emphasis was placed on the theoretical side of teaching, at the expense of actually being an expert at one's chosen subject. (I was fortunate enough to earn my music education degree from a school with a very strong tradition of performance, and even more fortunate that only four of my undergrad classes came from the College of Education, while the vast majority of the rest were taught in the College of Music.)
Penny said:
Speaking of oxymorons, I've never understood why "Professionals" need a union to speak for them?
I couldn't agree more, Penny. Unions are useless enough--even in the blue-collar trades--in this day and age, but there is no excuse for a professional of any kind to even think about forming a union. You don't see doctors and lawyers going on strike, do you?
@SevenMachos:
Experts? Really? Like phrenology experts? Like psychic experts? Like out-of-body experience experts? Like Jesus ghost haunting Rome experts?
Keep digging, you'll get out of that hole eventually...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html
Paul Thompson at the University of California at Los Angeles and his colleagues used MRI to scan the brains of 10 pairs of identical and 10 pairs of fraternal twins. Identical twins have identical genes, whereas fraternal twins sharing on average half their genes. The twins shared environments, means researchers can separate genetic and environmental factors.
The researchers found that certain regions of the brain were highly heritable. These included language areas, known as Broca's and Wernicke's areas, and the frontal region, which, among other things, plays a huge role in cognition.
In identical twins, these areas showed a 95 to 100 per cent correlation between one twin and the other - they were essentially the same. The frontal structure, says Thompson, appears to be as highly influenced by genes as the most highly influenced trait we know of - fingerprints.
"It's extraordinary how similar they are," he says. The finding suggests that environment - their own personal experiences, what they learned in life, who they knew - played a negligible role in shaping it.
Fraternal twins were near-identical in Wernicke's area, showing about 60 to 70 per cent correlation, but were less similar in other areas, . Random pairs of people would be expected to have no correlation.
The study was all the more interesting in that it found that not only was this gray matter highly heritable, but it affected overall intelligence as well. "We found that differences in frontal gray matter were significantly linked with differences in intellectual function," the authors write.
The volunteers each took a battery of tests that examined 17 separate abilities, including verbal and spatial working memory, attention tasks, verbal knowledge, motor speed and visuospatial ability.
These tests hone in on what's known as "g", the common element measured by IQ tests. People who do well on one of these tests tend to do well on them all, says Thompson.
@SevenMachos
Nothing more to say to you--you;ve outed yourself to everyone--for ideological reasons you have ruled a bracnh of science out of bounds and refused to engage any of its empirical claims--you just deny the evidence exists and call the scientists working in the field names.
Just like a creationist. So, declare victory if you like--others will read you, and the people who argued with you, and come to their own conclusions.
I'm with you, Gabriel.
Seven Machos is foaming at the mouth like I haven't seen anywhere online in a long time.
The fact that he can't (or more likely refuses) to understand the concept of IQ distributions by race --which in fact mostly overlap-- but which have their peaks and tails offset, just goes to show what an idiot or pure hater he is (not quite sure which).
It is perfectly legitimate science to discuss these things, and even more so legitimate public policy, given that accusations of de facto racism and discrimination are routinely flung about -- and programs designed and $$s spent -- based on aggregate performance by group. If we insist on scoring by race to figure out what is wrong, then it sure as hell is a legitimate topic to look for underlying bias in the fundamentals.
Of course Seven would rather claim that Thomas' general ranking of mean IQs by ethnic group is some vicious slur that all whites are smarter than all blacks, and so on.
Kev,
re: doctors going on strike --
Just give Obamacare some more time, if its not substantially changed/repealed ;)
Gabriel,
Sorry, but I have to differ with you on AGW. I have backgrounds in engineering, physics and computer science (no PhD). What I have seen of the work of the AGW community shows me it is very significantly contaminated with crap science. If I had been as sloppy in my undergrad Physic lab courses, I would have received an F without mercy.
The way they play with the numbers and lack of data integrity seems more on a par with what the sociologists get away when it comes to ginning up statistics.
Those who claim it is *inconceivable* that manmade CO2 could affect climate are wrong, but the AGW sky-is-falling crowd have not made their case very well at all:
1) Very shabby recordkeeping and laughably spotty datasets and collection with what appears to be some cherry picking. Little truly independent supporting data sets.
2)Stitched-together 'models' which in key areas are glorified curve fits with fudge factors reverse-engineered from the suspect data in #1, rather than being truly bottom-up physics-based models.
3)Poor track record of predictions over the past decade.
For the record, I'm on board with evolution -- its is as fundamental to biology as gravity is to celestial mechanics. Without it, biology becomes nothing more than glorified description -- no explanation. It's actually a shame that so many religious people reject evolution out of hand, because the more I learn about the findings of evolutionary psychology, the more I see it actually *supports* 'traditional values' more often than not.
Get over yourselves. You are claiming that some races are genetically intellectually superior to others. This claim is racist. You would be far off attempting to demonstrate the validity of your racist claims. However, you have also obviously accepted that it is always wrong to be racist. Hence, when you make obviously an racist remark, you squirm hilariously to demonstrate why your racist remarks are not racist. Why?
Embrace your racism. Wail with it. Wallow in it. Don't be ashamed and try to pretend your racist claims are something other than racist claims. Go full Aryan, man.
Newscaper -- Thomas's general ranking of mean IQs by ethnic group is a vicious slur because IQ is not real. It's an utterly false measurement of something that abjectly cannot be measured.
Also, race itself is an utterly artificial social construct of the nineteenth century.
Anyway, talking to you people is like a fungo talking to a martian. Your beliefs are very strange, and obviously wrong. Thankfully, no one takes you seriously.
The official reason for opposing standardized tests is that the tests don't measure creativity or common sense. (Can creativity be measured by admissions officers of universities? Are attempts at common sense desirable in universities?) The official unofficial reason is that there is a gap between the measured achievement of different racial groups. (Can we get rid of the effects of slavery by failing to measure those effects?) I suspect there is another reason: Standardized tests interfere with the ability to turn universities into conservative-free zones.
A few decades ago, back when leftists really were the arrogant intellectuals they've been pretending to be ever since, they pushed through meritocratic reforms at the top universities. They were expecting that Ivy-League students would be as politically-uniform as Ivy-League faculties have become. It didn't quite work that way. There were enough right-wing students admitted that the leftists started asking themselves "How did the Enemy get in here?"
They've been looking for a solution to the problem ever since.
Standardized tests such as the SAT (before it changed massively) are ridiculous because they purposefully don't test anything you learned in school and because they don't have anything to do with what they purport to test for -- not intelligence, imbeciles, but success in college.
Joseph -- What's on the SAT? What was on it in 2000? In 1990?
"Also, race itself is an utterly artificial social construct of the nineteenth century."
That is hilarious. Yes, neatly, perfectly drawn lines dividing groups is oversimplification (including various degrees of blurring at the old premodern geograpic margins-- and one can sure as hell argue about just what the concept includes, but to suggest that it is no more significant than a group of people arbitrarily deciding (for example) that anyone above exactly 5ft,7.6in is 'Tall' and below that, 'Short', is absurd.
The admittedly fuzzy concept of race IS about something real -- the persisting bundles of genes which are the markers are of our different evolutionary histories.
The undeniable fact that there is no single 'race gene' is immaterial.
Also a common misconception is that it is only 'skin deep', o that evolution neatly works n layers -- we tend to think of cells and tissues evolving, then later macroscopic form, like getting Lego pieces which are themselves fixed, then arranging them. Evolution works at all levels: biochemistry, anatomy, morphology, and yes, the brain. Trying to identify to what extent further shaping has occurred is a perfectly valid scientific question. And just because it can be very hard to untangle the answers in no way means the questions are invalid.
And you're supposedly one of the "reality-based community"?
I can give a personal race-related disease example. I have an uncle diagnosed with hemochromatosis, a form of slow moving iron toxicity. It has an interesting evolutionary angle. It is exclusively more northern European aka 'white') and victims are almost entirely male even though women carry the gene as well. Its a caucasian counterpart to sickle cell anemia in blacks -- a gene which causes severe illness when present in pairs that persisted in the gene pool because one copy of the gene confers some immunity to malaria. With hemochromatosis, the digestive tract becomes *more* efficient at absorbing iron from food. The body does not easily get rid of iron, so the only treatment is phlebotomy, 'bleeding', drawing blood monthly. Yet the ability to obtain iron more efficiently is a valuable boost to women, who need more for growing babies, and who otherwise bleed monthly. Genetic studies have tentatively dated the origin of the gene to around 10,000ya. The hypothesis is that when neolithic farming took hold in the north, more of womens diet consisted of cereals grown in iron poor soil rather than meat.
So where is the gene for IQ?
Newscaper -- I'm a conservative and a libertarian. But you go ahead and keep dividing the world into your neat little false categories. Moron.
@fls:
So where is the gene for IQ?
Where's the gene for gay? Where's the gene for tall? Where's the gene for fat? Where's the gene for your uncle's nose?
Your ignorance of basic biology is appalling and tiresome to deal with; seriously you need to crack at least a popular biology book. Anything by Dawkins should do fine. I've repeatedly suggested to you where you can go to educate yourself and you repeatedly insist on wallowing in ignorance.
fls, where does the functioning of the mind come from if not the physical structure of the brain? Do you believe in magic and ghosts? Where does the structure of the brain come from, if not genes and development? Do you believe believe that every human brain is individually intelligently designed by God?
Why do I bother, you're too ignorant to have any idea what you believe. You thought Dick Cheney gave his daughter a Y chromosome.
@Seven Machos:
You are claiming that some races are genetically intellectually superior to others.
That is your VALUE JUDGEMENT. Some races are genetically taller than others. Are they "superior"? Some have darker skin. Are they "superior"?
Just because YOU think dumb people are fit only for fertilizer doesn't mean the REST OF US do. Some of us value human life merely because it is human, not whether it's smart or dumb or beautiful or ugly.
Also, race itself is an utterly artificial social construct of the nineteenth century.
That's why forensic pathologists can never tell you whether a murder victim was black or white by looking at bones, right?
See--you are a crackpot. Now forensic anthropology, according to you, is not a science and its practitioners are quacks, despite the fact that you know nothing whatever about it. You have ideologically ruled it out of bounds.
There is no one reading these comments who is going to persuaded by anything you've said, because all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and shout "racist". All you do is turn people away from the point of view you want to share. You're doing MY work for me.
@Seven Machos:
Race is a correlation of inherited features inherited from common ancestors.
There are white people with straight black hair. No one disputes it. There are white people with more melanin in their skin than others. No one disputes it. There are white people with epicanthic folds. No one disputes it.
But ALMOST NO white people have ALL of these features, and almost ALL east Asians have MORE THAN ONE. This is why race is not purely a social construction. In LANGUAGE and LAW we have to make judgements arbitrarily--this man is "black" or this woman is "white". But they reflect an underlying biological reality, which is more complicated than our language permits, but is nonetheless real.
Your argument against race is absurd. It's like saying that because the 18-year-old standard for adulthood is arbitrary, there are no such things as "children" and "adults" and maturity is a social construction of the twentieth century. Different times and different cultures treat adults and children differently and draw the line differently, but the distinction is REAL even if fuzzy.
Your ideological blinders won't let you see it, and that's why I called you a "denier".
You thought Dick Cheney gave his daughter a Y chromosome.
I said that because the father's genetic contribution determines one's sex, the father's genetic contribution could well determine one's sexual orientation. In that case, if production of gays is undesirable, Dick Cheney would have to be culled from the herd.
Gabriel -- Yes, it is possible to tell what someone's skin color is. So what? There is no separate black or white races.
It's like saying that because the 18-year-old standard for adulthood is arbitrary, there are no such things as "children" and "adults" and maturity is a social construction of the twentieth century
Yeah, dude. That's exactly right. Maturity most definitely is a social construction of the 19th and 20th centuries. So are "teenager" and "senior citizen." Not 200 years ago, it was absolutely common for 13-year-olds to marry and have children and participate in adult life.
I am not saying nor have I said that some people are not smarter and dumber. Obviously, they are. You fall in the dumber category, just for example. What I am saying is that there is no way to measure it or classify it, just as there is no way to classify people into the false construct of race beyond a few basic features. If we so chose, we could classify people a whole different way, like fat assers and curly hairs. You'd be preening about how these are evolutionary necessities if we did. This is because you are shallow and silly.
@fls:
I said that because the father's genetic contribution determines one's sex, the father's genetic contribution could well determine one's sexual orientation.
Sex is determined by the presence or absence of the father's Y chromosome, idiot. You are so ignorant you didn't realized you said it.
And now you've doubled down on the stupid.
So where's that gay gene, analogous to the IQ gene you demanded from ME? Something so complicated as sexual orientation can be as simple as a sex chromosome, but intelligence can't be inherited in any way whatever?
@Seven Machos:
There is no separate black or white races.
Clearly the words "grey", "bald", and "some" are meaningless. Another content-free assertion contradicted by everyone's experience.
Yeah, dude. That's exactly right. Maturity most definitely is a social construction of the 19th and 20th centuries.
That's why five-year-olds get pregnant and have heart attacks and senility all the time, right? Maturity is not purely a social construction. There is a biological basis to this concept--and once again you have proved to everyone that your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing anything except in either/or.
What I am saying is that there is no way to measure it or classify it,
Which assertion you have made without any evidence whatever, and called anyone who DID cite evidence a racist, and anyone who provided the evidence a quack.
just as there is no way to classify people into the false construct of race beyond a few basic features.
Another evidence free assertion! And of course there's no such thing as bone structures, blood types, brain structures, and forensic anthropologists never identify murder victims based on these things? Right? It's all a mirage.
If we so chose, we could classify people a whole different way, like fat assers and curly hairs.
Once again, you prove that you cannot comprehend the concept of "correlation". Race is not based on skin color alone, when you classify people according to hair type and color, tendency to fat-assitude you get the same results. Why? Because humans are not equally descended from the same ancestors. My wife has very few ancestors in common with me, but we both have a lot in common with Tiger Woods. This is the biological basis of the concept--but to you every human must have the exact same genetic inheritance.
You'd be preening about how these are evolutionary necessities if we did.
Never once did I mention evolutionary necessity--but you sound more like a creationist with every post. Sexual selection probably has far more to do with it, and so there isn't any evolutionary necessity.
You fall in the dumber category, just for example.
Not only is this abuse, but it's pointless abuse. True, I didn't get my Ph. D. at Harvard, and I'm only in condensed matter physics and not in string theory or whatever, but no one is going to read anything I've written and call it, or me, "dumb". Wrong, mean-spirited, certainly I have earned those labels from time to time.
And this whole time every post you have written on this has been evidence-free.
Dude, there's no such thing as IQ. A narrow set of games and puzzles produced in a single culture cannot possibly determine -- let alone give a number to! -- how smart you are. This is utterly foolish and very few people believe it to be true, and those people are rightly fringe quacks.
There's no such thing as race. Your basic problem in this regard, that I would think anyone can see, is that you believe that human-made classification systems are facts. Once you understand the distinction, all your confusion will go away.
@Seven Machos:
there's no such thing as IQ. A narrow set of games and puzzles produced in a single culture cannot possibly determine -- let alone give a number to! -- how smart you are.
Again, evidence-free. The word "smart" means something. IQ tests correlate with it better than anything else. That's fifty years of statistics you pretend don't exist.
you believe that human-made classification systems are facts.
This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything I've said.
Let me say it ONE MORE TIME:
Human-made classification systems have a BASIS in objective reality and CORRELATE with them.
Once again, you have proved that your mind cannot handle anything other than yes/no, black/white, either/or. One of the crackpot hallmarks.
Another is the notion that people who study something for a living must be obviously wrong about it, either don't realize it or won't admit it, and that you can see it despite having spent zero time learning anything about what they do, which is objectively demonstrated by your cartoonish statements about what they do.
Creationists do this, people who don't believe in modern physics do this, and you are doing this now.
Amazing that there is this whole industry organized around something that doesn't exist. I wonder how they do that. The original posting was about how the trend in our society for individuals to have credentials without actually knowing anything has extended to children. Reminds me of the Tom Sawyer story. Tom wanted to impress Becky Thatcher. (Yes, there frequently is a woman involved when men are being stupid. Which isn't to say men can't be stupid without women, but that is another post.) So Becky's dad was the new minister. In that church, a child who memorized a Bible verse received a coupon of a certain color. Ten coupons of this color could be traded for one of that color, up through a series of colors. A single coupon of the desired color earned the bearer a new Bible. Tom hadn't memorized any verses, but he had assets, such as a broken knife, a wart, a dead cat, and some other things. Through judicious trading, he managed to snag a coupon of the desired color. He presented it for the prize. The minister innocently asked "Tom, what is your favorite Bible verse?" Of course, he didn't know a single one. I have often felt that story from Mark Twain represented what goes on in our high schools, colleges and graduate schools.
What does the word beautiful mean, dude? What does the word artistic mean? What does the word elegant mean? Measure those things for me.
Thanks.
There is no such thing as IQ. It is a fringe science that no one serious respects. One of the primary reasons is what we have seen you demonstrate here: for some reason, everybody who believes in IQ is a racist.
Amazing that there is this whole industry organized around something that doesn't exist.
Yeah, dude. Fucking crazy.
I do believe we have art galleries filled with classic art for which there is wide ranging consensus as being beautiful. Likewise with music. A group of mathematicians can reach consensus that this proof is elegant, and that is not, and could probably construct a general rubric which characterizes what a proof must demonstrate in order to earn the designation "elegant". I thought I needed to think thoughts like "All those blanks are just undesirable adjective." to be a racist. Could that work if it was a desirable adjective? Why are adjectives doing all the dirty work here? Those rotten adjectives. Or simply to being White. Some people think all Whites are racists. Does being a racist mean somebody also believes in IQ? Does that work both ways? Say, Muslim Arabs have probably taken more slaves out of African than White Europeans. How's come we're not yelling about them being racist? Chinese refer to China as the "Middle Kingdom" because China is half way between Heaven and Hell, and non-Chinese are devils. Are they racist? Is being Chinese a race or a nationality? As opposed to say, being German? Did you hear about the German family that was having a picnic? A boulder took out the dad. The mom turned to the kids and said "Well, I guess there is more left for the rest of us." Is that a racist joke, or a cultural joke, or an ethnic joke?
What about the one about how heaven has German police, French cooks, British administrators and Italian something, and hell has them all messed up and the British are cooks and something. Since all them are considered Whites, is that a racist joke, or a diverse joke?
When I was in Malaysia, the racist comment was that the Malays were lazy, the Indians drunks and the Chinese humorless. Amazing that being humorless was considered as bad as being lazy or a drunk. Where do these stereotypes come from? All three groups had great cooking, so the European joke wouldn't work here.
I do believe we have art galleries filled with classic art for which there is wide ranging consensus as being beautiful.
For the 149th time, I am not saying nor have I said that people are not smart and dumb. What I am saying is that IQ does not measure this phenomenon.
Please show us the numerical test for beauty -- the one that shows that scores things for beauty in some objective way.
I'll wait.
Human-made classification systems have a BASIS in objective reality and CORRELATE with them.
Especially if you BELIEVE they do. Again, I'll quote teacher Herndon:
It's a comfort, I suppose, that surprisingly often these grade and IQ ratios worked out just right and no one had to worry about it.
And, as mentioned before, the most successful people in our society can be found at Mensa meetings.
for some reason, everybody who believes in IQ is a racist.
Don't forget people who score very very high, who have that rosy glow. They believe even if they're not racist.
@fls:
Again, I'll quote teacher Herndon:
It's a comfort, I suppose, that surprisingly often these grade and IQ ratios worked out just right and no one had to worry about it.
Unsubstantiated anecdotes from fifty years ago. That's all you got--that's why you have to repeat it. Pretend nothing else has happened in a half-century.
I've cited current studies to you on other occasions, and you run every time back to the half-century-old books.
The thing speaks for itself. That's all you got.
You could cite stuff from the 1960s against the Big Bang or the evolution of cetaceans, and it would be just as valid.
And, as mentioned before, the most successful people in our society can be found at Mensa meetings.
Like Seven Machos, you have proved publicly over and over that you cannot grasp the concept of statistical correlation. Men can't be taller than women because Sally is taller than Bob. That is your logic.
Don't forget people who score very very high, who have that rosy glow.
And after the ignoring the current state of research, and demonstrable ignorance of statistics and biology, armchair psychoanalysis. Reality based community indeed.
Height is measurable. Intelligence is not. This is really very simple.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html
http://www.newscientist.com/movie/mg20126993300-genetic-link-to-iq-stronger-than-thought
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327174.600-intelligence-nature-outpaces-nurture-as-kids-get-older.html
fls: A book containing an unsubstantiated story about unnamed people from fifty years ago refutes this.
Seven Machos: RACIST!!11!!11!!
@Seven Machos:
Intelligence is not. This is really very simple.
Once again, you cite no evidence whatever in support of your statement. Waste of pixels.
We're doing links to esteemed scientists now. Okay...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Gottfried-Leibniz-Philosopher.htm
http://www.psychicguild.com/horoscopes_explained.php
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/B000EI3XOS/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291176106&sr=1-3
The idea that you can't measure intelligence with a test is absurd. How do you think selective colleges find the brightest students? With a test! And they've been damn successful at it, too. Any doubt that the average freshman at Cal Tech is a lot smarter than the average freshman at say, Cal State-Dominguez Hills? How'd they figure that out, huh, Seven? What a mystery.
Any doubt that the average freshman at Cal Tech is a lot smarter than the average freshman at say, Cal State-Dominguez Hills? How'd they figure that out, huh, Seven?
Maguro -- If you need a 3.5-hour standardized test to determine the intellectual difference between the typical student at Cal Tech and the typical student at Cal State-Dominguez Hills, you ate truly a drooling moron.
Furthermore, and this is vital so I am going to put it in bold for you: the SAT -- the test you are implying here -- makes no claims whatsoever to be an IQ or an intelligence test. The test you are trying to call an IQ test does not make such a claim for itself. The SAT claims to be a test predicting how well you will do in college. It does not do that effectively.
Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about in this area. You just proved it with your post. Congratulations.
Uh huh, I'm sure I could distinguish between the 1500 SAT Cal Tech kid and the 1000 SAT CSUDH kid if I talked to each for 10 or 15 minutes.
But that's not how Cal Tech does it. They look at an application with a 1000 SAT score and toss it. Because they know a kid that scores 1000 on the SATs can't cut it at Cal Tech. Because he's not intelligent enough. And they measured it. With a test
that's not how Cal Tech does it
Why?
And they measured it. With a test
What part about the SAT not calling itself and not being an intelligence test do you utterly fail to understand? Let me try to say it again in really simple words:
THE. SAT. IS. NOT. AN. INTELLIGENCE. TEST. ACCORDING. TO. THE. CREATORS. OF. THE. SAT.
So, do you understand now why you cannot use the SAT as the argument that an intelligence test is effective?
Also, the irony here is delicious: you are too stupid, apparently, to understand that the very test you are insisting is an intelligence test is not an intelligence test.
So do you think someone with a 1000 SAT score is smart enough to hack it at Cal Tech? Hmmm?
So do you think someone with a 1000 SAT score is smart enough to hack it at Cal Tech?
First a question for you: how can you even show your face in this conversation after having to be repeatedly told that the test you wrongly thought is an intelligence test or an IQ test is, by its designers' own admission, nothing of the kind? Don't you feel too stupid? Can't even you see the irony that people who love IQ tests (and, hilariously, think the SAT is one) are apparently some of the dumber people in the world):
Anyway, I've already answered this silly question well up-thread and again with you. But I'll repeat it:
It doesn't matter. Grades and the course you have taken and other evidence of academic achievement (including better tests that test things you either actually know or can do) are better ways to find out what the SAT purports but utterly fails to do: predict college success.
Seven - Really love the name-calling. Fantastic stuff.
Anyway - The SAT is basically an IQ test in drag. It started out as an IQ test and remains an IQ test but the makers of the SAT certainly don't want to admit it. It would rile upeople like you. Read up here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html
Money line: It's the thing that--to the extent that there's a sort of secret about Educational Testing Service, which administers the SAT, the secret is that at least the test makers there know that what they're doing is administering a mass IQ test but the organization's very invested in denying that.
It started out as an IQ test and remains an IQ test but the makers of the SAT certainly don't want to admit it
Dude, I am calling you an idiot because you are an being an idiot. Your idiocy continues to show, as you apparently troll the Internet for some random article that you believe backs up your lack of knowledge. What's on the SAT? How is it different now than it was in 2000? In 1990? What raw score gets you a 600 in math? Is there a guessing penalty? Is there a right answer in the Verbal section on any given question? (These are softballs, all of which you will likely get wrong or have no idea about.)
You don't know, because you don't know jack fucking shit about the SAT or its history.
Furthermore, we are back to square one: IQ does not measure intelligence because intelligence cannot be measured. Just like beauty. Clearly, we can say that I am smarter than you are, and trust me, I am prettier than you are, but we cannot measure those things, nor will we ever be able to.
...crickets...
Hanna's link:
http://www.newscientist.com/
article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-
suggests-twin-study.html
Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University in Boston questions whether "g" should really be called intelligence. "G" picks up on abilities such as being able to abstract rules or figure out how to order things according to rules. "It's the kind of intelligence you need to do well in school," he says. "Not what you need to do well in life."
Gee. Could that explain why Mensans do not rule the world?
"It's the kind of intelligence you need to do well in school," he says. "Not what you need to do well in life."
Not the dudes I want when I am lost in the forest and need to figure out how to make fire, or if I am trapped under a boulder, or if I need a wingman at a bar, or if there's this racket in my car motor, or if I want to win an election, or if...
Post a Comment