sphipps
Rookie
My take on how to improve our test scores. Read it here.
If I Was the Education Czar
If I Was the Education Czar
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Very nice read. Thank you. My mother made trips to the library into an adventure. She conveyed her love of reading, and that's all that it took for me to get hooked.My take on how to improve our test scores. Read it here.
If I Was the Education Czar
Please cite your source for your avg. IQ data. Also, which IQ test was used? Did they use the traditional, culturally biased tests or a culturally neutral one? On that note, were all these different groups tested using the same test or different ones? I apologize in advance if I've made a grammatical error in any of my inquiries. The editors at the Indiana Historical Society Press, publishers of my book, presumably aided me with such crucial grammar issues as subjunctive mood.There is an Elephant in the Room. The average IQ of African Americans is roughly 85. For people of Central American stock, it's about 90 (Asians 106, whites 103, Ashkenazi Jews 111). As time goes by, based on reproductive rates and immigration trends, the population of below-average-intelligence students will be gradually increasing for the next few decades, and nothing anyone does will change the fact that our "average" test scores will be either steady or declining, regardless of how strenuously we try to get them to love reading.
And of course with better and better entertainment available for kids that does not require any intelligence or thought, it will be more and more difficult to get the kids to pick up an actual book.
And since intelligent and accomplished people tend, more and more, to intermarry and produce even more intelligent children, America will always have elite students who are comparable to any other similar group anywhere in the world. Sociologists have noted that this phenomenon is becoming more pronounced as highly-educated people tend to marry and have children later in life. A generation ago, it was common for college-educated people to "marry their high school sweetheart," who might or might not be highly intelligent. Now, since they hook up and marry later in life, high achievers are much more likely to marry other high achievers, and produce super-kids, who will not only have great genes, but parents who can afford to send them to the top schools, etc.
This is why The Rich, as a demographic group, are getting richer, and will continue to do so.
But countering that phenomenon is our socialist Education Bureaucracy, which in the guise of "promoting Social Justice," will waste more and more money on "inner city" schools, in the vain attempt to educate the largely uneducable populations that live there. Hopefully, this financial drain will not significantly harm the education that is provided to those who might actually benefit from it.
I'm not optimistic.
"This is why The Rich, as a demographic group, are getting richer, and will continue to do so."There is an Elephant in the Room. The average IQ of African Americans is roughly 85. For people of Central American stock, it's about 90 (Asians 106, whites 103, Ashkenazi Jews 111). As time goes by, based on reproductive rates and immigration trends, the population of below-average-intelligence students will be gradually increasing for the next few decades, and nothing anyone does will change the fact that our "average" test scores will be either steady or declining, regardless of how strenuously we try to get them to love reading.
And of course with better and better entertainment available for kids that does not require any intelligence or thought, it will be more and more difficult to get the kids to pick up an actual book.
And since intelligent and accomplished people tend, more and more, to intermarry and produce even more intelligent children, America will always have elite students who are comparable to any other similar group anywhere in the world. Sociologists have noted that this phenomenon is becoming more pronounced as highly-educated people tend to marry and have children later in life. A generation ago, it was common for college-educated people to "marry their high school sweetheart," who might or might not be highly intelligent. Now, since they hook up and marry later in life, high achievers are much more likely to marry other high achievers, and produce super-kids, who will not only have great genes, but parents who can afford to send them to the top schools, etc.
This is why The Rich, as a demographic group, are getting richer, and will continue to do so.
But countering that phenomenon is our socialist Education Bureaucracy, which in the guise of "promoting Social Justice," will waste more and more money on "inner city" schools, in the vain attempt to educate the largely uneducable populations that live there. Hopefully, this financial drain will not significantly harm the education that is provided to those who might actually benefit from it.
I'm not optimistic.
"As always with Libs, the response to the presentation of uncomfortable facts is to slander the presenter."Those people who understand what the intelligence quotient is, and are interested in the truth can confirm in any number of places the relatively low IQ'S that characterize the so-called African-American community. Further, given the fact that the Inner Cities are populated by the lowest segment of that community (the more capable ones having fled that community long ago), the prospects for significant academic improvement in those communities is analogous to the likelihood of the next Triple Crown winner being a Clydesdale.
It is also noteworthy that Prog's who continue to preach the long - disproven myth of "cultural bias" are figuratively scraping the barrel for arguments to "prove" that which is manifestly false. To buy this nonsensical argument requires that you (a) believe that the writers of the tests are closet racists, and (b) that they are so chronically stupid that they have been unable to correct a CATASTROPHIC FLAW in their tests some 40 years after the flaw was postulated.
Good luck with that one.
As always with Libs, the response to the presentation of uncomfortable facts is to slander the presenter.
Yawn.
Ahem.
Most people who have exceeded a GED in educational accomplishment understand the basic concept of the Bell Curve. To say that the average IQ of African Americans is, say, 85, says NOTHING about the intelligence (or non-academic but valuable talents) of any individual person. Further, history is replete with examples of high-achievers who had unremarkable IQ's, and total failures who were deemed "genius" based on the results of IQ tests. In my own family, among five siblings there is a range of 40 IQ points (more than two Standard Deviations). Go figure.
There is a HUGE tendency in parts of the academic community to discount the validity and value of IQ scores. I blush to admit that I believe this prejudice is largely due to the fact that among the various "professions," educators have about the lowest IQ's, based on average IQ's of Doctorates (roughly 115 vs 140 for other fields).
IQ correlates with almost everything. The best engineers, mathematicians, teachers, bricklayers, baristas, ditch diggers, musicians, salesmen, attorneys, and everything else are GENERALLY those with the highest IQ's. In my own industrial experience, some of the best Project Managers are people who have average IQ's, coupled with great tenacity.
IQ is NOT worthless for making Educational policy. Pretending that IQ doesn't count (or that it is not a valid measure of educational potential) is a great disservice to those with higher IQ's (i.e., the national talent pool), as they may be forced to sit in classes that are necessarily geared to "the lowest common denominator." They grow bored, act out, and can only reach their potential by going outside The System. Same with people at the bottom; they are frustrated and have the same reactions. It is always best to teach people in groups with similar IQ's. Which is why the socialization of education (and "mainstreaming") are stupid, on steroids.
No credible research concludes that IQ is mainly determined by environment. It is 80% genetic, and intelligence POTENTIAL is 100% genetic.
The only thing I agree with is that children should be ranked according to their academic potential. The theory that lower performing students benefit from having higher achievers in the same classroom is, imo, absurd. Whatever small benefit may accrue to the lower performers is nothing compared to the damage done to bright kids who are forced to sit in dysfunctional classrooms, bored out of their minds.Ahem.
Most people who have exceeded a GED in educational accomplishment understand the basic concept of the Bell Curve. To say that the average IQ of African Americans is, say, 85, says NOTHING about the intelligence (or non-academic but valuable talents) of any individual person. Further, history is replete with examples of high-achievers who had unremarkable IQ's, and total failures who were deemed "genius" based on the results of IQ tests. In my own family, among five siblings there is a range of 40 IQ points (more than two Standard Deviations). Go figure.
There is a HUGE tendency in parts of the academic community to discount the validity and value of IQ scores. I blush to admit that I believe this prejudice is largely due to the fact that among the various "professions," educators have about the lowest IQ's, based on average IQ's of Doctorates (roughly 115 vs 140 for other fields).
IQ correlates with almost everything. The best engineers, mathematicians, teachers, bricklayers, baristas, ditch diggers, musicians, salesmen, attorneys, and everything else are GENERALLY those with the highest IQ's. In my own industrial experience, some of the best Project Managers are people who have average IQ's, coupled with great tenacity.
IQ is NOT worthless for making Educational policy. Pretending that IQ doesn't count (or that it is not a valid measure of educational potential) is a great disservice to those with higher IQ's (i.e., the national talent pool), as they may be forced to sit in classes that are necessarily geared to "the lowest common denominator." They grow bored, act out, and can only reach their potential by going outside The System. Same with people at the bottom; they are frustrated and have the same reactions. It is always best to teach people in groups with similar IQ's. Which is why the socialization of education (and "mainstreaming") are stupid, on steroids.
No credible research concludes that IQ is mainly determined by environment. It is 80% genetic, and intelligence POTENTIAL is 100% genetic.
Elvis, I agree with your comments but would add, while I do agree that there is very likely a genetic component to intelligence, I do not believe it has anything at all to do with race.The only thing I agree with is that children should be ranked according to their academic potential. The theory that lower performing students benefit from having higher achievers in the same classroom is, imo, absurd. Whatever small benefit may accrue to the lower performers is nothing compared to the damage done to bright kids who are forced to sit in dysfunctional classrooms, bored out of their minds.Ahem.
Most people who have exceeded a GED in educational accomplishment understand the basic concept of the Bell Curve. To say that the average IQ of African Americans is, say, 85, says NOTHING about the intelligence (or non-academic but valuable talents) of any individual person. Further, history is replete with examples of high-achievers who had unremarkable IQ's, and total failures who were deemed "genius" based on the results of IQ tests. In my own family, among five siblings there is a range of 40 IQ points (more than two Standard Deviations). Go figure.
There is a HUGE tendency in parts of the academic community to discount the validity and value of IQ scores. I blush to admit that I believe this prejudice is largely due to the fact that among the various "professions," educators have about the lowest IQ's, based on average IQ's of Doctorates (roughly 115 vs 140 for other fields).
IQ correlates with almost everything. The best engineers, mathematicians, teachers, bricklayers, baristas, ditch diggers, musicians, salesmen, attorneys, and everything else are GENERALLY those with the highest IQ's. In my own industrial experience, some of the best Project Managers are people who have average IQ's, coupled with great tenacity.
IQ is NOT worthless for making Educational policy. Pretending that IQ doesn't count (or that it is not a valid measure of educational potential) is a great disservice to those with higher IQ's (i.e., the national talent pool), as they may be forced to sit in classes that are necessarily geared to "the lowest common denominator." They grow bored, act out, and can only reach their potential by going outside The System. Same with people at the bottom; they are frustrated and have the same reactions. It is always best to teach people in groups with similar IQ's. Which is why the socialization of education (and "mainstreaming") are stupid, on steroids.
No credible research concludes that IQ is mainly determined by environment. It is 80% genetic, and intelligence POTENTIAL is 100% genetic.
That academic potential is not 100% genetic. Cognition is largely a matter of language development. Children in poverty live circumscribed lives, where they seldom interact with anyone capable of stringing together an intelligent sentence. I don't suggest there is no genetic component to intelligence, just as there is a pre-determined growth potential in plants. If you stunt a plant at the beginning of its life, it will never reach that potential. The notion that environmental conditions and genetic potential can be assigned precise percentages in the developmental process is arrogant and absurd. It's nothing more than the self-serving assumption of bigots.
Every school I am aware of has high ability or gifted and talented programs that group the students with the most ability into special classes where they receive accelerated, more challenging instruction.Ahem.
Most people who have exceeded a GED in educational accomplishment understand the basic concept of the Bell Curve. To say that the average IQ of African Americans is, say, 85, says NOTHING about the intelligence (or non-academic but valuable talents) of any individual person. Further, history is replete with examples of high-achievers who had unremarkable IQ's, and total failures who were deemed "genius" based on the results of IQ tests. In my own family, among five siblings there is a range of 40 IQ points (more than two Standard Deviations). Go figure.
There is a HUGE tendency in parts of the academic community to discount the validity and value of IQ scores. I blush to admit that I believe this prejudice is largely due to the fact that among the various "professions," educators have about the lowest IQ's, based on average IQ's of Doctorates (roughly 115 vs 140 for other fields).
IQ correlates with almost everything. The best engineers, mathematicians, teachers, bricklayers, baristas, ditch diggers, musicians, salesmen, attorneys, and everything else are GENERALLY those with the highest IQ's. In my own industrial experience, some of the best Project Managers are people who have average IQ's, coupled with great tenacity.
IQ is NOT worthless for making Educational policy. Pretending that IQ doesn't count (or that it is not a valid measure of educational potential) is a great disservice to those with higher IQ's (i.e., the national talent pool), as they may be forced to sit in classes that are necessarily geared to "the lowest common denominator." They grow bored, act out, and can only reach their potential by going outside The System. Same with people at the bottom; they are frustrated and have the same reactions. It is always best to teach people in groups with similar IQ's. Which is why the socialization of education (and "mainstreaming") are stupid, on steroids.
No credible research concludes that IQ is mainly determined by environment. It is 80% genetic, and intelligence POTENTIAL is 100% genetic.