<p>SteveMA – Amen to posts 38 and 40!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the educational system is a multiplier, not an equalizer. It cannot do as much for low-IQ kids as high-IQ kids. Here is what I wrote in post #33 of the “Mismatch caused by racial preferences” thread.</p>
<p>I am aware of the advantages of high-SES kids. They have parents who value education and send them to “good” schools, who are familiar with the college application process from their own experience and who use sites like this to get fresh information, who have the money and motivation to provide coaching in sports and music and for standardized tests. </p>
<p>There is another non-PC reason that “privileged” kids outperform the “underprivileged”. They are smarter and more studious on average. The undergraduate and graduate degrees possessed by doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, college professors, and other high-status parents signify above-average intelligence, which is usually passed on to their children. Even if the children of janitors and doctors go to equally good schools, the doctors’ kids will compile better academic records on average because they are smarter.</p>
<p>Regarding immigration, when you look at immigrants who are supposedly better off when they come here, you need to look carefully at the comparison. Are they better off than the average citizen from their home country? Yes, but are they an average citizen? Think of the resources they needed to pull together just to come here. I would argue that in many cases, they are NOT average, and had they pulled together those resources, and used them at home, they would also be better off. Yes, some of them are better off here, simply because they never would gain access to those resources at home, but many of our own citizens would do just as well as them if they made the same level of effort. Unfortunately, we don’t expect that effort from most.</p>
<p>Steve is right, we educate ALL children, and that is part of the “problem.” Not so much the idea of educating all, but in how we do so. Would we be better off as a nation if we had elite public schools for the “best” students, but also have appropriate schools for the remainder of kids? Some will argue that we already have that, with private schools filling that void - but only if we agree that those private schools are doing a good job of identifying and funding students who cannot afford to attend on their own.</p>
<p>It seems odd to me that one of the top educators in the world (isn’t that what a Princeton president is?) would make a public statement about the US educational system that is not true. How do you all rationalize that?</p>
<p>@post #42: According to a dear friend who is a cognitive psychologist, only 40% of intelligence is heritable. Other studies show that a program like Head Start not only raises the IQ of the kids who attend but of their friends as well. So I am not ready to rule out the kids of the janitor.</p>
<p>I teach at a community college. I don’t see a lack of intelligence among my students. There is a great disparity between the worst students and the best, though. (I just helped one student transfer to Columbia. He starts in Janurary.)</p>
<p>The biggest problem with the bottom students is not their skill set, though that is a problem in some cases. However, the biggest challenge is to arouse curiosity and a desire to learn new things. Any movie, book, song or idea not already part of their culture is immediately suspect.</p>
<p>Our schools often do a poor job of involving the student in the process of learning. It’s an assembly line approach that fails to connect the child to the human rewards of understanding the world.</p>
<p>As long as students believe that $$$ is the only reward at the end of the journey, students will resist learning anything that they can’t immediately see putting dollars in their pockets.</p>
<p>True learning is much more roundabout.</p>
<p>I teach English which is automatically viewed as pretty worthless, even though language skills are fundamental to success in many areas of life.</p>
<p>The Texas Republican Party had a plank against critical thinking in schools because it encourages children to question authority.</p>
<p>Unless we can connect the student to his/her learning and students actually want to know things for themselves, education will be at risk.</p>
<p>That said, I doubt this is better in countries where the only goal is to ace a standardized test that determines one place in society.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen a decline in students in the 30 years I’ve been teaching. For a while there was a real dip in writing skills, but that seems to have righted itself a bit. </p>
<p>I wish we could promote curiosity, a sense of mastery, and true self-esteem as the beginning of learning.</p>
<p>My students are shocked and dismayed that they are required to actually read a Shakespeare play on their own. At first they ask for something in English, LOL. However, when they see they can actually master Shakespeare they start to see themselves differently. They could easily be reading Shakespeare in sixth grade. Malva Collins, a brilliant teacher in inner city Chicago, did just this with her inner city minority students and recording the results on film. It’s truly amazing the language mastery and insight her students achieved.</p>
<p>Sadly, Sandy has done such devastation here, the Shakespeare play must be scrapped for this semester in my Intro to Lit. classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I rationalize it by thinking hey maybe she is right.</p>
<p>I don’t know if we’re even on track yet- what are we trying to educate our hs and ms kids to? Perform better on higher level math tests or arrive at a higher level of skills needed in their lives- to function effectively, be better parents, neighbors, and informed/engaged citizens? </p>
<p>By looking at test scores, number of hs or college grads and incomes achieved, we miss something. Even by speaking of some of the 40% becoming professionals, we are devaluing many of the ordinary roles that make things work. Again, it suggests a “certain level of achievement” is the right standard for all. That anyone not swept up to that potential can’t be of the same value- to society or to us.</p>
<p>We also had vocational tracks, back in the day. </p>
<p>Personally, I hate the notion that high SES is some sort of grease. Again, that’s looking at scores, college grad rates or professions. Not only do I see many low SES kids who knock themselves out, but I know many high SES kids from my kids’ hs, who are very average. Outperformed daily by motivated kids. We need to look around us, check the standards we are using to evaluate.</p>
<p>mythmom- what gets me is: raise their IQs- or raise their scores on the IQ tests, as developed?</p>
<p>Can the gratuitous political comment in # 45 please be removed as well? Thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One way to rationalize the statement is to consider it incomplete and designed to grab attention to a problem that is talked about but mostly ignored. </p>
<p>Calling the US education system one of the worst of the world is obviously improper considering the vastness of the world. It becomes truer when placing the United States in its context of world leader and a member of the industrialized world. We are not comparing the US with Vanuatu or Togo when analyzing the PERFORMANCE of the United States, and controlling for its resources and spending level. </p>
<p>For what the United States invests in education, one is forced to conclude that it gets what should be expected from public services in general. A bloated system with horrible waste that is mostly preoccupied with the well-being of the insiders and service providrs than with the beneficiaries of the service. </p>
<p>In that context, the United States might very well be one of the worst PERFORMERS in the world. A performance that is only mitigated by the involvement of parents at an early age and the use of outside “forces” in later years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, I am afraid that you are endorsing theories that could be debunked easily. Theories that confuse intelligence or smarts with the result of opportunities and support. </p>
<p>Since I have no interest in feeding the prior debate about this issue any further, I will leave it at that I cannot agree, and not because of PC concerns, but because of plenty of real life examples.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With all due respect, the above is cut from the same cloth as the usual set of … excuses pushed by the NEA zealots. Where is the evidence that the samples of students in the United States are different and that the “others” get to exclude the undesirable? Where is the evidence that the US samples do include severally mentally handicapped children in the PISA test? Seriously! </p>
<p>The uniqueness of the United States is also one of the loudest quacking canards. Every country is unique. We just love to think our uniqueness is somewhat superior. And clearly superior in our ability to apologize and try to excuse our poor performance.</p>
<p>Beliavsky–yes, on average dr’s kids do better in college then janitor’s kids, however you have to look at the root of the issue, not the outcome. It isn’t what a parent does for a living that makes the difference, it’s the emphasis put on getting a good education in the home that makes all the difference in the world. Yes, there are outliers to everything but I know plenty of dr’s kids that are worthless students because their parents were just too busy at work and as the spouse of a janitor’s kid who is now a highly successful CEO along with his highly successful siblings, we beg to differ with your generalization :D. Even kids brought up in the poorest of poor families where the parent(s) care that they better themselves will excel in school but when Mom doesn’t come home for days on end and you may or may not get to eat that day, that is a lot to overcome and typically those kids just can’t function up to potential. Add in that in many cultures its just not cool to be smart and you have very little chance of getting those kids educated even with the best schools/teachers in the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve never really thought of university presidents as “educators.” Their primary purpose is fundraising and PR. Their job is to raise the profile and resources of their institution. With all due respect to Shirley Tilghman, the history and structure of public education in the US is an area that is way outside of her academic expertise, which is in biology. She might have restricted her comments to science education; but even then, I wonder how much someone with her career background would really know about science education k-12. Most academics are pretty ignorant about curricula and methods used by K-12 teachers. They are pretty certain, however, that those methods are bad. It’s an article of faith which reinforces the superiority complex of professors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hosted 3 German foreign exchange high schoolers and all of them found the classes here easier, in spite of limited fluency in English when they arrived.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. Using the Internet to research or double-check facts, rather than just to watch YouTube videos of Lady Gaga and stupid pet tricks. Watching PBS and Discovery Channel instead of so-called “reality shows” or American Idol. Young kids do tend to follow their parents’ lead, not in what they say but in what they do themselves.</p>
<p>It wasn’t a gratuitous comment or a political statement. It was a factual representation of a position taken on education, the subject of this thread.</p>
<p>The scores say it all.</p>
<p>I should add…here in California the top 33% of HS students supposedly are qualified to get into the Cal State University System. Last year 50% of those students had to take a remedial English course upon entry into the system. Now I know all you politically correct folks are going to say it’s because English is the second language for many of these attendees. If so, then tell my why 40% have to take remedial math?</p>
<p>Again, as noted above, the scores don’t lie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In what way is: “The Texas Republican Party had a plank against critical thinking in schools because it encourages children to question authority” not a gratuitous political statement? </p>
<p>Whether you think it’s true or not anyone who can read can sniff that it’s both political and gratuitous. If you’re having trouble seeing that I’ll give you a hint: look for the words Texas Republican Party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s relevant and on-topic.</p>
<p>I don’t think, I know it’s political correctness. As almost anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows, the universities are bastions of liberalism foisting tolerance, diversity, “critical thinking”, and other psycho babble upon unsuspecting students.</p>