rongo Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Right, what counts is the evidence. Admittedly research in education often isn't done as rigorously as one might hope. But there often are studies with larger sample size and that attempt to limit problems and reasons to criticize the study. It isn't the evidence that is the issue (typically). It's the interpretation of the evidence, and there are a wide range of assumptions and agendas that come into play there. Then, you get into the "soft" science vs. "hard" science issues in studies: soft sciences, like sociology, education, etc. rely on interpretation and mathematical models instead of "cold, hard, evidence." Gladwell's explanation of the issues make sense to my experience, and are interesting to read. That academics harp on "methodology" or "rigor" of his conclusions is less-interesting to me.
clarkgoble Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 5 hours ago, pogi said: It just goes to show that high test scores do not necessarily convert to life skills and economic improvement. I think the education system puts way too much emphasis on test scores. With the education system set up as it is, investing more money into it will produce better test takers - that is for sure. But I don't know if that is what we really need. Kids don't know how to apply the knowledge and have difficult retaining the information for that reason. Instead of better test takers, we need creative people with applicable knowledge and basic life skills. The school system doesn't teach any of these very well. While I agree that undue focus on test scores can be misleading, I'm not sure they aren't indicative. Or, put a different way, do we have any evidence that Utah which is doing poorly in tests is somehow teaching creative skills better than say new england states? My guess is that for all the problems with tests, there's a basic correlation between capabilities.
rodheadlee Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 11 hours ago, stemelbow said: There are many ways to do my part. I'd have no clue how moving to Stockton will help anything. If you want to live in a racially diverse city, you'll have to move to one.
rongo Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 15 hours ago, clarkgoble said: While I agree that undue focus on test scores can be misleading, I'm not sure they aren't indicative. Or, put a different way, do we have any evidence that Utah which is doing poorly in tests is somehow teaching creative skills better than say new england states? My guess is that for all the problems with tests, there's a basic correlation between capabilities. How does Utah stack up, test score-wise, with other states? I keep hearing that Utah's scores stink, but I have no information on that other than people mentioning that. Can you quantify that? Thanks!
pogi Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, clarkgoble said: While I agree that undue focus on test scores can be misleading, I'm not sure they aren't indicative. Or, put a different way, do we have any evidence that Utah which is doing poorly in tests is somehow teaching creative skills better than say new england states? My guess is that for all the problems with tests, there's a basic correlation between capabilities. I doubt that Utah is better at teaching creative skills. I think our success in the real world is more attributed to Utah being good at what the article in the OP outlines. I just mention creative skills because I believe that it is a more valuable real-life skill than test taking skills and is sorely lacking in the education system. As far as ACT and SAT scores go, there is evidence that they are not indicative of capabilities and how one will perform in college. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat Edited March 30, 2017 by pogi
Calm Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 Don't have time to look up myself, but how much coorelation has there been found between test scores and later success in life. I am not sure it is possible to find test subjects for the kind of evaluation I am thinking of given how funding ( and maybe accreditation?) depends on testing, but if one could find two schools that were comparable in economic and other areas, but one ignored testing and measured success in different ways (progress in global skills, ability to adapt, social skills, etc) while the other continued to jump through the hoops to push kids to do well on funding tests and then compare what kinds of lives these individuals had later in life in terms of happiness, health, financial and marital security, etc....now that would be fascinating to see. Longtermwise there are obviously some forms of education more useful than others. Funneling more funds to teaching how to get into a good school seems like a waste of 12 years to me, though it is understandable when the mentality is that school placement determines your path for the rest of your life...what jobs you can apply for and have a chance to be accepted, which may limit your social choices and thus partners, etc. I am wondering if countries with rigid social expectations based on educational performances are becoming less rigid over time, perhaps in part due to the more fluid nature of American society that is being broadcasted to the world these past many decades or are America and countries with more open social structures becoming more socially limited (if it is, it seems less dependent on education to me than other factors). (hope this makes sense, woke up too early and am now falling back to sleep it seems as I write) ----- Summing this all up, I don't really care about Utah doing poorly in testing if we manage to teach well stuff that has a greater impact on success in life. It would be nice to have some sort of measure on that.
Calm Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: My guess is that for all the problems with tests, there's a basic correlation between capabilities. If this has been demonstrated, it would be nice to see. And it would be interesting to see comparisons of success in later life of a kid who didn't do that great with testing, but came from a school which did and a kid who did well on testing, but came from a school that did poorly. 1
rongo Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Calm said: If this has been demonstrated, it would be nice to see. And it would be interesting to see comparisons of success in later life of a kid who didn't do that great with testing, but came from a school which did and a kid who did well on testing, but came from a school that did poorly. That's going to be my kids. They come from low-rated schools, test score-wise. My oldest is a junior, has a 4.7, takes honors and AP classes, has "5's" (perfect scores) on the AP tests, is a National Merit Scholar (ACT and SAT are scheduled for next week and May). My own experience, starting with my family, is that 99% of it is the home environment. People can excel, even in sub-standard schools. My high school in Chicago was wretched, yet I had a good education (and had a very high ACT score). 1
Calm Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 I agree that home environment can greatly, even possibly completely compensate for a horrible school (though I think having to go to school daily in a violent environment might be helped by a stable, contributing home life, but fear must have some effect). It would seem in some cases a good school can compensate to some extent for a horrible home life, especially if teachers are willing and able to act as parental figures to some extent, but it seems a much harder row to hoe that way.
rongo Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 50 minutes ago, Calm said: I agree that home environment can greatly, even possibly completely compensate for a horrible school (though I think having to go to school daily in a violent environment might be helped by a stable, contributing home life, but fear must have some effect). It would seem in some cases a good school can compensate to some extent for a horrible home life, especially if teachers are willing and able to act as parental figures to some extent, but it seems a much harder row to hoe that way. The biggest thing a good school can offer the low kids is a good environment (not tolerating disruptive or disrespectful behavior). I find that the high and low kids don't change much, regardless, but the kids in the middle who can go either way, depending on the climate and tone of the school, can either make great strides or regress, depending on the administration. 1
clarkgoble Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Don't have time to look up myself, but how much coorelation has there been found between test scores and later success in life. Depends upon the test. There's reasonably strong correlation with IQ but not necessarily school grades where often intelligent people do poorly for various reasons. Part of the issue is that taking school tests is its own skill and requires its own willingness to submit to the aims. Of course there are intelligent people who don't like that or who aren't willing to discipline themselves in the appropriate way. And, as others noted, even people with learning disabilities can have skills in other areas and do well in business. While of course there are people who struggle in high school and then do great in college, it's a bit unusual. And of course it goes the other way where people did great in high school and have a very hard time adjusting to the different situations and expectations in college. Edited March 30, 2017 by clarkgoble
rongo Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Depends upon the test. There's reasonably strong correlation with IQ but not necessarily school grades where often intelligent people do poorly for various reasons. British pscyhologist Peter Gray points out that there is a new Chinese word that means "good on tests --- bad at everything else." He says that the pendulum is swinging back the other way in Asian countries as they have seen that super high pressure high-stakes tests are not as important as society has made them. Quote Part of the issue is that taking school tests is its own skill and requires its own willingness to submit to the aims. Of course there are intelligent people who don't like that or who aren't willing to discipline themselves in the appropriate way. And, as others noted, even people with learning disabilities can have skills in other areas and do well in business. Gladwell has a chapter in "Outliers" on the struggles of super-high IQ people. He highlights Chris Lathan (highest documented IQ in history) and his frustrating struggle in college, eventually dropping out without a degree. He wasn't a savant with zero social skills, but much of his problem was his complete inability to work within the system as far as interpersonal communications, negotiating, problem-solving with people. He lost his scholarship and should have been able to talk administration into reinstating it (circumstances were such that people of even below-average arguing and negotiating skills would have been able to convince administration to reinstate it). He also, although at a much higher math level than his calculus professor, led him to comment to Chris that he needed to take several introductory courses before he would be able to keep up in the class. Total disconnect and deficiency in the "Dale Carnegie/Machiavelli" department, which is arguably a much more important skill for succeeding in life than raw IQ. Gladwell contrasts Chris Lathan's inability to get people to reasonably do what he needed them to do with Robert Oppenheimer, (key figure in the Manhattan Project). He faced similar crises where it was important that he convince superiors to retain him, despite troubling scandals (one of which was his murder of a Princeton professor), and unlike Lathan, he was always able to navigate the delicate minefield of human relations with huge stakes on the line. As you mentioned with business, Gladwell's sketches of dyslexic CEOs and elite attorneys (one of whom was lead counsel against Microsoft and the Supreme Court gay marriage case) show that many dyslexics gain skills that give them tremendous advantages in the court room, Wall Street, and in business through learning how to survive and cope with dyslexia in a reading and writing world. The attorney can read six pages in about a week, if he exerts herculean effort. This dictated that he be a litigator, not an an attorney who has to read thousands of pages to find a single meaningful footnote that the case hinges on. His photographic memory for what is heard allows him to tear witnesses to shreds.* *ETA: he also benefited from being in a state that did not require a bachelor's degree to be admitted into law school. He was able to completely skip college, get to law school, survive the general courses, and specialize in litigation. The very definition of effective survival and thriving in hostile conditions. Edited March 30, 2017 by rongo 1
pogi Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, rongo said: The biggest thing a good school can offer the low kids is a good environment (not tolerating disruptive or disrespectful behavior). I find that the high and low kids don't change much, regardless, but the kids in the middle who can go either way, depending on the climate and tone of the school, can either make great strides or regress, depending on the administration. Those kids might not change much in high school, but that is not always indicative of life-performance. I flunked my way through high school and graduated late because I needed to make up credits. I didn't even take the ACT because I knew I would bomb it and didn't want the humiliation. Long story short, I ended up being accepted to, and graduating from, the most competitive program at the university with a 3.8. For me, faith and family was everything, and far more valuable to my long-term success than any pre-college education which I endured. So, I agree with you that home environment is 99%. It didn't pay off so much for me in high-school in terms of grades and test scores, but the prodigal son is much more likely to return and succeed if he has that foundation to return to. I would be willing to bet that a good family is much more indicative of long-term success in life than high-school test scores. I am not just talking about financial success only, but emotional, spiritual and physical well-being. Which to me is far more important than financial success. 2
Calm Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Depends upon the test. There's reasonably strong correlation with IQ but not necessarily school grades where often intelligent people do poorly for various reasons. Part of the issue is that taking school tests is its own skill and requires its own willingness to submit to the aims. Of course there are intelligent people who don't like that or who aren't willing to discipline themselves in the appropriate way. And, as others noted, even people with learning disabilities can have skills in other areas and do well in business. While of course there are people who struggle in high school and then do great in college, it's a bit unusual. And of course it goes the other way where people did great in high school and have a very hard time adjusting to the different situations and expectations in college. My husband's mom would type up his high school papers and was worried if he would graduate. He got a Ph.D. I think she couldn't see past his horrendous spelling and handwriting. He was certainly intelligent enough to listen to when I met him as a college junior. It was a good thing word processors were available by the time he started grad school. I typed one paper for him and almost failed my own because it took so long.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 On 3/29/2017 at 2:46 PM, rongo said: It isn't the evidence that is the issue (typically). It's the interpretation of the evidence, and there are a wide range of assumptions and agendas that come into play there. Then, you get into the "soft" science vs. "hard" science issues in studies: soft sciences, like sociology, education, etc. rely on interpretation and mathematical models instead of "cold, hard, evidence." Gladwell's explanation of the issues make sense to my experience, and are interesting to read. That academics harp on "methodology" or "rigor" of his conclusions is less-interesting to me. The bell shaped curve of the chemical reaction rate test of Iron to Sulfuric Acid is virtually the same as the bell shaped curve to IQ testing.
Recommended Posts