CAMPUS PC
click on image
Welcome to the Future of Education thread.
The call for the thread was to discuss the head of the U.Cal system's call for the end of reliance on the SAT in making admissions decisions. (I believe he does not rule out using the advanced tests in the process.) Richard Atkinson has claimed that the reliance on the SAT has resulted in teaching to the test, which is, of course an argument being used to oppose tests in general, the argument often being made by school teachers themselves.
Atkinson's position, of course, comes on the heels of a proposition vote by the people of CA to end affirmative action in admissions, and it is possible to view his position as opening the door to further defacto discrimination for and against classes of applicants. In the absence of an a more objective measure of merit, there is the heightened possiblity that seats at the universities will be guaranteed to groups in the name of such goals as "diversity," etc. (A case in Michigan challenging such preference systems will probably reach the Supreme Court in the next few years.)
Texas, under governor George Bush, instituted such a system as a substitute for the traditional quotas associated with affirmative action. I believe seats will be guaranteed to a percentage of each high schools top graduates. Thus less qualified graduates of poorly performing schools who happen to be in the accepted percentage will be admitted before the graduates of a good school that are not in that percentage.
Liberals in Texas liked the new plan, and folks such as FOB (formerly) Lani Guinier praised it.
2. arkymalarky - 3/17/2001 10:43:23 PM
I never understood the "teaching to the test" gripe. They learn the material, so they do well. They learn a logical process of eliminating choices and drawing conclusions, so they do well. They increase their comprehension and understanding reading test questions, so they do well. I've never known a standardized test that had all the questions distributed and taught in advance. That would be the only case in which the Teaching to the Test complaint would be legit, imo.
3. arkymalarky - 3/17/2001 10:44:49 PM
What brought this thread in? Glad it's here, sorry to post and run, but I'll check back in tomorrow.
4. CalGal - 3/17/2001 10:52:18 PM
To say nothing of the fact that if they focus on SAT II instead of SAT I, it will be even more "teaching to the test"--except in that case, the knowledge transfer is far more rote. What's particularly ironic is that this change is made primarily to increase minority enrollment--but the skew on SAT II is just as bad as it is on SAT I.
I like this piece by Jack White: Why Dropping The SAT Is Bad For Blacks
If I had my way, the University of California would keep using the SAT until black students catch up with whites, Asians and immigrants from the Caribbean. It's a matter of ethnic pride. I'm as fed up with the tortuous theories experts have concocted to explain why our kids' scores are the lowest of any racial group as I am with the bigots who claim that proves they can't ever measure up. There's simply no excuse for black youngsters with college-educated parents to perform worse than white youths whose folks only finished high school. The only way to silence the critics is to close the black achievement gap, not to throw out the test because we're embarrassed by the results.
5. Slackjaw - 3/18/2001 4:41:45 AM
The education establishment has yet to design a test that adequately measures everything we want teachers to do. Some things are hard to test -- insight, understanding rather than knowledge, future capacity & desire to learn, socialization.
If teachers do a lot of things, if available tests only measures some of them, and if those tests are somehow made more important to teachers (school pressure, financial incentives like in California), then "teaching to the test" is demonstrably harmful in that it encourages teachers to spend less energy on the unmeasured but important aspects of their jobs.
Answers don't have to be distributed for "teaching to the test" to be possible. General areas of question content, and general forms of test intstruments, are an imperfect but readily available substitute.
6. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 9:05:04 AM
Thus less qualified graduates of poorly performing schools who happen to be in the accepted percentage will be admitted before the graduates of a good school that are not in that percentage.
This is somewhat reductionist and incorrect to boot. The plan is to guarantee a place somewhere in the UT system for the top 10% of every high school graduating class, with preferences being accomodated if possible.
In addition, you assume that the top 10% of a poorly performing school will be less qualified (which you fail to define) than the 10 or 20% below the top 10% in a high performing school. Yet you present no evidence of this, just the standard hype that's been given ad nauseum.
This may be true for some students, but it's highly unlikely to be a systematic effect, given that almost every high school has very high performing students in their student body. That's why the 10% number was chosen.
The 10% cut off also encourages students in poor performing schools to continue to strive, with the reward being some certainty in getting into a UT school, if they choose to attend.
And while some students from high performing schools who aren't in the top 10% may be forced to attend a UT campus that wasn't their first choice, the system itself is not at maximum capacity yet, although the Austin campus is.
What's interesting to me in these sorts of debates is that everyone tends to forget that public universities represent a huge subsidy to middle and upper middle class families, as they're children are the ones most likely to attend.
7. RickNelson - 3/18/2001 9:47:34 AM
Subsidy is right. Here, the UofM is whinning that it's budget isn't being raised enough to keep its medical programs competitive on a national or international scale. UofM president Udoff wants money for higher professor salaries, intended to stave off their exodus.
One thing I do know about the numbers at the UofM is that tuition has gone up 2-5% every year since I attended in the early 80's. Of offerings, the UofM has decommissioned its General College, and built a shiney new museum, it's exterior shell a shimmery stainless steel. The structure fits well among the bluffs of the Mississippi, nestled up snuggly to the Washington ave. bridge (not). There is a secure, heated multi-storey parking garage near and under the UofM administration building. The ancient, historical and memorable stadium has been replaced. The arena has been replaced. The medical facilities have been updated, new stuctures built and money poured into the world-class designs. Well, There really is a lot to whine about, but what if, the administration thought for a second, and decided to work within its means? Is that a concept the education elite would or could grasp?
8. joezan - 3/18/2001 10:00:42 AM
I agree with Jack White. The case against the SAT on the grounds it "doesn't reflect Black culture" is the most damaging example of soft bigotry out there. I believe that anyone who propagates this nonsense, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, just doesn't believe that Blacks are capable.
The fact that students from Asia, the Indian sub-con, the West Indies and other far-flung regions regularly excel at the test should be more than adequate evidence that it is not "geared to Whites".
The fact that White American students from families making less than $10,000-a-year score higher on average than Black American students from families making over $50,000-a-year should be more than adequate to dispel notions of classism in the test.
But they don't.
Why is that?
9. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:20:07 AM
Well, Zan
According to Jensen it's because African-Americans tend, on average, to have lower IQ's than Anglo's (about 10 IQ points lower, actually)
Of course, Asian's have higher IQ's on average than Anglos, as well(about 10 IQ points higher). Perhaps we should eliminate any restrictions on Asian student admissions to public universities and just allow those who score the highest to take the positions as they open. We shouldn't consider anything else either, just SAT's, then we'd be sure we're getting only the "top" students (wrt IQ).
And, yes! lets get rid of those damn college athletic programs, since those students tend to have significantly lower SAT scores than any other group attending universities and colleges.
BTW, in my previous post they're = their. That's what I get for changing my thought mid stream.
10. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 10:25:28 AM
Slack,
I say the following as a teacher who's never considered any test in my instruction except when I had to teach certain things in social studies for the 8th grade MPT years ago, and when I've been paid to teach an ACT summer school for interested students. Test taking techniques are easy and quick to teach and to learn, most standardized tests are broad enough to measure what they're intended to measure without teachers even being able to adequately "teach to the test," and any teacher who's teaching the other necessary things such as you cite to students is also going to be competent enough to ensure that they have a good base knowledge and understanding and an ability to reflect that on the test.
FWIW, though, I agree wholeheartedly that pressure and holding a money sword over teachers' heads is not helpful, and that's especially true with these new additional minimum performance tests state governors and legislatures have been so enamored of lately. What a waste of energy and resources, whose main effect is to turn schools upside-down. They definitely result in teaching to the test, because they delineate in detail everything the teacher is supposed to teach. The kids who care also don't need more pressure, but those who bubble in answers in designs need some motivation--positive, negative, or both--to change their attitudes toward testing.
11. joezan - 3/18/2001 10:26:31 AM
Ms:
I've heard that.
But the IQ tests are rigged too, right?
Anyway, how is it that Black West Indian students do so much better than Black Americans?
12. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 10:29:12 AM
(to the Room, not Slack)
Another thing that bugs me is the "Bobby's not a good test-taker." Tell the Bar that when he flunks his exam. Not to belabor the obvious, but right, wrong, or indifferent, our competence in many fields (including teaching, finally and barely) is measured by testing.
13. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:34:26 AM
And, yes! lets get rid of those damn college athletic programs, since those students tend to have significantly lower SAT scores than any other group attending universities and colleges.
The gap is even larger in the elite schools, and it's not just football players. There was an excellent article in the New Yorker about it--elite schools recruit a number of usually white atheletes purely to play things like football, badminton, and lacrosse, and these students' performance gap in tests is substantial.
14. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:35:16 AM
Well it probably has something to do with sample size, that is the porportion of West Indian students taking the SAT.
One thing that's clear about the SAT is that the larger the sample size, the truer the scores tend to the mean of the population. For example, 40 years ago the percentage of students even taking the SAT was significantly lower than the percentage taking the SAT today. Part of the general decline in SAT scores observed from 1965 to 1990 had to do with this issue.
Another example of this is the Iowa performance on SAT. It consistently ranks as among the top 2 or three states for student scores, but if you look at the percentage of students taking the exam, it remains at between 5 and 10% of the total population that can take the exam (all juniors and seniors). California, on the other hand, has almost 50% of it's possible student population taking the SAT. The state average for CA is well below that of Iowa.
And what can one conclude from this? Can one conclude that all the kids in Iowa are smarter, on average, than those in California? I don't think so.
15. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:37:02 AM
What's interesting to me in these sorts of debates is that everyone tends to forget that public universities represent a huge subsidy to middle and upper middle class families, as they're children are the ones most likely to attend.
Yes, but when a state school is elite, do the subsidized people get preferences? I think the logic is that you can go to a UC, for example, but not necessarily the one of your choice.
16. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 10:39:40 AM
I've never taken the SAT. Here we take the ACT unless it's going to a school that won't accept ACT scores. Our testing sample for SAT is very small, too, if I recall.
17. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:40:57 AM
Yes, of course the subsidy works for the elite campuses of public universities. It's subsidy effect is even greater. Take the UC system. The top campuses are Berkeley, UCLA, and Irvine. Those campuses tend to have very high percentages of white, middle/upper class, students (excluding the ubiquitous college athletes). They have the most resources, the best faculty, and the same price tag as any other UC campus.
The subsidy is very alive and well in public universities, particularly those that are Research 1 institutions.
18. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:41:41 AM
Well it probably has something to do with sample size, that is the porportion of West Indian students taking the SAT.
True. But haven't they compared like to like in this population, as well?
And I can't come up with any way of explaining the fact that rich black kids do worse than poor white kids--unless poor white kids do better than rich white kids, too.
19. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:42:14 AM
It's = Its
I can't spell and eat at the same time this morning.
20. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:44:59 AM
Ms,
No, I think you miss my point. The only people who are subsidied are Californians. Out of state fees are higher, aren't they? (If not, I misunderstand something).
But Californians aren't given much preference for the elite schools in the system. The fact that the schools are mostly white isn't relevant to the subsidy charge, it's whether or not they are mostly Californian. So long as a taxpayer can be shunted off to a UC school, I'm not sure they are given first crack at the elite schools.
21. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:45:54 AM
Calgal
I told you, Jensen has the answer. Lower IQ's to begin with.
And ETS makes noises about how they try to adjust for those sample sizes, but they can't eliminate the effect entirely, nor does the general public ever see the data that has been adjusted for these supposed problems.
The media report on the general comparisons among states and among race/sex groups. The result is that the public tends to get the data that's easiest to understand and the most prone to qualifications and error.
22. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:48:21 AM
Cal,
I see your point. I'm not sure how the UC system handles this, but in Texas there's a cap on the percentage of students at the top campuses ( that would be Austin), that can be out-of-state, and an even lower cap on foreign born students.
You'd have to find this out, but I'd be surprised if the elite campuses were allowing more than 20% of their student body to be out of state.
23. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:49:45 AM
Ms,
But all that aside, whether the public sees the numbers or not, there is simply no analysis of the data that says American blacks aren't doing very poorly. The West Indies blacks may only be doing better because of the sample size, but the choice is between "American blacks don't do as well" or "All blacks don't do as well".
24. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:52:24 AM
Btw, the issue of out-of-state students crowding out in-state students at the elite public universities of the state is a huge political issue in every state. In part because the out-of-state fees never cover the full cost of student education either. In fact, out-of-state fees typically don't even cover half of the actual costs, whereas in-state fees typically only cover about a quarter (this is particularly true in western states).
25. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:56:12 AM
Cal
Jensen's analysis was confined to US data, I believe. But if there's any truth to it, it would suggest that "all blacks tend to have lower IQ's than other groups".
The fact that West Indian blacks do better, on average than American blacks doesn't say squat about anything. Every group has individuals in the extremely high IQ range, even blacks. Sample size would have everything to do with explaining the different performances of these two groups.
And I qualify my earlier statement, I don't believe ETS compares like samples within subgroups, only between them.
26. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:59:51 AM
The fact that West Indian blacks do better, on average than American blacks doesn't say squat about anything.
Yes, I know. I understood your point about sample size. I am saying that establishing the West Indian performance with appropriate sample size would do nothing to improve the scores of American blacks in relationship to whites and Asians. It would only demonstrate whether West Indian blacks have the same problem or not.
Did I miss your explanation of Jensen?
27. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:01:12 AM
Btw,
I'm pretty confident that were we to test the IQ's and SAT performances of students who are athletic we'd find significantly lower scores on average than those who tend to not be athletic (to the point of playing on sports teams after the elementary level).
I say we eliminate all athletic programs at universities, institute PE again and stop subsidizing the major sports leagues as their training grounds for potential employees.
28. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:02:13 AM
Cal
I agree.
My brief comment about Jensen was in post 8 or so.
29. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:04:54 AM
I think the admissions to elite universities depend on the field of study. The more renowned the field, the less likely Californians get any sort of preference. So Berkeley's law school is probably close to 50% or higher, whereas I'm sure they give Californians preference in African American studies. That balances out.
I agree that it's a hot political issue. I've been reading more about it in the papers over the past year.
30. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:10:04 AM
Cal
Again, I think this will depend on the state policy. It's highly unlikely that Bolt Hall accepts a higher percentage of out-of-state students than in-state, particularly if it's one of the top law schools in the state (which it is).
Texas, again, has a mandatory admissions policy for the law school (at UT Austin, the top law school in the state). It cannot admit more than 20% of the entering freshlaw class from out-of-state. Thus, 80% of the student population must come from within state. I'd be surprised if California allowed 50% of the students attending Berkeley's law school to be out of state.
My understanding of the caps on out-of-state students is that it applies by field as well as across the university, although there tends to be some leeway in allowing some fields to have a higher percentage (not much, mind you) of out-of-staters than others to maintain the university wide balance.
31. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:12:07 AM
Oh, I looked Jensen up. I remember now; I read about him first in The Bell Curve.
What's interesting is that if Jensen is correct about heredity and intelligence and if all the studies demonstrating that smart people are generally successful financially, then the rich black kids should be doing pretty well.
32. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:13:56 AM
Cal
It depends on how the family became wealthy. If it was by entertainment or sports, then it's unlikely any sorting by IQ occurred, as IQ has yet to be correlated with either the entertainment world or sports.
33. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:17:09 AM
Ha! you beat me to it. I was just composing a post wondering about the attainment of wealth and how it correlates. Boy, that would scare a lot of people shitless.
34. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:17:44 AM
Another issue wrt high SES black families is that there's some evidence that black college students are the one group where significant additional achievement sorting doesn't occur by the time of graduation.
That is, if you take an entering class of college students, almost every group except blacks experience further attrition of the lowest achieving students within the class by the time of graduation (where achievement is measured by standardized tests). Black student achievement remains constant (at the level of statistical significance) from enterance to graduation.
35. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:22:56 AM
I wish I could find my December 18th copy of the New Yorker. It had a piece by Nicholas Lemann on the Michigan lawsuit, affirmative action, and elite universities.
I can't remember if he asked this question, or if it came up for me while reading the article: the university leadership feels strongly that diversity is a critical part of an elite education, and that this overrides any other consideration.
Whether or not they are right in this belief, are they justified in continually ignoring both the Supreme Court and the will of the people (as reflected in the overturning of AA laws)? Are they justified in trying to circumvent the standards, meant to be imposed uniformly, in the name of diversity?
36. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:26:56 AM
Hey
I told you I'm game. Lets eliminate all admissions requirements except the SAT, and also remove any out-of-state barriers to enterance. Then we'd be sure only the "best" and "brightest" students were filling up the slots at public universities.
Of course, this would eventually lead to the demise of state funded higher education, since it would, over time, eliminate most white students, and probably most in-state students. What population in their right minds would agree to continue to fund higher education for other people's kids?
37. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:31:56 AM
No, that's not what I'm pushing. In fact, I linked in an article in the New Yorker about the elite universities use of affirmative action to bring in a bunch of mediocre white athletes to play badminton and lacrosse. Given a choice, I'd much rather they drop sports than diversity-based affirmative action.
I would rather that everyone admitted have to meet the same baseline in SATs, not a different one for blacks.
That said, I doubt that SAT admission only would lead to the demise of public schools. In fact, relatively few schools give a damn about the SAT. It's only the elite schools where it really matters.
But my question was more philosophical--what makes universities think they have the right to circumvent the guidelines that are clearly intended for them in the first place?
38. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:32:33 AM
And I've got nothing to lose by such a policy. My daughter is already scoring at 1000 on the SAT as a 7th grader. I figure she'll be in the 1400 range by the time she gets ready to apply for college.
In other words, such a policy won't hurt my family fortunes.
39. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:37:10 AM
Cal
Again if we believe Jensen and the correlation between IQ and SAT, then making the SAT the sole criteria for admissions would certainly put a huge dent in the white student population at public universities (particularly the top ones), since the Asian population is growing in America, and there will be plenty of potential college students to fill up those available slots.
Combine that with unlimited out of state access, and there'll be significant sorting occurring at the top institutions (beyond what already occurs). No state would continue to foot the tremendous costs of Research 1 institutions when the majority of the beneficiaries would be out-of-state or a relatively small minority group (unless that group were high SES whites).
40. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 11:38:55 AM
Interesting discussion. I'll have to give this some more thought. I am an affirmative action baby. I went to an elite school and my tuition and fees were generously subsidized.
I met a lot of kids at school who were accepted because their families had donated money to the university. If that's not affirmative action, I don't know what is.
41. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:40:24 AM
But I guess that suggests I'd have to qualify my earlier statement about the demise of state funded higher education. Actually, it might continue, it just won't be directed toward maintaining any elite universities, or even high ranking state schools.
In fact, I'd think the state would actively discourage support for any school that rated highly, as this would be a magnet for out-of-state applicants and cause crowding out of those lesser qualified, in-state students.
It could be interesting to watch how it plays out, though.
42. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:46:56 AM
Ms,
Well, I don't know that there will ever be unlimited out of state access.
But again--using California as an example, we're talking about Berkeley and UCLA (Irvine is questionable). So worst case, I suspect that all state universities would lose their ranking among the elite, because over time they would lose the funding that makes them elite.
The elite students aren't going to be competing for Berkeley or UC San Diego, but Berkeley or Harvard. So if Berkeley drops in quality, it just means that Harvard and other private universities will benefit. So if the state schools used SAT scores exclusively, it would temporarily make Berkeley and UCLA heavily (but not exclusively) Asian, presumably the public would get pissed and cut funding, and over time the elites would stop considering Berkeley and UCLA. Over time, state schools would just drop out of the elite ranks.
That's assuming you're right about Asians dominating completely. I suspect instead that whites and Asians will take up the majority of the slots and so long as whites are comfortably in the 40-50% range and state residents adequately covered, there won't be too much bitching.
43. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:50:18 AM
Actually, it might continue, it just won't be directed toward maintaining any elite universities, or even high ranking state schools.
Cross post. Yes, that's what I predict as well.
I met a lot of kids at school who were accepted because their families had donated money to the university.
Oh, absolutely. That's the whole basis for accepting the kids of alumni, and I can't stand it. I'd do away with that before I'd do away with diversity acceptances--but universities will claim that the resultant loss of money would hurt them more in the long run, thereby losing their ability to help poor students, and so on.
Of course, if intelligence is inheritable, one would think most kids of the alumni would get into a great school anyway--and that's probably true, too. It's just a comfort level for the alumni in case they have a bad apple kid.
44. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 11:57:41 AM
Well, I think to do away with affirmative action, we would somehow need to change the way public high schools are funded. IMO, part of the problem is simply that kids from poor areas do not have access to the same level of public education that children from wealthy areas do. So poor kids are doubly disadvantaged in that they cannot get into elite schools, and are also unprepared to do the work.
45. CalGal - 3/18/2001 12:07:31 PM
Erin,
While I agree that funding public high schools is important, the fact is that you are arguing that AA is necessary because black kids are disproportionately poor. I agree, but AA doesn't discriminate on basis of need, but color.
For example, if we moved to a needs-based system, I believe that poor white kids benefit more than poor black kids.
But that begs one of the basic questions--and the reason why the UC President made this policy recommendation--why are black kids doing worse on the SATs, even when compared like to like? Or are they? If you check the IQ of their parents, is there any correlation?
Because while I do believe that intelligence is inherited, I don't believe that it is race-based. I believe there is some other correlation that will eventually explain the race performance gap (whether black to white or white to Asian or whatever).
I do believe it is important to find out. I think Jack White's article is on point. Sure, we can improve public schools and sure we can accept for diversity--but in the end, we need to know why the gap exists.
46. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 12:16:51 PM
I personally don't think black parents do enough to prepare their children for college in general. I know mine didn't, and they were pretty middle class. And my dad has worked in education for many years--he's going for his doctorate in higher education administration.
Other than that, I don't have much to offer. I didn't have a good high school record, didn't do that well on the SATs, though I always performed well above the norm (many grade levels higher) in other standardized tests.
I took no preparation courses for the SAT, and up until high school, went to pretty average public schools. My son will not suffer the same fate. I have no problem pushing academic achievement on him.
That said, I place no credence in the argument, "if we keep affirmative action, minority kids and their peers won't know if they really 'belong' at these elite schools," because I really don't care if they "belong." What matters to me is access. Because of my access, I have prospered in my professional career and achieved an upper-middle-class income.
47. vw - 3/18/2001 2:41:57 PM
Colorado College replaces SAT with Legos
Feb. 1 - Colorado College, in an effort to attract minority and disadvantaged students, is dumping those stodgy old college-admission exams in favor of a novel Lego-building test for a handful of applicants.
48. vw - 3/18/2001 2:42:28 PM
There ya go ... Legos are our Educational Future.
49. vw - 3/18/2001 2:42:29 PM
There ya go ... Legos are our Educational Future.
50. Åse - 3/18/2001 2:54:54 PM
Another excuse for spending inordinate amounts of cash on lego for the kid once she reaches that age (the true motive, of course, is so mom can play with them).
51. CalGal - 3/18/2001 3:03:23 PM
Think how expensive that testing method must be.
52. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 3:28:55 PM
Damn! I need to run out and buy my kid Legos--I don't want him to be disadvantaged 16 years down the road!
53. Autodaffy - 3/18/2001 3:37:53 PM
Here we go: legoing to the test.
54. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 3:42:02 PM
The test could disadvantage poor children, whose parents cannot afford Legos.
55. Autodaffy - 3/18/2001 3:44:33 PM
Yes, and the straight lines, rectangles and cubes that lego comes in might disadvantage those tending to see the world in curves. I think there might be a correlation with left-brain dominants or South Pacific Islanders on that one.
56. Åse - 3/18/2001 3:51:21 PM
It will clearly disadvantage curmudgeonly introverts who will hog all the legos and refuse to work with those other 9 dunces.
57. CalGal - 3/18/2001 3:52:39 PM
What? It rewards team work? Fuck that noise.
58. Cellar Door - 3/18/2001 4:09:00 PM
Yeah lets just give the little bastards a pile of pocket knives instead. Whoever survives gets to graduate.
Perfect trading for the Adult World, don't you think?
59. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 4:12:41 PM
Better yet, test their ability to knock out marketing plans, business plan, financial analysis, etc. Also good training for the real world.
Can you imagine yuppie parents purchasing flash cards on market analysis for their tots?
60. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 4:48:13 PM
The talk about Legos reminds me--It bugs the crap out of me when teachers spend valuable instruction time in core high school classes (even advanced ones) having their students do useless, time-eating projects, especially group projects. Mose and a few deadbeats got to make a salt map for history class. Did it have any historical signifance? No. Geographical significance? No. But it sure was pretty, especially when one of the moms decided to take out some of Mose's stuff and redo (her own kid's was apparently fine). Of course she's a middle school teacher and knows what they're looking for...forget we spent about twenty bucks on supplies that ended up being trashed. Oh well. They all got A's, so why am I bitching?
And we currently have on our school walls project posters that are supposed to reflect a project involving graphing survey results, that look like they were borrowed from the third grade "Is Pokemon Harmful?" class projects. It's all I can do to keep from committing an act of vandalism when I walk down the hall.
61. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 4:50:43 PM
And the medieval castles the history teacher had the kids do were cool, but all I could think of was how much history could have been learned in the amount of class time that was spent on those castles.
62. Autodaffy - 3/18/2001 4:51:18 PM
So,if the SAT isn't used, what is the substitute? How objective is the substitute measure?
63. CalGal - 3/18/2001 4:57:34 PM
Arky,
I hate that crap, too.
Auto,
Well, the UC pres wants to replace the SAT I with the SAT II, which is pretty silly. For one thing, blacks underperform and Asians overperform on those, too.
64. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 5:04:07 PM
What I hate most about it is that it's what the administration and school boards and parents just love to see. Style (hack, cough) wins over substance every time, and the shallowness and lack of interest in what's really taught in a classroom shown by the very same people who never shut up about how test scores need to come up and who spend endless hours wailing and "brainstorming" (any idea is great, so long as it's stylish, impractical, cheap, and doesn't come from a teacher who doesn't think just like them) in interminal meetings about it is enough to make me hurl.
I guess that belongs in the Rants thread.
65. Laura C - 3/18/2001 6:23:15 PM
Can you imagine yuppie parents purchasing flash cards on market analysis for their tots?
Well, actually, yes, because the grammar school I attended now offers PowerPoint presentation classes as part of their summer-school enrichment program. For middle schoolers.
66. CalGal - 3/18/2001 6:27:31 PM
Arky,
Are test scores really lower for everyone? I keep hearing that if you check test scores by income, the middle class and upper kids are doing fine.
Laura,
I'm not sure that's a terrible idea. Although Visio is more useful.
67. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 6:40:47 PM
Cal,
I don't know. In the context of AR, we're one of the poorest states in the nation, and I've mostly taught in fairly lower-middle class districts. The school I'm at now had pretty low scores this fall. The one I'm returning to has always done better, though it's smaller and I always thought it was poorer. I may be wrong on that. AR did reach the national average on SAT9s this past year, though.
Power Point is cool, and middle schoolers can do great with it. Mose did a really neat one on Gustavus Swift in m/s. The only two types of projects I do are research projects and PowerPoint.
68. Laura C - 3/18/2001 6:45:37 PM
Oh, I'm probably just shocked because when I was there, the school was very artsy, Waldorf-influenced, students learned woodcraft and made their own maple syrup every year. Now all the summer classes are PowerPoint and Investing for Beginners. Clearly, the old order changeth.
69. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 7:02:25 PM
Investing for beginners is good. I could use some investing flash cards for my tot.
Kidding!
70. Shannon - 3/18/2001 7:38:54 PM
Interesting discussion.
My alma mater dropped the SAT requirement a couple of years after I graduated--sometime in the mid-90's, I think. A number of similar schools (small, private, Northeast) have done the same thing.
Has the SATII been shown to be a more useful predictor than the SAT? I've read that the SAT is a pretty good predictor of first year college success, but not of overall success or retention rates. Or at least that it doesn't add anything to other factors in making such predictions.
71. anomieme - 3/18/2001 9:39:03 PM
CalGal,
Just wanted to jump in quickly before the affirmative action comments got too old.
I changed my mind 20 years ago while arguing with a friend. "Role models", he said to me. It hit home that the big picture of AA is not to benefit the individual so much as to create a self-sustaining system for aspiring youth. I don't think we're there yet.
72. Åse - 3/18/2001 9:51:35 PM
But, why do role-models need to share particular attributes such as ethnicity or gender? I'm not sure I quite buy the role-model idea (partially because I never really had female role-models that I know of).
I'm not sure the "role-model" argument is well thought out. What does it mean anyway? What should it accomplish, what are the supposed mechanisms, and does it really work that way?
One thing I can see is that if professions/workforce are made up of a real mixture of people with different attributes rather than token individuals that can easily be sub-typed, one may get away from phenomena such as illusory correlations and its effect on stereotyping, and singleton effects.
73. RickNelson - 3/18/2001 9:59:26 PM
Get away from illusory correlations and stereotyping? Hardly; it wont happen, you have used a stereotype as well, labeling "real" as a sub-type of individual.
As for the role-model topic, I have had one role model in my life and found the experience of value without compare. (period, no more explaination is required)
74. Stumbo - 3/18/2001 10:18:53 PM
MsIT:
"This may be true for some students, but it's highly unlikely to be a systematic effect..." (#6)
Is it really that unlikely to be a systematic effect that the top 10%+1st student at one school be more qualified than the top 10%-1st at another?
"Perhaps we should eliminate any restrictions on Asian student admissions to public universities [...] And, yes! lets get rid of those damn college athletic programs..." (#10)
I certainly agree with the first recommendation. (I hear Berkeley undergrads are now 45% Asian; so not only blacks and Hispanics, but whites, too, are statistically under-represented. Is anyone in this thread seriously disturbed by this?)
Athletic programs can stay, as long -- and only as long -- as they bring in money. (I don't object to kids-of-alumni preferences, for the same reason: why not accept a dumb rich kid, if -- and only if, at least on average -- his presence pays not only for itself, but also for that of a smart poor kid or two? The same can't be said about accepting dumb poor kids.)
75. Stumbo - 3/18/2001 10:21:49 PM
Erin, #44:
"Well, I think to do away with affirmative action, we would somehow need to change the way public high schools are funded."
The two issues aren't connected, other than politically. Affirmative action should be done away with, and poor kids should be given decent educations. (Whether increased funding of public schools is the best way to achieve the latter is, at the very least, debatable.)
As it is, affirmative action is a band-aid solution to a much deeper problem. We let --or, arguably, force -- a shitload of kids go to lousy schools for 12 years or so; then, professing total surprise that they've grown up dumb and ignorant, we accept them into universities just as if they weren't. And then we act all surprised once again, when they generally don't do as well there as others do.
It may have worked for you, but it doesn't work for most. Access to an Ivy-League university doesn't mean much if, at age 18, you've yet to learn how to add fractions.
76. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:25:18 PM
Stumbo
Is it really that unlikely to be a systematic effect that the top 10%+1st student at one school be more qualified than the top 10%-1st at another?
It's possible that at the very top and very bottom of schools that this could be the case, but I've not seen any data on it. I also don't think it's likely to be systematic since, as I said before, almost all schools in Texas have high achieving students, even if it's a very small percentage. The 10% figure was chosen with that in mind, I believe, and was based on comparisons of TAAS scores among individual students.
If there is any crowding out effect by the 10% policy, I think it will be minor, and possibly not even statistically significant. If students in the very top schools are that qualified, then they're very likely to be able to attend any university they choose. The 10% plan doesn't carry any guarantee of payment for college, only a guaranteed place at one of the UT system schools.
Wrt to my other comments:
I personally don't have any problem with white students (and others) being crowded out of schools by Asian students if the criteria is going to be based soley on IQ and its test correlates. I think it fitting, personally, that the crowd that most whines about academic excellence get hoist with their own petard.
con't
77. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:33:21 PM
As to college athletic programs, if the issue is limited space being taken up by less qualified students in public universities, even if these programs bring money to them, it doesn't compensate for the wasted academic slots these kids take up. Here there really is an issue of crowding out.
And I have always questioned, with great skepticism, the amount of revenue athletic programs actually bring to top universities (which are the only one's I've had any experience with). I believe there are all sorts of costs that aren't included in the calculations, including the physical resources as well as academic resources used to support these programs.
If we're going to be serious about allowing access only to the most qualified students, then these programs should be the first to go.
But then, I'm not really an advocate of these policies. I simply see them as complementary to the argument that SAT scores should continue to be the sorting mechanism for college admissions. That SAT's are some sort of sacred cow that somehow separates the deserving from the undeserving. If advocates are really serious about it, then they should be forced to answer why SAT's shouldn't be the only sorting mechanism.
It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of this position that I object to.
78. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:43:25 PM
Btw Stumbo
Your rationale for accepting the children of alumni and dumb athletes won't hold water if they actually don't pay for themselves and a few other students. In fact, no one pays the true costs of their education at elite public institutions, not even at private institutions. The actual costs are typically anywhere from 2/3 to 1/3 more than anyone pays.
I remember data from Stanford that indicated even its tuition of $15,000+ in 1990 didn't cover more than half the true costs per student of their education.
79. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:55:45 PM
My main gripe about athletic programs, however, remains that it represents a huge subsidy to the entertainment and sports market. Why should precious state resourses be siphoned off to subsidize major sports teams. It's not as if these organizations don't have tremendous resourses to develop their own talent.
In addition, the focus on athletic programs at the university level has eliminated any serious development of physical education programs available to the general student bodies. This is even more problematic at the middle and secondary school levels, where the majority of kids learn to be observers while a few participate in sports.
It's not only fostered a generally inactive adult population in America, it's also contributed to a decline in opportunities for all kids to participate in sports and in organized games.
And I don't want to hear about this crap that school sports are open to any kids, it's a lie. The sorting for athletic talent begins at the elementary level, and kids with interest but not superior skills get shunted to the side, discouraged, and generally stop participating by middle school.
But that's a rant for another day.
80. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 9:21:17 AM
"And I don't want to hear about this crap that school sports are
open to any kids, it's a lie. The sorting for athletic talent
begins at the elementary level, and kids with interest but not
superior skills get shunted to the side, discouraged, and
generally stop participating by middle school."
Quite so Missie...
81. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 9:45:41 AM
As I read through my copy of Arthur Jenson's "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement"(Harvard Educational Review 1969) I an struck by:
1) His reliance on(numerous citations) CYRIL BURT
2)Page 81 of the text, which states(Jenson's own words)...in relation to "negroes and "whites"..."when gross socioeconomic level is controlled the average difference reduces to about 11 IQ points"...
82. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 9:47:02 AM
Sorry, it is of course Jensen...
83. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 9:56:14 AM
If kids aren't eligible to be accepted to elite schools, how is this not tied to the shitty schools that produced them?
84. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 10:00:31 AM
Erin...even in the best schools imaginable, not all students do well.
85. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 10:09:42 AM
But on average, good schools will produce good students, no?
86. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 10:12:20 AM
Erin...surely so. I am unsure of your point as to the "eligiblity for elite schools"...
87. CalGal - 3/19/2001 10:13:07 AM
Erin,
I think Stumbo was making the same response I was earlier, in that bad schools can't rightfully be used to justify affirmative action. For one thing, affirmative action benefits people who may have actually gone to excellent schools, and exclude those who went to poor schools--by selecting a kid of rich black parents and excluding a poor white kid.
He is also pointing out that accepting people who aren't capable of doing the work does nothing to improve schools, so they aren't related.
I agree with that last, but I don't get the impression that most of the kids accepted to the elite schools under AA aren't capable of doing the work. It's just that taken as a group, the affirmative action pool is less qualified than the white pool. Obviously, this is also true of the athlete pool and the alumni pool.
88. CalGal - 3/19/2001 10:14:35 AM
Something you said earlier: there's no reason for minority graduates from Harvard or Stanford to feel as if their accomplishment is "tarnished". But then, I don't think it matters what they feel. If a minority candidate gets in and busts ass, getting great grades, great contacts, excellent reviews and recommendations on internships and so on, then their resume will be good regardless of color.
On the other hand, suppose I'm just trying to hire a bunch of bright people and interview two with degrees from Princeton: one white and one black, English or humanities degree, same decent average, nothing else really sticks out. If the white kid isn't an alumni or athlete entry, then most managers would know enough to want the white candidate. They might hire the black candidate because of diversity requirements, but they would have wanted the white. Not because of racism, but because the white kid had to survive a much tougher entry process to get into Princeton, which suggests they are the better candidate (if all I'm looking for is bright people).
Now, so long as the company is one that requires diversity, the black candidate is safe. But overall, I can't see how that perception doesn't hurt black grads of elite schools--that all things being equal, their desirability is of a lower caliber than white grads. Hurt them enough to devalue the elite education? No. But it's there, nonetheless, and I know any number of managers who discuss that sort of equation.
89. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 10:17:53 AM
I mean eligible to be accepted and to have at least average university careers.
I don't have a problem with eliminating AA in college admissions, as long as the general conditions and experience of public schools are improved.
I think that in the future, this is going to become more of an economic issue than a racial one.
90. Autodaffy - 3/19/2001 12:11:19 PM
I have heard of at least one lawsuit in CA to force the state to offer the same advanced hs courses in low-income school districts as in middle class ones. It would seem the anti-aa proposition has redirected attention where it is needed, elementary and secondary ed.
91. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 12:19:44 PM
Cal, that's an interesting perspective and something that would never occur to me. As an employer, I would have no way of know whether either Princeton grad was a legacy or AA student.
92. CalGal - 3/19/2001 12:56:27 PM
Erin,
But that's my point: if the candidate is black, it would automatically be assumed. And far too many managers probably wouldn't go the extra mile to wonder if the white student was an athlete or an alumni--although as I said, I've had conversations where this came up.
I don't want to make this sound like a big deal--for one thing, no manager could ever say, legally, that he'd used color as a deciding factor. Even if it wasn't the color per se, but rather the information it provided (lower standards to get into elite school). But managers use all sorts of reasons to hire or not hire, and gut plays a big part.
As I said, it doesn't mean that the person wouldn't get hired, but all things being equal it might affect the perception, change opportunities, job slots, and so on.
Black students who would have qualified under "white" standards for a non-athletic/alumni admissions make will often point this out. They resent the fact that people assume they couldn't have made it on their own merits.
93. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 1:28:24 PM
But how is anyone supposed to know if anyone gets ahead on their own merits?
94. Shannon - 3/19/2001 1:36:31 PM
And far too many managers probably wouldn't go the extra mile to wonder if the white student was an athlete or an alumni--although as I said
I just wanted to add that if you're talking about admission to Princeton, there are all kinds of weird factors that can come into play. I agree that managers likely wouldn't consider them, whereas they might make negative assumptions about a black graduate.
I am quite sure that being from an under-represented geographic area helped me get into the colleges I applied to. The only school I didn't get into was in the South. One interviewer as much as told me I'd get in because they wanted students from my state and they didn't have any. Yes, I had really good grades and good test scores too. And the schools I applied to weren't quite Ivy-level in terms of competition to get in. But I'm sure I'd have had a better chance of getting into an Ivy than another white student with the exact same grades and test scores who came from some wealthy New England suburb which was already well-represented in the student body.
95. CalGal - 3/19/2001 2:21:20 PM
Shannon,
The difference is that you would still (probably) have had to meet the same baseline standard that other white applicants do. So sure, "white student from the South with 3.9 GPA and 1400 SAT" gets in when "white student from New England with 3.9 GPA and 1410 SAT" doesn't, maybe. But when "black students with 3.9 GPA and 1100 SAT" get in and "white students with 3.9 GPA and 1100 SAT" are automatically tossed out (unless they are athletes or alumni kids) then it's a whole different level of factors in play.
Now if you're saying the differentiation between Southern kids and New England kids is that big, then I agree it's the same thing.
Erin,
I don't know if it's a matter of "getting ahead" or not. As I said, if the student had a hell of a resume after college due to the work he'd done, it would be irrelevant. But if it was a questionable resume, or not much on there, then many managers will go on gut and, in the case where a manager is just looking for really bright people, they'd know that the white kid would have had to have been a bit more extraordinary intelligence-wise than the black kid, in order to get in--to a non-trivial degree. That's the thing--the drop in SAT scores from one group to the other is pretty substantial.
96. Shannon - 3/19/2001 3:19:50 PM
I agree, CalGal, that those two scenarios are quite different. I just wanted to throw it out there, because I hear lots of people talk as though college admissions is (or should be) an exact science. For extremely selective colleges, that is not the case, nor do I think it should be. A school like Princeton is always going to have more qualified applicants than it has the ability to accept. If you determine that, in general, students with an SAT of at least 1300 and a GPA of at least 3.8 do pretty well at your college, and you get three times more of those kids applying than you have room for, I'm not sure that you should up it to 1500 and 3.9 to narrow the pool at that point. I think it may well be just as good for the school to look at things like extracurriculars, student backgrounds, etc.
97. CalGal - 3/19/2001 3:26:16 PM
Yes, I agree. In fact, that was what I mentioned to the Ms earlier when she suggested (sarcastically) that elite schools only use SAT scores. I don't think that's a good idea. But I do think a baseline is appropriate, and ideally, it should be the same baseline for everyone--even alumni and athletes.
BTW, I completely agree with the Ms about college athletics. Dump them.
98. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 3:46:38 PM
Just out of interest Missie...is that your point...that all college athletics should be dumped. Well, I know some great Wall-Street Investment Banking positions that are staffed only by athletes with superior GPAs from top colleges/universities...in fact they(The Wall Street Banks) have special staff that look only for these qualifications, so some think they are valuable. The Banks like the competitive nature and brightness combination, along with the ability to work with others for 7/24 The hire to resume ratio is over 1-God Only Knows, and the final interview(of two plus) including offer of position is about 5 to 40, and they only interview at particular schools....having played college athletics, at least in this case, is quite valuable. For many, it is also pure joy.
99. CalGal - 3/19/2001 3:54:53 PM
Actually, college athletes who go to elite schools have a much lower GPA and SATs, and are very likely to major in business--particularly men. So all you're really describing is an extension of alumni behavior. College athletes who went to Harvard and Princeton are more likely to hire their own. Nothing wrong with it, but it's hardly an indication that Wall Street thinks college athletics has any value.
100. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 3:57:36 PM
PP's
Actually, no it isn't my position. I would really prefer that college athletics be changed so that it isn't big business, and the focus be on play as an addition to one's academic studies instead of the main reason for being at the institution. I know of some great universities that 1) insist that their athletes meet the same admissions requirements as the rest of the student body; and 2) insist that the practice and game schedules take a second seat to the academic responsibilities of the students.
I'm appalled, however, at the exploitation of the majority of student athletes at most universities. These students are brought in primarily to play for the school, to attract fame and endowments to the university, and are given killing schedules that result in academics being well below any other priority in their lives. The fact that many(most) schools ignore their admissions requirements to bring in students with athletic skills only perpetuates this vicious circle.
There's something very wrong with college athletics at many schools, and I'd blame these big college league sports competitions first and foremost.
101. CalGal - 3/19/2001 3:57:54 PM
Sporting Chances: The Cost of College Athletics
Reprint of the New Yorker article. The print size is hard on your eyes; I recommend a larger font size. Great article that really has a lot of relevance to this conversation, I think.
102. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 3:58:40 PM
Although Calgal also makes a good point, I see.
103. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 4:00:45 PM
Here's something funny, Calgal.
I was an undergrad at UCLA, which didn't have an undergraduate business degree, only graduate. The majority of the student athletes majored in my field as a result, Economics.
I must say, it did wonders for my grades.
104. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:05:54 PM
There was no undergrad business major at Northwestern, my alma mater, which meant that most of the future yuppies were Econ majors.
105. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:10:55 PM
Investment Banks seldom hire undergrads with business majors. Economics, Math, Biochemistry are frequent academic histories...
106. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 4:15:21 PM
That is a very good article, Calgal.
I learned some new things, too. Always a pleasure.
107. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:15:48 PM
All right Missie them is fightin words...I know somebody that might not have kicked yer butt, but he would have given it a good push.
108. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:16:27 PM
Well, as the Ms and Erin just pointed out, a lot of elite schools don't offer "Business" degrees. The point is the same, though--check the managers. See how many of them went to these schools as athletes, or how many do in general. It's far more likely that a lot of Wall Street is made up of Princeton and Harvard scholarship jocks who like to hire their own than it is that the management teams independently decided there was some inherent Wall Street application to playing mediocre tennis for a school with a lousy sports program.
Now, show me that Wall Street is actively recruiting offensive line men who spent five years at UCLA and you'll come a bit nearer to convincing me.
109. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:16:41 PM
Although PsychProf is correct that many (if not all) investment banking firms have as one of their highest ranked hiring categories athletes from the Ivies (or the Little Three or a few others), it is more than just because of the combination of competitiveness, proven teamwork experience, etc., that they are looking for. For the ones who stick it out for a few years, they then are quite valuable in the "many of our clients are athletic wannabes and like to mix with those who were" game.
And, other than for the "name" athletes (say, the All-Ivies)in your "normal" sports like football or baseball, it is the more esoteric sports that have ultimate value in this little game. Sports like crew (particularly), squash and to a lesser extent tennis.
Subtlest in terms of the mixings they like to promote at places like, say, The Racquet & Tennis Club, Piping Rock or The Creek, but thriving at places like your generic hey-anybody-with-$1000-a-year-can-become-a-"member" Health & Racquet Clubs as well depending on the respective ages and managerial levels of the people involved.
Nothing particularly wrong with it as far as I can see.
110. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:20:08 PM
Well Cal, one of my sons best friends(in Investment Banking, where they work together) is an offensive lineman from Rice...block that. And, of Jan Jon is correct in his analysis. JanJon is probably his Senior VP....
111. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:20:10 PM
Nothing wrong with it--although I still think you'll find that most of the people hiring with that priority have the same background. However, PP appears to be citing it as proof of the academic value of atheletics at elite colleges--after all, see, Wall Street recognizes that it makes for better stockbrokers!--when it's nothing of the kind.
112. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:21:00 PM
Well Cal, one of my sons best friends(in Investment Banking, where they work together) is an offensive lineman from Rice...block that.
Rice is not UCLA. And you are doing nothing but proving the point. It's not the value of athletics. Rather, it appears that atheletes are better at helping their own than other categories of "privileged" applicants.
113. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:21:11 PM
Cal...Investment Bankers are not stockbrokers. Read up...
114. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:23:22 PM
Well Cal...we just disagree here. There can be a value to athletics that you seem to miss. In any case, that's what is going on.
115. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:27:53 PM
PP,
I was being rhetorical.
Here is the point: you are disagreeing with the Ms about the value of athletics in school. But your point comes down to this: The value of athletics at elite schools is that it gives these fairly mediocre athletes with lower SAT scores and overall performance a boost up to a better job than they could get otherwise, and that they then make a point of hiring other mediocre athletes who couldn't get into the school on their own merits. This creates a haven for said mediocre atheletes--who, coincidentally, are also generally white and upper middle class.
Gosh. Yes, I can see giving up 600 places at Princeton for mediocre rich white boy jocks. There's a tradition we don't want to abandon.
116. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:28:08 PM
well, its not stockbrokers per se that the investment banking world is into. What they want are people who have track records of being bright, disciplined, with a good work ethic and with a good respect for teamwork. Because, they will be working their asses off for the first few years in a milleu where all of those traits are essential. Participation in sports is seen as being evidence of all of the above, except of course for brightness and there are other measures for that. The "rubbing shoulders with admiring clients" comes later.
And, there indeed is a bit of the people hire people who are like them syndrome, since this system has been around for at least 50 years. (The old family ties/social register days are but a memory. Well, not that that doesn't help, but it isn't enough. By a long shot. Unless you are, of course, a Rockefeller, etc.
117. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:28:25 PM
There can be a value to athletics that you seem to miss.
Other than athletes hire their own? Not that you've demonstrated with your example, that's for sure.
118. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:33:32 PM
I think there is value in athletics, I'm jut not convinced that athletics are of enough value as to be a fair exchange for an elite education.
119. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:34:52 PM
Oh, yes. That's all I was referring to, sorry.
120. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:35:14 PM
Cal...JanJon captures it well...
"well, its not stockbrokers per se that the investment banking
world is into. What they want are people who have track
records of being bright, disciplined, with a good work ethic
and with a good respect for teamwork. Because, they will be
working their asses off for the first few years in a milleu where
all of those traits are essential. Participation in sports is seen
as being evidence of all of the above, except of course for
brightness and there are other measures for that. The
"rubbing shoulders with admiring clients" comes later."
121. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:36:18 PM
not to beat the horse dead, but PsychProf indeed has referred to values of athletics (as have I), such as developing discipline, a good work ethic, a respect for and ability to participate effectively in teamwork. Not necessarily skills that come easily to most kids. Nor are their other forums (maybe theater or certain types of musical groups) which lend themselves so well to the development of those traits.
I guess I could add competitiveness, too.
By the way, I speak as a virtual athletic geek. (My daughter IS very athletic and I can see the value to her of being so involved with several teams. Too soon to say about the boy.)
122. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:36:41 PM
PP,
He doesn't capture it at all. I suspect if you track the employment history, you will discover that the preference for jocks who went to elite schools came with the fact that one guy got hired in and began hiring more of his own. The rationalization came later.
123. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:43:52 PM
Cal...do you mind if I forward that to a bunch of Investment Bankers...it wil make their day.
124. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:44:56 PM
I am doing midterm grades and this discussion has saved me.
125. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:45:08 PM
CalGal - you suspect wrong. Just because that is your predisposition/firm belief doesn't make it correct.
126. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:45:44 PM
PP,
It will only make their day if they can understand it, and you know what jocks are like. After all, they sure as shit didn't get to school on their brains.
127. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 4:46:46 PM
While I think playing sports can be of value, my problem is that I don't see why intramurel college althletics is necessary to develop these skills. Every person should be able to develop such skills through team sports as part of a well-rounded education.
However, the present state of college (and high school) athletic programs is that everyone gets short changed. The athletes get short changed by being passed along and excused from meeting standards of academic excellence; all other students get short changed by not being able to participate in team sports and gaining that valuable educational experience.
The article above mentioned the profile of the average college athlete in 1951 as someone who was a walk-in player on a team of their choice. It wasn't the reason they came to college, their focus was on a well-rounded education, and team sports was just one part of that experience.
Now, I'm not one to wax poetically about bygone eras, but the loss of this sort of college athletic experience seems worthy of mourning.
128. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:49:17 PM
CalGal. You are woefully lacking in any understanding about these two little niches - Ivy League/other "elite" colleges admissions policies for athletes/hiring considerations for "Wall Street" investment banking firms.
129. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:50:59 PM
I confess I don't see *huge* value in athletics for my son, just *some* value. If he wants to pursue sports, I would support him, but not at the expense of academics.
130. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:54:21 PM
Cal...why is it necessary for you to be so insulting. Do you really think that "all" jocks have shit for brains...your dependence on stereotyping is not convincing.
131. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:54:27 PM
Janjon,
Oh, I dunno. Hiring is one area I'm pretty clear on. I am speaking broadly, which I suspect you don't quite understand. But I have few qualms about making an assumption about the incestuousness of Wall Street investment banking firms.
132. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:56:06 PM
Erin...Northwestern has some fine student-athletes.
133. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:56:41 PM
PP,
Lighten up. Good lord.
More substandard applicants get into the elite schools on athletics than they do on color. And, given that they are mediocre athletes to begin with and quite often white and upper middle class, that seems something worthy of the occasional mocking.
134. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:57:43 PM
Not until recently.
135. Autodaffy - 3/19/2001 5:10:49 PM
Is Bobby Knight, or the would be Bobby Knights, good for education?
What is the effect of ordinary students seeing the pampering of athletes? Of knowing the coach can have the president fired? Of having big universities known for their teams rather than their academic programs?
136. janjon - 3/19/2001 5:15:45 PM
CalGal. Well, being charitable, you may have broad knowledge about "hiring", (and, gee, it may be beyond understanding), but - and you can trust me on this one - you haven't got a clue about the two little topics - Ivy League admission policies re athletes and "Wall Street" investment banking hiring criteria - that are somehow, if peculiarly, the topics du jour.
I know about both.
137. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:17:09 PM
JanJon...me too. As you well know, mu son is both.
138. Laura C - 3/19/2001 5:27:19 PM
Since this conversation seems to keep coming back to Princeton, what about their new plan to spend some of their $8 billion endowment on grants, so that their undergrads will no longer graduate horribly in debt?
"Under a pioneering plan, Princeton is becoming the first university in the United States to do away with all student loans. Instead, it will give out only grants. No more student debt. No more pressure to become an investment banker just to be able to pay off big loans." --Christian Science Monitor article, quoted on Princeton's website
How will this change higher education? What effect, if any, will it have on the admissions process?
139. janjon - 3/19/2001 5:30:34 PM
well, peeling the grape a bit, I've been quite active on admissions work for my college (yes, an Ivy) for a number of years now and have sat on a special task force regarding admissions policies for athletes and other special categories for the past three.
And, lurching out for yet another grape to peel, I spent about a decade at an investment bank (small), mostly as a partner, and ran the hiring for several years. As part of that process, I got to know my counterparts at a number of the other shops around town quite well and know what they are looking for in hires and what value they place on athletic participation (note the word participation instead of success. Success is a special category, but participation is by far the more typical.)
140. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:31:37 PM
Laura..hahaha...too late for PP. A combination of Dartmouth for one and Harvard for the other cost me close to 200,000 bucks. I guess my timing was off...
141. janjon - 3/19/2001 5:32:11 PM
laura c. It is a commendable thing Princeton is doing. It also is designed to give them a competitive tool in terms of wooing kids who otherwise might be lured to the likes of Cambridge or New Haven. (or Palo Alto.)
142. Laura C - 3/19/2001 5:36:58 PM
Too late for me too, PP.
Janjon, yes, it will give them a competitive tool, at least till Harvard, Yale et al. match it. It will also significantly increase their yield of poor-but-smart kids, like the two in my HS class who couldn't make the numbers work and went to U of I instead. If I were running a honors college at one of the Public Ivies, I'd be watching this very closely.
143. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 5:37:20 PM
There were a lot of Stanford wanna-bes at Northwestern. I actually had two sisters who graduated from Stanford, one of which will soon be defending her dissertation from same.
144. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:38:44 PM
Erin...fine schools all. Somebody footed that bill huh...
145. Laura C - 3/19/2001 5:39:33 PM
I also wonder how this will affect undergraduates choosing majors. Why worry about the return on your tuition investment if you're not paying the bill? Will the economics and history departments decline, while English and art history soar?
146. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:40:32 PM
Erin...we interviewed a Stanford PHD just today for a faculty position...very impressive woman.
147. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 5:41:06 PM
My two sisters and I were all poor enough to qualify for aid and loans. My loans are under $17,000 now, don't know how much the sisters owe.
148. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 5:43:20 PM
What was her field?
149. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:43:51 PM
My wife and I both agreed on us footing the bill... we worked hard to do so, and now we're still using coupons at Stop & Shop...for some reason this cracks me up.
150. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:44:21 PM
Psychology
151. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 8:15:04 PM
Amateur athletics is fine. NCAA athletics is anything but amateur. It's a big business which tends to diminish the educational role of the universities it dominates. Many people piously bleat about the unfairness of affirmative action in college admissions but say nary a word about big time college sports recruiting which actually makes a negative contribution, at least if you believe universities should be places for learning and scholarship.
152. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:25:53 PM
There were a lot of Stanford wanna-bes at Northwestern.
Good lord, you make NU sound like a 2nd rate school. I'm sure there are many NU wannabes at Stanford, as it's easy to think of several fields and subfields where Northwestern is easily better.
153. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:28:22 PM
Laura C Message # 145
Why worry about the return on your tuition investment if you're not paying the bill? Will the economics and history departments decline, while English and art history soar?
Well, if the purpose of education is to maximize monetary return -- kind of a repugnant notion in general -- it doesn't matter who pays the bill or how much it is. Students will want to choose majors that lead to the most lifetime income for them, and that change is not affected (in any direct sense) by the tuition they pay.
154. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:36:15 PM
Arky, re. some early message around 8 or so on "teaching to the test" --
If it's an easy test and teaching to it doesn't require any reworking of class material, then by definition teaching to it isn't harmful.
If on the other hand your state hands down comprehensive, point by point standards, all of which could be on a test, which is made very salient to teachers as a performance benchmark, then teaching to the test will require a reworking of curricula.
And it's not then the case that someone who is "already teaching" the extra-standards things we find useful -- creativity, future interest and willingness to learn, citizenship, etc. -- will not let those suffer as a result of the new incentives. Teaching those things is not binary, taught or not taught, and more time on them counts. Ask yourself, could you benefit from more time in your day? If yes then at the margin more time is valuable, and then any reallocation of your time forced upon you by the higher-ups cannot (in your judgment as implied by your current allocation) improve the overall education of your students.
155. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 8:46:12 PM
What matters to an increasingly large number of graduates is the size of their student loans and their credit card balances. I have a niece who is working as a social worker, and who has a second job, trying to pay off huge student loans from undergraduate and graduate school. CityCorp just raised the rate on her balance to 19%, despite the fact that she has never missed a payment. If she were a lawyer or $100,000 MBA grad it would be one thing, but for a $30,000 social worker it's almost impossible.
156. Autodaffy - 3/19/2001 9:56:34 PM
Isn't part of what people mean by accountability the ability to know that someone who is in grade x has learned x, y and z? Is it unreasonable that, in an effort to guarantee a good education to all, that someone tests such things?
There may be many desirable qualities that we do not know how to test for. Knowledge of the alphabet and addition and subtraction are not among them.
157. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 10:02:37 PM
Fine, but tests alone don't provide the answers for correcting deficiencies in the system. These must come from actual changes in specific policies relating to
teacher training and qualifications
class size
school size
length of the school year
funding
curriculum
etc.
Depending on what is done with the test results, harm may actually come from over-emphasis (high stakes testing) on testing. And the wrong conclusions may be drawn from the results.
158. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 10:30:09 PM
Autodaffy Message # 156,
x, y and z are no problem, especially if they are already to be covered at the grade level anyway. If you think that's the content of the push for standards-based education I invite you to acquaint yourself with the new standards in California. It's more like x1, x2, x3, x4...
But in any case you are confusing social promotion with standards. It's one thing to say that there are standards everyone should meet by leaving a certain grade -- your point -- and it's entirely another to think you can (a) specify in those standards all the most useful things teachers can spend their time on (b) design a test to adequately account for them all.
159. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 10:42:43 PM
AR is doing the same thing.
I think the SAT9 is a valuable test. It isn't the be-all-end-all, but it's very useful for schools and states to make some general comparisons and strengths and weaknesses. These state tests, their specific yet vague (how do state ed depts manage that so consistently?) standards, the lack of correlation, meaningful progression, etc, are a bad trend, though, imo. We tried it when Clinton was gov, and damned if they're not pulling it back out of mothballs and turning into a nationwide trend with Bush at the helm. What a nightmare.
160. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 10:43:38 PM
Stick the word "identify" in there somewhere.
161. anomieme - 3/19/2001 10:59:18 PM
Ase,
Belated comment on your post...
"But, why do role-models need to share particular attributes such as ethnicity or gender? I'm not sure I quite buy the role-model idea (partially because I never really had female role-models that I know of). "
I'm not sure why, but if you were a black child in the 60's, your world was full of white doctors, dentists, and school teachers, lawyers, and TV personalities. A black child having no good family role models had very few other places to see successful people like him (her).
"I'm not sure the "role-model" argument is well thought out. What does it mean anyway? What should it accomplish, what are the supposed mechanisms, and does it really work that way? "
Honestly, I'm not sure either. But some things seem obvious. Having role models seemed obvious enough to me that I required no more persuasion.
"One thing I can see is that if professions/workforce are made up of a real mixture of people with different attributes rather than token individuals that can easily be sub-typed, one may get away from phenomena such as illusory correlations and its effect on stereotyping, and singleton effects. "
Token or not, you've got to get the diversity first. We sometimes forget that some children grow up with absolutely no nurturing, encouragment, or goal-oriented (much less education centered) examples. If a child is to aspire from his own inner fortitude, he must have some examples, some evidence that his hopes aren't futile.
162. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 11:04:15 PM
I also think it's important to remember that we're still in transition, no matter how little people see of it--especially whites, who tend to think if it's not observable to them it's not happening, so tend to disregard discrimination, etc. I try to remind my students that I went to a segregated school until 7th grade, and that's not that long ago. I agree with Anomieme's earlier post, that we're not ready to drop some of the efforts at equal access that were established for very good reasons.
163. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 11:08:47 PM
Sure, the SAT9 can be a useful thing. It's not that it can't be. When the politicals provide very high powered incentives to do well on it just because its results are observable, and that is what "accountability" means at the moment around here, they induce teachers to spend less time on other stuff that counts.
164. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 11:16:38 PM
I don't think we disagree. As a high school teacher I've found that kids who do well in class tend to do well on SAT9's, and it helps me identify weaknesses in reading and language skills, as it does for Bob in math. It's a good tool used in that general way, but when it's taken for more than what it can logically function as, then it becomes a problem; but what seems to be happening is that states are simply making additional tests which they identify as testing "minimum standards" (a joke) and adding them to the SAT9s. The effect is to pretty much gut the curriculum and take the joy out of teaching and learning.
And the sad fact is, at least in high school, a teacher who emphasizes what he or she knows students will need for college will find that most students will do just fine on the SAT9, but I don't know that the same could be said for these state-designed tests. (Can you tell I detest them?)
165. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 9:33:32 AM
I think it's interesting that people assume that because a person has a college degree, that person should be able to choose whatever profession s/he likes upon graduation.
166. Laura C - 3/20/2001 9:36:45 AM
Slackjaw -
Well, if the purpose of education is to maximize monetary return -- kind of a repugnant notion in general -- it doesn't matter who pays the bill or how much it is. Students will want to choose majors that lead to the most lifetime income for them, and that change is not affected (in any direct sense) by the tuition they pay.
What wonkers said in 155. Several of my friends would have majored in the humanities, but were afraid of graduating with $80K in debt and being unable to repay it on, say, a starting salary at an art museum. They weren't crass, just anxious and pragmatic. Removing that anxiety frees them to study what they would choose, not what will allow them to service their loans.
167. janjon - 3/20/2001 11:55:39 AM
Laura C - oh, no question that the small number of schools that can match Princeton in terms of eliminating student loans with straight grants will do so quickly. This will have some "competitive" impact, both with other of the Ivies and others that cannot afford to do so, and certainly with the elite public sub-schools you alluded to. But, the numbers of kids for which this is going to be applicable just isn't large enough to cause more than a ripple or two.
I think it is a very healthy development and indeed good use of their endowments. (Harvard's, at least until the last few weeks or so, had grown to 19 Billion.) To me, it is just more of the latest manifestation of the way most of the Ivies/other elites have moved so dramatically from being the schools of the privileged to being schools where the privileged can still get in if they are good enough in terms of matching enough of the criteria the schools now use. Wasn't too long ago that graduates of private/boarding schools (which themselves are also becoming much more egalitarian) made up more than half of entering classes at places like Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Now, hovering at about a third. Same type of parallel in terms of kids who now get some form of financial aid. And, cutting across all of this is the wonderful way in which those schools now are veritable ethnic rainbows. Again, wasn't too long ago (say 35 years) where an entering class of 1000 would have a handful of blacks, even fewer Hispanics and...Asian-Americans.
All of this, to me, represents American education's greatest strengths. It is the great equalizer in this country.
168. Shannon - 3/20/2001 12:07:09 PM
It also wasn't too long ago that the Ivies were all-male.
169. janjon - 3/20/2001 12:27:50 PM
true, but several of them (Harvard, Columbia, Brown) had "sister" colleges (Radcliffe, Barnard, Pembroke). Cornell and Penn have been co-ed for a long time.
170. bubbaette - 3/20/2001 12:31:03 PM
It wasn't so very long ago that the best state supported school in Virginia was all-male. In fact, the last state supported school in VA to go co-ed didn't do so until the 90's (VMI).
I don't think that most entering freshmen in college have any real concept of what their student loan debt means in terms of later repayment. For the past seven or eight years schools have been doing debt counseling for those receiving student loans, but even that is pretty abstract for someone who's never had to pay bills.
171. PsychProf - 3/20/2001 12:33:50 PM
Bubba...absolutely. I am convinced that many, at least freshman, do not believe that such loans are contracted with repayment as a condition.
172. janjon - 3/20/2001 12:35:51 PM
I haven't commented on the point several have made about how being free from student loans will/might encourage kids to seek out careers that don't start out with or even necessarily eventually add up to big bucks. I think that is a valid point. Now, if someone could find a way to make a lot of the lean careers (publishing, both books and magazines is a classic) at least pay more than starving wages (thereby making those who can afford to start out in them almost inevitably children of parents who can and indeed do subsidize them heavily), that also will be a real plus. Probably not possible, because of the classic supply/demand factor involved.
173. PsychProf - 3/20/2001 12:47:37 PM
Erin...I do know that is very difficult to gain acceptance to Northwestern.
174. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 12:49:43 PM
PP: it is.
175. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 10:32:33 PM
THE ISSUE: The effect of teachers
I wonder when it was that a number of Americans came to see teachers and teachers' unions as part of the educational problem. Perhaps someone with access to a lot of data can locate the date.
Teachers' unions, who at least speak for teachers, don't favor vouchers, privatization, accountability, testing, testing for teachers or closing failing schools. The do favor increased funding and spend multi-bucks in elections to increase their funding.
About twenty years ago the reports were that education majors were the absolute bottom of the SAT barrel on entering college. Has this changed? Is this a good situation for our children?
Schools of education have been harshly criticized for a variety of reasons: a single minded insistence on courses on educational methods as opposed to knowledge of the field being taught, failure to teach anything of practical use to new teachers, and teaching methods faddism that has in the trench teachers suffering whiplash as it changes from year to year and as they are top down forced to adapt to changes.
Teachers don't get no respect. Is that justified?
176. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 10:36:39 PM
Here is a simple question for those in the know: In the business world people are fired for failing to perform quite frequently. If you are a salesperson and do not meet quota, you are history. How often are teachers fired for failure to perform? Anyone have figures. My impression is that almost never is anyone fired for failure or, god forbid, simple mediocrity.
Am I wrong?
177. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:40:23 PM
I think it's interesting that people assume that because a person has a college degree, that person should be able to choose whatever profession s/he likes upon graduation.
If you have a degree from one of the elite schools, there's some degree of truth to that. Now a humanities degree from Holyoke might not get you a prestigious Wall Street job, but for a long time it got you recruited from most of the major companies who were looking for management fodder. You could also get sales jobs, marketing gigs, etc. I knew a lot of IBMers and AT&T middle management folk like that.
I can't swear this is still true; haven't run into the sort in a while now.
178. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:42:21 PM
Auto,
Well, firing isn't as certain as all that in the business world. Lord knows I think more should be weeded out.
It's hard to get teachers. You have a percentage who do it for love and are worth three times as much as they are paid, another percentage who do it because they're bottom of the barrel. It's never going to pay well, so I'm not sure there is any real solution.
179. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 10:44:27 PM
Nope, though I agree most ed depts are a big and unfunny joke, including the one I took part in. Secondary ed people don't spend much time there, though. I only took about three ed courses and a few weeks of prep courses for practice teaching. WRT unions, any union represents the interests of its members. No one should expect a teachers' union to advocate for anything but what teachers want. I don't belong to one (despite what Rose says), but their emphasis, at least here, has been on job security rather than working conditions and salaries (except for the big districts--you'd be crazy not to belong to one in that case), and since job security has never been a concern of mine, I see no need to pay dues to such an ineffective group.
180. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 10:47:16 PM
Oops. Got distracted before hitting post. Mine's to Auto's original post '75.
181. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 10:52:25 PM
Teachers' unions, who at least speak for teachers, don't favor vouchers, privatization, accountability, testing, testing for teachers or closing failing schools. The do favor increased funding and spend multi-bucks in elections to increase their funding.
Says who? You? I don't think you've supported this contention, and it certainly is counter to what I know about some of these issues.
And of course teacher unions support increased funding. The single most important factor that determines teacher salaries, regardless of supply, quality or any other factor, is the financial constraints of local and state funding. In addition, anyone who's ever worked in public education knows that schools are constantly being asked to provide additional services, additional skills, additional programs, all the while facing stagnant or declining real budgets.
And btw, corporations spend huge dollars on candidates that support their own special interests. Do you find this an indictment against them as well?
Here's what I know about some union positions. Unions don't support vouchers generally, primarily because most actual evidence suggests that 1) it won't solve many of the problems currently facing education; 2) it promotes stratification between groups and between schools; 3) it won't address the critical issue of special needs children.
Unions have supported accountability, teacher testing, and higher standards for teachers. However, they also support wage policies that are designed to attract more qualified students to the field as well.
About twenty years ago the reports were that education majors were the absolute bottom of the SAT barrel on entering college.
Do you know anything that's accurate about this subject?
182. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:00:33 PM
Ms. It,
As you love to say, and as most hack academics like to say, your assertions are not supported by data.
183. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:06:19 PM
Well, let's see you one-up her by providing some for you SAT assertion. And make sure coaches aren't figured in.
184. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:08:18 PM
And I must, just as an FYI, point out that in past education discussions Msit has posted more data to support her arguments than anyone.
185. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:12:45 PM
In creating the links to the NEA and AFT today I was surprised at the difference between the public positions that they take towards issues such as privitization, where you get disinterested, intellectual objections to to idea similar to the "it doesn't work" stuff above in opposition to vouchers. But when you go to, say, the AFT's website the emphasis is simply on the threat to current teachers' jobs.
This dichotomy, the claim to have the best interest of students as a motivation, contrasted to the self interest many can see in the unions' positions, is part of the reason, I believe, for the public increasingly seeing the teachers as part of the problem.
Their increasing identification with the Dem party is another. If they throw their lot in with the Dems exclusively, how should the non-Dem rest of America view them other than as a noxious group to be bearded?
186. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:15:45 PM
I will try, arky, to find statistics. I have been a follower of such things for nearly thirty years, and I don't doubt my memory on this. But twenty years is long ago, in internet time.
187. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:16:23 PM
Once again, they're unions. Dues are paid so that they emphasize the teachers' best interests. These are not professional organizations. They're unions.
188. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:18:13 PM
Twenty years is so long ago, I wouldn't consider it that relevant any more. There was a big drop in teacher quality for a time, but increased standards, testing, etc, have helped. Problem is that now there's a severe shortage of teachers.
189. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:23:51 PM
What data?
Your initial comments were the one's unsupported.
Al Shanker has pointedly come out in support of increased teacher standards, increased choice among public schools (what's called intradistrict transfer policies), and has agreed that teacher testing is acceptable if certain protections are in place.
As for your comment regarding education majors, that too is unsubstantiated. What has been true is that education majors, on average, scored at just below the mean of SAT scores among all college students. They were not the "bottom of the barrel".
Recent studies by Hanushek (and Pace) also suggest this is inaccurate. They argue that most of this data comes from the NLS high school studies, which provided data on the aspirations of high school seniors and compared that to their SAT performance. From that emerged a picture that college students majoring in education were drawn from the lower half of the SAT distribution among those attending college.
Note two things here, that is, if you can follow.
First, these studies compared SAT scores among students who actually started college, not all students who took the SAT. Second, the data was based on the aspirations of entering freshmen, and never really accounted for shifting of majors, attrition from the college population and other possible demographic changes.
190. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:24:04 PM
Hanushek's 1994 study actually traced cohorts of students and matched their SAT scores and their chosen major as they moved through college. He found that 1) attrition among the college population is related to SAT scores, with those students at the lower range of the distribution (among college students) having the highest rates of attrition (this shouldn't surprise anyone); and 2) there is additional sorting (by student achievement)and shifting of majors that occurs within the first two years. Thus if you look at students declaring education as their major as entering freshmen and compare their average SAT scores with those who eventually end up graduating in education, the scores are significantly different.
Those who end up graduating with teaching degrees have higher SAT scores than the original freshman population (who declared education as their major), and are above the mean SAT scores for all college students.
But hey, your mantra sounds so politically correct.
191. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:29:00 PM
"Once again, they're unions. Dues are paid so that they
emphasize the teachers' best interests. These are not
professional organizations. They're unions."
Yes, arky, they are unions, but when Sandra Feldman is on Talk of the Nation she speaks only of what is best for children, and never of what is best for the union, although what is best for children in her mind always turns out to be what is best for the union. This is insidious.
192. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:29:38 PM
Arky
I had to bite my tongue not to retort that the bottom of the barrel among college students came from the physical education departments, aka, the student jocks.
But hey, I'm going to play nice.
193. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:31:56 PM
"Al Shanker has pointedly come out in support of
increased teacher standards, increased choice among
public schools (what's called intradistrict transfer
policies), and has agreed that teacher testing is
acceptable if certain protections are in place."
Ms.It:
Do I need to tell you how many years Al Shanker has been dead?
194. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:32:49 PM
What has been true is that education majors, on average, scored at just below the mean of SAT scores among all college students. They were not the "bottom of the barrel".
Allowing for exaggeration, it's pretty damn close. It's certainly not a cheering thought, that's for damn sure. The mean SAT puts them just a bit below our current Pres, doesn't it?
Noting your further explanation (thanks, it was quite interesting), I would say that being just above the mean score isn't all that much more cheering.
Doesn't the average mean score of students intending to be ed majors being so low suggest that often the least able students are the ones intending to be teachers--even if they end up flunking out?
Also, isn't much of the resistance to teacher testing due to the fact that minority teachers often don't pass? This may have changed; the last time I remember this being a fuss was some ten years ago.
195. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:34:43 PM
He was a major spokesman for the AFT for decades. You assert claims about union beliefs. I'm stating his position that was the case well into the 90's.
And you've yet to substantiate any of your comments, just more PC tripe.
196. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:41:21 PM
Calgal
I expected better of you.
First, there's significant sorting that occurs between those aspiring to attend college and those who actually attend. The SAT pool is narrowed.
Second, the earlier studies were seriously flawed. They didn't account for shifting between majors, nor did they account for attrition among the college population.
Once this is done, students who major in education are at slightly above the mean of all college students wrt SAT scores.
Now, as to your other points.
How smart do you want our teachers to be? Do you want them to be rocket scientists? Engineers? Math majors? If so, then the single most important factor preventing the very top of the college student population from entering education in droves is salary, both starting and growth over time. Second will be working conditions. Third will be lack of ability to control their work product.
Personally, I think this issue is a red herring.
197. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:43:30 PM
Woody Allen, in Sleeper, asks what happened to the world after he was frozen like a TV dinner and later thawed in a much changed world. The response: "Someone named Albert Shanker got his hands on an atomic bomb."
198. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:45:16 PM
Ms,
I was quibbling with your rebuttal, not necessarily agreeing with Auto. My first post about it stands (Message # 178)--there are those who do it because they love it, and those who do it by default. The money makes it a given that it's never going to get the best and the brightest unless they happen to also want to teach.
But I do think competency tests are reasonable to shoot for.
199. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:46:24 PM
Finally,
We aren't talking about education majors being just above or below the mean SAT score, as you ambiguously put it, we're comparing SAT scores among college students.
This is a more selective pool to start with. They are not at the mean SAT score to begin with. They have already been sorted by being admitted to a four year institution.
There is additional sorting that occurs through attrition rates (drop out rates). Again, then, the students who graduate will be from a higher portion of the SAT distribution of all college students, regardless of major.
See? This is a red herring.
200. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:47:16 PM
Auto daffy
You are clearly incompetent to lead this thread.
201. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:49:43 PM
Competency tests are also a red herring.
By all means, institute them if it makes you happy. However, it generally only raises the costs to those considering majoring in the field, which, in turn, makes relative salaries look even worse, further discouraging top students from entering the field.
202. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:56:39 PM
However, it generally only raises the costs to those considering majoring in the field, which, in turn, makes relative salaries look even worse, further discouraging top students from entering the field.
But we're never going to get top students unless they love teaching, and that's a crap shoot. So you accept the fact that you will often get those at the lower end of the scale and focus on establishing competency. I don't see how competency raises the costs of a college degree, unless you are saying that it will cost them more money to learn the basics--and I can't much be fussed about that.
203. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:58:23 PM
In other words, the arkies, the phillipdavids and the like--if we accept that the bright, overqualified individual who loves teaching even if they could get paid three times as much in a different profession is the exception, rather than the rule, how would it change our attitude towards teachers?
204. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:00:16 AM
Calgal
Competency tests, if administered as part of a graduation requirement, or as a certification requirement, raise the cost of entering the field. Competency tests take more time, more study, and increase risk. Compare that to the salaries available to college grads in other fields, and the fact that no tests are required.
The effect is an increase in relative costs, not offset by any relative benefits, which act to dampen supply.
Btw, the impact on supply is more deleterious within subfields than at the aggregate level. And the fields most affected are precisely those with the greatest shortages.
205. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 12:04:54 AM
Now there are two types of tests required in many states, the NTE, a standard subject-area test, and a "basic skills" test, which is essentially a joke. Anyone who fails it should go slap the entire board and administrators of whatever college they attended. And yes, some people failed it when it was first implemented in AR, but those people should have never been teaching. Instead, of course, they were tutored and retook until they passed. States don't have the cojones, especially in light of the shortages, to back up anything they threaten regarding teacher requirements or accountability.
206. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:06:03 AM
Competency tests take more time, more study, and increase risk.
I can't believe that any competency test will take more time, study, and risk for a "top student". Not if the competency tests I've seen are any indication.
I suppose it is possible that competency tests will induce those who can't pass the test easily to become bartenders and cabdrivers, or try the real world as a college grad and see if they can buck the odds and not get fired. (Note: operating on the assumption that the usual ed major is the "just above the SAT mean" sort.)
But am I wrong in my memory that competency tests are primarily opposed because of their impact on minority teachers? Which brings us roundabout to the SAT issue again, if so.
207. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:06:12 AM
And yes, there will always be a small group of high achievement (by tested scores) college students who enter the field because of a vocation for teaching.
Competency testing will probably have a negligible effect on their supply.
I simply don't see the point of competency testing. What is it to accomplish? Where is it to be targeted?
Do we really care if our elementary teachers all come from the top 25% of graduating college students? I mean, they teach young children.
The majority of home schooled kids (which occurs most frequently at the elementary levels) are taught by parents with less qualifications (as measured by tested scores) than most elementary teachers, yet their children don't seem to suffer for it.
208. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:08:37 AM
Arky,
Message # 205. Exactly. If it increases the cost of graduation to pass a basic competency test, then by all means, toss the bugger out. It seems little enough to ask for. I don't think a subject area test ought to be that onerous--a reasonable score on a test the equivalent of the SAT II isn't that much to ask for high school level instruction, is it?
209. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:11:22 AM
Do we really care if our elementary teachers all come from the top 25% of graduating college students?
No. Competency and excellence are entirely different things. I'm taking it as a given that we won't get the top 25%. That's one of the reasons why I dislike the obsequious tone some people get when they talk about the noble profession of teaching. Many of them teach because they can't compete with the real talent. So we should view them as workers--singling out the excellent ones to teach the gifted kids, ideally.
As for homeschoolers, I still wonder what the stats are on their math and science scores.
210. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:12:27 AM
Calgal
You don't have to believe me wrt any sort of test rasing the costs of entering a field. It's been well documented by lots of labor economists and by those studying choice of college majors among students.
Any test, any increase in required classes, any increase in the total units required for a major, will raise the cost of obtaining a degree, and cause attrition from either the field or the college population.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a clear effect.
And of course those at the top of the achievement distribution face lower costs than those below them, it's one reason colleges have minimum SAT requirements to begin with, to minimize attrition due to these costs.
But we aren't going to generate a large enough supply of teachers by only trying to draw from the top of the achievement distribution because education cannot compete with other fields for those students. It can't compete wrt salary, working conditions, salary growth, benefits, or professional development and advancement.
211. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:19:25 AM
Ms,
I wasn't doubting you. I was saying instead that if basic competency raised the cost, that was a price I could live with.
I keep on saying that I don't want to draw from the top of the achievement distribution. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think we should stop fooling ourselves about it. Accept the fact that most teachers are not anything special, quit spouting nonsense about it as a noble calling, and accept the fact that most of them can teach kids what they need to know and that's quite enough. Pay the top level folks who show up a lot more money and give them the AP courses and the "smart kids".
212. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:23:13 AM
Calgal
Wrt competency testing and minority teachers:
probably the opposition is based to some degree on the increased risk competency tests pose for this population. And there are no easy answers.
Qualified minority college graduates are still in an advantageous hiring position. Firms compete to maintain, or increase, the diversity of their workforce, and they can pay for it. Education is in even a more disadvantaged position wrt attracting highly qualified minority students to the field than they are with the general student population.
Its really a mess.
213. Autodaffy - 3/21/2001 12:23:46 AM
Ms.It:"Auto daffy
You are clearly incompetent to lead this thread."
Thank you for sharing. If you want to leave, do so. Your invective tonight has been the least temperate voiced so far in this thread. I have agreed to host, not "lead," this thread.
214. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:28:34 AM
Autodaffy
We'll have to agree to disagree as to what monitoring a thread entails.
And if I'm the most invective this thread has gotten, I suggest you need some reading glasses. You're just mad cause you've been shown to be wrong.
215. Autodaffy - 3/21/2001 12:30:44 AM
Yes, and Albert Shanker has said...
217. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:35:13 AM
Btw
How long ago did Shanker die?
(hint: 1997)
218. Slackjaw - 3/21/2001 1:41:16 AM
LauraC Message # 166
They weren't crass, just anxious and pragmatic. Removing that anxiety frees them to study what they would choose, not what will allow them to service their loans.
But that's not the same as trying to maximize income -- that's trying to have fun with school subject to the constraints of paying off your loans. But the same choice of m maximizes both f(m) - t and f(m) - 0. The income maximizing choice is not affected by tuition costs.
219. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 7:06:43 AM
Missie..."Do we really care if our elementary teachers all come from the
top 25% of graduating college students? I mean, they teach
young children."
I'll think about this before I respond, but it's kind of a scarie statement.
220. bubbaette - 3/21/2001 8:27:23 AM
The notion that high school students should go into the teaching profession based on their love of teaching doesn't take into account that most really haven't any experience teaching to know whether they can do it. Per my conversations with my sis, learning a subject and teaching it are different. I would add to Missy's winnowing process student teaching and first few years of teaching to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The teaching profession has also been a political football for the past 20 years at least. There are loads of armchair quarterbacks who are quick to opine that teachers are overpaid lazy and ignorant, but who can't even instill discipline in their own kids, much less a classroom. Because teaching is the largest expenditure of local government and one of the largest expenditures of state government, and because most households don't have children in the schools, there's constant pressure to do things on the cheap. Given that there's so little respect for the teaching profession, that it's not very well-paid, and that teacher bashing has become a political sport, it's little wonder that students who have more lucrative and respected career opportunities aren't clamoring to enter the teaching profession.
221. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:07:34 AM
Okay, I've had a good night's rest.
First off, I want to apologize to Autodaffy. I should not have called him an idiot.
Second,
PP, I'd like to think we could recruit teachers primarily from the top of the college student population, but that's simply not going to happen.
Not only is the salary inadequate to attract large numbers of these students the growth of wages and opportunities over time is also inadequate to retain the them.
Add to this the significant change in public support for teachers in the classroom, and I'd have to say that most people who have the opportunity to leave teaching for higher paying and more autonomous work do so. In fact, among teachers already in the profession, those who leave tend to be those who have the most employment alternatives available to them, which includes significantly higher pay.
This doesn't mean that the teachers who remain don't have alternatives, only that the wages they'd be able to obtain aren't significantly higher, so this doesn't act as a factor for them leaving. Those who do stay in teaching, therefore, tend to be those who majored in english, languages, the arts, and the social sciences.
222. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:07:46 AM
One additional comment. Earlier Calgal stated that we should abandon the notion that teachers are anything special, that they should be seen as typical workers. This is also incorrect.
College graduates are not the typical worker. The average level of educational attainment among adult workers in this country is about 12.8 years of education, this may have reached 13 years in the latest census data. To say that teachers are grunt workers, undeserving of respect as professionals, because they don't come from the top 25% of college graduates is not only inaccurate but also adds to the public misperception about teacher quality.
This isn't to say that there aren't bad teachers. God forbid I'd be the last one to say that, but the data doesn't suggest that teachers are generally incompetent. Like any profession, there will be excellent teachers, good teachers, adequate teachers and very bad teachers.
I support any policy that weeds out bad teachers, however, I also recognize that such policies have reprocussions. They affect total teacher supply, and they affect teacher supply by field. Putting such policies in place without also addressing how they will add to current teacher shortage problems is not only shortsighted but irresponsible, and harms public education more than it helps.
223. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 9:22:55 AM
Missie...I often here this refrain from psyc majors/MAT wannabes, when it come to teaching math at the elementary level..."Well, they are just kids"...that is what I was responding to. Is there some literature which suggesds that cognitive development is not important for children , that I have indeed missed, I ask?
224. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:28:11 AM
Well, actually, I have some other comments regarding this issue of what constitutes excellence in teaching.
I also challenge the notion that we can identify high quality teachers soley by culling out those who are below a certain acheivement level in the college student population.
Consider my comment above regarding elementary teachers. Teaching elementary children takes a lot more than just performing well on the SAT. The elementary grades are critical to developing a child's love of learning, love of knowledge, and sense of competence in school. Teachers who work with this population need to know more than just content specific knowledge, they need to have skills in working with children as well.
They need to have flexibility so that they can adapt their knowledge base to different learning styles and different paces of learning among young children. We lose kids in elementary school and we stand a good chance of losing them for good in the education system.
We want teachers who are great at inspiring children to learn reading, basic writing, develop their imaginations, spur their interest in the sciences and the wonders of math; to instill a love of learning and to foster children's natural inquisitiveness. I'm more interested in attracting and retaining such teachers at the elementary level than in ensuring they come from the upper range of the college student population.
225. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:32:07 AM
PP
I think you read too much into that comment. We should have teachers who are well grounded in cognitive development in elementary classrooms, no question. We should have teachers who are capable of fostering the development of children on many levels, not only intellecual.
But I challenge you to defend that we need rocket scientists in the elementary classroom. We need people who have a good grasp of the concepts they must teach, this is different than requiring they be the best and brightest minds in those fields.
226. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 9:35:05 AM
Ivory...but how can you teach the "wonders of math" if you are not good at it, don't like it, and have avoided it at all levels of previous education? This is what I am concerned with. Although I cannot quote chapter and verse stats, my inclass and counseling experience validate the notion that many elementary school teachers come from this kind of math background.
227. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:39:10 AM
PP
True. This is a real problem. We need to increase the math skills of elementary teachers. I won't argue with you about that.
However, this still doesn't mean we need to be pulling elementary teachers from the top of the college student population. It means we need to require more math skills in those who do go into teaching.
Btw, requireing more math skills in the general college population wouldn't be a bad thing either. I know plenty of people who went through 4 years of college without ever taking a "real" math class for graduation. Same is true for the sciences as well.
Your comments apply to the majority of college students generally, not just teachers.
228. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:41:40 AM
requiring...
and other errors...
229. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 9:43:53 AM
Yes...off to class. You owe me an e-mail, old friend.
230. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:39:15 PM
College graduates are not the typical worker.
Well, we're saying the same thing but from a different skew. I agree that college graduates are not a typical worker. However, the average teacher is significantly less desirable, competency wise, than the average high tech systems analyst, corporate lawyer, or investment banker. Yet there is a lot of rhetoric about how valuable teachers are, how noble their calling. I think instead that average teachers should be viewed as the equivalent of an RN, or an administrative assistant (not a clerical worker, but a skilled office worker, who often has a degree).
I support any policy that weeds out bad teachers, however, I also recognize that such policies have reprocussions. They affect total teacher supply, and they affect teacher supply by field.
Yes and yes. I submit that if we don't have enough teachers to pass a basic (very basic) competency test, then we deserve a crisis and should take the hit. Ideally, you bracket the competency tests with rules that will force a crisis--mandatory termination of teachers who fail the test, holding substitute teachers to the same standards.
If, as is quite possibly the case, most of the failures are in low-income areas I would also expect a program in place to act immediately on schools that have insufficient teachers. But I think forcing a crisis has a lot to recommend it.
Open Question: if teachers with college degrees can't pass a competency test and junior college graduates (or students) can, would you support a school who doesn't have enough teachers hiring uncredentialed people who can pass the competency test?
231. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:46:35 PM
I also challenge the notion that we can identify high quality teachers soley by culling out those who are below a certain acheivement level in the college student population.
Agreed, but keep in mind that I'm not interested in finding high quality teachers. For the most part, I'm not sure they are needed.
We want teachers who are great at inspiring children to learn reading, basic writing, develop their imaginations, spur their interest in the sciences and the wonders of math; to instill a love of learning and to foster children's natural inquisitiveness.
I think this romanticizes kids a bit too much. Not all kids are interested in this. Many would do well just to be taught a solid education without getting dewy-eyed about it.
Now, some kids do have that spark. So I would propose that these kids and the truly excellent teachers, the arkies and the like, be matched up. Pay the superb teachers a lot more and focus them on the smart and/or ambitious kids who want to learn all they can and soak up the learning. Or motivate the smart kid who isn't particularly interested in using his or her gifts.
Obviously, this creates a two-tier system and doesn't have a chance in hell of being implemented. But it also makes a lot more sense than distributing the talented teachers randomly.
232. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 6:35:30 PM
It only has a chance if there are different ed requirements for the two and enough incentives to keep people in teaching who would normally go elsewhere.
Part of the reason there's such a shortage of math teachers, at least here, is that BSE math majors have to take all but one or two of the courses a BS in math requires, and with active recruiting in the universities and nice signing bonuses it's very hard to keep those intending to be math teachers in the BSE programs. Why stay in a lower paying field when you take virtually the same courses without the ed course requirements and make bookoos more money?
233. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 6:37:21 PM
Thanks for the nice compliment, btw.
234. SnowOwl - 3/21/2001 6:50:00 PM
The argument can be made the other way, that is that the kids who are most in need of the truly gifted teachers are the ones who are not performing well and who seem to have no interest in learning.
235. Autodaffy - 3/21/2001 9:40:54 PM
Here is Diane Ravitch's take on two scandals in education.
Ravitch
236. wonkers2 - 3/23/2001 12:15:15 PM
Crazy idea--math teachers should know math and science teachers, science!
237. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:01:23 PM
Well, Ravitch's idea would only serve to increase the cost of educators, which as the Ms points out is not the best of ideas unless we're willing to pony up a lot more money.
238. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 1:03:58 PM
Yes, this crazy idea represents a shift from the notion that how to teach (leaving aside if it can be taught and how effectively) is pretty much all one needs to know.
Another way of viewing it is as another example of vocationalism's negative effect on undergraduate education. You have some departments, like those in business subjects, that pretty much monopolize the undergraduate's credits through major requirements.
I'm curious: my college didn't offer undergraduate courses in education, or journalism, or business subects, although it had outstanding graduate schools in those fields. What is the norm today?
239. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:07:45 PM
Oh, I see what you are saying. That's true--you could still move all the education people to English, history, or math majors without increasing the cost. Just do away with education as a major.
You know, it just occurred to me--you could create a Math Ed degree, or even a Math/Science Ed degree. It wouldn't have to be as demanding as a real math or science degree, but would ensure basic competence in the subjects through the high school level.
240. christipeters - 3/23/2001 1:24:55 PM
I like the idea of a Math Ed or Math/Science Ed degree.
If you eliminated education as a major, when would teachers learn to teach? I know a lot of very smart Math/Science/Engineering folks who really couldn't teach. They can do it, but they can't explain it to anyone but those who really understand it anyway and just need some details cleared up.
Maybe a Masters in Education? Wouldn't that also drive up the cost? Some post-graduate work less than a Masters, (?a year?), plus interning? Cost again.
How about if you want to teach at the high school level (or even 7th grade and up) you have to Minor in the subject? So to teach Math you still get an education degree, but with a Math minor.
241. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:28:16 PM
I'd reverse it--get a major in the subject and get a minor in Education. Particularly in high school.
The fact is that lots of smart people can't teach--but then, lots of teachers that aren't that smart can't teach, either--even with a degree in education. I'm not sure that education classes help either way.
242. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 1:32:20 PM
I don't know, CG. A basic knowledge through the HS level may not be enough. I had too many hs teachers who seemed to know only as much as was on the next two pages of the textbook, and I do not exaggerate.
How can you communicate enthusiasm for a subject, not to mention a firm grasp of fundamentals and their importance in the larger scheme if you don't yourself understand it at a high level? I would exempt only the lowest grades from the requirement of at least a minor in a real discipline. Folks at those levels might need the courses on how to make cut-outs and puppets.
243. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:34:27 PM
I had too many hs teachers who seemed to know only as much as was on the next two pages of the textbook
I should have said a basic knowledge to instruct through high school level. But that works off my previous posts, which says that there should be two tiers of teachers--those for average and those for above average students. Obviously, instructors in calculus, physics, and even advanced history and english require far more qualifications than those teaching basic math.
244. christipeters - 3/23/2001 1:51:12 PM
Yeah, CalGal, I like that idea better - a Major in the subject and a Minor in Education.
I have enjoyed the times I have been a guest teacher (like for Junior Achievement or Engineering Week). I used to even think that I would like to be a teacher except for the money thing, fully realizing that I could live on a teacher's salary, I just couldn't live the way I wanted to. So the barrier was as much (or more) my own greed.
Now, I don't know. I doubt I would have the patience - both for the kids and for the administrative stuff.
245. CalGal - 3/23/2001 2:22:43 PM
I would only want to be a teacher if I could handpick the kids.
246. CalGal - 3/23/2001 2:23:09 PM
Back to the Future:
In all the time I've been online, there have been two ideas posted on education that have stuck with me and, over time, made more and more sense.
The Ms has said (and pardon me for paraphrasing), that if we ever move to vouchers, we may as well declare public education dead. I agree.
Cigarlaw (and has anyone heard from him? I miss him) suggested that all school money be returned to the taxpayers in the form of a voucher--not only to those with kids, but to all taxpayers. People could then turn over their voucher to whoever they like--a relative, a family member, their own kids.
The more I thought about this and combined it with the Ms' idea, the more I liked it--or if not liked it, exactly, found it interesting to consider.
I would modify Cig's proposal, though. The voucher could only be used on a student--or it had to be turned back over to the state. The states would then use that money to run schools for those kids who couldn't afford to go to school. And the voucher would be the same amount for all taxpayers.
So as the Ms says, vouchers would largely end public schools except for the poor--they'd be welfare schools. But there would be some differences. For one thing, it would be to the benefit of the middle class to keep vouchers high, since it will be what allows them to afford private school. Public schools will be using the same money, so poor kids aren't likely to get shorted. Poor relatives could pool their vouchers to send their kids to better schools. It might also serve to reduce the birth rate among the motivated poor working class.
It would encourage charity, for the conservatives who approve of that. It would encourage do-goodism, for the liberals who approve of that.
It still has all the problems associated with privatization.
What holes can be poked in this approach?
247. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 2:46:46 PM
Well, would cig's voucher go one to a taxpayer? Then what happens to children in Catholic households? Similarly, why should the amount a child gets for education depend on how many donors he can acquire? The luck of the draw is not fair. And, I don't see why childless people should have to subsidize those who have children under any system, including the present. The decision to have children is made privately, and the consequences of that decision should be dealt with privately, except for absolute charity cases.
248. PsychProf - 3/23/2001 2:49:31 PM
Here at the University where I profess we have a MAT but no undergrad Eucation major or courses...it's the law in my state.
249. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 2:49:35 PM
I also think that the "death of public education" has lost its scare value. It would be traumatic, but it would be a good thing over the long run. The monopoly has resulted in intolerable incompetence.
250. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 2:51:23 PM
What state is that Psych?
251. Wombat - 3/23/2001 2:57:22 PM
If no one decided to have children, you wouldn't have to subsidize them at all. Think of all the money you'd save.
252. Slackjaw - 3/23/2001 2:59:19 PM
my college didn't offer undergraduate courses in education, or journalism, or business subects, although it had outstanding graduate schools in those fields. What is the norm today?
At elite universities this is still the norm. At large public universities it is more often possible to study in these schools (business, journalism, public policy) as an undergraduate. Some top private universities allow it (Penn-Wharton and Stanford GSB come to mind).
Education is typically open to undergrads even at elite schools, afaik.
Interestingly, the University of Chicago just close its Ed School for good.
253. Slackjaw - 3/23/2001 3:00:17 PM
well how about that...didn't know about pp's #248.
254. Slackjaw - 3/23/2001 3:21:03 PM
Team:
you know those commercials that say we need music & art programs in school because students in them do better academically than students not in them?
Does anyone know how much of the difference is actually due to the programs, and how much is due to the fact that only more engaged and inquisitive students would opt into them in the first place?
255. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:23:37 PM
Well, would cig's voucher go one to a taxpayer? Then what happens to children in Catholic households?
Well, they'd be screwed, wouldn't they? Or maybe they'd have fewer children, too.
Vouchers only return the tax money to parents, but I see no reason for that. Parents don't pay taxes because they are parents, but because they are taxpayers. So if you are to return money for schools to "the people", it needs to go to all of them.
And, I don't see why childless people should have to subsidize those who have children under any system, including the present.
Then why are you asking about Catholic households?
Childless people subsidize education, not parents.
256. Wombat - 3/23/2001 3:24:48 PM
Perhaps music and art programs could make some of the less-engaged students more engaged.
257. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:24:51 PM
Slack,
That article I linked in a while back from the New Yorker made the point that people who enjoy sports are team oriented, people who enjoy liberal arts are tolerant, and so on. So I imagine that it's the latter.
258. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 3:25:15 PM
"Well, Ravitch's idea would only serve to increase
the cost of educators, which as the Ms points out is
not the best of ideas unless we're willing to pony up
a lot more money."
I find it a little funny. Most teachers would say, I predict, "spend more money" is the only way to improve education. But when the issue is getting a better teaching force by raising their requirements we hear that we have to rule out a better teaching force because it would cost more money.
I think we should pay teachers far more than is the case, but not before they measure up.
259. Wombat - 3/23/2001 3:26:56 PM
Just not use your money to do so.
260. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:28:03 PM
I think we should pay teachers far more than is the case, but not before they measure up.
I doubt we ever will, though. The public would have to pony up tax dollars, and kids almost always come last in terms of moneys spent.
That's why I think it makes more sense to consider teachers the equivalent of low-level managers, high level secretaries, and the like: educated, but not the cream of the crop. Then take the cream of the crop--the dedicated bright people who want to be teachers even though it pays for shit, as opposed to the ones who do it because it's the simplest way to get a paycheck--and put them in the advanced classes, teaching the students who need advanced, bright teachers.
261. arkymalarky - 3/23/2001 3:30:25 PM
I'm skimming quickly, but I don't get the ed major discussion. At the University of Arkansas they now have a five year ed program in which the student interns for a full year and finishes with a Masters. There is no more BSE there. At every other state ed dept I know secondary ed majors must take virtually the same courses for a field major as a BS in the same field, as I said some time earlier. Bob had through Cal II, Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, Probability and Statistics...I can't remember the rest of his upper level maths, it's been too long. To get a BS I think it required two or three other math courses, one of which was math history. I've had over 40 hours in social studies and about that in English.
262. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 3:30:27 PM
"Then why are you asking about Catholic households?"
Because I could forsee the objection on this ground. You asked for a poking of holes, didn't you?
263. christipeters - 3/23/2001 3:32:16 PM
"But when the issue is getting a better teaching force by raising their requirements we hear that we have to rule out a better teaching force because it would cost more money."
I don't think we are saying it quite that way. I think what we are saying is that any solution that requires more money just isn't going to happen because the voting public has been consistently turning down any increases.
I totally agree that we should both require a better education and standards for teachers and pay them more. So far, my one vote hasn't been enough.
264. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:32:44 PM
Oh, okay. But the whole point of this particular use of vouchers is that the taxpayer gets the money, not the parent.
265. arkymalarky - 3/23/2001 3:39:27 PM
It's effiency in the spending and administration of the funds that's needed. If I felt like it, I'd go into what's happening in the school where I'm working now and what it's done to teacher morale, effectiveness of education there, community/school relations, etc. It's just too depressing, and I for one would not work in an inefficiently run system unless it were for a lot more money, and then I would be choosing money over happiness. Instead I'd much rather work in a well-run system with sensible administrators who manage well, understand their priorities, and effectively work among the teachers, students, and community.
I'm very impatient, btw, and intolerant to boot when it comes to discipline. I only think that quality is necessary for teachers up through 8th or 9th grade.
266. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 3:46:40 PM
"I doubt we ever will, though. The public would have
to pony up tax dollars, and kids almost always come
last in terms of moneys spent. "
States have tied tax increases to educational improvement recently, I believe. I'm more optimistic than CG. The key is to first improve the public's perception of teachers and schools.
We are at a moment where the gradual increase in spending on education may not continue unless there is improvement. The dissatisfaction is just too widespread. The "more money will get you improvement" con isn't working any more.
What is it, something like three or four out of ten LA public school teachers send their own children to private schools? Anybody know the figure? The well to do, even much of the middle class, send their children to private schools. So who gains if the present situation continues unchanged?
267. Slackjaw - 3/23/2001 3:49:13 PM
Wombat, Cal (256 & 257)
Well for these reasons and others I have to figure it's some of both. I wonder how much. If it's mostly the latter then the results are mostly selection bias and you can't justify the programs on the grounds that they help students academically.
268. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:51:03 PM
Actually, the middle class in the suburbs are very happy with their public schools, for the most part. And well they should be, since comparing like to like the suburban schools do just fine.
People who send their kids to private schools do so for a variety of reasons, even if the public schools in their area are fine.
I don't think you should be optimistic about the public's willingness to spend money on children. Time and again, children lose out. That's probably because middle class parents and above can generally buy for their kids, and poor parents don't vote. Certainly not in the same number as older people.
Besides, the increase in teacher salaries would have to be substantial in order to even possibly draw in higher qualified people, and it's more likely that you'd end up paying a lot for people who still aren't very good.
269. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:53:13 PM
If it's mostly the latter then the results are mostly selection bias and you can't justify the programs on the grounds that they help students academically.
Agreed. I think this is true of sports, too.
I would like to see parental investment in children rewarded by subsidizing. Take away or reduce the credit just for having kids, and increase deductions for investing in education of any sort (including music and even sports). Give poor parents credits towards this sort of things.
Then focus schools more purely on academics.
270. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 4:23:47 PM
Here is a link to an article in the April issue of The Atlantic. It describes closely the Princeton student of today. I link it because Princeton seems to come up often in the Mote, and because it should give all of you a mild case of depression going into the weekend:
Brooks
271. christipeters - 3/23/2001 4:42:32 PM
Interesting article Autodaffy.
Thanks for the link.
272. CalGal - 3/23/2001 4:42:44 PM
Auto,
I'm not sure why you see it as all that depressing. The only way for most kids to get into an elite school is by being driven to get the kind of resume that will get them accepted.
273. Jon Ferguson - 3/23/2001 4:52:29 PM
The only part I find mildly annoying is that these kids are so conformist. Looks like the country will be in good hands, though. Great article.
274. christipeters - 3/23/2001 4:57:26 PM
I didn't find the article depressing.
However, if I did, I could always comfort myself that the article only looked at a specific subset of the college-aged population.
You could get encouraged or depressed looking at different subsets, depending on what you find encouraging or discouraging.
275. CalGal - 3/23/2001 5:01:55 PM
Well, kids who decide to bust their butt in order to get to a private elite school are most likely going to be conformist. I suspect that there are original souls there, but only in and around the fringes.
276. MsIvoryTower - 3/23/2001 6:21:23 PM
Couple of quick points wrt why we have a tradition of requiring everyone to support community (public) education.
First, education has significant social benefits that are captured by society, and not necessarily the individual. Without society's contribution to education private individuals and families would underinvest in education from the stand point of the benefits that accrue to society.
Second, these social benefits are indivisible, and thus create free rider problems if we allow some to be exempt from paying.
One of the most fradulent arguments around is that elderly retirement communities should be exempt from paying for the schools in the district where they reside. This is particularly pernacious when these individuals had children whom they sent to public schools (as in the case of the vast majority of them). And it takes on an even more disturbing element when these same individuals lobby long and hard to retain their social security and medicare benefits, which rest predominately on the productivity of young workers.
277. CalGal - 3/23/2001 6:25:19 PM
Yes, or when they try to disincorporate their little communities from the suburb or city with the children.
It is astonishing how selfish old people are as a bloc. That West Wing episode from a couple weeks ago--quite weak, I thought--in which Sheen says, "Don't mess with granddads" or whatever. Yeah, right. They care about theirs.
278. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 7:35:38 PM
Ms. IT,
"First, education has significant social benefits that
are captured by society, and not necessarily the
individual. Without society's contribution to
education private individuals and families would
underinvest in education from the stand point of the
benefits that accrue to society.
Second, these social benefits are indivisible, and
thus create free rider problems if we allow some to
be exempt from paying."
I cannot understand this. What does "captured by society" mean, and can you be specific as to what social benefits you intend?
What free rider problems? What do you mean when you say some benefits are undivisible?
279. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 9:38:37 PM
Stumbling around the internet in search of data to support remarks I made earlier in this thread, I found these findings regarding teaching in "A Nation at Risk," (1983) a study by Terrell Bell, Secy of Ed.:
"The Commission found that not enough of academically able students are being attracted to teaching; that teacher preparation programs need substantial improvement; that the professional working life of teachers is on the whole unacceptable; and that a serious shortage of teachers exists in key fields.
Too many teachers are being drawn from the bottom quarter of graduating high school and college students.
The teacher preparation curriculum is weighted heavily with courses in "educational methods" at the expense of courses in subjects to be taught.
A survey of 1,350 institutions training teachers indicated that 41 percent of the time of elementary school teacher candidates is spent in education
courses, which reduces the amount of time available for subject matter courses.
The average salary after 12 years of teaching is only $17,000 per year, and many teachers are required to supplement their income with part-time and summer employment. In addition, individual teachers have
little influence in such critical professional decisions as, for example, textbook selection.
Continued
280. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 9:40:06 PM
"A Nation at Risk" continued:
Despite widespread publicity about an overpopulation of teachers, severe shortages of certain kinds of teachers exist: in the fields of mathematics, science, and foreign languages; and among specialists in education for gifted and talented, language minority, and handicapped students.
The shortage of teachers in mathematics and science is particularly severe. A 1981 survey of 45 States revealed shortages of mathematics teachers in 43 States, critical shortages of earth sciences teachers in 33 States, and of physics teachers everywhere.
Half of the newly employed mathematics, science, and English teachers are not qualified to teach these subjects; fewer than one-third of U. S. high schools offer physics taught by qualified teachers."
281. Autodaffy - 3/23/2001 9:55:13 PM
"A Nation at Risk" continued:
Despite widespread publicity about an overpopulation of teachers, severe shortages of certain kinds of teachers exist: in the fields of mathematics, science, and foreign languages; and among specialists in education for gifted and talented, language minority, and handicapped students.
The shortage of teachers in mathematics and science is particularly severe. A 1981 survey of 45 States revealed shortages of mathematics teachers in 43 States, critical shortages of earth sciences teachers in 33 States, and of physics teachers everywhere.
Half of the newly employed mathematics, science, and English teachers are not qualified to teach these subjects; fewer than one-third of U. S. high schools offer physics taught by qualified teachers."
282. Shannon - 3/23/2001 10:34:58 PM
The Atlantic article was interesting. I'd find it mildly depressing, but it is Princeton. As the author admits, it's quite a conservative place.
It is striking to think that college students these days are too young to remember recessions and the Cold War, though. I'm getting old.
283. CalGal - 3/23/2001 10:40:33 PM
I don't even remember recessions, but I'm often clueless and live in Silicon Valley. (g)
The article was often quite sweeping, a very common Atlantic failing. Took a little and made much of it.
284. PsychProf - 3/24/2001 12:03:17 PM
Auto....thanks...I found the article interesting...so a bunch of college students want to work hard and make money. They have a good time and respect their prof's...so?...perhaps you would like a social conscience(yours?), or moral indignation, or political discourse at another level. Nothing wrong with this(and a lot right too), but what am I sposetabe depressed about. I can tell you that at other Ivies I am professionaly and personally familiar with there is plenty of political action...it is just not always "liberal" anymore. My own view is that apathy is a more common condition when a cross section of colleges/university students is surveyed.
285. arkymalarky - 3/24/2001 12:45:31 PM
I thought the need to schedule dates with friends at 7:00 am was sort of a downer, but surely the entire student body isn't like that. As far as the activism, it's not so much that which could be a concern but the lack of indications of independent thought and intellectual questioning in general. We don't live in very politically active times, though, and I don't see anything wrong with a lack of activism per se.
It reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon I used to have on my bulletin board depicting a poli-sci class where the professor is discussing (loosely-used term, there) the Constitution with the class as they diligently write. He first makes a fairly innocuous assertion that the Constitution was merely a repetition of what was already stated in other documents, then after receiving no response goes on to say that it probably ought to be thrown out--still no response, so he begins a string of crazy accusations that Jefferson was the antichrist, etc, while one student turns to the other (still writing) and says, "Man, this is a great class. I didn't know half this stuff!" as the teacher drops his forehead on his podium in disgust.
Then there's the one where a slacker in the back of the class makes some general remark about something in the news being a "blow for free speech, man," and the professor hurries back to his desk in amazement, asks him to repeat himself, then exclaims, "A thinking student! Don't be afraid, young man, no one will harm you!" as though he were approaching a rare animal.
286. PsychProf - 3/24/2001 12:50:25 PM
Arky...I saw no compeling evidence that these students were not imaginative or creative.
287. PsychProf - 3/24/2001 1:05:20 PM
Arky...I wonder if most realize how incredibly difficult acceptance to Princeton is, and what the univeresity requires for such. Highest SAT's/class rank and/or legacy will not just assure anymore...some sort of outside activity that one excels in is a must...debate, journalism, sports, music,dance, acting, hi-tech, etc...
288. wabbit - 3/24/2001 1:12:13 PM
How many of your students do you recognize here?
WARNING: This video is 6.4mb, but worth the wait, imo.
289. arkymalarky - 3/24/2001 1:14:20 PM
I didn't say anything about imagination or lack of creativity. I was talking strictly about intellectual questioning--"challenging the norm" (heh--Ace in one of these classes would be just the thing) in the classroom and what their professors are teaching them. More than one professor interviewed expressed concern over it.
"Arky...I wonder if most realize how incredibly difficult acceptance to Princeton is, and what the univeresity requires for such."
Of course they do, and I know that being accepted and getting to go are two different things (I've posted on that several times before), and that those who make it take it very seriously. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think that's been my focus wrt the article, and I haven't detected that it's anyone else's.
290. CalGal - 3/24/2001 1:48:20 PM
I wonder if most realize how incredibly difficult acceptance to Princeton is, and what the univeresity requires for such.
Well, that's what I said. It's a business, and it makes sense that the majority of the ones going will be rote little automatons--even in their artistic endeavors.
That said, the article I linked in a while back says that the elite colleges also have to specialize. It's not like they're hiring all well-rounded students, but various specialists: specialists in music, in sports, in english, in math, and so on. They all have to look well-rounded to give themselves a leg up, but it's not like they're doing that for any other reason than to make their resume look good.
291. arkymalarky - 3/24/2001 2:03:50 PM
Wabbit,
I couldn't view the video. My computer popped up a message saying it couldn't find a downloadable something for it.
292. Autodaffy - 3/24/2001 6:23:20 PM
Your incompetent leader predicted a Pulitzer Prize as a result of the Lares and Penates' turning on an education thread again.
You read it here Message # 1; readers of the Wall Street Journal saw it today in an essay by Jason L. Riley.
Where's my Pullet Surprise?
293. vw - 3/25/2001 12:19:44 PM
The average salary after 12 years of teaching is only $17,000 per year, and many teachers are required to supplement their income with part-time and summer employment.
Well, this consideration can no longer be used in our discussion of "what's wrong with education". Some interesting facts & figure concerning teacher salaries:
Work Days
Percentages: A teacher works only a 75%-80% portion of the private industry
work days. Which BTW, in most industry that percentage would make them ineligible for benefits. We give teachers a pass on that requirement and give them full benefits for working hours that would be considered "part-time" in any other industry.
Hourly Compensation (assumes 185 days, 8 hrs. per)
Source: NEA
Average teacher salary, 1999: $40,582/yr. Hourly: $27.42
Lowest state average: South Dakota $28,552/yr. Hourly: $19.29
Highest state average: Connecticut $51,584/yr. Hourly: $34.85
(cont.)
294. vw - 3/25/2001 12:20:05 PM
(cont)
Private Industry Comparisons for 1999
Source Department of Labor
White-collar occupations Hourly: $19.70
Sales: Hourly $16.37
Administrative support, including clerical: Hourly $12.80
Blue-collar occupations: Hourly $13.58
Service occupations: Hourly $ 8.77
All full-time workers in private industry Hourly $16.25
Even the worst paid teachers in the nation earn an hourly wage compatible with average white-collar occupations, worked full-time. In fact, teachers in 48 of the 49 states earn higher average hourly salaries than their counterparts in white-collar, private-industry America. North and South Dakota teachers lag behind the white-collar average by under 50 cents per hour.
A Nation at Risk was published in the early 80s. We obviously have corrected (and IMO over-corrected) any kind of salary disincentive there might be to teaching over the last two decades. Quite frankly, teaching sounds like a sweet deal to me.
295. vw - 3/25/2001 12:27:51 PM
teachers in 48 of the 49 states
Uhmm, oops. Of course I meant 48 of the 50 states. I graduated in 1980 with those lower paid teachers ... probably explains my inability to count.
296. CalGal - 3/25/2001 12:29:37 PM
hahahah.
Is there a lot of variance by district?
297. arkymalarky - 3/25/2001 12:35:58 PM
Teaching isn't a bad deal at all if you value time over money and if you work efficiently enough not to be working a lot of extra hours at home. This is not possible before you've been teaching a few years, but I get amazed at career teachers who've been at it 30 years and still work hours at home, yet do less with their students than I do and get no better performance from them. Also you have to be able to say "no" to prevent being dumped on with a lot of extra duties that pay little or nothing extra. For instance, don't even ask me to be a cheerleader sponsor for about a thousand extra dollars a year, or even 2 or 3 thousand. I do an annual, but there's time set aside in the school day for it in addition to the small stipend, so I really don't work more than about two or three days' worth extra on it, and the hourly wage for it looks good, in addition to having one less class for preparation, grading, etc.
The AR contract is for 185 days, and the problem with AR salaries is that they're so much lower than other states and it's causing a serious teacher shortage. The shortage is nationwide because the trend has been for college-educated workers to value money over time, and so potential teachers are siphoned off into other fields where they may work a 60+ hour week, but get paid a lot more--but in AR, even the ones actually left in teaching get lured into TX with signing bonuses and much higher salaries. Of course the downside is that these jobs require living in TX (wink to the Texans).
298. vw - 3/25/2001 12:40:01 PM
Hard to tell working from Federal numbers, which report by state. I could probably visit individual states' sites to find district break-downs but that would mean nobody in the Wing household would have clean underwear tomorrow (grin). But my gut sense is that if there is a difference it probably is no more significant than in any other industry.
Plus, teachers’ unions tend to keep salary/benefits issues pretty consistent across districts. The starting base salary might be higher/lower district to district, but after that increases are consistently applied.
299. arkymalarky - 3/25/2001 12:49:41 PM
It varies significantly (relative term, I guess) from district to district in AR. Salaries in my area alone vary anywhere from a few hundred to five or six thousand. Three or four thousand difference is common. And actually, the base salary can be more constant, since the minimum is set by the state, in addition to the minimum increase required for a Masters degree, which is 30,000. Some schools' increments increase more steeply than others.
300. CalGal - 3/25/2001 12:52:33 PM
I guess when you break it down hourly, it wipes out a lot of the difference, too.
301. arkymalarky - 3/25/2001 1:02:37 PM
Hourly I figured it up one time (when I had an excess of time on my hands, I guess) and it came to about $25 an hour, and that was a few years ago. Very good for where I live. I also meant to add that lots of teachers take on summer jobs, as well. That may be seen as a tragedy, when people say teachers have to work two jobs to survive, but with a two-and-a-half months straight in the summer, I don't think it's any big deal. I don't work summers any more, but if I get desperate enough, I could.
302. vw - 3/25/2001 1:13:50 PM
so potential teachers are siphoned off into other fields where they may work a 60+ hour week, but get paid a lot more
Well, there’s the disconnect. You don’t necessarily make more for working 60+ hours in Corporate America. Most private-sector professionals are salaried. You work 60+ hours to keep your job.
Teachers have a very powerful union that has, in the last 20 years, really done an excellent job at getting fair pay for their members. Now they need to do a better PR job. I can’t think of another industry where after five years of seniority I could earn on average $40,000 for working 185 days. They need to make that a positive and promote it strongly.
Also you have to be able to say "no" to prevent being dumped on with a lot of extra duties that pay little or nothing extra.
Definitely not specific to teaching. Corporate America has more “good for the company” initiatives that employees get sucked into than you can shake a stick at. In one year while working at a large ad agency, I was asked to sit on the Employee Satisfaction Committee, the Client Satisfaction Committee, the Sexual Abuse in the Workplace taskforce, the Diversity taskforce, the United Way Benefit Drive and the Volunteer Connection team, none of which were reimbursed positions and met outside the workday hours.
303. CalGal - 3/25/2001 1:19:27 PM
Hey, vw, don't forget to send in an Oscar prediction ballot.
I agree about volunteer requirements. You just have to be firm about saying no--particularly since they don't necessarily do your career all that much good.
They need to make that a positive and promote it strongly.
The moment they did, the public would become furious at the notion that teaching kids was a cushy job.
304. Autodaffy - 3/25/2001 1:19:42 PM
Here is an article from today's NY Times on a study which shows that SAT prep courses have little effect. Its conclusion would weaken one of the lines of attack on the use of the SAT in judging college applicants. The Times was careful to point out that the study did not distinguish between longer courses and the shorter ones.
Times
305. vw - 3/25/2001 1:36:43 PM
Shit, both the taking of SAT/ACT tests and the preparation for them is one big huge money making operation. IMO, SAT/ACT are near to useless. Their ability to predict college outcome doesn’t even beat checking a kid’s HS attendance record. The most successful predicator of academic success in college is still the HS GPA.
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that some much time, energy and importance is spent on a test that is indifferently predictive, is often erroneously scored and can be “beaten” by spending $1,000.00 to be taught how to guess “correctly”.
306. CalGal - 3/25/2001 1:44:25 PM
The most successful predicator of academic success in college is still the HS GPA.
Are you sure? I read just recently that SATs have the best correlation--but that it isn't by any means perfect.
Also, how did the studies work? All As and a 600 total on the SAT is going to do better than Bs and a 1300?
307. vw - 3/25/2001 2:07:04 PM
I read just recently that SATs have the best correlation--but that it isn't by any means perfect.
Really? Last I knew HS GPA had the strongest correlation with college first year GPA, likelihood to finish college and overall college GPA.
This is slightly dated, but I can’t imagine that it has changed much:
308. CalGal - 3/25/2001 2:11:05 PM
Oh, accomplishment in the same area in high school--that I would buy. That's different from GPA. I will try and dig up where I read it--it was in one of the big spreads since Atkinson's announcements. Also, I think it was talking about overall outcome, not first year grades. But my memory on it is vague, that's why I was asking.
309. arkymalarky - 3/25/2001 2:12:46 PM
"You don’t necessarily make more for working 60+ hours in Corporate America. Most private-sector professionals are salaried. You work 60+ hours to keep your job."
I realize that, but often the salaries are quite a lot bigger in the first place. It's the time-vs-money issue. You might not mind working that much as a teacher, but they're certainly not going to make the pay an incentive to keep the job by working more hours. Also, my above post was to point out that the tradeoff of money for time is negated if teachers let themselves get overloaded.
I also hasten to add that, just as with any other job, it can be very high-stress and very difficult, and many who choose the profession find for one reason or another they're just not cut out for it. Being trapped alone in a room with thirty people who hate you and are in a full state of rebellion every single day would be hell, and with some teachers that's how they end up, for reasons I still have never quite understood. Often they care about the kids and actually work much harder than other teachers, but they can never get a grip on the classroom, and simple solutions that seem to work for others never do for them.
Not being cut out for the type of work happens with any profession, of course, but it seems more prevalent in teaching. The other reason teachers leave the profession is that they decide they can't afford the luxury of time any more and have to make more money, even if it means much less time off.
310. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 2:14:12 PM
I would be very interested to see the data for HS GPA being the best predictor of "College Success"...can someone link this...grade inflation and the level of the course make a simple GPA questionable...the last comprehensive study I read(I will try to find it) indicated that SAT's were the best correlate with obtaing a degree...and this correlation coefficient was between .40 and.45, figures which cover no more than 20% of the predictive variance.
Cal Gal...", and it makes sense that
the majority of the ones going will be rote little automatons--even
in their artistic endeavors."...of the many I have met, very few validate your suggested stereotype...but this is just my impression, and I have no data to cite. But...if it is so...what type of college/university would qualify for a clear difference? Berkely? Goddard? Hampshire? These three are certainly alternatives, but, I guess, just not my kinda places.
311. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 2:16:45 PM
HA..BerkelEy...I guess my dislike of the place showed.
312. vw - 3/25/2001 2:37:33 PM
Cal, I read None of the Above : The Truth Behind the SATs by David Owen years ago (I think they just revised and published it again last year), which is a pretty scathing attack on the SAT’s validity. I’m almost positive that’s where I got the GPA info. Worth a read if your interested.
but often the salaries are quite a lot bigger in the first place.
But that doesn’t seem to be true according to the figures I cited above. When you break it down to an hourly wage even teachers in SD (lowest paid in the nation) are doing better on average than the US population of Sales, Clerical/Administrative and Service workers and they are only $0.41 lower than the average US white collar worker. The US average of all teachers has them making an hourly wage of $27.42, which beats all of the other segments by $7.72 an hour.
And keep in mind, that is only teaching salary. It does not include any income earned by summer work.
I’m sorry; teachers on average are NOT paid badly. When the national average for an individual teacher is $40,582 while the median HOUSEHOLD income for all Americans is $40,816 I’m hard pressed to believe that teachers are paid less than other Americans on the whole.
If people are not going into teaching because they believe it is poorly paid, they’ve swallowed a myth. Pay should not be a deterrent to entering teaching. But that’s all we hear about, how badly it pays. Well, baloney! Again, I know of very few industries where I can make an average salary of 40K+ by working 185 days out of the year.
313. mgleason - 3/25/2001 2:48:42 PM
From the College Board site:
The SAT I and High School Grades: Utility in Predicting Success in College
Summary of the table showing corrected validity coefficients for predicting freshman GPA:
SAT V + SAT M = .56
HS GPA = .59
SAT + HS GPA = .65
314. vw - 3/25/2001 2:52:12 PM
From a Frontline interview with Bob Schaeffer, Director of Public Education of FairTest, a standardized test watchdog group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts
315. vw - 3/25/2001 2:53:06 PM
316. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 2:55:44 PM
Maria...excellent source...I will have to examine the data in more detail, since the "corrected" validity scores seem to good to be true for all the measures(it is harder than hell to get a validity score of .60 or above for any test anywhere). I am also unsure how the correction was calculated. Thanks..
317. vw - 3/25/2001 2:59:48 PM
318. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 3:20:03 PM
VW..I printed out the report and it sez that "restriction of range" problems(ie uncorrected correlation coefficients) are eliminated by the use of "statistical formulas" that correct for such(I"ll have to ask around as to what these are)...page 2...and VW...it is clear from many sources cited there that "overall high school grades predict freshman GPA(this is the common predictive criterion used) better than SAT scores do, but the combination of SAT scores and high school grades is the best predictor of freshman grade average...page 4.
319. mgleason - 3/25/2001 3:32:36 PM
Prof,
There is a more detailed paper in their research report area: Predictions of Freshman GPA from the Revised and Recenterd SAT I: Reasoning Test.
320. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 3:34:02 PM
Gleason rules.
321. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 3:35:46 PM
My printer is laboring.
322. CalGal - 3/25/2001 3:39:31 PM
Why did they recenter the SAT, anyway? I didn't realize until recently that my scores would be much improved under the new system.
323. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 3:50:22 PM
See page 1, under Introduction, of Maria's link... Message # 319
324. Slackjaw - 3/25/2001 5:42:57 PM
NY Times Economic Scene: Class sizes and the quality of education
most amazing thing about this: someone noted that with p < 1 and n in the neighborhood of 30, pn is insensitive to small changes in p, called it a model, and got in on the program at the American Economic Association meetings.
325. Slackjaw - 3/25/2001 5:48:49 PM
Autodaffy
The "social benefits" of education are the benefits that you get from living around a more educated public -- people who can read stop signs, attract employers and economic development, be more informed conversation partners, etc. You obtain these benefits just by living around educated people, whether you pay for part of their education or not. The benefits cannot be divided up and allocated only to the people who pay for them.
Therefore, roughly speaking, there is an incentive for any one individual to undercontribute to education financing, to "free ride" on the contributions of others. (Or to understate the importance of benefits to him/herself, should the actual assessment be related to stated benefits.)
326. MsIvoryTower - 3/25/2001 6:30:08 PM
Some of the social benefits researchers have identified are:
-stronger economic growth
-lower crime and delinquency
-higher tax revenues (higher incomes = larger tax revenues at the same or lower tax rates)
-smarter and more efficient military/police
-lower population growth
327. arkymalarky - 3/25/2001 6:44:47 PM
VW Message # 312,
"But that doesn’t seem to be true according to the figures I cited above. But that doesn’t seem to be true according to the figures I cited above. When you break it down to an hourly wage even teachers in SD (lowest paid in the nation) are doing better on average than the US population of Sales, Clerical/Administrative and Service workers and they are only $0.41 lower than the average US white collar worker."
First, the list of workers that teachers are paid better than are non-college degreed fields. Second, as I've tried to say more than once already, the shortage of teachers due to pay has nothing to do with an hourly breakdown, it has to do with total income. People want more money. In teaching you often don't have the option of working more hours to get it, so if you want more and don't mind working more hours you get a job elsewhere. Summer work is an option, but many people would rather just work one place.
As for teachers' salaries being poor, I never said they were, except AR's are not comparable to surrounding states, so we lose teachers to our neighbors. For myself, I've been teaching 20 years and haven't topped 30,000 yet, and I don't think anyone would argue that it's good pay. It's a parttime job, in a sense, but that doesn't mean squat to people who choose to make more money over having more time.
Basically, you're ignoring the points I have made and arguing different points altogether. If I didn't think teaching was a good deal for me, I'm neither a sap nor a starry-eyed idealist, and I would certainly do something else.
328. Autodaffy - 3/25/2001 7:47:11 PM
Just curious. When was it decided that the standard for judging the SAT or other means of evaluating applicants would be the means' ability to predict first-year or subsequent performance in college?
Wouldn't GPA and college performance be likely to measure qualities other than, say, knowledge? Social skills and work habits, for example, that a genius might lack? Just wondering.
329. Shannon - 3/26/2001 1:06:37 AM
Well, arky, I think we just have to do something about Texas :-) We've got the same problem here with losing teachers.
330. Slackjaw - 3/26/2001 2:12:00 AM
Autodaffy, probably about the same time it was 'decided' that universities wanted to attract and retain future achievers rather than geniuses. A university strives for status and a sound endowment; it gets those things when its graduates are in positions of wealth and power. This & SAT performance must be related to intelligence but that's secondary.
331. PsychProf - 3/26/2001 10:30:06 AM
CAMPUS PC
click on image
332. Wombat - 3/26/2001 10:42:43 AM
This PC stuff reminds me of a party that my students invited me to when I was teaching at a British university.
It was a bad taste theme party. How bad? The invite had on its back a reproduction of a baby seal with a pistol at its head (I believe Greenpeace used this to great effect).
The party was BYOB and all contributions were poured into a huge vat labeled "HIV Positive Punch." It couldn't have been worse if it was really HIV positive.
I went as a mass killer, and sprayed people with evaporating "blood" from a water pistol. There were Hitlers and Margaret Thatchers, and Stalins, and Maos. One of my students had a large knife stuck into a protruding belly, and proclaimed herself a botched abortion.
333. CalGal - 3/26/2001 11:54:29 AM
hahahahaha.
Very good.
334. Autodaffy - 3/27/2001 2:27:21 PM
Here is a link to the text of the Horowitz ad that has created so much news in the last week or two.
Reparations
I will also add a link to FrontPage, the mag that contains it. There are pro/con statements there.
335. CalGal - 3/27/2001 2:52:21 PM
Federal Court Rules Against Law School's Admissions Policy
What is the difference between this ruling and the one last year?
336. robertjayb - 3/27/2001 4:02:23 PM
This is probably old and familiar stuff to most here, but this NYTimes article caused me to wonder if programs such as jigsaw classrooms and friendship coaching are actually used very much at all.
No One Left to Hate: Averting Columbines...
Dr. Elliot Aronson, a social psychologist and author, has a teaching plan that forces students to work together and may help curb school violence.
337. CalGal - 3/27/2001 4:10:51 PM
As I've said before, I think he is wrong in attributing the Columbine type of violence to humiliation and bullying.
As a separate issue, I think bullying is bad, but I'm certainly not willing to compromise education on the off chance that this will make it go away. I think group learning and group projects are a lousy idea, as a rule. It enables the weak students to coast and the bright students either do all the work or are slowed down--or both.
338. wonkers2 - 3/27/2001 4:31:00 PM
The decision last fall, in a separate case, ruled that University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy is constitutional. The U.S. Circuit Court? ruling is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as I recall.
339. wonkers2 - 3/27/2001 5:03:58 PM
And U of M announced this afternoon that it intends to appeal the Law School case because it believes its admissions policy is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bakke.
340. wonkers2 - 3/28/2001 8:02:34 AM
THE LAW--Editorial Page Cartoon, Detroit Free Press
Cell 1: White Judge to black student:
"I am the law. I said you could be enslaved because of your race."
Cell 2: "I said you could be prevented from voting because of your race."
Cell 3: "I said you could be stuck in segregtated schools because of your race."
Cell 4: "I said you could be forced to the back of buses because of your race."
Cell 5: Black student to judge: "Could I be admitted to University of Michigan Law School?"
Cell 6: Judge shouting at student: "WHAT, BECAUSE OF YOUR RACE?!!"
Mike Thompson, Copley News Service
341. Autodaffy - 3/28/2001 12:27:45 PM
Here is the NY Times' coverage of the U. of Michigan Law School decision yesterday.
Michigan Law
342. Autodaffy - 3/28/2001 12:32:15 PM
Here is the NY Times' coverage of the U. of Michigan Law School decision yesterday.
Michigan Law
343. Autodaffy - 3/28/2001 12:47:59 PM
Here is an opinion piece by Richard Rothstein in today's Times that addresses the SAT issue. Rothstein, it seems to me, cannot stop treating students as if membership in a group (high achievers in an El Paso school)--and that alone--entitles them to preferences. And that is why proponents of affirmative action keep having run ins with the Constitution.
Richard Rothstein
344. CalGal - 3/28/2001 2:06:10 PM
Auto,
That wasn't how I read Rothstein, although I also disagreed with him. Rothstein is saying that triumph over adversity might make good college fodder, too. He's staying away from the race issue altogether.
Intersting that in the Michigan case the one for undergraduates was summarily denied, no trial. The one for lawschool, which was considered the weaker case, had a longer hearing and won. Also interesting that Powell's statement that there was constitutional support for diversity is not something that ever got a majority of the court's support.
I actually think diversity is an excellent goal, constitutional or not. But the standards have to be reasonable. A C average gets you into the lawschool?
345. Autodaffy - 3/28/2001 6:26:20 PM
Calgal,
"That wasn't how I read Rothstein, although I also
disagreed with him. Rothstein is saying that triumph
over adversity might make good college fodder, too.
He's staying away from the race issue altogether. "
---
No, he isn't staying away from race any more than the Texas and Florida systems stay away from it. Their systems are a sop to racial affirmative action supporters. These systems simply substitute school-district based preferences, which ostensibly will benefit minorities for the old explicitly racial or ethnic preferences.
You will no longer allow affirmative action for select groups? Fine, we will encourage "diversity." You will no longer allow affirmative action for select groups? Fine, we will guarantee seats at the university to some grads from each high school, including an El Paso high school, in case you don't get our drift.
Triumph over adversity might signal merit, but what led him to cite that school as an example of where we might look for it? He cannot say that each and every student in El Paso has triumphed over adversity, but he is headed in that direction by implication.
This standard of future social productiveness or whatever sounds like one more impossible to measure standard that is put forward to weaken the best, least biased standards that we have--tests of knowledge. He speaks of the SAT measuring intellectual agility; when I took the test it measured what you knew, basic things like the meaning of words, finding the main idea in a paragraph, and how to multiply. Calling this "agility" goes over the line into propaganda.
346. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 1:16:53 AM
Being married to a teacher, scarcely a month goes by without my hearing how sick we are for valuing sports figures above educators. And, I did this evening.
Well, we don't. I mean, even if every individual valued education more, we'd still have sports figures making a lot more than educators, because of the economics of what they produce. A sporting event can be made available to 10,000 people, and there's room for 10,000 more. A bit of education, if made available to 30 people, is worth much less to 30 more.
Sports figures produce (excludable) public goods (subject to stadium capacity), while teachers (after they have a very small number of students) produce regular a regular old service that is more costly to make available to additional kids, the more kids are already consuming it.
I mean, that's pretty obvious. So why do we wail about how messed up our values are? The values aren't the problem, the production economics are.
347. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 10:45:15 AM
I agree that as a profession education will never come close to professional sports. Within the educational systems, though, I see the skewed values as a real problem, especially when you consider that the fields taught in high schools and universities affect the entire economy, and that other fields taken together have much more impact than athletics alone.
When a university subsidizes its athletic department and loses money on it while spending far less on its academic programs for which thousands of students (or the government through grants or private organizations through scholarships) pay expensive tuitions, that's where the values become a problem. Those students will do much more to impact the economy than the small portion of the students who go anywhere with athletics, yet they are valued less by the administration.
On the high school level, when a school with low academic performance pours money into a brand new athletic complex and has three times as many coaches as math teachers it has the same effect. That's the situation in the school I'm currently in. They're talking about going to an A/B block schedule from a 4/4 block, so that classes would meet every other day all year instead of every day for one semester. The principal looked at Bob (a math teacher) like he was crazy when Bob asked how the coaches would feel about only having athletics every other day, because of course that option hadn't even been considered. Athletics and band would be every day, all year long.
The economics of school athletics programs in high school and colleges often are way out of kilter, imo. The school I was at last year was either the only one or one of a small handful that actually had a self-sustaining athletic department, largely because they don't have a football program and because they manage to get by with two coaches, both of whom teach classes as well (not that they should be doing that, for the kids' sake, but still...).
348. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 3:09:43 PM
What universities spend more money on athletics than they do on academic programs? I guess it will depend on how you assign the costs of faculty salaries and maintenance of the physical plant. What else would those expenses support but academic programs?
At large universities at least, my understanding is that athletics are a net money-maker. The gains from the revenue sports are redistributed to things like fencing. Which is good, I think, because those below-the-fold sports probably come the closest to fostering the values rhapsodized by defenders of collegiate athletics.
349. PsychProf - 3/30/2001 3:12:32 PM
Now who would rhapsodize about intercollegiate athletics, here at the Mote?
350. Autodaffy - 3/30/2001 3:55:33 PM
Below is a letter to the editor from today's NYT. It struck me as creative. I wonder if Professor Grossman, further following the airline analogy, would want the university to offer a seat in the following class to the bumped students. And how much cash would it take to get someone to give up a seat in the first-year class at Harvard Law?
-----
To the Editor:
One can accept the claim that we have a
compelling interest in diversity, but still object that
affirmative action, as practiced, capriciously
penalizes those white and Asian applicants who
would otherwise be accepted to a college or
professional school, but who are rejected in order to
make room for students from underrepresented
groups (front page, March 28).
Fortunately, there is a solution that would make
everybody happy. Colleges should make provisional
admissions decisions without regard to affirmative
action. Then, if those admitted do not include
enough members of underrepresented groups, the
colleges should ask for volunteers among the
provisionally admitted whites and Asians to give up
their places, just as airlines ask for volunteers to
give up their seats on overbooked flights. Of course,
the volunteers would receive monetary
compensation.
If we have a compelling interest in diversity, then
we, as taxpayers, would surely be willing to finance
this scheme generously.
HERSCHEL I. GROSSMAN
New York, March 28, 2001
The writer is a professor of economics at Brown
University.
351. PsychProf - 3/30/2001 4:11:49 PM
Perhaps he will offer his job to such.
352. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 4:19:58 PM
how much cash would it take to get someone to give up a seat in the first-year class at Harvard Law?
(expected discounted lifetime earnings after attending Harvard) - (expected lifetime discounted earnings from next best alternative) + (psychic benefit of being able to drop the H-bomb at cocktail parties)
353. PsychProf - 3/30/2001 4:23:17 PM
Hahaha...the ole H-bomb....hahahaha...lotta truth to that Slack.
354. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 4:54:57 PM
"What universities spend more money on athletics than they do on academic programs?"
Not as a whole, but department to department.
As far as whether they're net money-makers, I only know that they're not in AR--if I recall, not even the Razorbacks are, and in many of the smaller universities they're a real financial drain.
355. mgleason - 3/30/2001 4:59:07 PM
Arky,
What's the rationale behind switching to such a schedule?
356. CalGal - 3/30/2001 5:04:04 PM
I believe that athletic programs lose money, for the most part. As the article I linked in a while back demonstrates, some universities are basically forced to field teams to keep in line with Title IX.
357. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 5:39:10 PM
MG,
Who knows? I'm quitting that place partly because I'm at a loss to figure their rationale about a lot of things.
Truly, though, he schedule change idea comes from the community. Most within the school don't want to change, and they very well may not. PhilipDavid is on an A/B block, however, and likes it. The main reason many parents support it is because they want academics, especially math, taught all school year without going back to a regular 7 period day.
358. CalGal - 3/30/2001 5:42:22 PM
Slack,
The gains from the revenue sports are redistributed to things like fencing. Which is good, I think, because those below-the-fold sports probably come the closest to fostering the values rhapsodized by defenders of collegiate athletics.
Did you read the New Yorker article I linked in? It demonstrates that this assumption is unfounded. Fencers are recruited just as thoroughly as football players are, and at the elite schools standards are dropped considerably for all athletes.
359. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 5:42:44 PM
PS--were it not for my personal situation in this particular school and my basic disagreements with their administrative policies and educational philosophy, block scheduling is a teacher's dream. I love my schedule and regular workload. Were the school more efficiently run, it would be the easiest, least stressful job I've ever had (which is not saying it would necessarily be the best).
360. CalGal - 3/30/2001 5:43:46 PM
Isn't block scheduling when they increase the class time and decrease the frequency?
362. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 5:49:31 PM
Cal,
Yes. In the 4/4, which I'm doing now, the classes are 90 minutes and there are only four a day. I have a 90 minute preparation period, 90 minutes for the yearbook, and two 90 minute classes (English and oral com/tech writing), which reduces my grading and preparation load immensely, while giving me more time to prepare. Classes switch at semester, so for me (not some teachers whose courses change), I get a whole new bunch of kids and just redo what I did first semester.
The important question, though, is Why do I still stay behind?!
For the kids, the advantage (?) is longer blocks of instruction time, fewer classes to keep up with, and more possible credits in a year. For stuff like athletics, they get 90 minutes all year long to do their thing.
363. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 6:05:16 PM
Arky Message # 354
Not as a whole, but department to department.
Well that comparison is a bit misleading; compare the semiotics department budget to the residence hall budget...good lord, why do we value students' living quarters so much more than their education? Compare part to part, or whole to whole.
Frankly I don't have a problem with schools funding athletics if they are a net financial drag. That is not per se evidence that athletics are too important, more important, or even the tool of satan. In doing so they subsidize not only participation for the athletes but cohesion and cheap entertainment for the students.
364. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 6:05:52 PM
Cal, I did see it, but we have to be careful about the implications. First, we are not only talking about elite schools, and the Indianas of the world don't have to drop their standards too far for the badminton team. Also, elite schools may lower the standards just as much for fencers as shuffleboarders, but that doesn't mean the constraint binds as often in the one case as the other. In addition, there is something noble about working hard on a sport even though it will never bring the glare of public attention. That is true whether the athlete working on it is as good as the average student or not...and that is relevant in deciding whether to subsidize these sports or not, the point of my post.
I mean, if there are certain values we think sports instill, and that it's appropriate for universities to foster those -- and that is what I'm talking about -- why is it relevant that at some schools the people who play those sports are inferior students?
365. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 6:07:35 PM
Compare part to part, or whole to whole.
...and, if part to part is the choice, give every academic department its fair share of university operating expenditures, physical plant expenditures, etc.
366. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 6:09:40 PM
"Well that comparison is a bit misleading; compare the semiotics department budget to the residence hall budget...good lord, why do we value students' living quarters so much more than their education?"
Well, why should the athletic department's spending be compared to the entire university's academic programs combined? It's one department--if you take it alone and compare it to a university's math/science complex it still gets a disproportional amount of university spending devoted to it on many campuses.
367. CalGal - 3/30/2001 6:13:54 PM
I mean, if there are certain values we think sports instill, and that it's appropriate for universities to foster those -- and that is what I'm talking about -- why is it relevant that at some schools the people who play those sports are inferior students?
But, as the piece pointed out, are the sports instilling the values or do athletes have these values already?
The idea of athletics, originally, was that it was yet another facet of a well-rounded education. But now athletes barter their ability (often mediocre) to secure a spot at a school where they can get an excellent education that has nothing to do with athletics--and is worth a hell of a lot on the open market. Athletics was just the way in. The rest of the students aren't playing badminton or soccer to further develop their competitive psyche; they aren't doing sports at all.
So a degree from Dartmouth means the same thing, no matter how you got in. You might have gotten in on academic excellence, or because you are black--or because you were a below-average pitcher and played lousy baseball in exchange for your degree.
If all students aren't required to participate and compete in athletics, and if athletes are recruited to play lousy sports and get the benefits of a degree purely because the elite schools need to field a team, then something is out of whack. I see no value to keeping sports teams at all, in that case.
368. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 6:14:12 PM
"Frankly I don't have a problem with schools funding athletics if they are a net financial drag."
It depends on what's being sacrificed to fund it. I agree with you that athletics provide good benefits to the schools, not least of which is publicity that increases support of the community. It's the disproportion that's a problem, especially in smaller universities.
369. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 6:14:36 PM
Athletics are not a "department" in the same way that sociology is a department. It is an administrative unit of the university which has subunits (athletic programs), just like the School of Arts, Letters and Science at your favorite university.
Also, I would like to know, how are the fixed costs of running university academics reckoned in your statements about atheltic spending relative to math spending? Is the assumption behind the figures that the math department gets its building rent- and maintenence free?
370. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 6:16:15 PM
It depends on what's being sacrificed to fund it.
agreed
371. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 6:18:41 PM
In bigger universities it is, in smaller ones it often isn't.
Regarding #369, I'm probably having a brain fart, but I don't understand your question.
372. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 6:19:12 PM
Sorry, but all of my post is to #369.
373. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 6:20:29 PM
And never mind--I should be using the word "college" or "school" instead of department. I'm not paying very good attention. Sorry.
374. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 6:21:27 PM
But, as the piece pointed out, are the sports instilling the values or do athletes have these values already?
I don't know, does honesty cause people not to lie, or are they honest because they don't lie?
For some values, of course, practice makes perfect. Some students may incline to them, and those students may be more likely to be athletes, but that doesn't mean the participation can't solidify the values.
Bottom line, chicken vs. egg is a source of some uncertainty. That warrants some support just to hedge our bets.
So a degree from Dartmouth means the same thing, no matter how you got in.
But it does depend on what you do there (get a 2.0 GPA and see how it compares all else constant to a 3.7). If the athletes are inferior students the degree itself will not confer the same benefits on them as on the superior students.
And, again, it's not just a matter of what the top 30 academic universities in the country are doing.
375. CalGal - 3/30/2001 6:31:21 PM
Slack,
Well, yes, it is. Because those top schools are the only ones that significantly limit access.
But it does depend on what you do there (get a 2.0 GPA and see how it compares all else constant to a 3.7).
You can change your degree. Athletes get business degrees more than anything else. (business in the generic sense).
That warrants some support just to hedge our bets.
But the "support" is only given to the athletes, who are recruited only to play athletics. So it's not only chicken and egg, it's circular. What "support" is being provided? As the article mentioned, Brown has to recruit for women's teams. They can't just let those who want to play sign up--if there aren't enough, they get sued for Title IX discrimination. So they have to go out and find female fencers. That's just silliness.
Athletics has become an entirely separate organization from academics. It provides nothing to the other schools, but the athletes gain from those other areas.
376. ranheim - 3/30/2001 7:32:16 PM
LSU must be very different (or lucky) in their athletic programs. (I am not an alumnus - so I don't follow the general school as closely as I do the Athletic Dept.).
Every year for the past 3 - 5 years, the Athletic Dept. - with great fanfare - has presented the General College with a check for $500,000 or more. And this figure will only be greater in the future.
The football program is the largest "cash cow" and has been in decline until this past season with their new coach - Nick Saban.
The basketball program has been under extremely severe penalties; all due to a fued between Walter Byers of the NCAA and former BB coach Dale Brown (they hated one another). Ask anyone in LA and they will point out to you that the U or Minnesota's BB program cheated under direct control of their former coach : Clem Haskins. The penalties that the U of MN incurred were lighter than those of LSU (where no involvement of the coaching staff could be proved despite an investigation lasting years). Why? Again, if you were to ask the sports fan of LA, they would reply : Haskins in black; Brown is white.
The baseball program has been extremely successful with 3 College World Series titles in the 1990s. This makes 3 money making programs at LSU - which is extremely unusual!
LSU in Baton Rouge has approximately 25,000 students; about 1/2 of them take at least one remedial course. So, the Athletic Dept.'s students cannot said to be any "dumber" than the ordinary student.
I cannot see that athletics at LSU is anything but a positive force. Additionally, the graduation rates for athletics is approximately the same as that of the ordinary student. e.g. Shaquille O'Neal graduated during the Winter Session this year.
377. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 7:50:13 PM
Cal
Well, yes, it is [just a matter of what the top 30 academic schools in the country are doing]. Because those top schools are the only ones that significantly limit access.
No, really, it isn't, at least not it you are still trying to respond to my statement and point at present, "below-the-fold sports probably come the closest to fostering the values rhapsodized by defenders of collegiate athletics." This statement is not school-dependent and as such does not rise or fall with the practices of schools that have to lower their admissions standards to fill the curling team roster. Schools where the crew team's GPA is as good as the student body's enjoy a net gain by fostering those values on their campuses, even if we are uncertain whether the activity just selects those with said values or actually develops them. Even so the fact that certain schools might lower the hurdle for athletes doesn't negate the benefit that the quoted statement implies, it just raises an extra cost that those schools have to reckon with.
You can change your degree. Athletes get business degrees more than anything else. (business in the generic sense).
And if students sort this way then a certain major itself becomes the signal rather than GPA. It just pushes the inference back one step.
378. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 7:50:39 PM
But the "support" is only given to the athletes, who are recruited only to play athletics. So it's not only chicken and egg, it's circular. What "support" is being provided?
No, it's not circular. The "support" (not sure why the scare quotes) is the financial means to bring an activity into existence on a campus. If it's "chicken" and that just selects students for values they already have, it has no value-fostering benefits. If it's "egg" and the activities themselves help develop those values in a subset of the student body, there are positive value-fostering benefits that must be accounted for in deciding whether funding these things is worth it. Nothing circular about that; it's just an uncertain prospect. Assign probabilities and off we go.
Brown has to recruit for women's teams. They can't just let those who want to play sign up--if there aren't enough, they get sued for Title IX discrimination. So they have to go out and find female fencers. That's just silliness.
That's interesting but I don't know what it has to do with the point you are responding to. I mean, there are heaps of interesting issues in intercollegiate athletics that don't happen to bear on this point.
Athletics has become an entirely separate organization from academics. It provides nothing to the other schools.
Well they do provide something to the student body and university community. That they does not give anything tangible to the English department is hardly an indictment. The economy of a university shouldn't be directed to the academic units, but to the students.
379. Shannon - 3/30/2001 10:48:49 PM
>LSU in Baton Rouge has approximately 25,000 students; about 1/2 of them take at least one remedial course.
Is it still that high? The admissions standards have been going up--as in they actually have some standards now. And supposedly going up even higher, which I'm not sure will fly. I can't remember what I've heard as the future ACT requirement--but it's higher than the TOPS requirement currently.
I've also heard that they will be cutting out all remedial courses at LSU now that they can shuffle those students to the community college.
380. phillipdavid - 3/31/2001 9:49:34 AM
Message # 362
And one of the disadvantages (acording to a report issued by the SAT a couple years ago)is that students in a 4/4 block schedule don't do as well on the SAT as students who are in year-long classes.
381. joezan - 3/31/2001 9:51:47 AM
arky:
I haven't back-tracked (lazy), but noticed you mentioned above that you're quitting your job?
Do you have another lined up - going back to your old school maybe?
382. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 10:01:24 AM
Yes, Joe, I'm going back home. Actually, I've known since around October. I was there for twelve years, and this year in a different environment about sapped the heart out of me. I love working with my husband, but in teaching that doesn't really mean much day-to-day. It does save money, but I'm just not happy there. The people are very nice and the kids are sweet, but my educational philosophy doesn't match theirs at all, and I don't think the school is run very well.
383. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 10:03:21 AM
PD,
Bob has always said 4/4 is a dream for teachers, but not as good for kids. From my personal observation and experience this year, that could be improved some if the schools were more efficient about the classroom time, etc.
384. phillipdavid - 3/31/2001 10:30:42 AM
Arky,
I agree.
My school went to a 4/4 type schedule a couple years ago at the behest and urging of a few vocal teachers, and we switched back this year after a two year run. Life was easier for teachers, but the students' performance actually slipped.
One of the obvious reasons student performance slipped is that memory and recall aren't fostered and supported as well in longer classes as they are in shorter classes.
385. joezan - 3/31/2001 10:31:24 AM
arky:
Well, you sounded a bit trepidatious going in, but you are to be commended for trying something different at your advanced age (-;.
...good luck to you!
386. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 10:46:44 AM
Hahaha. Thanks Joe. If it hadn't been for the prospect of working with Bob I wouldn't have tried it, and I wouldn't trade that part. Maybe we'll have an opportunity again before we both retire. Of course in my ideal fantasy world we'd have our own school.
PD,
This school's scores on the last SAT9 were pretty bad, and some of the parents blame the 4/4, but there are other reasons as well. Of course, the school's idea for improving scores is loading the teachers down with more paperwork, documentation, and record-keeping. It would never occur to them to free up the teachers' time and encourage more intense and elevated instruction, focusing their energies on the students.
But don't get me started or I'm going to have to head for the Rants thread and spew.
But I thought y'all were on an A/B block, PD? This school wouldn't consider going back to a seven period day. The teacher morale there is already very poor, and since their pay is low as well and the teachers feel overloaded, a complete end to the block would cause a mass exodus of teachers. It's truly the only thing keeping many of them there.
387. Autodaffy - 3/31/2001 11:58:04 AM
I think the care of your pet qualifies as an educational issue:
How to Take Care of Your Pet
388. Autodaffy - 3/31/2001 12:00:21 PM
Although a legal thread, headed by someone knowlegeable a out these matters such as Jones, should address what you need on paper to prove that s/h/it consented.
389. robertjayb - 4/2/2001 8:10:47 PM
What? A surprise...
AUSTIN (AP) - Texas' highest performing students would have to take tougher classes to qualify for automatic college admission under a bill given preliminary approval by the Senate on Monday but criticized by many of the chamber's minority lawmakers.
Under current law, Texas public universities must admit students who rank in the top 10 percent of their graduating class.
That system has encouraged some students to take easy courses to get the best grades, said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio.
His bill approved Monday by a 24-5 vote requires students to take college preparatory classes to qualify for the college admissions program.
The bill must still get final approval, possibly Tuesday, before going to the House, where opponents predict it will face strong resistance.
390. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 9:06:19 PM
arky
Of course in my ideal fantasy world we'd have our own school.
Why not start your own school? I'm sure you could manage it.
re SATs
I hated high school, skipped tons of classes, got lots of D's and a couple of F's and still scored 1420 on the SAT (no prep courses). I think that there's very little a teacher can do, except in certain, exceptional cases.
392. arkymalarky - 4/2/2001 11:54:55 PM
Jon,
Basically because I'm up to my ears in debt.
Really, though, I do live in the boonies and there's not a good market for a private school around here. People with the bucks are big supporters of their local public schools, because their money and pull with the school boards and administrations (being a small area they know them all--belong to the same country club, golf together, etc) give them a lot of the benefits a private school would. When we retire Bob and I might tutor some, especially SAT and ACT prep.
Plus, the IRS would be after me in no time the way Bob and I would probably keep books.
393. arkymalarky - 4/2/2001 11:57:51 PM
Re SAT, you're right to a degree. Recently, one of Mose's friends, who's basically raising himself, got a 31 on the ACT with no prep and barely getting through high school. Prep can help, though. Almost without exception, students who take ACT prep courses around here raise their scores at least two or three points.
I wish we did SAT around here more. I'm really just not familiar with it at all. Juniors take the PSAT for certain scholarships, but rarely take the SAT.
394. Autodaffy - 4/3/2001 3:53:17 PM
Here is a column from the WSJ on how the diversity argument put forward by the U. of Michigan is likely to be received by the Supreme Court. It refers to Justice Powell's comments about diversity in Bakke, where his opinion was pivotal.
On Diversity
395. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 4:02:26 PM
From a colleague of mine, received in a recent e-mail...
As part of my ongoing study of the effectiveness of coaching on the SAT's, I will again be offering a course this summer covering the math portion of the SAT's for students who are currently high school juniors and will be entering their senior year in the fall. The course will be limited to 12 students, and will meet on Monday and Wednesday nights for five weeks from July 9 to August 8. The course will include both classroom instruction and individual tutoring. When I taught the course last summer, eight of twelve students increased their scores by 70 or more points. Five increased their scores by 90 or more points. Tuition for the course is $200."
396. Autodaffy - 4/3/2001 4:13:16 PM
Psych,
Do they take the SAT in their jr. year, then the prep course, and then retake the SAT? And when do most students take the SAT, jr. or sr. year?
Do you know if on average scores improve (without test prep courses) on a second testing?
397. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 4:25:40 PM
AD...generally...Soph or Jr year PSAT, jr/senior year SAT...general improvement on SAT vs PSAT....multiple scores/tests on the SAT's may go up or down, but some(as in my colleague) believe there is a practice and a "Know-How" effect that is substantial.
398. ranheim - 4/3/2001 4:32:59 PM
#389 Robert
Minority members of the LA House and Senate scream like stuck pigs every time a suggestion that certain courses have to be taken to eligible for the TOPS Program in LA. This year there may be some progress. The amount of money being spent on the TOPS Program is currently open-ended. And the dollar amount being spent has far surpassed all predictions. Some legislatures are going to demand tougher standards. And because of the money issue, they just might win this time. For the state of LA claims that they are broke.
399. LimeGirl - 4/3/2001 10:06:23 PM
400. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:08:10 PM
hahahaha! That's great.
401. Autodaffy - 4/4/2001 12:37:26 PM
The NY Times has a front page article on MIT's intention to make all its course materials available on the Web. There are private companies with online universities in the works, and bricks and mortar universities have been moving to offer courses online. This for-free availability may will undoubtedly have an effect on them.
Does anyone have any experience with a good online instuction site? Did it make use of the computer's abilities, or was it like the early programs I saw in the 80s, a workbook with page turning by the computer?
MIT
402. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:41:04 PM
You beat me to it!
I think MIT has the right approach. Maybe it won't happen that an enterprising teacher in Bangladesh--or even in Harlem--would download the course material to teach it to their brightest high school students. But it's nice to think that it could.
403. robertjayb - 4/4/2001 4:52:03 PM
All of our students are just about average...
404. CalGal - 4/4/2001 8:24:58 PM
Judge Rebuffs Law School at Michigan
Judge Friedman's decision last week included an injunction against the law school's affirmative action admissions program, but administrators at the school hoped that he would grant a routine suspension of the injunction while the ruling was on appeal.
In rejecting that request today, the judge wrote, "Defendants are not irreparably harmed by an injunction that requires them to comply with the Constitution."
"Even if a higher court rules that assembling a racially diverse class can be a compelling state interest, defendants cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence that their use of race is not narrowly tailored to the achievement of that interest," he added.
...
Meanwhile, the law school is not making any more admissions offers, because its old system has been declared unconstitutional, and, administrators say, they do not have time to devise a new approach that ignores race.
Oh, come on. It can't be that difficult.
405. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 8:33:30 PM
Judge Friedman screwed Michigan Law School, and now he's rubbed salt into the wound for no good reason. Must be gunning for a professorship at Ave Maria Law School.
406. CalGal - 4/4/2001 8:38:10 PM
He screwed them? Hardly.
407. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 9:04:31 PM
The decision came out on the eve of the issuance of acceptance letters. Everybody knows the case is going to the Supreme Court. The gentlemanly thing for Friedman to have done if he weren't such a prick would have been to have stayed his ruling at least for this year's admissions. In the great scheme of things, perhaps it won't matter, but Michigan will probably lose some good students, minority and non-minority, due to the needless confusion and uncertainty injected into the situation by Judge Friedman.
408. Autodaffy - 4/4/2001 9:53:15 PM
I thought the letters had gone out already. I wonder if this means that whites with scores as low as the minorities admitted under the plan ruled unlawful must be admitted. If so, will the first year class have a few hundred more members than the second year class?
409. Autodaffy - 4/4/2001 9:55:15 PM
Robertjayb:
Thanks for the link. Informative.
410. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 10:12:42 PM
Ad, you may be right. In any event this year's admissions process is affected by the judge's decision.
411. Autodaffy - 4/4/2001 11:24:17 PM
The Rico statute has been used to attack anti abortion groups who systematically attempt to prevent the exercise of abortion rights. Does anyone know if the same law could be used against universities, who meet and plan policies like the Michigan one now at issue, that systematically discriminate against whites? Why is it that universities are free to invent illegal procedure after another to suppress constitutionally guaranteed rights?
412. LimeGirl - 4/5/2001 2:00:35 AM
I really think that programs to encourage minorities to apply to colleges (undergrad, that is) should start in 9th grade. And there's some programs like that starting in the Seattle area that were offered only to low-income schools who agreed to work with kids throughout the high school experience, and then they were guaranteed that they'd have the money to go to college.
I may be getting some of the details wrong, but that is the kind of program that I really think is needed -- then those kids know all through high school that college is an attainable goal, and so they have reason to work hard in their classes. Dropping the required scores/grades for minorities doesn't seem to be as good of a method as making sure that they'll really be able to succeed.
413. jonesatlaw - 4/5/2001 3:16:01 AM
I have known two Michigan law alumni, one an extremely annoying pissant who was already convinced of his inherent superiority to the practicing attorneys he clerked for, and the other was a good old country judge in the Sam Ervin style.
I hope that the outcome of the litigation is the realization that not all those accepted to Michigan, or any other highly regarded law school, deserve to be greeted with hosannas merely because of their attendence at a name school.
414. Autodaffy - 4/5/2001 11:49:34 AM
Jones,
What is the pecking order for the top twenty or solaw schools? Someone posted a list of top rated professional schools the other day, but it didn't go very far into any one type.
415. labwabbit - 4/5/2001 11:58:38 AM
Key-rice..
Ol' Daffodil has a thread. Sheesh...good help must be hard to find these days.
Poetic justice though. This does reflect my long held theories and thoughts of recent past efforts in education have produced.
Just kidding...AD
Our community is struggling with radical restructuring of distribution of public educational resources. The process has offered interesting lessons on how wholesale short-sighted the public at large can be.
416. Autodaffy - 4/5/2001 12:20:33 PM
Welcome, Labwabbit.
What large scale restructuring is going on? And in what ways is the public being shortsighted?
To abuse W.C. Fields: I would just like to get you off your trapeze and down into the sawdust with the rest of us.
417. labwabbit - 4/5/2001 1:14:02 PM
AD
Thanks!
Everything from teacher contracts, (including number of annual workdays, and mandatory, on-going training agendas), to the (almost) complete renewal of the present School Board membership and managerial re-districting and structuring.
Being a relatively large community, (in Alaska), an understanding of the inherent difficulties arising from isolation and access to any neighboring systems and resources must be acquired in relation to an increasing number of students. Costs become exponentially explosive when trying to achieve exposure/interaction to outside(the community)learning tools and activities. It is very difficult to sustain funds for costs of travel alone, above and beyond the extraordinary efforts needed just for coordination and maintenance of any level of extra-curricular class activity. Activities such as inter-community athletic events, music and the arts, sciences (ie field-trips),and even things as state spelling-bees, debates, and the like are extremely challenging. Particularly when the the next nearest (organized community is 90 and 600 miles away by water or aircraft only.
Basically trying to compile and re-organize involvement and responsibility of all the communities within the state with focus on committment to share the load of these costs. Of course the politics of management/directorship structuring within the established PTB, in and outside of this community, is a hard row-to-hoe.
To address the second question merely becomes an extension of the previous sentence...except many want much but without the committment to what it cost in reality. When cost vs. quality/availability of resources are weighed, it doesn't take long to realize which one weighs more in determining priorities.
418. Autodaffy - 4/5/2001 2:44:58 PM
Here is a Wall Street Journal editorial presenting one of the many ways teachers' unions work to improve education:
Edison Schools
419. wonkers2 - 4/6/2001 9:37:36 AM
BERNIE BLEW IT--REASON PREVAILS FOR U OF M LAW SCHOOL--"This appeal presents serious questions on the merits."
A federal appeals panel ruled yesterday that the University of Michigan 's law school could continue using affirmative action in admissions pending the appeal of a lower court ruling last week that its policy illegally considers applicants' race.
The unanimous decision by a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, overturned a ruling earlier this week that denied the university's request for a temporary delay in ending the policy. That means the law school may proceed with this year's admissions on schedule.
The appellate panel said the injunction imposed by Judge Bernie Friedman of U.S. District Court in Detroit "irreparably harms" the law school by disrupting its selections process.
"To create a new admissions policy in compliance with the injunction and to determine how many offers must be extended to fill the new class will take time," the judges wrote. "As a result, applicants are likely to accept admissions at other schools, thus diminishing the university's ability to compete with other selective law schools for highly qualified applicants.
In their ruling yesterday, thye appellate judges also noted that Bernie Friedman's decision contradicted other opinions on the question of affirmative action in higher education, including a December ruling by a different judge on the same court that Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy was legal. "There can be no dispute that the this appeal presents serious questions on the merits," the judges said.
[Sounds like Bernie might not have made the cut at U of M Law School when he applied???]
420. labwabbit - 4/6/2001 11:45:17 AM
Good link AD.
Some very similar connotations to what is happening here. Particularly sad is the parts where the parents aren't even interested, (incensed) enough to stand for what's best for their child(ren). Thus, the PTB, (unions, school board, and legislative committees), are fighting out what's best for education systems...and that begets money/compensations/job benefits, jurisdiction/power/ego, etc....anything but what can actually benefit the educational experiences of the kids... but the public school and union monopoly is holier than, well, holier than the children themselves.
421. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:33:46 PM
I read a New Yorker article on Edison Schools; the writer was simultaneously repelled by their methods and interested in the schools popularity with lower income parents. He concluded that the schools offer safety and stability, if not exceptional education. The teachers teach from a notebook, it's all very by the numbers.
I was surprised at the SF decision. I don't know that it was the unions that were the decisive factor, but rather the notion that after all, the school board knows better than the parents.
422. Autodaffy - 4/7/2001 11:50:07 AM
Two links this morning: The first is a front page NYTimes report on the NAEP assessment of reading performance at the elementary level, where the best have gotten better and hispanics in urban districts have gotten worse:
Reading
The second is a column from the op ed page of the same paper by Chris Whittle, of the Edison company:
Whittle
423. CalGal - 4/7/2001 1:02:20 PM
So if we've also had an explosion of illegal immigrants during this same period, isn't it possible that some of the drop is due to this? Or did they take that into account?
424. CalGal - 4/8/2001 11:24:25 AM
Post piece on charter schools
The description of the student population is chilling. Some of them were getting As in public school--which means that in other states they'd be automatically eligible for state universities.
425. Autodaffy - 4/10/2001 7:31:59 PM
Ever wonder what it would be like to teach in the NYC school system?
Trenches
426. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 7:46:03 PM
My impression from Lehrer News Hour on PBS tonight is that the San Francisco School Board is making a big mistake in trying to cancel its contract with the Edison school. The decision has unleashed a hornet's nest of argry parents and community people who support the school. From what the program said, if I understood correctly, the American Federation of Teachers was behind the school board election and the new board's efforts to oust Edison. This is a big mistake, regardless of whether Edison's method is better or not. Urban school systems suffer all over the country from over-centralization, lack of imagination and motivation to improve. [Also from underfunding in many cases.] A healthier reaction from AFT would be to examine the public schools and try to improve them rather than stamping out potential competition. We need to try something different for a change. Edison may or may not be better, but at least it's different [different methods, a longer school day and a longer school year].
427. arkymalarky - 4/10/2001 7:51:39 PM
Well, the governor just signed our raises in today. $3000 over the next two years, so evidently I'll finally be topping $30,000. Drinks are on me in the Sports Bar.
And I'm not being sarcastic, if anyone thought so. I'm glad the legislature got it done.
428. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 7:55:54 PM
Good. When I think of how hard you must work for that and how much less I work for what I get, as a state employee, I feel guilty. But how is it that the state controls teacher pay? Isn't that up to each district?
429. arkymalarky - 4/10/2001 8:04:30 PM
Thanks, Wonk. Teaching really isn't that hard, though, after being in a district a couple of years. As VW pointed out, the time off is nice.
Yes, the districts set salaries, but the state sets a minimum. I could get more money at a closer school (about $3-5000 more), but it wouldn't be worth it to work there. At some schools my pay could go up as much as $10,000.
430. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 8:14:48 PM
Thanks, Wonk. Teaching really isn't that hard, though, after being in a district a couple of years
Ya...but how many hours at the local firing range do you have to do per week. (heh)
Hi Arkus
431. arkymalarky - 4/10/2001 8:32:09 PM
Hey Lab! I have to keep in practice for my administrators. If everybody'd leave me alone the kids and I would do fine.
Just kidding, really. No one bothers me, personally, that much. They just do stuff that bothers me.
432. arkymalarky - 4/10/2001 8:41:40 PM
To clarify what I said about raises, the $3000 doesn't simply raise the minimum, but it's mandated by the state across the board. They will mostly fund it, and the local districts have to kick in some, but I'm not sure how much.
433. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 9:44:11 PM
Hey Lab! I have to keep in practice for my administrators. If everybody'd leave me alone the kids and I would do fine.
That is why I opted to do part-time evening classes. Other than mandatorily required materials, I'm rather free to do much free-lancing in content and application. Total contribution of time/week, in addition to(3)3hr classes,(presently), is about 24 hours. However my salary is just about equal to a full time (10)year grade school teacher....plus all the bennies.
I get to play at my real job, and come and go without any real tether.
Life is good no?
434. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 9:47:56 PM
Sorry Arky,
The point I meant to arrive at is that I'm pretty much left alone to my devices. "Instructor for hire"... (and you ought to see my score at the range sweetness) ;->
435. Ronski - 4/11/2001 4:25:06 PM
436. arkymalarky - 4/11/2001 4:40:20 PM
It sounds great, Lab. I think it would be nice to rethink standard teaching schedules, careers, etc, and start gearing more toward getting people in the system who would like to do some really part time work, or who have taken early retirement from other jobs, etc, rather than watering down standards to get inadequate people into teaching as a full career, which is what I'm afraid will happen as teachers become more scarce.
"I'm rather free to do much free-lancing in content and application." That's essentially what I am able to do at the school I'm going back to as far as curriculum. They trust me to get the kids what they need to know and will get me the books I need without batting an eye.
437. wonkers2 - 4/11/2001 4:56:51 PM
Ronski, Who ordained that merit be defined by SAT scores which are affected greatly by quality of education and parenting and which don't correlate especially highly with success in college or life?
I would think that you as a libertarian would resist having a central authority dictate the admissions and hiring policies of colleges and universities, police departments, civil servants and private corporations. Apparently many of these organizations believe that in view of their particular circumstances, taking account of race is in their interest and the accomplishment of their missions. So, they do that as they do for athletes, legacies, children of influential people and the like. Opponents of affirmative action act like the major social problem in this country is discrimination against whites in university admissions and hiring, which is akin to looking through the wrong end of the telescope, in my opinion.
438. Ronski - 4/11/2001 5:11:55 PM
I do indeed object to a central authority dictating such decisions when that authority is the government, which has the monopoly on force.
I also agree with the writer that in the end it is wrong to place ethnic considerations above individual merit. Tests of all kinds are unreliable prognosticators. We measure what we can measure. But it is wrong to start penalizing Americans of Asian descent because they test so well.
439. CalGal - 4/11/2001 5:26:18 PM
Who ordained that merit be defined by SAT scores which are affected greatly by quality of education and parenting and which don't correlate especially highly with success in college or life?
Actually, as we mentioned earlier, it correlates very nicely with success in first year college grades, although I believe Maria quoted a cite mentioning that grades were slightly better. Still, no one believes that a 1600 SAT scorer will do worse than someone with straight As from an inner city school--and certainly, the articles I've read over the past few weeks makes me even less likely to think so.
Opponents of affirmative action act like the major social problem in this country is discrimination against whites in university admissions and hiring, which is akin to looking through the wrong end of the telescope, in my opinion.
No, they don't. What they point out is that perpetuating "the right sort" of racism is a rather appalling fix. Especially since the standard is dropped so dramatically.
In the long run, if the elite schools are ruined by ending meritocracy, their cachet will disappear along with it.
440. jexster - 4/11/2001 6:51:53 PM
Whatever the future of American education, let's all pray that its not to be found in Texas!
A more surprising vote was the House's decision to put a two-year moratorium on one of Bush's signature issues: charter schools. Bush was red-hot on charter schools and pushed them through the Lege willy-nilly. It was the willy-nilly part, the lack of state supervision, that proved to be the problem.
According to an interim study, 163 of the 192 schools chartered so far have severe problems. One-fourth of the charter schools are rated "unacceptable" by the state education agency, and only 59 percent of the charter students passed their Texas Assessment of Academic Skills tests in '99, compared with 78.4 percent statewide.
Bush, you recall, was fond of touting charter schools and "ending social promotion" as the keys to educational success. The House education committee voted to delay Bush's plan to "end social promotion." The new bill would allow factors other than test scores to be considered in promotion decisions, a position advocated by many educators.
Molly Ivins
441. jexster - 4/11/2001 6:53:04 PM
442. wonkers2 - 4/11/2001 9:26:35 PM
Affirmative action has never been considered permanent. Calling it racism is inflammatory. Its purpose is to correct racism.
My daughter had good grades and high SAT scores. She was accepted by a selective college, not so much because of her grades and SAT score (they got her on the waiting list) but because the sailing coach told the admissions dept she could contribute to a winning sailing team. Now in that same class I'm sure some of the minorities who were admitted, who somebody felt could contribute by their abilities, backgrounds and race to the class mix, whose SAT scores were also high but perhaps a bit lower than the median. Was either case, my daughter's or a minority's, discrimination against the applicants who had higher SAT scores? Was either less deserving or meritful just because their scores were a bit lower than others who were not accepted.
Who's to say that for that school "merit" can't include race or sailing or musical ability or some other distinguishing attribute? Opponents of affirmative action scream racism in the case of the minorities, but few claim injustice in cases like my daughter's. Why is one okay and not the other? What about a star clarinet player, with good but not sterling grades or SAT scores? What about the daughter of the chairman of the appropriations committee in the state legislature, who has a c+ average and so-so SAT? Only in the case of minorities do the wolves howl and sue. In every class accepted by selective universities there are individuals whose SAT scores are a bit lower than others who are not accepted. Is anyone saying that applicants have a right to sue if someone else is accepted whose SAT is lower? Nobody says that unless the other person is a minority. I fail to see the distinction.
Schools should be free to admit the students they feel will help make up the kind of student body that is consistent with their resources and goals.
443. Autodaffy - 4/11/2001 10:58:46 PM
"Schools should be free to admit the students they feel will help make up the kind of student body that is consistent with their resources and goals."
I look forward to wonkers' approval of a racist admissions policy directed against blacks, which would be fully compliant with his principle above.
444. CalGal - 4/11/2001 11:05:10 PM
Wonkers,
Whether or not one considers it desirable to drop standards for athletes, it is an achievement in and of itself. Race is not.
Schools should be free to admit the students they feel will help make up the kind of student body that is consistent with their resources and goals.
Unless, of course, the school feels that the best student body is a white one.
445. wonkers2 - 4/11/2001 11:51:33 PM
Autodaffy, only a school like Bob Jones would do that. I'll take my chances. Many schools began admitting blacks only recently. That's the problem. Minority SAT scores are lower because of poor inner city schools, uneducated parents, poverty and other social problems. That's the problem. Why shouldn't SAT scores be adjusted for these applicants? Where is the merit in being born in Darien, educated at Andover and taking the SAT only after 3 practice tests and a prep course? Is that your definition of merit, being born with a silver spoon in your mouth?
Cal, Would you say that being of one sex or the other is an achievement? Well, some schools routinely adjust admissions standards slightly in order to achieve a balance between men and women in the freshman class, admitting some men or women with lower scores than some of the other sex. Is that unfair to members of one sex who have higher scores than members of the other sex but who aren't admitted because there were too many applicants of their sex? Could they sue and claim sex discrimination?
Other schools adjust standards for students from areas of the country which are not represented in the student body in order to achieve geographical diversity. It was well known that an applicant from a ranch in Montana could get into an Ivy League school with lower SATs than an applicant from Boston or New York. Selective schools valued this form of diversity long before they even thought of shaving the numbers for minorities. Nobody ever questioned this practice. Now, is being from a ranch in Montana an achievement any more than one's race or gender? Hardly. But again nobody who was turned down ever thought of suing based on their "right" to be admitted based on their "merit," by their definition, of course.
The people who are now braying about merit, for the most part, are the same ones who opposed school integration, voters'rights, etc. They have just moved the goal posts back a bit.
446. joezan - 4/12/2001 12:00:47 AM
wonkers:
That's the problem. Minority SAT scores are lower because of poor inner city schools, uneducated parents, poverty and other social problems. That's the problem. Why shouldn't SAT scores be adjusted for these applicants?
Were you educated in an inner city school, or have you simply not been paying attention?
As has been pointed out a couple of times here, recently, wonk - poverty has absolutely nada to do with the SAT scores discrepancy between African Americans and White Americans, since Whites from homes with incomes of less than $10,000 average 12 points higher on the SAT than Blacks from homes with incomes higher than $50,000.
447. wonkers2 - 4/12/2001 12:16:14 AM
josie, Wrong! I will agree that this is not a completely settled issue but not that various environmental factors don't influence SAT scores significantly. Kaplan alone claims that for only $500, or whatever, they raise scores 30 or more points. My own kids started taking the PSAT test in the 8th grade as I recall. And by the time they took the SAT in their junior year they had a big leg up on the kids who hadn't heard of it until they took it for the first and only time. Their mother never smoked and didn't drink anything while she was pregnant. Both parents played mind games with them from before they could walk. They attended schools which regularly produce the highest test scores in the state. And you are saying this contributed nothing to their SAT scores compared to inner city Detroit students? Just give yourself a little reality check, please. I only hope you aren't a master race theorist.
448. wonkers2 - 4/12/2001 12:23:50 AM
I haven't seen the figures you cite, but they sound like they came from The Bell Curve or some similar polemical document. Even if they are correct, many factors other than income bias SAT scores. Besides equating merit to an SAT or LSAT score is hardly valid. Many other factors are equally or even more important. It offers an simple and easy but largely spurious standard for admissions.
449. Autodaffy - 4/12/2001 12:24:48 AM
Wonkers,
My definition of merit does not depend on broadly and without proof ascribing handicaps to racial groups, as you do, without concern that doing so might discriminate against meritorious students of whatever race in favor of members of your preferred racial group.
Did you not tell me you are an attorney? You seem unaware that there is a constitutional problem with such discrimination on the basis of race that you recommend.
450. wonkers2 - 4/12/2001 12:31:47 AM
I am not a lawyer, but I'm obviously aware that the affirmative action is contested in the courts. And it may well be reversed by the cretins on the current court. But the last decision on college admissions okayed affirmative action, for your information.
What is your definition of merit, by the way? I have not "preferred racial group." Minorities have been and continue to be denied opportunities in this country based on their race. It is critical to the future of the country to assure that they take their place alongside everyone else as engineers, lawyers, doctors and managers. That's what affirmative action is all about. And as the University of Michigan argued most effectively, having a diverse student body is essential to the education of non-minority students as well.
451. wonkers2 - 4/12/2001 12:33:14 AM
erratum: I have no "preferred racial group."
452. CalGal - 4/12/2001 12:41:12 AM
And yet, wonkers, the black kids whose parents also didn't smoke or drink and played "mind games" and made lots of money and had them take the PSAT in 8th grade did worse than white kids whose mothers did none of that.
Also, if you agree it's not a completely settled issue, it is a recent conversion on your part, since only three hours ago you said, Minority SAT scores are lower because of poor inner city schools, uneducated parents, poverty and other social problems.
Gosh. You make it sound so...settled.
453. CalGal - 4/12/2001 12:42:53 AM
And it may well be reversed by the cretins on the current court. But the last decision on college admissions okayed affirmative action, for your information.
No, the last but one. And I don't believe there has been a court decision that has made AA proponents happy since sometime in the early 90s.
454. joezan - 4/12/2001 12:48:01 AM
wonkers:
I will agree that this is not a completely settled issue but not that various environmental factors don't influence SAT scores significantly.
Bingo, wonk.
And the largest contributing environmental factor is, imo, the total bankrupcy of modern African American culture.
Notice, please, that I say African American, since Blacks from other countries do much better on the SAT than do Black Americans.
455. CalGal - 4/12/2001 12:50:08 AM
And the largest contributing environmental factor is, imo, the total bankrupcy of modern African American culture.
Oh, horse shit.
And it's entirely possible that blacks from other countries do well because we aren't testing all the blacks from other countries.
Although it just occurred to me to wonder--now do African Frenchies do on IQ tests?
456. joezan - 4/12/2001 12:55:00 AM
Well, Cal, there is at least as much evidence to support my proposition as anything else.
Unless you want to claim that Blacks just aren't as smart. I don't happen to believe that.
457. CalGal - 4/12/2001 1:04:04 AM
No, because you would certainly not be able to prove that poor whites are any less "bankrupt" culturally than blacks are. And there's no evidence to support that proposition--it breaks down under the rich black/poor white comparison, since rich blacks have much more in common, as a group, with rich whites than either group does with the poor, regardless of color.
Anyway, you are basically saying you agree with Wonkers and claiming environment. You just disagree on who to blame for the environment.
I don't know why it is that people leap from "it's not the environment" to "it must be that blacks aren't as smart as whites." There's a whole bunch of other options.
My personal pick is that IQ outweighs parental SES and that more black people are born with lower IQs, across all incomes. Now, regardless of whether you think IQ is malleable or not, that would explain the situation and not mean that "blacks just aren't as smart".
458. joezan - 4/12/2001 1:21:10 AM
Cal:
Specifically (although there are, I believe, other contributing factors that are not the same for both groups), the "culture" embraced by poor Blacks does not embrace education as a way out. In fact, the prevailing belief is that education is for suckers...a waste of time - there's a lot more money to be made, a lot easier, doing "other" things.
This is not true to nearly the degree among poor Whites.
I do believe, though, that IQs are malleable - I may have mentioned here the 14 point difference between my first and second IQ tests. That said, a person who has no interest in education is certainly not going to get any smarter, so I see some overlap in our positions.
459. wonkers2 - 4/12/2001 6:58:13 AM
Blacks bankrupt culturally. You've gotta be kidding! Where do you think the only original American music came from? etc,etc. The tests are culturally biased in favor of middle class white culture. The two groups may just spend their time differently when they are growing up. I wonder how Michael Jordan would have done on an SAT test. Obviously he is very bright. Ditto Tiger Woods and innumerable other sports stars, TV stars, business men etc.
460. CalGal - 4/12/2001 9:44:45 AM
Wonkers, don't be an ass. There is no cultural or racial bias in the test and hasn't been for a long time. You have also somehow failed to mention the fact that your argument doesn't take into account the fact that rich black kids do worse, on average, than poor white kids.
In fact, between you and "blacks ain't got no culture" Joe there hasn't been an opinion expressed that hasn't been proven completely incorrect for well over five or ten years. All of your offerings have already been kicked aside, to varying degrees--poverty, "culture", school of hard knocks.
The reasons that are left aren't comfortable ones.
461. joezan - 4/12/2001 10:13:55 AM
wonkers:
Do you realize how dumb it sounds, propping up Michael Jordan as an icon of Black intelligence?
What, exactly, has MJ ever done that indicates he is of anything beyond average intelligence? Or Tiger, for that matter? That they are gifted Blacks who have managed to stay out of prison, off of drugs, and don't dress like pimps?
Cal:
In fact, between you and "blacks ain't got no culture" Joe there hasn't been an opinion expressed that hasn't been proven completely incorrect for well over five or ten years.
I didn't say Blacks have no culture. But one factor that is inescapable is that the current prevailing Black "culture" (I repeat: Prevailing, Black culture) puts no emphasis on education. Of course, there are no studies to "prove" this, nor could there be. But it is there, and one hears more and more Black leaders bemoaning that very fact, even if their point is that one needs an education to overcome the obstacles inherent in this "racist" society.
But you're the one claiming that my theory has been "proven completely incorrect".
Cite, please.
462. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 10:21:54 AM
How is AA culture bankrupt?
463. CalGal - 4/12/2001 10:22:35 AM
Joe,
Your assertion is proven incorrect by the same data that addresses wonkers. It is the same argument, after all.
464. joezan - 4/12/2001 10:45:23 AM
Erin:
Well, to begin with, for the reason I stated (no emphasis on education).
Add to that the polarizing effects of the culture of victimization and its attendant lack of responsibility for anything bad that happens, and you have, basically, an entire generation with absolutely no direction.
Cal:
Your assertion is proven incorrect by the same data that addresses wonkers. It is the same argument, after all.
How so?
I find my position supported by the fallacies in wonk's position. Namely, that if racism and "post traumatic slavery syndrome" (to use a term I heard some ridiculous woman use on Hannity & Colmes the other night) are responsible for the current state of AA affairs, why is it that despite the fact that there are no more discriminatory laws on the books (and that there are many laws which actually give Blacks an advantage over Whites), and despite the fact that average income of Black intact families is virtually the same as White intact families - despite all these advances, Black crime, drug and alcohol addiction, and illegitamacy rates are all exponentially greater than they were just 50 years after the Emancipation Proclamation?
465. CalGal - 4/12/2001 11:00:46 AM
Joe,
There are so many fuckups in that logic I don't know where to start.
For one thing, we're talking about black underperformance on the SAT. Not black crime, drug and alcohol addiction, and the like. If you are arguing that those factors decrease performance then it would be equally true of white crime, etc. It is not.
For another, just because "post traumatic slavery syndrome" is almost surely baseless does not lead to the conclusion that "blacks are culturally bankrupt".
Finally, as you also keep ignoring, just like Wonkers, middle class blacks on average still do worse than poor whites. Yet middle class blacks have by definition adopted the "white" work ethic to a greater degree than poor whites--who are much more likely to be criminals, addicts, and so on.
So your argument contradicts itself.
466. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 11:14:10 AM
Well, to begin with, for the reason I stated (no emphasis on education).
Add to that the polarizing effects of the culture of victimization and its attendant lack of responsibility for anything bad that happens, and you have, basically, an entire generation with absolutely no direction.
How is this different from the dominant culture?
467. joezan - 4/12/2001 11:23:55 AM
Cal:
For one thing, we're talking about black underperformance on the SAT.
My argument is larger than that - perhaps because I'm answering three people at once.
But I suspect you know that.
In any case, I sure don't see where my argument contradicts itself.
Erin:
To some extent, it's a matter of degree. But no how does the culture of victimization exist amongst Whites - or other minorities, for that matter - to the extent it does in the Black community.
468. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 11:31:44 AM
I see a lot of victimization in the larger culture--ever watch Oprah or Ricki?
470. PsychProf - 4/12/2001 11:34:23 AM
Opps..wrong thread...please delete...sorry sorry
471. CalGal - 4/12/2001 11:36:56 AM
In any case, I sure don't see where my argument contradicts itself.
Because middle class black students and even rich black students do worse than poor whites.
PP,
Take that shit somewhere else and quit whining.
Autodaffy, he's pissed because Erin and I don't like his parrot pictures and decided this would be a good way to draw attention to it. Could you move it somewhere else, please? If you don't, he'll keep doing it.
472. PsychProf - 4/12/2001 11:38:29 AM
Sorry that I misposted is whining? Cal...get a grip on yourself.
473. labwabbit - 4/12/2001 11:58:25 AM
Ah #1 is continues to secure the position.
474. Autodaffy - 4/12/2001 12:19:08 PM
Common decency requires that I explain that PP's post was deleted as he requested. It would have been deleted for intemperance even in the absence of his request.
475. ranheim - 4/12/2001 7:43:50 PM
I have a question and a comment.
1) Have IQ tests changed over the years? As a teacher's kid, I was used as a guinea pig. I took IQ tests at least 5 or 6 times. This was the Wechsler Bellevue test. My test scores varied by only 5 points in all these tests. The test that I remember as being the hardest was one out of (I think) Ohio State. As a kid from rural MN, I had never been to a museum and surely had more important things to do than look at books of Picasso's pictures (e.g. playing basketball). That test had pictures of paintings/scultures/etc. in it; the only one like that I ever took.
2) My oldest son - about 10 years ago - was exposed to a visiting PhD. The PhD did not mince words : if a white student was late, some form of punishment was given (and deserved!). If a black student was late, that is "just their culture". If a white student did not have the appropriate home done, again punishment. If a black student did not have the home work done, some other excuse was made by this professor. This was during the time my son was working on his Masters.
I cannot believe that this professor's conduct was the usual! But, others of you have much more experience than do I. Does this happen rarely (hopefully)? Or is it more common than I would like to believe?
476. CalGal - 4/12/2001 8:02:59 PM
PP,
I had not seen your second post, only the first. I was annoyed because I thought you'd done it on purpose as a rebuke. Sorry for snappying.
477. jexster - 4/12/2001 9:02:00 PM
School Privatization?
Many of the biggest shareholders of for-profit education firms invested heavily in Bush, who pledged to provide $3 billion in federal loans for new charter schools and to offer subsidies for students to attend private schools."
School privatizers and big Bush/GOP donors include the Gap's John Fisher and financier John Childs (Edison Schools); Amway's Rich DeVos, David Brennan and Walmart's John Walton (vouchers); Theodore Forstmann (Capella Education); Credit Suisse Boston's John Hennesy and venture capitalist Kevin Compton (Advantage Schools). Another Republican contributor is JC Huizenga, cousin of long-time Bush backer Wayne Huizenga. JC has poured $50 million into National Heritage Academies. Leading the effort has been New Right "think tank" the Heritage Foundation, especially through Bill Bennett and Nina Rees -- now a Bush team member.
Mother Jones
478. jexster - 4/12/2001 9:02:42 PM
see above for sorry Texas Record.....
479. arkymalarky - 4/12/2001 9:05:23 PM
"Because middle class black students and even rich black students do worse than poor whites."
In all the wrangling that's gone on over this in the past couple of weeks, I don't think I've seen a definitive statistic presented on this. If it has been I've somehow missed it and would like to see the cite.
480. arkymalarky - 4/12/2001 9:37:17 PM
I also would like to know the years the information covers.
481. CalGal - 4/12/2001 9:38:15 PM
I'm sure Maria, the incredible stat finding machine, will have the actual cite. But the Time article of a few weeks ago mentioned it several times.
The racial gap has fluctuated in size but never really declined. Today even blacks whose parents have the same level of education and income as a comparable sample of whites score about 120 points lower on average. Anti-testers often explain the gap by saying most of the test writers are white and import cultural biases into the SAT. But the College Board says SAT questions are always previewed by a large sample of test takers, and any questions that generate racial disparities are tossed out before they appear on SATs that count. "The SAT is probably the most thoroughly researched test in history," says College Board president Gaston Caperton. He attributes the test-score gap to the "different educational opportunities these students have had." Says Donald Stewart, one of Caperton's predecessors and the first African American to hold the job: "Poor kids are getting a lousy education. It's as simple as that."
Not really. Poor kids going to dismal schools doesn't explain why rich black kids score worse on average than white kids.
and in the same issue, Jack White's column said:
There's simply no excuse for black youngsters with college-educated parents to perform worse than white youths whose folks only finished high school. The only way to silence the critics is to close the black achievement gap, not to throw out the test because we're embarrassed by the results.
I've read it before, too, but I don't know when the actual study came out.
482. arkymalarky - 4/12/2001 9:43:36 PM
Thanks, Cal.
I'm wondering specifically about the statement that poor whites (as opposed to the larger group of those whose parents don't have post-high school educations) do better on these tests than middle and upper class blacks.
I'll try to look at it some more tomorrow.
483. arkymalarky - 4/12/2001 9:46:34 PM
Oh, btw, I had seen that article. I was looking for the numbers, but as you say, Maria'll find it.
484. CalGal - 4/12/2001 9:54:02 PM
I figured you had. I wasn't providing it as the definitive cite, but I'd like to think Time wasn't casually referring to questionable data. But you never know.
The very odd one is the Claude Steele study. I find it hard to believe that people's test scores would alter that much based on whether or not they're told it's an aptitude test, but that's what his results suggest. Still, if that is a contributing factor it disproves the impact of poor schools and poverty just as much as it would if it were intelligence causing the discrepancy.
485. arkymalarky - 4/12/2001 10:12:02 PM
If it were my students it would. They don't mind looking like they don't care, but they sure don't want to look dumb.
486. wonkers2 - 4/12/2001 10:24:35 PM
joezan, My impression of Michael Jordan's intelligence is very different from yours. He is a highly intelligent man who probably never took the SAT test an might not have aced it if he had. Bill Bradely is another highly intelligent man whose SAT was mediocre. Bill Cosby, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong are also examples of highly intelligent black men. Richard Wright and Langston Hughes, ditto. All clearly highly intelligent, but how they would have fared on the SAT is anybody's guess.
Cal, the SAT test is culturally biased in favor of individuals with good high school educations, who read a lot and therefore have large vocabularies, etc. Can you imagine twins who were separated at birth one of whom was raised by two parents who were Harvard professors and sent to Exeter and the other was raised by a single uneducated parent who was a crack dealer in Detroit. Which one would do better on the SAT although the innate mental ability of both was equal?
487. ranheim - 4/12/2001 10:54:22 PM
wonkers
As usual, you and I have differing takes on things.
I believe there are multiple types of genius :
a) Rockefeller to make money
b) Beethoven to write symphonies
c) Shakespeare to write literature
d) Einstein for math and physics
e) Elvis for singing and preforming
f) Michael Jordon/Tiger Woods/Jim Thorpe for sports
And you keep on adding categories. The answer to my being a doctor? I was never intimidated by a test; I was good at taking them. The hardest I ever ran into was my first year at Baylor Med; rights - wrongs. I learned, rapidly, not to guess!
488. wonkers2 - 4/12/2001 11:52:28 PM
ranheim, I don't disagree.
Today on the plane I read areview of a book by an American philosopher who lives in the UK entitled "The Theory and Practice of Equality." The book attempts to reconcile the concepts of liberty and equality. Anyway, one of Dworkin's notions caused me to question the use of the term "merit" in relation to college admissions or hiring. In Dworkin's utopia individuals would be entitled to keep whatever material goods they were able to amass as a result of their effort (merit) but not the part attributable to the ability or talent with which they were born.
"Merit" connotes something that people deserve because of some effort on their part. If someone gets a high SAT score simply because of the genes he or she inherited from their parents, or the educational advantages provided them, why does that mean they "merit" more than anyone else? Dworkin would say they do not. According to his theory "merit" applies more correctly to someone who was valedictorian of their class or got good grades, perhaps despite less innate ability.
We have been sold a bill of goods by the College Board and the testing community. National Merit Scholarships are a misnomer. Merit has little or nothing to do with these awards. The people who get them have done little or nothing to "merit" them, it seems to me.
489. joezan - 4/13/2001 12:22:46 AM
wonk:
MJ is a brilliant student of his game. Although he is, imo, probably the most gifted athlete to ever take the court, he would not be nearly as consistently great in his play if not for his knowledge of his sport.
Ditto Tiger, who is obviously a very talented strategist (as every great golfer needs to be), besides being a superb club swinger.
I just don't see where they fit into the equation, though - except for the fact, rare amongst the majority of AA's (pro athletes included) that they had fathers who stuck around, who were good role models and encouraged and helped them in their respective ambitions.
Same with Bill Cosby, now that you mention it.
490. joezan - 4/13/2001 12:24:10 AM
...strike the majority of...
491. wonkers2 - 4/13/2001 12:45:34 AM
Well, I guess what prompted me to bring them up was your comment that the black community is culturally bankrupt, or words to that effect, combined with my theory that individuals can be very smart but not do well on the SAT. Duke Ellington was perhaps the greatest American composer. But how would he have made out on the SAT? Think of some of the American Indian chiefs who were great warriors and hunters and leaders. Some of them undoubtedly had great mental ability which was never developed in a way that would equip them to go to Harvard. Ditto, perhaps for Jordan. I don't know where he went to school, but he's a smart businessman as well as a smart athlete. Tiger Woods went to Stanford, and my impression is that he is quite bright as are most champion athletes in most sports. I suppose weight lifting doesn't require much grey matter. I guess question the motives of studies which try to prove that one race or the other has greater mental ability.
492. joezan - 4/13/2001 1:44:24 AM
wonk:
Yeah, but it ain't about huntin' buffalo. I work with a woman who took down two turkeys with one shot, but if she wasn't married to an executive of a major supermarket chain, she'd have to strip to make ends meet. Unfortunately for her, Annie Oakley's Wild West Show left town about 85 years ago.
Wonk, people generally don't set out on such studies in an effort to prove racial superiority - it is usually in response to a big, fat, WTF is going on here???!!!
It's like when, in 1992, the Cong. Black Caucus started really pushing the issue of minority over-representation in the prison population. The unintended consequence of Congress' decision (Kweisi Mfume's, in particular) to open up this can of worms, was that many studies were initiated, by many respected research groups, universities, etc. And guess what? They all found that while the prison population in almost all states was indeed greatly racially disproportionate, they were not at all out of line with the racial proportion of arrests. In other words, in states where the Black prison population was 70%, danged if the studies didn't show that 70% of the crime in that state was committed by Blacks, and there was little evidence to support subsequent charges (little more than wishful thinking) of harsher sentencing for Blacks.
Now, you can attach whatever reasons you want to that - maybe the cops let White people go when they catch them. Or, maybe they follow Black people around waiting for them to do something wrong. Knock yourself out.
493. joezan - 4/13/2001 1:47:28 AM
And it was the same catalyst that drove the rash of comparative IQ studies. Here we were, thirty-some-odd years after the Civil Rights Movement, and, while educational opportunities for Blacks are not all that we'd like them to be, they are a hell of a lot better than they were in the 50's and 60's.
But Black children are performing a lot worse.
Again goes out the cry -WTF is going on here???!!!
And again come the studies.
You can't argue with them. You can maybe quibble over a few points here and there, but the evidence has been pretty clear for some time that, as a group, Blacks are not measuring up.
Remember that whole, stupid Ebonics debate? That was little more than a shill for the argument that the reasons Black kids underperform to such a degree is that such tests are not structured to their reality - to their circumstances, etc.
But that doesn't make sense, does it, when people just in from India, Pakistan, China, Nigeria, the West Indies, etc, are doing better on these tests than Black Americans?
As Cal mentioned - this is an uncomfortable thing to discuss. I suspect I'm a bit less uncomfortable, though - because I believe neither that Blacks are more prone to crime, nor that they are any less intelligent.
The level of discomfort, I think, decreases with the potential for overcoming the obstacles to whatever it is one believes the causes to be.
...Unless one is a racist, which I don't believe anyone here to be.
494. ycmeehan - 4/13/2001 4:42:41 AM
495. PsychProf - 4/13/2001 10:03:48 AM
GARDNER'S VIEW ON INTELLIGENCE
496. Autodaffy - 4/13/2001 12:41:21 PM
Michael Kelley, of the Washington Post, on his evaluation of the recently released NAEP study:
"F" For Reform
497. CalGal - 4/13/2001 1:21:10 PM
I suspect I'm a bit less uncomfortable, though - because I believe neither that Blacks are more prone to crime, nor that they are any less intelligent.
That's only part of why it makes people uncomfortable.
498. Autodaffy - 4/13/2001 1:48:57 PM
Here is a report on the shutdown of public education in Hawaii. The real scoop comes in the last paragraph.
Hawaii
499. arkymalarky - 4/13/2001 11:43:58 PM
Bob has a student in a low-functioning, small (about ten kids), "tech-prep" math class who would make a fascinating case study. She's black, very pretty, already has a baby, and has missed so many days this year she was reported to the authorities, ordered by the court to attend school, and will still fail all her classes, including his, for too many missed days.
This young lady is a whiz at math. She's left the rest of the students way behind. They don't care and are some of the biggest duds in the school (which she tells them). She and Bob are going ninety to nothing on algebra and he says she's one of the sharpest math students he's ever had.
She will never take the SAT. She will likely never graduate. But she's there, and there are many more like her that no one will be aware of because of the choices she's made and continues to make. She loves Bob's class, though, and he's going to tell her to take Algebra II in the fall.
I know he's my husband, but I must say that he's the best high school math teacher I've ever seen, bar none. I walked by the room this afternoon and she was at the board working on a graph and you could see things clicking and feel the energy with just a brief glimpse through the window.
500. arkymalarky - 4/13/2001 11:46:23 PM
And I've got to add that that's a priceless reward of teaching with him in the same school for a year, even though I didn't enjoy this particular school system and won't be staying.
501. joezan - 4/14/2001 12:05:05 AM
Arky:
Is this girl hooked into any kind of program - like mentoring or anything?
502. joezan - 4/14/2001 12:11:04 AM
BTW...anyone who hasn't, should read that article Autodaffy linked to in Message # 498.
On April 5, 3,000 university professors and 13,000 elementary and secondary schoolteachers exchanged their chalkboards for picket signs in a fight for more money and respect. Negotiations broke off immediately and there are no talks scheduled. Coordination of the strike is simple, since Hawaii's education system is the most centralized in the country, managed under a single statewide school district.
The strike has created chaos. From kindergarten to high school, 168,000 students are out of school, including 11,000 with disabilities or other "special needs." The State Labor Board denied a petition to prevent teachers of special-needs students from striking. Parents are clamoring for day care; businesses are struggling to help their employees cope by devising onsite facilities.
But, as AD said, the kicker comes in the last paragraph:
One group of Hawaiian parents, though, is less affected than most: those who teach in Hawaii's public shcools. Roughly half of them send their own kids to private school.
503. arkymalarky - 4/14/2001 12:20:04 AM
Not that I know of, Joe. She's very mature for her age despite what her actions indicate, and she seems very independent--not a needy type at all--which in my limited experience means she's also hard to influence. If anything gets through to her, I think it will be knowledge and her realization of her own power in her intellect. There are programs there for her, though, and she is getting attention from the school, so who knows. She's only in the 9th or 10th grade. I'm pessimistic because of past experience with kids like her.
504. joezan - 4/14/2001 12:40:42 AM
I asked, because we've had a lot of success with a mentorship program the MSU Extension Services runs, called Journey.
There's only one situation I can think of that's similar to that of the girl you described (smart minority girl, good student, with a child - basically the same prospects), and her mentor has made a world of difference. Been with her for over a year, and the girl is due to graduate in June.
From everything I know about this program (I do a few hours training for each new crop of mentors), and mentorship programs in general, the most important factor is just the fact that there is a responsible adult who is concerned about the child.
505. arkymalarky - 4/14/2001 10:21:38 AM
I'll ask about it at work Monday.
506. jexster - 4/14/2001 2:10:24 PM
I know this thread is about the future of education but aaahhhh the good old days...
A Jesuit buddy of mine and I were reminiscing about our respective educations at parochial schools.
His fellow students had a motto for their high school You WILL learn or you WILL burn.
He is fluent in 5 languages and latin.
507. Autodaffy - 4/14/2001 11:41:25 PM
What are the causes of grade inflation? Here is the opinion of the Economist.
Grade Inflation
508. Autodaffy - 4/15/2001 12:20:20 PM
After reading the opening of this Times article you will have a good picture of the kind of demanding writing that state tests require. How can we fail to see that setting the bar so high will inculcate students with undeserved and counterproductive negative images of themselves?
In case you think the tests are rigorous.
509. arkymalarky - 4/15/2001 1:41:09 PM
The writing portion of the AR test a few years ago was easy to train students for and most did fairly well. They bombed the math portion, though. When the state newspaper published some of the math questions, not only were many poorly worded, but several were downright wrong. Bob noticed it right off, then letters were written, etc, and the entire ACTAAP test was scrapped, so now their piloting their new and better version. The kids are bombing it too, though I haven't seen the test so I don't know why. Of course, if they continue to bomb it there's no way the state's going to support a test that 75%+ of the AR students are flunking, even if it is a good test.
The problem with most of these state tests, other than the fact that there are already plenty of other tests and programs in place for identifying poor students we don't bother to use, is that they're designed by the education department, which consists largely of MSEs and EDDs whose fondness for jargon, confusion, frequent changes in policy, lack of communication with schools and eachother, and a host of other inadequacies, is widely known and scoffed at by real educators.
As far as your article on grade inflation, I agree, and in the schools a lot of it is pressure from parents. They don't care how much their kid learns as long as they're on the honor roll. Then they whine about how their kids aren't prepared for college after taking advanced courses. I've avoided that trap so far by establishing a reputation for myself early on in a small school. I don't know that it's possible in a lot of the larger schools where grade inflation is firmly in place.
510. arkymalarky - 4/15/2001 2:20:50 PM
they're...believe it or not, I passed the mickey-mouse teacher test with no errors.
511. Autodaffy - 4/15/2001 2:40:58 PM
Arky,
Amen re the education "specialists."
What struck me about the writing sample is that the student seems never to encountered some basic principles of writing, like present a thesis and support it with reasons from the work in question.
The complaint about college writers used to be that they followed formulas mindlessly, like the five-paragraph essay. Or monotonous comparisons and contrasts. I don't get the feeling that this fellow ever encountered any formulas he could mindlessly mimic.
Nor does he show that his teachers taught him, as did mine, sentence-level grammar and punctuation to the exclusion of larger-scale writing skills.
So, my question is: What instruction has this student received? I wish some reporter would interview his teachers over the last three years and have them relate what has been going on for, presumably, five hours a week over those years. THAT would tell us something useful.
512. arkymalarky - 4/15/2001 2:57:55 PM
I will say this after teaching school for twenty years--it's hard to judge what's been taught by the student's product. I know the professors at a nearby university because my dad taught English there for 25 years, and whenever a fairly poor English student of mine enrolls there I always selfishly hope my name doesn't get mentioned as one of his or her teachers. Some of these kids do well enough to get a high school diploma but have no business in college.
I had a sharp student last year who's now in a very good Texas university, and deservedly so, who if I told her once I told her a million times not to use one common word for another--I forget which one now, which is amazing since I saw it at least once on probably every paper she turned in. After having her a full year, she was still making the same mistake. I have 10th graders who still don't capitalize "I".
Looking at that kid's paper, it would seem he hasn't done much if any writing in class, but see my above disclaimer on that. I do spend a lot of time on structure and organization with my students, and work more toward applying grammar in their writing as opposed to teaching it separately. I beat my head against that wall enough years. By the time they get to 10th grade, which is when I get them, the key imo is to get their reading comprehension and writing as good and clear as I can through lots of application with feedback and rewrites, etc (very much work for a teacher--grammar worksheets are a lot easier) before they get their diplomas.
513. arkymalarky - 4/15/2001 3:01:26 PM
"The European system is quite comfortable saying not everyone is going to get to the higher standard, not everyone is going to go on to higher education," Professor Conley said. "We're not comfortable with that."
That is a big part of our problem, I think. When I began teaching kids could drop out of school in the 8th grade and they'd head straight for the farm or the log woods. These kids deserve a basic education and society deserves a basically educated and literate population, but that's not being focused on in education.
514. wabbit - 4/16/2001 10:03:35 AM
The Waldorf Way
Does anyone remember taking the SRA exams? I took this series of exams through ninth or tenth grade. Whatever happened to them?
515. CalGal - 4/16/2001 10:13:28 AM
I remember SRA exams, but the ones I'm thinking of were a series of modules. You took the SRA 1, SRA 2, etc, in reading and math. There may have been larger standardized tests that I'm forgetting about.
516. wabbit - 4/16/2001 10:22:03 AM
The series I'm remembering had seven categories, geography, history, math, reading comprehension, etc.
517. CalGal - 4/16/2001 10:25:56 AM
But it was modules that you took individually, or standardized tests? The ones I remember were individual. There may have been more than just reading and math, but those were the only ones I remember.
518. wabbit - 4/16/2001 10:34:17 AM
They were standardized tests, but you took the ones appropriate to the course level you were at, i.e. if you had taken one year of American history, you took the American history level I exam. We're probably remembering the sames series. I just remember spending the better part of a day taking the seven exams every year and wondered if they were still being used anywhere.
519. CalGal - 4/16/2001 10:39:32 AM
I do remember SRA--didn't it stand for Stanford Research Associates?
520. jexster - 4/16/2001 7:57:32 PM
Yes. The Stanford Achievement Tests. I kicked ass which, considering that I took them in an elementary/junior high in rural Louisiana says less about me than it does about the test IMO.
521. arkymalarky - 4/16/2001 8:51:11 PM
Not necessarily. Bob went to a tiny rural AR school and topped out on all his standardized tests, including college entrance. He's very intelligent, but his little school provided an excellent elementary education. I remember those tests, too, btw, but don't remember anything about them.
522. Autodaffy - 4/17/2001 10:05:33 PM
Usually, the stories of skulduggery in the university revolve around tenure or sex and tenure.
Dorothy Rabinowitz just won a Pulitzer for distinguished commentary. This column was one of those that won the award for her. The NYTimes did a magazine story on the "defendant" long before the story played out.
Justice at Brandeis
523. CalGal - 4/17/2001 10:36:26 PM
It was something of a surprise, Rabinowitz winning. The judges rejected the nominees, went off list to pick her.
524. Indiana Jones - 4/18/2001 10:43:56 AM
The Organization Kid
In short, at the top of the meritocratic ladder we have in America a generation of students who are extraordinarily bright, morally earnest, and incredibly industrious. They like to study and socialize in groups. They create and join organizations with great enthusiasm. They are responsible, safety-conscious, and mature. They feel no compelling need to rebel—not even a hint of one. They not only defer to authority; they admire it.
525. Autodaffy - 4/22/2001 9:53:36 PM
Can Rudy's procedure that is widely credited with bringing down crime in NYC also raise schools' performance?
Accountability
Just what mechanisms for accountability now exist within school systems?
526. jonesatlaw - 4/23/2001 12:39:53 AM
Everyone wants to push accountablity in our school systems. Well, the real problem is that to make accountability work it must be placed on those with the opportunity to make changes to meet the standards. What will happen is that administrators will play games with bureaucrats over how the tests are constructed, and will attempt to play a smoke and mirrors game with the politiicans and the public.
You want educational accountability? Trim administration radically both in the state departments of education and in the school districts. Give teachers clear expectations in student performance and behaviors and stay out of their way. Give teachers support staff, and expect frequent feedback from them to the student and the parents. Generate your educational data at the classroom level, and save the teachers the time from doing the grunt work of the reports, let their support staff do it.
527. jonesatlaw - 4/23/2001 12:44:56 AM
Finally, let the ultimate accountability fall upon the persons with the ultimate authority, most time, and greatest responsiblity for the child- the parents. Give teachers some freedom to tailor their instruction to their personal style, their kids styles, spare them busy work. But it is the responsiblity of the parent to get the kid to school ready to learn. That means appropriately fed, clothed, rested, sober, sane, and having some basic respect for themseleves and others.
So your kid has a behavior problem? You have to deal with it. The school will cooperate with YOU in solving it, not you will send the kid to them to fix.
528. jonesatlaw - 4/23/2001 8:01:08 AM
It would be nice if social services were more closely integrated with schools. I strongly advocate making parents more responsible for the education of their children, and for their care. However, it would be a real asset to families and kids if they could start the process of getting family counseling, or access to programs aimed at families in crisis or kids with needs if information could regularly flow back and forth between the social service agencies, health care establishment and educators. Coordination of these services would strengthen them, and hopefully get better results if the interventions were pulling in the same direction at the same time. This is obviously most important in the instance of severe family disruptions. These do not always correlate with socio-economic status.
529. ranheim - 4/26/2001 4:09:08 PM
In my small parish in rural LA there is a huge flap regarding one of the principals paddling 4 (or so) students. To my knowlege, teachers are not allowed to do the paddling. The students in this case were all "repeat offenders" and the paddling was down according to the protocol set up by school authorities.
Nevertheless, the pricipal has been arrested (he was out on bail immediately) and he is being sued by the parents of the children involved.
By far the biggest problem locally is the parent/s. Both school bus drivers and teachers who are patients of mine tell me that the young girls are the worst offenders. "If you touch me, I'll tell my mother and the law that you were making sexual advances". This coming from 10 - 12 year olds!
As long as this attitude prevails, I see no way that local public schools can educate anyone.
Many others must agree with me. The Charter School in the parish has a long waiting list and the Catholic Schools are at maximum attendance.
I just thank God that my youngest is 31.
530. robertjayb - 4/26/2001 5:43:27 PM
Mimi Swartz, an editor with Texas Monthly is doing the Slate diary this week on her 10-year-old's experience with TAAS testing in Houston public schools: HERE.
531. arkymalarky - 4/26/2001 8:07:39 PM
Discipline can be achieved without corporal punishment, but whether schools use it or not they have to be consistent. I can't stand working in a system with inconsistent policies, especially when it's obvious that kids with certain last names or socio-economic positions can get away with a lot more than those kids whose families are less "important." I've also worked in places where what the principal did depended on who the teacher was or what mood the principal was in. In AR it's legal to paddle and a teacher was sued for how he paddled a student, but he'd followed regulations to a T and the parents lost.
532. arkymalarky - 4/26/2001 8:09:16 PM
Thanks for the link, Robert. I'll have to read it when I get some more time. We're going through a bunch of grief right now with piloting the ACTAP test. I wonder if they'll go through with it this time.
533. joezan - 4/26/2001 10:36:30 PM
534. CalGal - 4/26/2001 11:32:47 PM
Congrats to Joe's school!
On corporal punishment: I would go absolutely beserkers if anyone laid a hand on my kid. I haven't investigated the law in California, but I'd like to hope it's illegal.
535. joezan - 4/26/2001 11:39:53 PM
Thanks, Cal.
And, just to beat a dead horse (this one being the self-esteem "movement"), just in case there may be someone who hasn't read my rant on this before:
This HS was actually banned from the Nationals for two years about 4 years ago, because it was so demoralizing to schools in the rest of the country (I guess) for one school out of thousands to take first place 3 years running.
Sick, sick, sick.
536. CalGal - 4/26/2001 11:46:04 PM
Good god. That is fucking obscene. I don't remember you posting on it before, but it's quite possible I blocked it from my memory.
I remember someone telling me (IRL, so it wasn't saki) that the Navajo find it unseemly for one person to be the best so often, so if he or she won a contest two or three years in a row they would automatically drop out the next year--and that this was a good thing.
"And that's why they all live in trailers and eat Dinty Moore" sez I.
Okay, I was kidding. But still. To pretend that sort of nonsense is "good" is silly.
537. wonkers2 - 4/26/2001 11:46:53 PM
Corporal punishment of children or adults is illegal in most civilized states and countries. I'd be very surprised if it weren't very illegal in California. It is in Michigan.
538. joezan - 4/27/2001 12:05:49 AM
Cal:
Yep.
And the thing is, it obviously isn't that we just happen to grow smarter kids in this little corner of the globe. The dedication and endless practice mentioned in the article does not even begin to tell the whole story. That, and the fact that the town is so behind this thing. I mean, this is football country...every home game - even in a blizzard - is packed to overflowing.
At Olympiad time, it's the same atmosphere: There are signs up and down the highways, and on the movie marquee, and on every store sign - rooting the team on. People put out yard signs. There are parades for the returning team - win or lose.
People value excellence in academics...THAT is why this school excels.
Why the hell don't people see that?
539. Laura C - 4/27/2001 10:55:56 AM
Happens below the high school level too, joezan. My grammar school was banned from the Illinois state science fair for two years, for having the temerity to win too often.
"We have decided to give other schools an opportunity to win," explains Janine Petric, president of the [Illinois Junior] Academy of Science. "We want to spread the wealth around."
540. ranheim - 4/27/2001 1:41:58 PM
I am surprised that any of you find the examples in #s 535 and 539 to be strange.
I have a grandson and granddaughter who are in "peewee" soccer (ages 4 - 8). The adults supervising this program make sure that the rosters are changed so that the excellent players are switched from team to team so that -even though score is not kept! - the kids don't feel they are always on the winning or losing team.
Ring-around-the-rosy (I always thought that a foolish game when I was a child) has been banned locally. We don't want that game played "because it brings out the competitive nature in some of the children".
I am suspicious that some of the young boys that I see in my office are on Ritalin because of their competitive instincts; rather than the given reason : ADD.
The powers-that-be in LA education appear to want homogenization - at all costs.
541. joezan - 4/27/2001 11:22:28 PM
HaHa...Ranheim, you should've seen my nephew in his first game of organized Tee-Ball.
His team obviously whupped the other team, but no one was keeping score. After about the 2nd inning, the poor kid kept asking his coach, "What's the score????", to which the coach would answer, "There is no score, Kyle!"
Totally confused him.
After that, he always kept score in the dirt underneath the bench, and would jump up and down after the games yelling, "WE WON! WE WON!"
...even if they lost.
But, hey -who'd ever know?
542. CalGal - 4/27/2001 11:29:40 PM
Laura,
Lord, that's bizarre.
I dunno, I don't mind it as much at the peewee level--I don't mean the "you're not allowed to compete" but the notion of just working hard and not counting who wins and loses. The kids all know who the good and bad players are, but they don't always have the social skills to handle winning and losing and being ahead or behind with equanimity. My qualified approval counts only for team sports, though, and only for the 5-7 age group.
543. LimeGirl - 4/28/2001 2:36:27 PM
And mixing up the teams each year is much different than not letting the players from the best team compete at all, which is pretty much what those science competitions have done.
I am just horrified that they would ban a school from the competition. What they should be doing is letting them compete and be asking them lead seminars during the competition on how they go about their research, etc. so that the other kids will learn something beyond "if I'm not good enough, they'll just kick out the kids that are better, so that I can be good enough."
544. wonkers2 - 4/29/2001 10:28:59 AM
TEST ANSWER CALLS TO MIND A SCANDAL by Sam Verhovek in today's NYT
For WA students taking a standardized test this week, the question seemed innocuous enough.
Using geographical information about four imaginary towns along the route of a school bus driver, figure out the alignment of the towns from W to E.
The correct answer was: (C) Mayri, then Clay, then Lee, then Turno.
Wait, say that out loud. Does that sound like Mary K. Letourneau?
To enraged and embarrassed state ed.officials, that's exactly what it sounds like.
Mary K. Letourneau is the state's most infamous teacher, the Seattle woman who is in prison for child rape after having two children fathered by a former student of hers in the Highline School district. The boy was 12 when their relationship began.
The off. of the state supdt. of ed. said it is investigating how the question, which it called an obvious and sophomoric prank, made it to the final version of the Wash. Assessment of Student Learning.
The question was developed by a former contract employee of the company based in Ill. that helps the state develop its tests.
The state said the question wouldn't be counted in scoring. The state and Riverside Publishing, a unit of Houghton Mifflin, said they had review systems to ensure that test questions were not racist, sexist or inappropriate.
"It's clear we need to put in another check for malicious intent," Riverside's president, John Laramy, said through a spokeswoman. The company would not say who wrote the question.
The allusion in the question eluded the hundreds of test developers, teachers and professors who evaluated it when it was drawn up in 1998, as well as a fairness committee that monitors the questions for bias.
Students at N. Thurston High School in Lacey, WA, were the first to notice it and bring it to public attention.
[Lighten up, folks!]
545. arkymalarky - 4/29/2001 4:18:43 PM
Several years ago one of Bob's colleagues brought him a word-search puzzle that was part of a set of workbooks or something she had handed out to the kids as a short activity. It was called "Career Change" and when she had handed it out to her students they worked for a minute or two, then little spurts of laughter began to bubble up around the room and pretty soon all the kids were laughing, and she finally got one of the students to show her what was so funny, and there were several dirty words, the main one I remember being "assfuck," buried in the puzzle. Bob used to have a copy of it, but I don't know what he did with it.
546. Ronski - 4/30/2001 5:06:34 PM
547. wonkers2 - 5/3/2001 8:24:10 AM
LAWSUITS TOUCH OFF DEBATE OVER PADDLING IN THE SCHOOLS BY Jodi Wilgoren NYT 5-3
ZWOLLE,La, Laid out on the kitchen table, the snapshots of 10-year-old Megan Cahanin make a grim collage. They are not of her sweet face but of her bare behind. There are 12 in all, taken, her mother says, day by day as the doughnut-shaped bruises on each cheek faded from a mottled purple to a dirty gray....
Megan, a fourth grader whose name appears more often on the honor roll than on a referral slip to the principal's office, is one of millions of public school students still subject to corporal punishment, and in March her family joined a small but apparently growing number who are suing to stop it. Megan's classmate DWayne Ebarb, a hyperactive child who has been paddled regularly throughout his time at Zwolle Elementary--on 17 occasions in 8 weeks last fall alone--filed a second suit last April, leaving this close-knit logging town of 2,000 pondering a practice as old as time.
Though it gets little attention, corporal punishment in schools remains legal in 23 states. Education Department data show that 365,000 children were paddled in the 1997-98 school year, most in a swath of Southern states that could be called the Belt Belt.
AND LEGISLATION PENDING IN CONGRESS AS PART OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S EDUCATION PACKAGE COULD EXPAND THE PRACTICE BY GIVING TEACHERS BROAD PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.
"Almost every democracy in the world has bans on corporal punishment--"we're going in the opposite direction," said Robert Fathman of Dublin, Ohio, president of the National Caolition to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools.
But in many communities like Zwolle...parents and educators base their support for corporal punishment on two powerful sources: the Bible, and their own experience.
548. wonkers2 - 5/3/2001 8:35:18 AM
Ten states in America's "ignorance belt" accounted for more than 90 percent of the reported incidents of corporal punishment in schools nationwide in 1998:
The top one, you guessed it, Texas:
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HONOR ROLL
Texas
Mississippi
Alabama
Arkansas
Tennessee
Georgia
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Missouri
New Mexico
Bush's proposed federal liability-protection law mimicks statutes in nine states where paddling is popular including Louisiana. Scott McLellan, a White House spokesman, said the measure woulod head off frivolous lawsuits against educators and cited a survey showing that 31 percent of high school principals were involved in litigation last year, up from 9 percent a decade earlier.
Many education and medical groups oppose corporal punishment, saying it aggravates aggression and can cause depression.
But Robert Surgenor, a detective in Berea, Ohio, who wrote a recent book on capital punishment, said "pain is probably the most effective form of discipline," Over 14 years, Detective Surgenor said, he investigated more than 150 cases of children who had assaulted their parents and found that fewer than 2 percent had been subjected to corporal punishment, a much smaller proportion than in the community as a whole. [Well, that settles the issue!]
549. Wombat - 5/3/2001 8:43:11 AM
Another reason not to live in the South.
Several years ago my wife and I watched a segment of some news show in which families who used corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool allowed cameras into their home for several days. It was horrifying.
While I have occasionally spanked my eldest child (and I am sure that the younger one will be spanked as well), I very strongly object to schools having the power to mete out corporal punishment.
550. wonkers2 - 5/3/2001 9:10:40 AM
STUDENTS FIND DRUG LAW HAS BIG PRICE: College Aid
Critics Say '98 Rule is Biased Against Poor by Diana Jean Schemo NYT 5-3
When a judge pronounced Russell Selker guilty of smoking marijuana in a car in Dec 1999, Mr Selker, a freshman at Ohio State, thought he left the courtroom knowing his sentence: a $250 fine, suspension of his driver's license, 20 hours of community service and a year's probation.
But a month later, when Mr. Selker applied for financial aid for the coming year, he faced another sentence, the loss of his eligibility for low-interest federal education loans and grants. "I was amazed," said the student from Cincinnati. "It's like two penalites for the same crime."
In the next few months, there are likely to be tens of thousands more students in Mr. Selker's situation. Under a law passed in 1998, but that is being full enforced for the first time by the Bush administration, students convicted on drug charges become ineligible for federal financial aid and loans for one year after a posession conviction, or for two years after a conviction for selling drugs unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes two random urine tests.. Repeat offenders face permanent loss of federal assistance.
No other crime carries such a provision. Gov. Gary Johnson of NM, who has sponsored state legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, said, "You can rob a bank, you can commit murder, just about any other crime and not be denied student aid."
Others complain that the law is biased against the poor, who rely on the aid, and blacks, who make up a disproportionate percentage of those arrested on drug charges. While 13 percent of the people taking illicit drugs are black, the same as their proportion in the general population, blacks represent 55 percent of the drug convictions, said David Borden, exec director of the Drug Reform Coordination Network.
551. ranheim - 5/3/2001 11:15:35 AM
Keep in mind that I was born and raised in MN; finished college there. Then went to medical school in Houston.
When my wife and I came out of the USAF, 9 years after graduating from med school, we could have settled anywhere. There was a relative doctor shortage.
We ended up in central LA after looking at a lot of other possiblities. We immediately eliminated cities. We were both raised in rural amercia and heartily dis-liked the hustle and bustle, the noise, the school situation, the crime rate, etc of every city we looked at.
Eventually, we eliminated all cold climates. I shoveled - no snow blowers back then - enough snow as a child to never want to see that "stuff" again!
So where was the food good; the climate decent; the schools acceptable; "our" way of living still in existence?
In talking with urban physicians, they often ask "How can you live in the boondocks?" My answer immediately is "I walk to work! How long is your commute?" Then the conversation usually shifts to so-called cultural advantages of urban areas. Then I ask "When were you last in your city's museum? When did you last see a stage play? When did you last attend an opera? The symphony?" In close to 100% of the MDs I have talked with in the past 30 years, a sheepish expression crosses their faces and they admit that they often think about going to these events - but, somehow rarely/never make it. But, our restaurants in the city are wonderful. My reply "You have not eaten my wife's cooking!"
We live 80 miles north of Baton Rouge/LSU. For years we had season tickets to LSU football games; we have seen many musical performances of various kinds in the city and at LSU. You can take advantage of culture if you make an effort; no matter where you live. e.g. I have seen operas at Covent Garden and in NYC and Houston since leaving the USAF. I am no stranger to Lincoln Center.
552. ranheim - 5/3/2001 11:31:59 AM
cont. from #551
Schools in the rural south? My oldest is a boy. He has his Masters in Marine Biology and works for the borough of Manhattan. He has a little bit to do with the status of NYC's up-state reservoirs; but, his main job is to monitor the pollution status of the East and Hudson Rivers. He has surprised me; he says that they are improving steadily. My second born, also a son, has a PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology and works in Merck's vaccine department. The third is our girl who has a Masters in Education. She is currently teaching at the American School in Monterrey, Mexico - and touring the world. She is wrestling with a decision to go on to a doctorate. In curriculum of all things. Your teachers will have to tell me what that is. It can't be as simple as it sounds. Rural education in LA, seemingly, did not limit my three children.
The South does have its problems. There is a Bible Belt. There are red-necks. In most southern states there are not enough jobs. The schools, for most, are not good enough. For whatever reason, crime rates all throughout the south are lower than 10 years ago; but, still too high for my comfort.
My final word - for now - on the subject. I have said previously in this forum that the wrong side won the War Between the States. I have seen nothing in the past 30 years to make me change my mind.
553. labwabbit - 5/3/2001 11:34:49 AM
Reverend Jackson
554. labwabbit - 5/3/2001 11:35:04 AM
Jesse Helms
555. ranheim - 5/3/2001 11:42:58 AM
Charles Manson
Al Sharpton
But, this is witless! Ano-win propostion for either side.
556. labwabbit - 5/3/2001 12:09:22 PM
Ranheim
I have seen no evidence that one side over the other should have won. The jury is still out, and shall continue its' deliberations as long as nobody in humankind has a thorough answer.
I was joking about those "gentlemen" above. However, if you listen to those type of people, (plenty in the North too...east, and west for that matter), they have "the" answer. They are right, in the name of " ". If there was a more-right side, we wouldn't even be dicussing 'regional' politics or education systems, or...
What is really scary is that the process itself of finding a universal answer is non-existent. Except for an obscure few who remain hidden in thought tanks. How can anybody be right if everyone is wrong?
So who should have won in any conflict? One of the very, very few things I have determined to be truth is that we fought wars, or had become lost in political hedgemony, and still have arrived at the wrong answers.
Did Socrates, Cicero, St.Augustine, Aristotle, Jesus, Muhammed, have all the right answers? If so, why haven't any of them been clear/unchallenged winners?
Could it be that the right answers have been present, or offered since the beginning, but our ability as a species to recognize and implement them falls short? If so, maybe the next war will determine that eh?
557. ranheim - 5/3/2001 12:49:04 PM
I was responding to # 547, 548, and 549.
I thought the standard denigration of the South.
And now the conversation is switched to the Punic Wars - or some such thing.
Afraid I cannot oblige you. I spent my college days in the chemistry lab; the biology lab; and the physics lab. In other words, every afternoon! I spent very little time in the library.
Consequently, I know nothing about Shakespeare; Socrates; Plato; and all the other such down through history.
Cannot say that I miss them all that much. They would do very little for me in my office. And my hobby is hi-fi; so am much more interested in Bach; Beethoven; Mozart; etc.
558. labwabbit - 5/3/2001 1:10:17 PM
Ran
Wasn't being accusatory at all. Making a point, with particular focus on your observations, (or lack thereof), of whether the right side won the US Civil war.
Which, perhaps, goes far in my agreement that you had chosen the right hobby. (g)
559. labwabbit - 5/3/2001 7:35:54 PM
I spent my college days in the chemistry lab; the biology lab; and the physics lab.
BEWARE the wabbit lab.
560. wonkers2 - 5/3/2001 10:47:51 PM
Ranheim, By the way, I grew up in Baton Rouge and graduated from University High School at LSU. I probably was there before you. I like Louisiana, but I obviously don't agree with your comment on the Civil War. I suspect you don't either. Or, if you do, what about World War II?
561. wonkers2 - 5/3/2001 11:03:59 PM
Ranheim, And by the way, there was no corporal punishment in any school that I attended, grades 2-12, in Louisiana. I never had any contact with anyone remotely resembling the populace of Zwolle.
You should read the entire article. The people in it sound like they belong in Afghanistan.
562. ranheim - 5/7/2001 9:07:12 AM
wonkers2
I have lived in LA only after I resigned my commission in the USAF in 1970. My wife was born (at her father's home) in the same town we now live in.
I don't see much connection between my feelings about who won The War Between the States and WW II. But, for the record, I do believe the wrong side won the war in the 1860s. I don't think Wilson should have caused the USA to enter WW I. But, he did and Versailles was a disaster. Almost guaranteed WW II. The USA entered WW II under false pretences (the machinations of FDR). The attack on Pearl Harbor was pure foolishness. (I can't spell Japanese names worth a damn; but, Admiral Yamamoto, who had a great deal of personal knowlege of the USA, thought that attack was the heigth of folly as well. Due his personal knowlege of the USA, he did not want our potential industrial power in an adversarial role).
Once Pearl Harbor was bombed, there was no way to keep the USA out of WW II. I was 5 at the time. I remember the propaganda to this day. Even my father agreed with our entry into that war. And he had no use for FDR at all! In our home, I never heard him refer to FDR as anything other than "That Man".
The paddling incident I am referring to occurred in Simmesport; 18 miles down LA Hiway #1 from me. I am not familar with the incident in Zwolle (which has fallen on hard times). When you were going to U High, Zwolle was probably booming due to the timber industry. The last time I heard about timber in Zwolle, all the mills had closed. They were scuffling for jobs there.
563. wonkers2 - 5/7/2001 9:23:19 AM
1945-53 (5th grade-h.s.). I never heard of Zwolle until I read the story last week about the principal beating students in the school there. Strikes me as uncivilized. They never would have considered corporal punishment at the elementary or high school at L.S.U., even in the 1950s. And we had a very complete sex education course. It was quite a progressive school in many ways. [All my relatives on both sides revered FDR and, especially, Harry Truman. Apparently our differences are genetic!]
Recently I saw an old black and white movie depicting what England would have been like if Germany had succeeded in occupying it. Not pretty.
564. labwabbit - 5/7/2001 12:52:36 PM
Recently I saw an old black and white movie depicting what England would have been like if Germany had succeeded in occupying it. Not pretty.
Like there was a chance of a "pretty" depiction?
If you are comparing to today's England...the voting must have been tight t best.
565. ranheim - 5/7/2001 2:18:45 PM
We are off subject here, but, I think it depends on which war one is talking about.
I doubt Geramny's capability of invading England at any point during WW I. I don't like books on war. Books discussing the cause of wars, that is a different kettle of fish. Am I correct? The air battle over the Channel and England itself prior to the USA entering the war pretty much ended Germany's chances of an invasion of England during WW II. Who supplied those airplanes; who flew them; who maintained them? If the answer to all of the above is England, the black and white movie you saw was a bad fairy tale.
I am not a fisherman. But, I think that Zwolle is one point that one can enter Toledo Bend; the lake between Texas and LA where the fishing is supposed to be very, very good. If you fish, you may want to look into Toledo Bend.
566. Wombat - 5/7/2001 2:28:05 PM
Ranheim:
If the Germans had continued their attacks on British fighter bases instead of shifting over to terror attacks on cities, the story may have come out differently.
Germany in control of the continent after being victorious in WWI would have been bad news for Britain (and the United States). You really should read a lot more books on wars. Then your ignorance would not be so absolute.
567. ranheim - 5/7/2001 5:34:40 PM
I have already read enough on WW I. My family - grandfather - was involved. Bully boys operating out of Minneapolis/St.Paul traveled the entire state trashing German owned property wherever they could. Ranheim is Norwegian, but the bully boys hired by the powers-that-be in M/St.P tried to trash my grandfather's property also. Ignorant - or maybe not - hired hands.
No matter how much more I read about that war, I doubt that I would come to conclusions close to yours. You see, one of the first authors I read on this subject was Justice Doenecke. He gives a slightly different cast to that era than, I suspect, you would.
568. Wombat - 5/8/2001 8:42:01 AM
Ranheim:
I can see how your family historiography would color your attitudes viz. WWI. With my family's last name, we might have had problems as well in small town USA. Fortunately we lived in a big city, where such attitudes were quickly dissipated.
However, you appear to use your family "tradition" as an excuse to be historicaly closed-minded in the face of much evidence to the contrary.
569. LimeGirl - 5/8/2001 12:52:09 PM
To bring this back to the future of my education...
I registered for fall quarter this morning, but I seem to be constantly thwarted in my attempts to fulfil the composition and writing requirements of the general education stuff. I had found a class that neatly filled both of them in one fell swoop, registered for it for this quarter, and then it was cancelled at the last minute. So I think, no problem, I'll take it in the fall. Every single section in the fall is reserved for freshmen only.
So I search through the schedule, and come up with two classes, one which is a prereq of the other, that will fill my needs. When I go to register this morning, the one class that I wanted to take required an entry code, for reasons I am completely unclear on. So I signed up for lots of CS classes and will drop one when I find a writing and/or composition class I can take, preferrably that doesn't meet at 8:30, or even 9:30. I have been really enjoying my 10:30 start times this quarter, and hoped to continue that trend! I fear that I may need to get my butt out the door earlier in the fall.
570. ranheim - 5/8/2001 3:21:56 PM
Wombat
I find it fascinating how different minds absorb information.
I come from rural, Lutheran, Minnesota Norwegians. My wife and I lived in Washington DC suburbs one year and both hated it. New Orleans, supposedly a great tourist town, I like to visit. One night will do splendidly, thank you. IOW I dis-like cities intensely.
MN, in my childhood, was run by the Democratic/Farmer-Labor Party. Never heard a good word from my father (a school teacher) about them. When I became older, I was off to med school in Houston. Hated the commuting in Houston!
Was in the USAF from 1961 - 1970 (Most of that time JFK and Lyndon were in power). Leared to near totally distrust anything military and State Dept. personnel say - especially about finances.
You, coming from a city background, probably had a "ward heeler" who lent a helping hand from time to time. That man was almost always a Democrat and one was expected to vote Democratic Party for the help received.
When I read something, I want to know who the wrote the book. An Ivy League, left wing, tree-hugger - I am not going to believe much of anything he/she writes. e.g. I started Rachel Carson's book; did not get very far. My father-in-law's cotton crop depended on DDT (there was nothing else effective agaisnt the boll weevel then). And she was talking about snail darters and pelicans as opposed to my fater-in-law's main cash crop! No way! At least immediately. I would suppose that your approach to such books would be different from mine.
I also find a copyright date prior to 1935 is a plus. Authors prior to then were not faced with nearly as much pressure to "publish or perish". It has been my impression that some authors back then tried to be more evenhanded; tried to present facts as they really were. Of course, there were some of the most scurrilous liars ever also.
Two backgrounds - two approaches.
571. Ronski - 5/8/2001 3:41:56 PM
Apples, Oranges, and Mandarins
(NY Times link)
572. Wombat - 5/8/2001 3:45:31 PM
Ranheim:
Your are probably at least 20 years older than I, and seems to derive more from your parents than your own thought processes.
Suffice it to say that my politics are based less on personal experience with politicians (positive or negative), and more on what they claim to stand for. The transactional basis for political support has never played a role.
Not reading a book because you know you are going to disagree with it is a good way to reinforce your belief in the utter correctness of your beliefs.
573. ranheim - 5/8/2001 4:26:39 PM
You believe what a politician says?
MY GOD!!
Hubert Horatio Humphrey and Lyndon Baines Johnson were the two (?giants?) of my first 25 years.
You could not believe what either of them said.
574. wonkers2 - 5/8/2001 4:51:45 PM
Johnson was a master politician who ranked with FDR in getting what he wanted done, done.
575. ranheim - 5/8/2001 6:26:24 PM
And LBJ was just as big a crook as he was a "master politician".
Laby Bird's radio stations and other investments created their fortune in the estimated $5 - 15 million range??
Poppycock!
576. wonkers2 - 5/8/2001 7:24:43 PM
A certain amount of dishonesty may be inherent in being a master politician. I'm not an authority on Lincoln, but I seem to recall that he played his cards close to the vest when it suited him.
577. CalGal - 5/21/2001 5:04:41 PM
When a Test Fails the Schools, Careers and Reputations Suffer
Truly appalling tale of how a test publisher had a serious error in its scoring, knew of it, and neglected to tell its clients, the states and school boards--even when the schools questioned the results.
578. Shannon - 5/21/2001 5:14:31 PM
Interesting. It brought to mind this local story:
Firm Recalls Iowa Results
A less severe problem, but it does make you wonder.
579. CalGal - 5/21/2001 5:49:16 PM
These two on top of the Times' first article, which describes actual errors in answers--only discovered by a father who wanted to see his daughter's missed responses so he knew what areas to work on.
It's not that I disapprove of testing, because I don't. But they need to be accurate--it seems like little enough to ask. Can you imagine that the school boards and states had to insist in their new contracts that the test publishers alert them to all mistakes because, as recent history has shown, otherwise they wouldn't bother.
580. Erin R. - 5/22/2001 8:48:23 AM
I'd like to pose a question:
Within 6-12 months (if all goes according to plan), my husband and I will be moving out of the city of Chicago to DuPage County. The reason: we can't afford to buy a place to suit our needs in the city proper and the schools here suck.
Do we have some sort of obligation to stay in the city, with it's racial and cultural diversity, but bad schools, instead of moving to an area that is about 95 percent white? I wrestle with the idea. Even though I feel it's the best choice for us, part of me feels like I'm depriving my son of the wonderful experience of living in the city. And I feel sad that lots of people don't have the choice to move to an area where their children will have access to a quality education.
581. Wombat - 5/22/2001 9:15:40 AM
Well, if you feel that strongly, you can rent and send your kid(s) to a private school, or you can be those "pushy" parents who work like hell to try and improve your neighborhood public school. It's more matter of choice than obligation. How badly do you feel you need to own your own home? What's the commute like?
We ended up moving to the suburbs because my wife felt very strongly about owning a home and sending the kids to a good public school. I agreed with the latter, and aquiesced to the former. I hate the suburbs, but we live close enough in to take advantage of what the city has to offer.
582. Erin R. - 5/22/2001 9:51:08 AM
My commute is one hour in, more than one hour home. In short, it's murder.
Our local public schools are such that it would take many, many pushy parents to make a significant change. I don't know that my son has the time to wait for the schools to become good, and if I'm already paying property taxes, why should I also send my kid to private school, when other options are open to me?
583. Wombat - 5/22/2001 9:55:22 AM
Erin:
Sounds like the 'burbs for you, then. You can always move back to the city after the kid(s) have left.
584. CalGal - 5/22/2001 10:23:02 AM
Erin,
I have always been quite clear on this: public schools can have my support and my money--but they can't have my kid unless they can do the job.
585. Shannon - 5/22/2001 11:29:54 PM
So your job is in the 'burbs, Erin?
It's different here, because, like most Southern cities, most of the city is suburban. We're not in the city limits, but we're pretty close. Suburban, but we are still in the BR school system. So far, it's working out. Our school system has the added complication of being under federal court control due to a long-running deseg case. This means that everything could change at any time. And for that reason, I am glad to know that I could have an acre of land in another parish at any time--my mom owns 2 acres and will give me one if I ever want to build a house. Good to have that option.
Ideally, we'd like to move closer in. In our case, it would cut commute time, since we both work downtown. Nicer neighbhorhoods too, I think. But I'm pretty sure it's to our advantage, school-wise, to stay here. Our neighborhood schools are among the better ones. And given the convoluted reasoning involved in the deseg case, being here probably gives my kids more options to pick other public schools.
Most of the private schools here are religious. Catholic mostly, which we're not. So that's a less than ideal option for us, with the kids this young anyway. And I don't know that they'd get in even if I wanted to send them.
586. Erin R. - 5/23/2001 9:31:09 AM
My job is in the burbs.
How will the desegregation affect your schools?
587. Shannon - 5/23/2001 9:56:40 AM
The court case is 46 years old. Supposedly the longest-running case in the country. It's a big ol' mess. My kid was a shoo-in for the magnet program he's in, since he's white. The magnet programs are all shooting for 50-50 representation and very few have it (this is odd, because 50-50 isn't considered integrated by the deseg rules). I'm guessing that as long as we're in a predominately white district (which we are now), their odds of getting into magnet programs are better--since they'd be a majority kid leaving a majority neighborhood school. My son's current magnet is about 20-25% white, so it's not an issue yet--they'll take any white kids they can get. But if we wanted to get into one that was 50-50, I suspect they'd take white kids from a white school before white kids from a black school. Much like they take black kids from within the magnet district before black kids from outside it.
As to how kids of other races or mixed-race kids fit into this, I have no earthly idea. When you fill out a request for a magnet slot, you have to choose a race. My babysitter's daughter is biracial, and she didn't get into the magnet she applied to. It was very frustrating for her parents, because if they'd indicated her race differnetly, maybe she'd have gotten in (I'm not sure what they put). I saw on Q's class roster at the beginning of the school year that some kids were identified as 'O' for other--there are a few Asian kids in his class. I'm not sure how they're counted for purposes of the deseg case, however.
I hope that answers your question. There's a lot involved in the situation here. And I would dearly love for this mess to be over. Hopefully soon.
588. arkymalarky - 5/29/2001 7:00:12 PM
Whether homeschooling is a good thing or not, the Spelling Bee is an overrated competition, and the number of homeschooled kids who do well in it is not an indicator of whether they are well-educated, much less better educated than students in a school system. After hearing on the news that one girl spends two hours a day studying her spelling list, I'd say it shows that she, at least, spends way too much dadgummed time on spelling.
589. CalGal - 5/29/2001 7:10:33 PM
Yes, everyone mentions the home schoolers who win the spelling bees and geography contests. I haven't heard much about their superlative math or science skills yet.
It seems to me that homeschooled kids have time to spare with their obsessions--and more than a few kids get obsessed about spelling and geography.
The National Geographic geography contest winner--who I don't believe is home-schooled--was on CNN the other day. Neat kid.
590. Fielding - 5/30/2001 11:46:26 AM
Oh, the benches were stained with tears and perspiration,
The birdies were flying from tree to tree.
There was little to say, there was no conversation
As I stepped to the stage to pick up my degree.
And the locusts sang off in the distance,
Yeah, the locusts sang such a sweet melody.
Oh, the locusts sang off in the distance,
Yeah, the locusts sang and they were singing for me.
I glanced into the chamber where the judges were talking,
Darkness was everywhere, it smelled like a tomb.
I was ready to leave, I was already walkin',
But the next time I looked there was light in the room.
And the locusts sang, yeah, it give me a chill,
Oh, the locusts sang such a sweet melody.
Oh, the locusts sang their high whining trill,
Yeah, the locusts sang and they were singing for me.
Outside of the gates the trucks were unloadin',
The weather was hot, a-nearly 90 degrees.
The man standin' next to me, his head was exploding,
Well, I was prayin' the pieces wouldn't fall on me.
Yeah, the locusts sang off in the distance,
Yeah, the locusts sang such a sweet melody.
Oh, the locusts sang off in the distance,
And the locusts sang and they were singing for me.
I put down my robe, picked up my diploma,
Took hold of my sweetheart and away we did drive,
Straight for the hills, the black hills of Dakota,
Sure was glad to get out of there alive.
And the locusts sang, well, it give me a chill,
Yeah, the locusts sang such a sweet melody.
And the locusts sang with a high whinin' trill,
Yeah, the locusts sang and they was singing for me,
Singing for me, well, singing for me.
591. robertjayb - 5/31/2001 4:23:45 PM
Tough Time for Kids of Non - Grads...I knew that...
Youngsters whose parents didn't go to college have a tougher time getting into a school and finishing with a degree. That's just one of many observations highlighted in an annual federal report released Thursday on the state of education in the United States.
``The Condition of Education 2001,'' from the National Center for Research Statistics in Washington, contains a grab-bag of previously released figures that together present a national snapshot of who's going to school, what they're learning and what difference it makes.
592. labwabbit - 6/1/2001 6:04:23 PM
Does anyone care to "look at the future" here?
593. ranheim - 6/3/2001 11:46:05 AM
One of the local papers I read (Alexandria {LA} Daily Town Talk) occasionally carries an editorial by Deroy Murdock of Scripps Howard.
This morning his editorial was about the Edison Elementary School in San Francisco. It appeared to me, after reading this article, that this is the same old public school vs. private school debate that is so common here in LA. Southern LA has a large Catholic population; hence many Catholic schools.
There has been, in the 30 years that I have lived in LA, a continuing disparaging of Catholic school achievement by the public school gaggle.
Locally, it is all about money and jobs. Not achievement! I assume that the fight in San Francisco is about money and jobs as well.
Some of you who live in CA may have the local flavor. What is local opinion?
594. PsychProf - 6/3/2001 11:55:29 AM
Ranheim...sorry for this somewhat off topic link...carry on...
GOOD READING FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS TO BE
click on photo 
595. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 11:38:10 AM
That book sounds interesting, PP, and has several glowing reviews.
Up thread I posted a link to an Atlantic Article ("The Organization Kid") that I also emailed to a few people I know. One of them just got back to me about it with some comments, and in the course of refreshing my memory, I came across this quotation:
You, enlightened, self-sufficient, self-governed, endowed with gifts above your fellows, the world expects you to produce as well as to consume, to add to and not to subtract from its store of good, to build up and not tear down, to ennoble and not degrade. It commands you to take your place and to fight your fight in the name of honor and of chivalry, against the powers of organized evil and of commercialized vice, against the poverty, disease, and death which follow fast in the wake of sin and ignorance, against all the innumerable forces which are working to destroy the image of God in man, and unleash the passions of the beast. There comes to you from many quarters, from many voices, the call of your kind. It is the human cry of spirits in bondage, of souls in despair, of lives debased and doomed. It is the call of man to his brother ... such is your vocation; follow the voice that calls you in the name of God and of man. The time is short, the opportunity is great; therefore, crowd the hours with the best that is in you.
I really like that quotation, which is from the Princeton commencement of 1916. Question: Does the quotation have any relevance for today's graduates, or is it too cheesey for contemporary audiences?
596. PsychProf - 6/7/2001 1:01:40 PM
It does for me Indy...at my son's graduation from Dartmouth President Wright asked the graduating Seniors to rise and stand while he passionately explained to them what was now expected...a moving message of public service and personal responsibiliy. Quite the moment for both student and parent.
597. sakonige - 6/7/2001 1:13:35 PM
the quote gets a little carried away with the battle against evil, but I thought the first sentence set a compelling tone.
You, enlightened, self-sufficient, self-governed, endowed with gifts above your fellows, the world expects you to produce as well as to consume, to add to and not to subtract from its store of good, to build up and not tear down, to ennoble and not degrade.
598. janjon - 6/7/2001 1:14:16 PM
For some reason, the rise and stand somewhat gets to me. How long was this lecture?
599. PsychProf - 6/7/2001 1:28:06 PM
JanJon...10 minutes. How does it get to you. Most graduations I have attended simply celebrate the student, nothing more.
600. janjon - 6/7/2001 2:13:05 PM
Every graduation I've ever been to, as a student and now as a "trustee", has always had an exhortation or two or three about both going out and making the most of the wondrous and diverse opportunities that are there and about the personal responsibilities and obligations owed to society in doing so.
As it should be.
I just immediately reacted to the idea of asking a class to rise and stand while having comments made to them as being condescending and patronizing.
601. PsychProf - 6/7/2001 2:19:23 PM
Well...JanJon...it was much appreciated and taken to heart by everyone.
602. janjon - 6/7/2001 2:36:24 PM
you're a mindreader as well as a Psych Prof?
603. PsychProf - 6/7/2001 2:40:22 PM
Ha...well...certainly to the many students and parents I spoke with after the ceremony. And...at least to me.
604. janjon - 6/7/2001 2:43:29 PM
Hillary did the exhortation bit quite well in her talk to the seniors at Yale this year. They loved it. (She was invited by the kids to be their speaker at their class day. W was invited by the biggie administration types to speak and get his honorary at the real graduation. We all know the response he got.
Oh well, Yale is Yale.
605. Rama - 6/14/2001 6:32:19 PM
Looks like good news.
606. CalGal - 6/14/2001 7:02:26 PM
That whole Boy Scout thing is idiotic. But it seems like they really did negotiate, rather than posture.
607. Rama - 6/14/2001 8:42:45 PM
And passed a useful bill, it seems.
608. ranheim - 6/19/2001 8:40:33 AM
Editorials by Dan Thomasson, formerly editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, are seen occasionally in the Alexandria (LA) Daily Town Talk. There was one this morning concerning education and the "old days".
These were some of the arithmetic questions that children in Kansas had to answer in 1895 (the source of the research regarding the test questions is from the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library of Salina + the Salina Journal).
A wagon box is 10 feet long, 3 feet wide, and 2 feet deep. How many bushels of wheat does this box hold?
If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs. What is that load worth @ wheat 50 cents per bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. for tare? (How many of you knew what tare was? I had to look it up.)
These were questions given to EIGTH graders in Kansas in 1895! The questions seem practical as well as challenging to me. I wonder how many 8th graders today could answer such questions?
Thomasson gave many more examples.
The address is the Alexandria Daily Town Talk On-Line.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top