« Manuscripts from Timbuktu do not prove anything about sub-Saharan African intelligence | Main | The daily Daily Kos report »

October 31, 2007

Comments

this process has already begun in Alexandria Virginia. The City of Alexandria schools are constantly embarrassed by the fact the the AP/GT tracks are dominated by whites and Asians and the remedial classes are all blacks and Hispanic. so, they changed the system to keep out the upper middle class parents of children who are good but not great. Of course, all the program did was lower the number of whites and Asians in the public schools.

Another odd fact about Alexandria is that after the movie "Remember the Titans" came out, the schools had to admit that very few Asians or Hispanics played are any of the high school sports teams, that the football team was virtually all blacks but the crew team was all white. I would guess that it works out the same in NYC.

At least they still have a gifted program. Count your blessings.

Without any affirmative action, the gifted classed will be dominated by Asian kids, and blacks and Hispanics will complain that they are being discriminated against.


Klein actually hopes that his new plan will reduce discrimination claims:

[existing gifted programs] have also been controversial, as other parents say they have discriminated against black and Hispanic children. School officials say they hope the new plan, coupled with an intensive outreach effort, will increase those numbers.

Whether or not the new plan will have the desired effect is quite another matter. I'm not too hopeful.

--

Another odd fact about Alexandria is that after the movie "Remember the Titans" came out, the schools had to admit that very few Asians or Hispanics played are any of the high school sports teams, that the football team was virtually all blacks but the crew team was all white. I would guess that it works out the same in NYC.

It's pretty much a nationwide thing. Especially on the college level, with the super-high profile revenue sports dominated by minorities. White students may dominate such sports as volleyball, wrestling and tennis, unfortunately hardly anyone cares about those sports.

Baseball is more white/Hispanic than ever, with some Asians thrown in the mix!

White students may dominate such sports as volleyball, wrestling and tennis, unfortunately hardly anyone cares about those sports.

If these sports became popular, it's possible that they'd no longer be dominated by whites.

I always bring up the example of Jamie Escalante, who's life was detailed in Stand and Deliver. What's missing is not intelligence - it's great teaching. You're just not going to get through to poor kids, often from broken and single parent homes using the same techniques used with white middle class kids.

Well - good move, I guess - since "gifted" has frequently come to mean "kid with ambitious parents". Naturally, it would be much better if all parents could send their kids to schools of their choice using some form of vouchers, but if we have to have public schools, I suppose it is good if the best education is given to the best students. The problem in this case is that we can expect a push for ethnic quotas soon leading to schools for gifted Blacks and others for gifted Asians. Maybe not that bad, but not the optimum use of resources.

The other issue is - how stable are these scores - are the kids retested every year or is it enough to know the alphabet in Kindergarten to be gifted through highschool?

DML said:

"You're just not going to get through to poor kids, often from broken and single parent homes using the same techniques used with white middle class kids."

Do you have any data, or even a plausible theory (taking into account human nature and at least a token acknowledgement that some people may be more innately talented than others), to back this up?

The reason these absurdities continue to hold sway for liberals is that they demand those who believe in differences prove a negative, and then liberals accept any token argument as disproof, inevitably centered on the magical effects of poverty or discrimination. That these arguments are getting farther and farther out there each time one is discredited (see "stereotype threat," the disproof du jour) is compelling evidence for the objective of which side has the truth.

IIRC, from what I've read, the city plans on using the same testing methods across the school system with two tests (achievement and aptititude) to weed out children. There has been no reference to maintaining any overt ethnic quotas.

The theory behind the shift to this system is that those who had no skills in gaming the system (poor minorities and some lower class whites) can now have the chance to take their high achieving children and put them in schools that meet their needs. Anything that pulls off the even 100-115 IQ kids from the ghetto will help our society in the long-term...

They do something like this in Chicago. Kids can test into magnet schools. The result is that Chicago has some really incredible magnet schools that consistently have test scores equal to or greater than the famously excellent schools in the suburbs.

I've talked to several parents who's kids have attended these magnet schools (or magnet programs within regular schools) and they rave about them. These parents also express shock, however, if one of their kids did not test into these schools and had to attend a regular school.

The existence (and success) of these schools has created a demand for more of them which is causing more magnet schools to be created. This is creating tiers of magnet schools for whatever your child's ability level is.

I plan on sending my kids to Chicago public schools so long as they're getting into the good magnet ones.

This magnet school program is a big part of Daley's long term plan to get the middle class to move back into Chicago. It seems to be working as neighborhoods gentrify at a break neck pace.

HS,

Have you read the article in the New Yorker about Mitt Romney?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fact_lizza?printable=true

It paints him as a "promise anything to anyone" campaigner but he governs with little to no ideology outside of his passion for empiricism.

Sounds like your kind of candidate.

I don't think people will be too weirded out by the Mormon factor. Has anyone ever met an unlikeable Mormon?

I always bring up the example of Jamie Escalante.

Yes. And we keep hearing about Escalante, and only Escalante.

Jamie Escalante is one example -- the exception that proves the rule. Why do we not hear about any Jamie-Escalante-of-the-Vietnamese? Because it would be silly. Vietnamese immigrant student manage to rack-up accomplishments without an Escalante.

Because it would be silly. Vietnamese immigrant student manage to rack-up accomplishments without an Escalante.

There are a couple of issues at work here.

Even if we adhere to notions of innate intelligence and the racial implications thereof, that does not mean that we cannot get more out of otherwise low-achievers than we currently are. That we cannot bring them up to par with the higher-achieving students does not mean that there are not ways that we can improve. I'd personally be less averse to the IQ/race talk if the follow-up were questions "How can we get the most out of the left end of the curve?" rather than statements like "So we are wasting our time trying to help them at all."

I don't think people will be too weirded out by the Mormon factor. Has anyone ever met an unlikeable Mormon?
Well, not in politics. Utah's got a big tech industry from what I hear, you wanna bet there are some pretty weird Mormon coders?

Yeah, Romney's managerialism appeals to northeastern suburbanites and conservative northeastern urbanites; I think the middle and particularly upper middle classes tend to see the Presidency as more of a CEO-like position. He doesn't have the charisma for the lower classes, who I think look more for inspiring leadership and someone they can relate to with strong principles.

Likability and charisma are not the same thing. Howard Dean's wife, for example, struck me as likable but about as uncharismatic as you can get.

For the record, of all the Republicans, I like Romney best. McCain flies off the handle. Giuliani was a great mayor of NYC but I don't trust him with the bomb. Brownback and Huckabee are Christian conservatives, and I'm not.

I dislike Hillary, so you might see me switching sides in 08...

Trumwill said (yes, I don't know how to italicize in this forum):

"I'd personally be less averse to the IQ/race talk if the follow-up were questions "How can we get the most out of the left end of the curve?" rather than statements like "So we are wasting our time trying to help them at all.""

Many, many people discuss this, and the predicate for even having this discussion is the recognition of IQ and it's effects. Sailer in particular has discussed this:

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/iq.htm

(I also don't know how to hyperlink, if that's possible.)

To further elaborate on Trumwill's objection, the possible results of recognizing IQ's significance are that society 1) try to help the low end, or 2) decide they're wortheless and throw them out.

The first option is much more likely to become policy. Low IQ people could be helped substantially by being permitted to follow trade-oriented paths. Again referencing sailer, teaching advanced algebra (as California now requires for all high-school graduates) is a waste of time for those who would be best served by mastering fractions. No Child Left Behind is a particularly glaring failure because it doesn't acknowledge this.

Regarding option two, writing off the left half, it is a potential threat and injustice but is unlikely. It's true that the elite may recognize that discouraging further left-half breeding could be useful, but I don't know that this is a particularly objectionable recognition. Obviously if it is via some draconian regime, that's problematic. I think cutting off welfare may be sufficient. That would make having illegitimate children the pleasure destroying mistake it should be.

I've mentioned it before, but despite my disagreements with Sailer on a number of levels, I do respect that he thinks through the consequences of his theories. Unfortunately, I see it far more often to condemn rather than understand or help.

Regarding Romney... I was all ready to throw my support behind him until he started actually running. I respect what he did in SLC in 2002 and he seems to have good sense, but his campaign has demonstrated a fear of pragmatism in favor of something far more disturbing.

At this point I'd be far more likely to support Huckabee on the Republican side despite not being particularly religious.

What don't you like about HRC, SFG?

"Even if we adhere to notions of innate intelligence and the racial implications thereof, that does not mean that we cannot get more out of otherwise low-achievers than we currently are."

Agreed.

"I'd personally be less averse to the IQ/race talk if the follow-up were questions 'How can we get the most out of the left end of the curve?'"

Well, trade schools are an option. And the absence of frank talk about IQ seems to be a major obstacle.

White students may dominate such sports as volleyball, wrestling and tennis, unfortunately hardly anyone cares about those sports.

If these sports became popular, it's possible that they'd no longer be dominated by whites.

I don't know. Golf and (professional) tennis are sports in which it's possible to make decent money, and both are largely white with little signs of change anytime soon. NASCAR and other motorsports, too.

Well, trade schools are an option. And the absence of frank talk about IQ seems to be a major obstacle.

I'm all for trade schools and that could be a benefit of a frank discussion on IQ, but I don't think that IQ would make any difference. No parent is going to believe his or her kid is on the left side of the curve.

"No parent is going to believe his or her kid is on the left side of the curve."

That's what I mean when I say the absence of frank talk about IQ is a major obstacle to the effective implementation of trade schools.

I guess I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that I don't think a frank talk about IQ would really make that much of a difference. You can convince someone that there is a genetic and hereditary IQ, you can convince them that IQ tests are a fairly good gauge of how smart someone is... but even believing and knowing these things, their kid will always be the exception in their mind.

No parent will be convinced that his kid isn't smart and no public policy (as near as I can tell) can force them to.

Anyhow, this isn't actually central to my point. I believe that a frank and honest dialog would be helpful. I just have my doubts as to whether or not it's possible to maintain it without it devolving into something more harmful than helpful.

"No parent will be convinced that his kid isn't smart and no public policy (as near as I can tell) can force them to."

Yes this is so difficult. I just finished reading the gnxp post and just got depressed. You have such high aspirations for your children and to realize that they probably won't be smarter than you and may actually not be cognitively able to attend college is depressing. Actually reading that post made me realize how much fate in life seems genetically determined. As an American I don't want to believe it but this is what all the data tells us right? Why even bother sacrificing for you kids. Put them in daycare, don't read to them, forget the musueums and camps. It doesn't matter, they get what they get and thats that.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think a frank talk about IQ would really make that much of a difference.

There are at leat two factors in operation here:

1. Parents.
2. Educators.

Between the two, educators are the bigger problem. Here's why.

The accuracy of IQ tests is more populational than individual. In other words, IQ tests do a better job of predicting group outcomes than individual ones. And you are correct, at the margin parents will tempted to think their (individual) child is the exception.

But rejection of innate differences is also very widespread among educators. Educators play an oversized role in the creation and implementation of institutions of instruction. Whether the option of a trade school exists or not is in no small part a function of educator opinion. And you might be surprised to believe what parents will support once educators endorse it -- if for no other reason than apathy, which seems to be more widespread among parents at the lower end of the IQ spectrum.

The default position today seems to be that every student should be on a track to a BA or a BS. That's not only silly, but wasteful and warped, if not downright destructive of time a talent that would be better employed elsehow.

The default position today seems to be that every student should be on a track to a BA or a BS. That's not only silly, but wasteful and warped, if not downright destructive of time a talent that would be better employed elsehow.

I agree strongly with this.

Educators may be the most immediate obstacle, but they are not the hardest. Parents won't be tempted to believe that junior isn't less intelligent than average, they will believe it with every ounce of their being.

Educators may be the most immediate obstacle, but they are not the hardest. Parents won't be tempted to believe that junior isn't less intelligent than average, they will believe it with every ounce of their being.

For sure. What possibly can be changed, however, is the current thinking that any young person who does not obtain a 4-year college degree is a total schmuck and loser, different only to a slight degree from a skell who sleeps on the sidewalk with a load in his pants. College has been grotesquely oversold in American society. We've been conditioned to believe that a $9-per-hour Starbucks barista with a worthless directional-college BA degree and a Mount Everest of student loans is a far more worthy human being than a skilled tradesman the same age who earns five times the barista's salary.

Of course, exactly how to change these perceptions, that's the hard part.

I don't know that the perception is quite that bad. At least not where I've lived, which includes the South, the Mormon West, and the Southwest.

That being said, I agree that it would be preferable if there weren't such a stigma for pursuing an alternate route. I think that's next-to-impossible to change as well, though. For a college degree to become the functional equivalent of a high school diploma of yore, you'd need less people going to college. You could shut down all the directional universities or limit enrollment, but private schools would open up to fill the gap and poor young people would have to choose between either deeper debt or a signifier on their resume that they aren't middle class. There's a collective action problem and those are always the most difficult for a market society to fix.

College isn't even the right choice for many of the highest IQ people, especially nowadays. Abstract algebra is most definitely not for everyone, and I'd say the same for calculus (I have degrees in physics & math, and have taught same at all sorts of levels, and am not pleased with the standard calculus-based curricula).

I wouldn't go around assuming trade school is just for those of lower intelligence. Higher intelligence people would likely do better in trade school, as well, if they were interested in it. If you want to be a general contractor, you're going to do much better if you've got high reasoning abilities.

That being said, I agree that it would be preferable if there weren't such a stigma for pursuing an alternate route. I think that's next-to-impossible to change as well, though.

It could be done through the federal student loan guarantee program because most college students depend on these loans. For instance, ample funds could be made available at favorable interest rates for people who want to attend trade schools or to study marketable subjects at 4-year colleges, while prospective liberal arts students have much more limited access to loans. This obviously would be unpopular, and also would be inegalitarian in the sense that students from affluent backgrounds would be able to circumvent the limits.

"This obviously would be unpopular, and also would be inegalitarian in the sense that students from affluent backgrounds would be able to circumvent the limits."

Cutting off loan funding for economically worthless degrees is the perfect solution. HS, I believe, described these degrees as luxury items, and that is what they are. That the rich can afford luxury goods applies everywhere. Government shouldn't subsidize luxury goods for the poor.

This obviously would be unpopular, and also would be inegalitarian in the sense that students from affluent backgrounds would be able to circumvent the limits.

It would also destroy the routes for the poorer students to go into teaching, law, public policy, and professorships which are based on liberal arts undergraduate programs feeding into study in a post-graduate environment.

Why does the gov't have to fund college education anyway through the federal student loans (my money) anyway? Just leave it up to the states or the schools themselves, which was the way it used to be(not including the GI Bill, that is a different story). Has anyone else noticed that the rate of tution increases almost exactly mirrors that of the increase in student loan rates?

"It would also destroy the routes for the poorer students to go into teaching, law, public policy, and professorships which are based on liberal arts undergraduate programs feeding into study in a post-graduate environment."

Every one of the tracks you mentioned is a hugely losing economic proposition. The legal employment market is over-supplied, only 40% or graduated PhDs get on tenure-track positions (not so for minorities, of course, who are so rare at this level their prospects are much better), and I don't even know what going into public policy means. Presumably for people who commit to teaching, liberal universities would loan money and forgive the debt if students follow through, essentially creating scholarships.

That the poor will have fewer options than they do with government largesse is not a compelling reason to continue largesse. Indeed, the whole point of this solution is to restrict the options of the poor (poverty being inversely correlated with IQ) and to guide them into more useful expenditures of their time.

The legal employment market is over-supplied

I'd rather be a lawyer who makes $50K or unemployed PhD than a plumber who makes $100K. The social benefits, especially if you're a minority, are better if you become the former than the latter. People will treat you better once they find out that you're a college degreed person.

It would also destroy the routes for the poorer students to go into teaching, law, public policy, and professorships which are based on liberal arts undergraduate programs feeding into study in a post-graduate environment.

Not necessarily. There'd still be merit-based scholarships and hardship scholarships. Schools like the University of Oklahoma, Missouri State, and my unnamed alma mater give free-ride scholarships to National Merit Scholars.

Also, in the states I've looked at, bring a liberal arts major is not the road to the teaching profession, the College of Education is. I don't like the current certification system, but it does at least sidestep this issue. Plus, Luther is right about having alternative loan/forgiveness programs.

Indeed, the whole point of this solution is to restrict the options of the poor (poverty being inversely correlated with IQ) and to guide them into more useful expenditures of their time.

There is a corrolation, but we shouldn't automatically conflate the two. My father was dirt-poor growing up and does not have a low IQ (MENSA and all that) which he presumably got from my poor grandparents. The conflation between poor and stupid is one of my concerns about IQ discussions with smart poor kids being lumped with the less intelligence ones and the subsequent writing off of poor kids.

I'd rather be a lawyer who makes $50K or unemployed PhD than a plumber who makes $100K. The social benefits, especially if you're a minority, are better if you become the former than the latter. People will treat you better once they find out that you're a college degreed person.

You really worry too much about the opinions of others. Or maybe being a minority our perspectives just differ. I might prefer to be a lesser-paid lawyer than a plumber, but only because being a lawyer would presumably be more mentally engaging or I would be serving a more abstract public good as a lawyer (prosecutor, public defender, etc). The status is a no-brainer. One shouldn't spend 5 years and $50k for people to look at you a little bit differently.

Besides that, if fewer people went to college (which is what they're aiming for) there wouldn't be such a stigma attached to not doing it.

You really worry too much about the opinions of others. Or maybe being a minority our perspectives just differ.

For me, a college degree is the "escape" out of being a nigger. Once you have a college degree, you're no longer just any black guy capable of various violent crimes, but a functioning member of society. It opens the door into nice, safe, quiet white neighbourhoods, white women, and good schools and colleges for my future children. Sans college degree, it's a world of miserably ugly black neighbourhoods with poor schools, and the raft of reject women that men of better means have rejected.

While the plans for the masters degree are for my own personal development, the PhD is to appease my parents, who are very insistant that I get one so I can become a "somebody" in this country.

I'm amazed there's not more home schooling done in big cities.

1)Upper middle class urban people are obsessed with education and may not trust someone else to do it.

2)There would likely be hundreds of other homeschoolers within a mile or two radius so you could have social activities, classes, or support.

3)There are thousands of field trip quality places, museums, art movies, performances, etc.

It also seems like the weird trendy thing that would catch in a city. Like knitting.

Reminds me of this joke DA:

Q: What do you call a black guy with a PhD?

A: A nigger.

I'm white, I have a PhD, but I'm in the military so I'm just a stupid grunt to many, many people. Also, besides being great with cocktail party conversation and making small talk, trivia, passing the time and boring the people I work with to death with my admittedly useless knowledge, etc...it has done just about nothing for me.

I'm amazed there's not more home schooling done in big cities.

Home schooling requires a stay at home parent (read: stay at home mom), and big cities are home to large working mothers. In effect, the rich send their children to private school for networking and bragging rights, the middle class flees to the 'burbs for good schools and housing price maximization, and the poor don't have the skills to do that. Plus, for the middle and working class who are "trapped" in the city, Catholic Schools and the growing number of charter schools fill that role.

There are still middle class people in NYC?! Maybe they are in some kind of exhibit at the zoo or museum.

What is the gifted program in NY? I went to the gifted program in Washington state. It was only one day a week in elementary school and one class a day in junior high. Before I got through junior high, they had abolished it because the school district needed more money to teach kids in special education - you know, to teach people with a real future.

It opens the door into nice, safe, quiet white neighbourhoods, white women, and good schools and colleges for my future children.

Wouldn't drawing $100,000 a year as a plumber do more to these ends than $50k as a lawyer?

Homeschoolings requires a stay at home parent. In a large city, a college educated female can make as much as a college educated male. To afford to live in the low crime, white faced suburbs requires an income larger that what the vast majority of white collar males make. Only the rich can afford the white neighborhoods inside a large city (ever heard of Georgetown in DC or River Oaks in Houston or Highland Park in Dallas?).

To be middle class requires two incomes and there are few great college prep private schools out in the suburbs. The great college prep private schools are in the heart of the urban areas in the few majority white neighborhoods. Thus, suburban living means two jobs, two commutes, public schools and generally state universities for your kids.

Wouldn't drawing $100,000 a year as a plumber do more to these ends than $50k as a lawyer?

I could afford the housing, but I wouldn't fit in the neighbourhood's social millieu of white collar workers, and my high prole children would feel out of place at private college with the real middle class, and no white woman with any self-respect would date a blue-collar black man.

I can understand the "finding a wife" aspect of it, but where I come from money buys status more quickly than a PhD (unless you're actually a professor). Class lines ran far more by neighborhood than by job prestige. My father was an engineering economist in a place full of engineers, but we lost status points simply because we were thrifty with money and didn't live in one of the nicer neighborhoods in the area.

"no white woman with any self-respect would date a blue-collar black man."

Really? I'd think, assuming you were sufficiently white-like, i.e. treated her respectfully, many white liberals women would consider a relationship with you to be the ultimate status symbol. Even aside the blue-collar status of a black man (I don't know your status specifically), if he paid his bills and lived decently it would be a non-issue. I admit a college-educated black man would be an even better status symbol. I think you are approaching your apparent goal of dating a white woman inefficiently. White women marry black men much more frequently than white men marry black women. Many white women are extremely attracted to black masculinity (the causes of which are another discussion). You may find the following article of interest:

http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm

You haven't been on HS long enough. DA's a nerd. Women who date nerds don't go for black guys, and women who go for black guys don't go for nerds.

SFG: Women who date nerds...

There are women who date nerds?

There are women who date nerds?

They're called inflatable sex dolls.

Kathy Griffin?

There are women who date nerds?
Um...yeah. Not as many or as attractive as the nerds would like, but yes, there are women with nerd fetishes. You've never been to a science fiction convention? There are in fact guys there with their girlfriends. I think some shy women find us unthreatening or something. And if we make money, well...

The opposite statement doesn't make sense; all you have to do to prove it false is find one nerd who's had a date.

HS, human beings don't follow the absolute rule of physics. Every single electron is negatively charged. Every one! (Though I do wonder how the physicists can be so sure there isn't some lonely chargeless electron orbiting around a gold atom in the bottom of some libertarian vault. I mean, really. Have you subjected every single electron in the universe to a Milliken oil-drop experiment?) If you find an electron with a positive charge, it's actually a positron and will be annihilated by the next electron it meets. There are no exceptions to F=ma.

With human beings, there are only trends. Men are taller than women, but some women are taller than some men. So there are black nerds, female nerds, and women who date nerds. Just not as many as us nerds would like. ;)

Besides, Peter, you claim to be married. ;)

Besides, Peter, you claim to be married. ;)

My nerd-dom is of an unusual variety. I have no interest whatsoever in sci-fi or Trek or D&D or Losertarian politics or any of the usual nerd stuff. I am a nerd not because of my interests or actions, but solely because I do not metaphorically lick the metaphorical bung-hole of the decidedly non-metaphorical Most Important Sport in the World (also known as the Almighty NFL). In short, I am a nerd by omission.

Kathy Griffin?

She's rather attractive if you're into older women on the D-List. :)

Don't knock Kathy Griffin too hard, She has a pretty good body. If I get a chance to nail her, goddammit, I will. However, I will admit that part of it is just to say that I slept with Kathy Griffin if anyone asks me if I did anything interesting over the weekend.

The comments to this entry are closed.