Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Isn't Our Billionaires Learning?
The lede to this article says it all:
Eli Broad and Bill Gates, two of the most important philanthropists in American public education, have pumped more than $2 billion into improving schools. But now, dissatisfied with the pace of change, they are joining forces for a $60 million foray into politics in an effort to vault education high onto the agenda of the 2008 presidential race.
There were quite a few proponents or education choice who warned Broad and Gates that they'd be disappointed with the results of their investments. Yet their response is to spend $60 million more to nudge 2008 presidential candidates to promise even more spending on public schools.
Far be it from me to tell Messrs. Gates or Broad how to spend their money, but I'd imagine that $2.06 billion would have bought a lot of scholarships for poor kids to attend private schools that have proven records.
|4.27.07 @ 9:10AM|#
The US spends something like $500 billion a year on education so it's hard to see exactly how much improvement you can expect by adding an additional .4%
Fluffy|4.27.07 @ 9:15AM|#
The thing about Gates is that he came from a very comfortable
background, and probably assumes in an open-hearted way that if
everyone just went to a school like his, everything would be OK.
And the Lakeside School probably was a kick-ass place to get an
education.
But in the modern era, the average public school ALREADY is better
equipped, particularly digitally, than even Gates' exclusive prep
school was thirty years ago. I also went to private schools, and
they tended to be less well equipped than comparable public schools
across the board, starting with the ancient chairs and desks,
proceeding through the library that largely consisted of some
encyclopedias and a rack with old science fiction paperbacks, right
up through the sports facilities. Gates' Lakeside School had ONE
computer, if we can dignify the equipment used in the 70's with the
name "computer". Public schools now often have computers in every
classroom. If money was going to make the difference, why hasn't it
already?
Russ 2000|4.27.07 @ 9:30AM|#
I'm sure if we tripled our spending on education our students' average IQ's would be about 300.
|4.27.07 @ 9:34AM|#
If only we had a Federal law that would do something about the children in public schools.
|4.27.07 @ 9:38AM|#
I think public schools are necessary, but we probably should re-examine our basic philosophy as to what they are supposed to accomplish. It seems like a good percentage of students who are not going to pursue higher education would benefit from more real-world skills being taught.
|4.27.07 @ 9:40AM|#
The people who went to school in log cabins and wrote with quill
pens were more educated than the majority of pinheads the public
school system turns out today. Computers are great but they are no
replacement for learning the old fashioned way. Once you have
learned the basic tools you use the more advanced tools to learn
more (IE Computers). You can't jump on the CNC machine before you
know what a screw driver does etc.
Does paying $329.00 for VCRs in bulk that costs $79 in singles at
any box store make kids smarter or just us dumber for allowing it
to happen? I saw this very thing happen with a stack of 52 VCR's at
the local school board office. Talk about wasting money like a dog
with the chocolate shits. But what did they have up for vote at
that very same time, another fucking sales tax for education, for
the children.
The problem as with all these big government programs is not a lack
of funding its a lack of oversight and fiscal responsibility. After
all its not their money.
Combine that with the wonderful parenting skills of todays parents
and you have a model of disaster waiting to unfold. No one is
accountable on either end yet they all tell us we need to do it for
the children. Tell you what I will be accountable for mine and
everyone else do the same with yours. If you can't afford them nor
want them to begin with don't have them! Sure as hell don't expect
me to fund them either.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 9:41AM|#
Far be it from me to tell Messrs. Gates or Broad how to
spend their money, but I'd imagine that $2.06 billion would have
bought a lot of scholarships for poor kids to attend private
schools that have proven records.
And that truly says it all. Good show Mr. Balko!
|4.27.07 @ 9:42AM|#
$2 Billion would earn what $100 million a year in interest at 5%? The cost of a good private primary or seconddary education is maybe $10,000 a year? Just to make the math easy let's say that is the case. If Bill Gates wanted to do some good he would take that money endow it and fund 10,000 smart motiviated kids stuck in worst schools in the country and pay for them to go to a top flight private school. That would do more good for more people than giving the money to the educrats.
|4.27.07 @ 9:43AM|#
I also went to private schools, and they tended to be less
well equipped than comparable public schools across the board,
starting with the ancient chairs and desks, proceeding through the
library that largely consisted of some encyclopedias and a rack
with old science fiction paperbacks, right up through the sports
facilities
I put my three kids through private Catholic school. Interestingly
enough, Catholics are the minority in the school.
I can tell you that the above hasn't changed, and it's amazing
listening to the contortions that the state house (Merry Land) goes
through in order to justify not buying nonreligious textbooks for
the kids.
Our county puts out literature on how it costs just shy of
$8K/kid/yr. I figure I'm saving the county $24K/yr. Why they can't
afford books for that, much less a voucher for half the amount per
kid, boggles my mind. How much more would they have to spend if I
put my three in the Public system.
|4.27.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Bill Gates should start his own space program, like Paul Allen. That would do more to inspire at least some students to perform than throwing his money into a singularity.
|4.27.07 @ 9:58AM|#
The people who went to school in log cabins and wrote with quill
pens were more educated than the majority of pinheads the
public school system parents turns out
today.
I don't think this is an issue of private verse public, I think it
is an issue of the parents taking an adversarial position against
the schools. They'll defend their kid till the end of time, as if
screwing up isn't part of the learning process. Schools can be
improved, but until parents stop sucking, there can be no fix. And,
duh, it isn't all parents, but I don't think defensive parents are
in the minority.
|4.27.07 @ 10:00AM|#
If Bill Gates wanted to do some good he would take that
money endow it and fund 10,000 smart motiviated kids stuck in worst
schools in the country and pay for them to go to a top flight
private school. That would do more good for more people than giving
the money to the educrats.
Kids who are smart and motivated are already finding ways to attend
better schools. Your idea would water down the good schools by
making it easier for less smart/motivated kids to attend.
|4.27.07 @ 10:03AM|#
The people who went to school in log cabins and wrote with
quill pens were more educated than the majority of pinheads the
public school system turns out today.
That's pretty debatable, but even if true it's because back in the
day only the elite attended school, whereas today in America
everybody does.
When was the last time you met somebody who was truly illiterate,
for example? Back in the old days, it was very common.
|4.27.07 @ 10:03AM|#
Lamar,
You are exactly right. That is the dirty secret of the whole
problem; parents. If the education fairy came down tomorrow and
waived her wand and gave every school great facilities, high
standards and great teachers, half the kids in school would flunk
out next year and the parents would be screaming bloody murder. It
doesn't matter how good the school is, if the kid doesn't work and
the parents don't back up the school the kid won't get an
education.
My roommate in college's mother was a first grade teacher for 30+
years. She had a theory that one of the worst things that ever
happened to education in this country was Sesame Street. Yeah,
Sesame Street. She said that starting with that show, kids were
given this idea that learning has to be fun or you shouldn't do it.
Kids stopped having the idea that education is not fun but a reward
that is to be worked and sacrificed for. After Sesame Street, it
had to be fun or the kids wouldn't do it. Of course, a lot of
education is not fun and can't be made to be fun. A lot of it is
just drudgery and hard work. Kids stopped doing that and they
stopped getting a good education.
|4.27.07 @ 10:03AM|#
Of course, public, compulsory education has never been about
education so much as social control. When understood in that light,
the state governments (and probably the billionaire
philanthropists) are getting a GREAT return on their
investments.
My senior class was full of people who were far more interested in
shopping than in exploring the world of ideas or questioning
authority.
They weren't born that way, they got that way after 12 years of
nonstop indoctrination. So yeah, I guess the billionaires who want
to keep control of society know exactly where to put their
'education money'.
Chris Monnier|4.27.07 @ 10:04AM|#
> I don't think this is an issue of private verse public, I
think it is an issue of the parents taking an adversarial position
against the schools.
The monopoly status of public schools has fostered such parental
behavior.
|4.27.07 @ 10:04AM|#
Bill Gates and Eli Broad are walking along a
path.
BILL: Hey! What's that?
ELI: It looks like a hole.
BILL: Are you sure?
ELI: Yeah I'm sure! Do you think I don't know what a hole looks
like?
BILL: Smell it.
ELI: Wha?
BILL: Smell it!
ELI: **sniff** Eeeeewww man! It smells like a dog shit!
BILL: Are you sure?
ELI: Yeha I'm sure!
BILL: Taste it.
ELI: Wha?
BILL: Taste it!
ELI: **taste** Aaaarrrrgh!! It taste like a dog shit!
BILL: Are you sure?
ELI: Yeah I'm sure!
BILL: Feel it.
Some time later....
BILL: So, it's dog shit?
ELI: Yeah man! But it look like a hole! There must be dog shit in
it!
BILL: Let's walk around it then.
ELI: Yeah, good thing we didn't fall into it. Can we stop pouring
money into it?
BILL: Yesh. There's another hole over here.
ELI: I see it!
Bill and Eli walk over to it....
BILL: Smell it....
|4.27.07 @ 10:05AM|#
"Kids who are smart and motivated are already finding ways to
attend better schools."
So there are no smart motivated kids whatsoever in the poorly
performing schools in this country? Bullshit. There are lots of
smart motivated kids in every school who are managing to get an
education in spite of the lousy school they attend. I gaurentee you
the top students at even the worst schools are bright motivated
kids. They just don't get to reach their potential because they go
to a lousy school.
crap-action-jackson|4.27.07 @ 10:09AM|#
How about a scholarship for any kid in Los Angeles to attend a
private school (of any kind, of their choosing).
Gates could shut down the entire LA Unified School District within
a year or two.
|4.27.07 @ 10:10AM|#
Say, Radley, care to provide any backup to the assertion that this political campaign is aimed at getting "even more spending on public schools?"
|4.27.07 @ 10:12AM|#
You are exactly right. That is the dirty secret of the whole
problem; parents. If the education fairy came down tomorrow and
waived her wand and gave every school great facilities, high
standards and great teachers, half the kids in school would flunk
out next year and the parents would be screaming bloody murder. It
doesn't matter how good the school is, if the kid doesn't work and
the parents don't back up the school the kid won't get an
education.
Sounds like you're blaming the customer for not liking the
product.
My roommate in college's mother was a first grade teacher for 30+
years. She had a theory that one of the worst things that ever
happened to education in this country was Sesame Street. Yeah,
Sesame Street. She said that starting with that show, kids were
given this idea that learning has to be fun or you shouldn't do it.
Kids stopped having the idea that education is not fun but a reward
that is to be worked and sacrificed for. After Sesame Street, it
had to be fun or the kids wouldn't do it. Of course, a lot of
education is not fun and can't be made to be fun. A lot of it is
just drudgery and hard work. Kids stopped doing that and they
stopped getting a good education.
The only problem with that theory is that kids today are much
smarter than children of the past. They have to be, as the world is
a much more complex place to navigate.
A lot of this crap is just a rehash of the age-old "kids today are
stupid" argument that every generation of bitter old people trot
out. Meanwhile, they need their "stupid" kids to show them how to
work their iPods.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 10:14AM|#
I also went to private schools, and they tended to be less
well equipped than comparable public schools across the board,
starting with the ancient chairs and desks, proceeding through the
library that largely consisted of some encyclopedias and a rack
with old science fiction paperbacks, right up through the sports
facilities
The trappings do not make the education, the educators do.
I attended a Lutheran school in Illinois when I was a kid. You
don't need computers to teach algebra to third graders. All you
need is a good math text book and a teacher who knows how to
teach.
Same with reading. Here is a little secret to modern educators:
reading is important, teach it early. All you need is books and you
are way ahead of they are OLD books. Writing is quite important
too. Do you need a $500,000 gym to play that?
As for athletic "facilities", how about a small lot, a softball and
a bat? Mayeb a soccer ball too? WOOO! Such a rough problem to
solve.
Besides, no matter what facilities you have the 'education
establishment' will still say they don't have enough of x to do
their job, so they need to be paid more and have more time off.
|4.27.07 @ 10:15AM|#
I figure I'm saving the county $24K/yr.
I don't. 8K may be the average cost per kid, but it isn't the
marginal cost.
After you account for infrastructure, adding or subtracting 3 kids
is small beans.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 10:16AM|#
Writing is quite important too. Do you need a $500,000 gym
to TEACH that?
Calmness helps with writing too. Banging the keyboard does not
help.
|4.27.07 @ 10:17AM|#
The monopoly status of public schools has fostered such
parental behavior.
You hear this a lot, but it makes no sense. How are public schools
a "monopoly"? Not only are there plenty of private/religious
schools, but there are thousands of public school districts that
are independent from each other and compete with one another for
students.
|4.27.07 @ 10:18AM|#
The only problem with that theory is that kids today are
much smarter than children of the past.
And you accuse us of not being taken seriously.
A lot of this crap is just a rehash of the age-old "kids today
are stupid" argument that every generation of bitter old people
trot out.
No, it's that kids now have a ginormous education "industry"
dedicated just to making them smarter and yet...
How'd they ever learn to build rockets without Baby Einstein tapes
to enrich them?
|4.27.07 @ 10:18AM|#
"Sounds like you're blaming the customer for not liking the
product."
Yes Dan because education is a product not a process. It has
nothing to do with my effort. I can just go to class and learn
stuff magically or by osmosis I guess. Education is a lifetime
project. You get yourself. If you are not motivated and work, it
won't happen. No amount of self esteem camp is going to teach me to
speak French. Only hard work will.
"The only problem with that theory is that kids today are much
smarter than children of the past. They have to be, as the world is
a much more complex place to navigate.
A lot of this crap is just a rehash of the age-old "kids today are
stupid" argument that every generation of bitter old people trot
out. Meanwhile, they need their "stupid" kids to show them how to
work their iPods."
I don't write the test scores, I just read them. Kids are not
smarter today. Working an i-pod is not substitute for being able to
do reading and math and things like that. By any measure, kids
simply do not know as much about those things as they did 50 years
ago.
|4.27.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Guy,
Calculus is the same today as it was when Liebenitz invented it.
The same text book that someone in the 1930s used could be used
today. Why do we constantly replace text books? Because the
textbook industry are in bed with the education establishment and
gang banging the taxpayer. Read the chapter in Feynman's biography
about his foray into judging science books for the California
schools. The books were completely wrong, in some cases not even
finished when they were submitted, the panel didn't bother reading
the books or make any effort to have a fair contest, and instead
just awarded it on what publisher gave out the best favors. That
was in the good old days. God knows how bad it is now.
Dave W.|4.27.07 @ 10:29AM|#
$2.06 billion would have bought a lot of scholarships for
poor kids to attend private schools that have proven
records
If we assume that private school costs $10,000 per year, and ignore
inflation, the time value of money and similar complications, then
that money could have put:
17,166 students
through the private schools first grade through twelvth grade. that
doesn't seem like that many, really.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Calculus is the same today as it was when Liebenitz invented
it. The same text book that someone in the 1930s used could be used
today. Why do we constantly replace text books? Because the
textbook industry are in bed with the education establishment and
gang banging the taxpayer. Read the chapter in Feynman's biography
about his foray into judging science books for the California
schools. The books were completely wrong, in some cases not even
finished when they were submitted, the panel didn't bother reading
the books or make any effort to have a fair contest, and instead
just awarded it on what publisher gave out the best favors. That
was in the good old days. God knows how bad it is now.
Yep, that is another way of saying what I have been saying for a
long time.
|4.27.07 @ 10:37AM|#
All of the money we've thrown at the education problem over the past few decades hasn't solved it. But really, promise, if we just throw a little more at it this year...
D.A. Ridgely|4.27.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Say, Radley, care to provide any backup to the assertion
that this political campaign is aimed at getting "even more
spending on public schools?"
Good point, joe. Until such backup is provided I think we should
all assume it's equally likely their goal is to get candidates in
the 2008 presidential race to support drastic cutbacks in public
school spending.
Pat|4.27.07 @ 10:56AM|#
You hear this a lot, but it makes no sense. How are public
schools a "monopoly"?
If Wal-Mart could use force to coerce you into paying for Wal-Mart
goods whether you used them or not and had greater than 90% market
share, what would you call it? Public education is WORSE than a
monopoly because they use force (taxation) to stay in business and
to limit competition (regulation).
Dave W.|4.27.07 @ 11:05AM|#
whether you used them or not
there is an argument to be made that when the populace is decently
educated, we all benefit. Just having educated, as opposed to
uneducated, people roaming around the streets is a nice thing.
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Calculus is the same today as it was when Liebenitz invented
it. The same text book that someone in the 1930s used could be used
today. Why do we constantly replace text books? Because the
textbook industry are in bed with the education establishment and
gang banging the taxpayer.
True to some extent, and textbook publishers are definitely part of
the reason why books change every 2 to 3 years (or so it
seems).
But college level math, even intro college level math, is not a
good example for subjects that could be taught well today with
1930's textbooks. Leaving aside the changes (frequently good ones)
in classroom methods, there are new technological applications for
the math, and hence a need to write books with more relevant
examples, since the students will be applying this math in other
classes. Then there's the fact that with the availability of
computing power, it's important for students to learn the subject
with an eye toward computational work. If nothing else, instructors
should be incorporating tools like Mathematica and Matlab into
their courses.
Not to mention that some now suggest that even many college science
majors need a bit less calculus (the courses tend to be designed
for engineers, emphasizing things like volume integrals) and a bit
more discrete mathematics, to prepare them for subjects like
genetics.
At the high school level, it's arguable that we need to spend more
time preparing students for basic numerical reasoning,
i.e. understanding probability, statistics, estimation, compound
interest, and related subjects, to complement the preparation for
calculus. This may serve many people better in their careers, their
personal lives, and as educated citizens trying to read a
newspaper.
So no, I can't agree that my great-grandfather's math book is good
enough for today.
Lichtenberg|4.27.07 @ 11:06AM|#
I will vote for the presidential candidate who first says,
"Nothing," in answer to the question, "What Sir, would you as
President do about education?"
He could elaborate, "Nothing, because education is a state
responsibility, not a federal one. All the national government can
do is throw money with attached strings--all of which have produced
little good in the past. Indeed, most states' educational budgets
are federally-funded in the single digits, yet federal strings
demand a level of control rapidly approaching the triple digit. So,
I would do nothing. I would not spend a single federal dime on
education, and I would dissolve (not just cut, but dissolve with
nitric acid) all federal strings."
|4.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#
I don't write the test scores, I just read them. Kids are
not smarter today. Working an i-pod is not substitute for being
able to do reading and math and things like that. By any measure,
kids simply do not know as much about those things as they did 50
years ago.
Ah, yes, the holy "test scores".
Of course, you may be right that today's kids wouldn't do as well
on a 1960's test as the kids in 1960 did. Who cares? 2007 requires
a whole different type of education.
But if you're interested in comparisons, tell me the % of people
with high school diplomas compared to the 60's. What about college
degrees? Graduate/professional degrees?
And yeah, knowing how to use technology is more important today
than being able to recite multiplication tables by heart.
Every generation is convinced that "today's kids" are somehow less
than they were. I think it stems from resentment of youth as much
as anything.
|4.27.07 @ 11:11AM|#
"Sounds like you're blaming the customer for not liking the
product."
That's like blaming the hobby shop for selling a crappy model
airplane when the whole reason the model stinks is because the
person who built it didn't take care. Sure, you can blame the store
for not liking the product. You can also blame martians for zits.
People have to get real. If you're a parent, it is your job to
further your child's education, not act as his/her defense
attorney.
Lichtenberg|4.27.07 @ 11:14AM|#
"...we need to spend more time preparing students for basic
numerical reasoning, i.e. understanding probability, statistics,
estimation, compound interest, and related subjects..."
Never was a truer statement uttered! I am eternally grateful to my
high school trig & calc teacher for doing a voluntary
after-school class in probability and basic stats. He was
incredible--even had a "Las Vegas Idiocy Week" in which he taught
probability by having us gamble (with chips, not real money)
against him as the House. Had us all write reports on exactly why
we all lost our shirts.
|4.27.07 @ 11:16AM|#
"But college level math, even intro college level math, is not a
good example for subjects that could be taught well today with
1930's textbooks. Leaving aside the changes (frequently good ones)
in classroom methods, there are new technological applications for
the math, and hence a need to write books with more relevant
examples, since the students will be applying this math in other
classes. Then there's the fact that with the availability of
computing power, it's important for students to learn the subject
with an eye toward computational work. If nothing else, instructors
should be incorporating tools like Mathematica and Matlab into
their courses."
Fair enough and my use of the 1930s was more for effect. I would
not argue that text books should not change over the course of 70
years. However, basic computation skills are basic computation
skills. There is no reason to constantly change the books. Further,
I think we overemphasize computers. My nephew never went to school
without a calculator. I see no reason why anyone should ever be
allowed to use a calculator before the 10th grade at the
earliest.
|4.27.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Another angle on the whole public education thing is this: why do taxpayers have to fund job training for businesses, who in turn do everything they can to avoid paying taxes themselves?
|4.27.07 @ 11:18AM|#
I sometimes feel that everyone - libertarians, conservatives,
and liberals - makes too much fuss over the importance of the non
discretionary educational institutions in society. It is important
that we have them, and it is important that are constructed such
that students who try can shoot for the moon. Where I become
skeptical is in the notion that you can create institutions that
will educate kids in spite of themselves, in spite of their parents
and in spite of their peer groups.
Even if you are interested primarily in egalitarian outcomes, I'm
suggesting that the education system is not really the way to go
about it once you have a semi workable institution. You just can't
take opportunity or knowledge and shove it down someone's throat.
You can present it to them and you have to live with the fact that
many won't recognize its value until much after they've rejected
it.
I would like to see more innovation in the primary education
classroom, but I won't under a universal mandate. For years I
wondered how I could insert competition into the mix, but now I
wonder if the secondary education system isn't the best place for
competition anyway.
|4.27.07 @ 11:18AM|#
"Of course, you may be right that today's kids wouldn't do as
well on a 1960's test as the kids in 1960 did. Who cares? 2007
requires a whole different type of education."
Yeah, no need for things like reading comprehension or the ability
to understand probability or do basic math. No need for that today.
All you need to do is know how to score well on playstation and use
an I-Pod.
|4.27.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Those taking the "blame the parents" stance; I think your blame is ill placed. Parents in general want their children to get the best education possible, it is a small minority that doesn't care (I can't even imagine the monster that wants their children to receive a poor education). That said I think a big problem is a system that puts parents and teachers at odds. The incentives put before teachers are often at odds with what parents want for their children, and I'm not even talking about tenure based pay here. Education mandates delivered at the state level are never going to please everyone in the state, probably not even a majority. Even at the county level they are bad, and we have them coming down from the federal level. The incentive for teachers now is not to impart knowledge and skills it is to deliver good grades and get their kids good scores on standardized tests and then push them along the "education" trail. A trail which is itself a rigid, unchanging system that is never going to fit the needs of every child or even a majority of them. So parents, especially those who can't afford private education, feel forced into a system that isn't serving their needs and the guy or gal at the "point of sale" is the teacher. Of course this is going to set them at odds.
|4.27.07 @ 11:19AM|#
I see no reason why anyone should ever be allowed to use a
calculator before the 10th grade at the earliest.
That's because you're a bitter old coot.
I see no reason why people shouldn't use calculators since they're
faster and more accurate than doing math by hand.
Lichtenberg|4.27.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Dan T.
I agree in principle to what you just wrote.
Still, I am often astounded when my younger colleagues (by only 10
years, and we're all accountants, no less!) have the hardest time
figuring out the bill and tip when we all go out to eat. One of my
staff, who's a very smart, well-educated kid, recently intended to
give a 20% tip. He gave a 35% tip instead. I liked the server, so I
didn't correct him, but I laughed all the way home. He's great with
Excel spreadsheets, though.
|4.27.07 @ 11:22AM|#
I would like to see more innovation in the primary education
classroom, but I won't under a universal mandate. For years I
wondered how I could insert competition into the mix, but now I
wonder if the secondary education system isn't the best place for
competition anyway.
There is a window of opportunity to teach children the many basic
skills they are going to need (ie. reading, writing, abstract
thinking). After this window is closed it is very very hard to do
so. Believe me, it is long closed once they get to college.
|4.27.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Yeah, no need for things like reading comprehension or the
ability to understand probability or do basic math. No need for
that today. All you need to do is know how to score well on
playstation and use an I-Pod.
The current US literacy rate is 99.9%. I don't know what it was in
1960 but I'd wager it was quite a bit lower.
Meanwhile, today's kids are able to do stuff much more advanced
than the kids of the 60's would have dreamed.
|4.27.07 @ 11:25AM|#
"Another angle on the whole public education thing is this: why
do taxpayers have to fund job training for businesses, who in turn
do everything they can to avoid paying taxes themselves?"
Because no one really perceives the value of education to be
identical to job training. You can't act as though parents and the
children themselves don't get anything out of the education. And
because every taxpayer does everything they can to avoid paying
taxes. And because much of corporate taxation is passed to
consumers anyway.
|4.27.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Not in all markets, but in many, the burden of corporate taxation is carried in the form of higher prices.
Rhywun|4.27.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Where did this silly "bad school" anthropomorphism come from? Schools aren't bad--teachers and administrators are bad. Put too many of them in one school--say, the school in the ghetto that nobody wants to work at--and you've got a "bad school". The current solution seems to be to close down the "bad school" and shuffle the rotten teachers and administrators out to other schools so they can ruin them, too. Of course this is the only "solution" the teachers unions will allow...
|4.27.07 @ 11:33AM|#
JasonL,
Sorry, my confusion. I thought you were making some weird point
about taxes being used to serve the needs of the people or
whatever.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 11:33AM|#
"And because much of corporate taxation is passed to
consumers anyway."
What?
Actually, all of it is passed to consumers and the owners of
publically traded corporations get taxed twice.
Lichtenberg|4.27.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Dan T.,
I'm going to have to challenge you on the 99.9% literacy rate
statement. The challenge is what you define as "literate." Ability
to read a stop sign? Or ability to read a job application. BTW, I'm
assuming your figure excludes the significant population under the
age of 6.
Scooby|4.27.07 @ 11:35AM|#
I see no reason why people shouldn't use calculators since
they're faster and more accurate than doing math by
hand.
Somebody's got to know how to do the math by hand, in order to
program the calculators to do the math for us. The purpose of math
homework isn't to accurately crank out computations as fast as
possible, it is to teach the computation processes (and the
analytical thinking necessary to produce novel computation
algoritms).
But sure, since 21st education consists basically of just
babysitting and marking time between standardized tests, go ahead
and allow calculators.
|4.27.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Rhywun,
Exactly. Teachers Unions are a huge influence on this whole
charade. Tenure based pay and inordinately complicated firing
procedures being two of the major things keeping bad teachers
around. Not to mention that they fight any sort of school choice or
privatization reforms with tooth and nail.
Dave W.|4.27.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Actually, all of it is passed to consumers
Oh, then it works like a consumption tax and not a tax on
productivity. More corporate taxes and less income taxes, then? Is
that what you are trying to tell us, my fireman friend?
Rhywun|4.27.07 @ 11:43AM|#
My senior class was full of people who were far more
interested in shopping than in exploring the world of ideas or
questioning authority.
Education throughout recorded history has always been
about indoctrination in addition to learning facts and skills. Like
the private/public argument, this one gets in the way of discussion
of real problems. And by the way, what parent sends their kid to
school in order to learn to "question authority"?!
|4.27.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Just to inject some facts into the debate...
Kids are smarter today according to the tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Kids today given an IQ test from the 1960's would on average score
about a standard deviation higher than their 1960's
counterparts.
|4.27.07 @ 11:46AM|#
My whole career has been in education.
Each school has it own unique problems.
There is not monolithic educational failure in the United States.
Solutions will all be local as will failures.
The federal role is better constrained to setting targets and
minimum benchmarks.
IDEA is also an important law.
LarryA|4.27.07 @ 11:46AM|#
I don't think this is an issue of private verse public, I
think it is an issue of the parents taking an adversarial position
against the schools.
In many cases the adversarial position is by the school. When my
younger child would get into trouble the school never bothered to
tell us about it. When we would go , or call, and say, "What can we
do to help?" the answer was always, "Don't help. Just stay out of
our way." When we tried to back up the school by reinforcing school
rules, the school would work around the rules and undercut our
efforts.
For instance our daughter started cutting classes. We got no notice
this was occurring. We started warning the kid that excess absences
(per state law) would result in her having to repeat the grade.
Near the end of the semester the school called her into a meeting
of the "attendance committee" without any parental input
whatsoever, "forgave" a huge number of absences, and allowed her to
pass. Nor was she unique. I know a half-dozen other concerned
parents who experienced the same thing. That way the school
wouldn't be dinged for having to hold students back.
Turns out the students expected this, as it happened every year.
Other students had passed the word, "Don't sweat cutting."
The only problem with that theory is that kids today are much
smarter than children of the past. They have to be, as the world is
a much more complex place to navigate.
Not. Complexity is producing a balanced diet starting with raising
the ingredients, or shaping trees into something that will play a
symphony. Technology makes things much simpler,
and far less risky.
Meanwhile, today's kids are able to do stuff much more advanced
than the kids of the 60's would have dreamed.
Meanwhile, today's kids are able to get machines they don't
know how to build to do stuff much more advanced than the
kids of the 60's would have dreamed.
How is playing an mp3 on an iPod "more advanced" than playing a
45RPM record on a phonograph? As far as the kid's "ability," how is
it "more advanced" to IM than to have a telephone
conversation?
Say, Radley, care to provide any backup to the assertion that
this political campaign is aimed at getting "even more spending on
public schools?"
The example of every other "government needs to show more interest
in X" campaign in history?
there are thousands of public school districts that are
independent from each other and compete with one another for
students.
If parents are able to sell their houses and purchase one in the
other district, and the district doesn't then change the boundaries
because they have too many students.
One symptom no one seems to consider:
When I turned eight (1955) I joined the Cub Scouts. Every week, on
den meeting day, we wore our uniforms to school. Part of that
uniform was the Cub Scout pocketknife. It was maybe three inches
long, with a blue plastic grip. It had a knife blade, screw driver,
can opener, and bottle opener. It hung down into the right front
pants pocket on a brass clip.
When we got our knives, adults taught us how to whittle safely, and
how to keep them sharp. They also taught us we were responsible for
using them properly. Then we were packed off to school, where we
were trusted to exercise that responsibility. All this in the third
grade.
Today (2007) schools expel honor student high school seniors if the
law enforcement search team discovers a butter knife that was lost
in the back seat of the student's car.
I exercised more personal responsibility in elementary school than
we permit in high school.
|4.27.07 @ 11:47AM|#
"17,166 students
through the private schools first grade through twelvth grade. that
doesn't seem like that many, really."
What an excellent argument; unless and until we can save everyone,
everywhere, there is no point in saving anyone, anywhere. You
should run for office.
Fluffy|4.27.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Dan -
The kids of today that can do things no one dreamed of in the
1960's aren't the kids driving down today's average test
scores.
And let's consider the verbal portion of the SAT, which certainly
isn't technology-dependent and thus should be consistent over time.
Verbal scores were deteriorating to the degree that they had to
redesign the entire test.
It's possible that this doesn't mean anything - but only if you're
one of those people who asserts that being able to read, understand
the meanings of words, and follow simple analogies has nothing to
do with education.
Russ 2000|4.27.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Just having educated, as opposed to uneducated, people
roaming around the streets is a nice thing.
True. But my mechanic always changes the subject when I try to
discuss Austrian Economic Theory with him and just says "Fuck you.
Pay me."
Lichtenberg|4.27.07 @ 11:57AM|#
LarryA
And I thought I was being irresponsible for letting my 12-yo nephew
handle my Revolutionary War musket! (or try to, anyway, they're
damned heavy after all, I can barely lift it)
Your parents and teachers and scoutmasters, if still alive, should
be put to death! No person under 40 is responsible enough to hold a
knife other than professional cooks! Doesn't everyone know that?!?
What the hell is wrong with you? OMG!!!!
|4.27.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Neu Mejican,
Just because IQ scores are going up doesn't mean the quality of
education is. Even if you do take IQ scores as a good measure of
intelligence they are an intrinsic quality of people, they say
nothing about education.
We can debate the merits of IDEA and teaching disabled children,
but one of the most pernicious effects of that law has been giving
poor teachers using terrible teaching methods the ability to then
label those kids who don't learn as "learning disabled" and shuffle
them into a special needs program (where they, by the way, won't
effect the statistics on standardized testing scores).
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Wait, corporate taxes don't bite into profits? They are usually passed to consumers, and only rarely reduce profits?
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Still, I am often astounded when my younger colleagues (by
only 10 years, and we're all accountants, no less!) have the
hardest time figuring out the bill and tip when we all go out to
eat. One of my staff, who's a very smart, well-educated kid,
recently intended to give a 20% tip. He gave a 35% tip instead. I
liked the server, so I didn't correct him, but I laughed all the
way home. He's great with Excel spreadsheets, though.
Since there are no wrong answers in school any more then this os
perfectly understandable.
|4.27.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Fluffy,
That is a serious mischaracterization of the motivation for
reconfiguring the SAT.
Dave W.|4.27.07 @ 12:09PM|#
What an excellent argument; unless and until we can save
everyone, everywhere, there is no point in saving anyone, anywhere.
You should run for office.
Clarification: Mr. Balko said that the money would buy a lot of
scholarships. My point was not as many as you might think. The
17,166 scholarships may indeed be the best and highest use for the
$2.06B philanthropic gesture, but I still think it is helpful to
quantify it in terms of students served.
Mike Laursen|4.27.07 @ 12:09PM|#
When was the last time you met somebody who was truly
illiterate, for example?
All the time. A lot more who have piss poor reading and writing
skills. Sadly, one of them is a nephew of mine.
Back in the old days, it was very common.
Not true. In early American culture it was considered critical to
teach children to read. Why? As one Massachusetts law put it: to
fight "one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men
from knowledge of Scriptures".
Fluffy|4.27.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Neu -
No, it's not.
I really don't trust the motives for adding a subjective section to
the test. And that's what the essay section is - an opportunity to
hand out points.
And the test was being rebalanced for difficulty for years before
it was comprehensively redesigned. When an organization spends
years tweaking a test and a scoring system to make the test easier,
and then announces they're redesigning the test as a whole to make
it "a better tool of measurement", well - color me skeptical.
|4.27.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Maybe those guys should invite Steve Jobs to lunch, and ask
what he thinks.
Just wait a couple of weeks. By then, Job's appointment book will
be backdated to show that he already had that lunch.
|4.27.07 @ 12:14PM|#
SamB,
I was refuting the assertion that kids today aren't as smart as
they were in 1960.
Education is one of the potential explanations for the Flynn
effect, but there are certainly others.
"but one of the most pernicious effects of that law has been giving
poor teachers using terrible teaching methods the ability to then
label those kids who don't learn as "learning disabled" and shuffle
them into a special needs program (where they, by the way, won't
effect the statistics on standardized testing scores)."
Teacher's don't really have this ability, but you identify an
important issue about misapplication of the law.
It is more subtle, I think. The law created a class of specialists
within education (special education teachers). Regular teachers,
therefore, when faced with a challenging child feel like they do
not have the specialized skills needed to teach that child and seek
out the specialists. This makes sense for some children, but the
longer this mindset has been around, the lower the bar has become
for seeking out that expertise.
|4.27.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Fluffy,
Each time you change a measurement instrument you are measuring
something different.
No argument there.
But to say that the motivation was to make children look smarter is
inaccurate.
The motivation was to provide universities with a metric that
better predicted college success.
|4.27.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Kids today given an IQ test from the 1960's would on average score about a standard deviation higher than their 1960's counterparts.
Really? I know that when I take any of the IQ tests I see on the
web and elsewhere, I score just about where I did during the 1950s
and 60s -- right around 1000. Does that mean I've gotten dumber or
smarter?
|4.27.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Fair enough, but the incidence of "learning disability" HAS risen
dramatically since IDEA was introduced while other mental
disabilities have remained at the same rate. Teachers might not
have the direct ability to label kids learning disabled but they
can make suggestions to parents. I find this especially pernicious
because it applies a label to a child at a very young age that they
will carry with them the rest of their life and all because some
crappy teacher couldn't teach them to read using a "whole language"
approach.
|4.27.07 @ 12:42PM|#
"the incidence of "learning disability" HAS risen dramatically
since IDEA was introduced'
No argument there. But there is serious debate about how much of
that is due to better identification (attention focused on the
issue by IDEA and earlier special ed laws), and how much is due to
the potential increase in actual incidence of LD in the population
due to prenatal exposures, greater survival rates for preterm
births, and other factors that could be considered causes for a
real increases.
As far as early identification goes.
All the best science points to the fact that earlier identification
of neurocognitively based (special education) or socio-culturally
based (not qualified for special education) learning problems will
increase the chances of good outcomes. Waiting until those outcomes
turn out bad and then attempting remediation has been demonstrated
to be far less effective.
The trick is finding early markers of learning problems that
accurately predict poor outcomes.
The science is making pretty good strides in this area, even if
there is a long way to go.
|4.27.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Ok, those are all good points. I guess I tend to lean more towards
the Szaszian side when it comes to mental disorders. And when it
comes to mental disorders and education, well then it is hard for
me to trust anything that any supposed "authority" says.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Oh, then it works like a consumption tax and not a tax on
productivity. More corporate taxes and less income taxes, then? Is
that what you are trying to tell us, my fireman friend?
See, Dave W, this is why I normally don't read you or joe (if you
really are differentl people). You truncated a quote to invent an
argument about what was answered in the quote.
Now, run back to the whole quote and you will get the answer to
your stupid question.
The whoe thing answers thoreau's question too.
Just a few more worda in the whole thing that what you quoted. See
if you can find them.
|4.27.07 @ 1:01PM|#
"Good point, joe. Until such backup is provided I think we
should all assume it's equally likely their goal is to get
candidates in the 2008 presidential race to support drastic
cutbacks in public school spending."
Good point, D.A. Ridgley, because all political beliefs are best
understood by laying them out along a single axis. In the case of
education, the only possible question anybody could be asking is,
"Should we spend more, or less?"
Now if only I could figure out if libertarians are slightly more or
slightly less right-wing than Pat Robertson.
Dave W.|4.27.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Actually, all of it is passed to consumers and the owners of
publically traded corporations get taxed twice.
I found the full quote even more mysterious. It seems to say there
is some magical tax that consumers pay once and owners of
corporations pay twice. That is three payments in all!
Probably a better way to look at taxes on corporate profits (that
is what you were referring to, wasn't it?) is that this tax is
partially passed on consumers and partially borne by the corporate
owners. It is paid once. To the partial extent it is passed on it
is a (hidden) tax on consumption. To the partial extent the
corporate owners pay it, it is a (not hidden) tax on
productivity.
Now isn't that a more realistic way to look at it? Really, if it is
all passed on, it is tough to see why a guy with your leanings
would have any problem with it. The fact that you do have a problem
with it suggests that it is not really all passed on.
|4.27.07 @ 1:07PM|#
"I tend to lean more towards the Szaszian side when it comes to
mental disorders"
That's okay, Szaszian mental disorders only lead to Scientology and
other negative outcomes in a small percentage of
individuals...
;^)
The science is pretty strong that there are real brain-based
differences that lead to difficulties in learning.
Bruce Tomlin, a leading scientist in the field, made a nice
statement about this at a conference I attended.
"Learning disabilities are differences in innate mental capacities
that lead to negative outcomes we care about."
It is the second half of that statement that is the real
challenge.
Which differences matter?
Tough question.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Jesus Christ, I am not smart enough to explain this to you or a
post.
I found the full quote even more mysterious. It seems to say
there is some magical tax that consumers pay once and owners of
corporations pay twice. That is three payments in all!
The corporation is owned by shareholders (it is not some mythical
entity that sprang from the earth ala Noam Chomsly). The
corporation pays a corporate income tax and many other taxes, which
are passed on to the consumers AND reduce the profits realised by
the shareholders. The shareholders get to pay for their realized
capital gains in another little known (to dopes who spout abotu
this 'little-known' vehicle, the capital gains tax. Yea, I
know you never think of that one until it is time to try to raise
it.
It is not enough that their shares of the profit of the firm were
taxed before they realized any gain, they get taxed again for
having a gain after the first tax.
I am going back to ignoring you.
|4.27.07 @ 1:15PM|#
That's okay, Szaszian mental disorders only lead to
Scientology and other negative outcomes in a small percentage of
individuals...
Don't worry about that, I think what Scientology espouses is worse
than what I see as the failings of psychiatry. I'd rather someone
take zoloft than vitamins.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Correction:
"in another little known (to dopes who spout abotu this
'little-known' vehicle, the capital gains tax. Yea, I know you
never think of that one until it is time to try to raise it."
should read
in another 'little-known' vehicle, the capital gains tax. Yea, I
know you never think of that one until it is time to try to raise
it.
|4.27.07 @ 1:26PM|#
What's the difference between corporate taxes and income taxes for a 1-man company? (sole proprietor)
Pat|4.27.07 @ 1:28PM|#
there is an argument to be made that when the populace is decently
educated, we all benefit. Just having educated, as opposed to
uneducated, people roaming around the streets is a nice
thing.
Perhaps, but then we'd have to rely on the false premise that the
only way to have an educated populace is through involuntary
taxation for Government education centers. We all benefit from
having food readily available at our local grocery stores. That
doesn't make it the responsibility of the Government.
|4.27.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Broad also pumps a lot of money into Steve Barr's Green Dot Schools here in LA, a chain of charter schools that challenge the ossified public district, both directly - they'll take a big, old-style, failing public school, ring it with smaller charters, and put a lot of energy into pitching them to the parents, trying to claim as much of the student body as possible - and indirectly - each charter has a lot of autonomy, and when a principal hits on something that seems to work, it'll get written up and circulated around the district.
|4.27.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Doctor Duck,
You were taking IQ tests on the web in the 50s and 60s?
Short answer - everything a stand-up duck does, is on the
web.
But really, if a modern kid would do better on an old IQ test, then
an 'old kid' should do worse on a modern IQ test -- or the
comparison is flawed.
So if every time I take an IQ test today, I score about where I did
on IQ tests of the past, that means what?
I like apples, and oranges too. Why can't I have both?
Dave W.|4.27.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Yea, I know you never think of that one until it is time to
try to raise it.
I think of capital gains all the time. i think it is where the
entire military and security budget should come from, as I have
explained at least a couple times here at HnR.
I would have a lot less problem with you and your Chargers suckling
at the government teat, if it were a capital gains and inheritance
tax funded teat you guys was sucking on.
I don't agree with your triple taxation argument by the way, but
probably not worth going further with that here. Neo-cons are so
cranky these days! Like a young Dave W. back when Bush was on the
carrier. Oh how I wish that carrier had been purchased with capital
gains monies!
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 2:06PM|#
I prefer the more descriptive term "gun schools" over "public schools". Any chance that Reason will adopt that change?
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Oh, Radley, totally off topic, but those Missile Defence Agency folks shot down a pair of targets in the same engagement. Might be a good story in there someplace.
|4.27.07 @ 2:24PM|#
To clairify why I mentioned corporate taxation:
I was suggesting in response to Dan T that it isn't obvious how to
make corporations 'pay for their own training' because corporations
raise income from consumers. In some cases corporations may pass
attempts to tax them directly back to consumers. Even when the
taxes eat into profits, you can't act as though that is a neutral
proposition for society at large.
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Even when the taxes eat into profits, you can't act as
though that is a neutral proposition for society at
large.
I'm not suggesting that it is. I'm just saying that the effects of
a tax can be mixed, reducing profit per unit as well as increasing
consumer price per unit. Some taxes will increase one more than the
other, others will be rather even. It isn't a neutral position for
society at large, but it isn't accurate to imply that a seller's
bottom line isn't affected by taxes.
|4.27.07 @ 3:15PM|#
"But really, if a modern kid would do better on an old IQ test,
then an 'old kid' should do worse on a modern IQ test -- or the
comparison is flawed.
So if every time I take an IQ test today, I score about where I did
on IQ tests of the past, that means what? "
It means that they are continuing to compare you to your peers. IQ
tests are norm referenced, not criterion referenced.
|4.27.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Then on top of all this the politicians want us have tax payer
funded adult education classes. After all the adults that blew off
school as kids when it was free the 1st time around now want it
free a 2nd time around.
The text books change and are selected in many colleges based on
the fact that the author of the book teaches at the school. I had
several books that feel into that catagory. Now they charge you
another $50 for a worthless CD as well. When you go to sell the
book back its suddenly only worth maybe 20% of what you paid for it
then a few weeks later the market value goes back up to 95% of the
original price you paid.
Think about what a racket that is. How many places can sell a
product at prices that are overly inflated to begin with to
customers with no choice in the matter. Then have those same
products sold back to them for a fraction of what was paid and be
re-sold several more times over. The fucking bookstores are making
a huge profit off the same item up to 9 times in most cases. Then
they get a new book and the price goes up and the game starts
again.
Nothing used to piss me off more than spending $120 on a book and
the teacher never once uses it or has us use it for anything. You
learn to wait and make sure you even need it before getting one
after awhile.
The best deal I have seen is where my daughter goes to college and
they rent the books each semester. I think the total for this last
semester was $78 for 15 hours of books. Quite the deal considering
most average more than that for one at the usual college
bookstores. You still have to be workbooks etc but the savings is
huge and the school knows it will pay off the books in no time.
They also aren't so quick to change books anytime they edit one
doing this, they wait till the books need replacing and then
replace them.
Its obvious by now to anyone with 1/10000000th of a brain cell that
more money is not the answer or we would have nothing but smart
kids walking around not the dumbass kids I always see. Throwing
more money at making kids smarter is about as likely to work as
making them take longer bus rides to schools far from their homes
so they can be diverse.
|4.27.07 @ 4:39PM|#
From the wikipedia article on rising IQ scores:
Because children attend school longer now and have become much
more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one
might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school
content-related tests as vocabulary, arithmetic or general
information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these
have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional
declines over the years.
Whatever is causing IQ scores to rise, it seems to be working in
spite of, not because of, formal schooling.
|4.27.07 @ 5:48PM|#
RC Dean,
"Whatever is causing IQ scores to rise, it seems to be working in
spite of, not because of, formal schooling."
That is way too simplistic an analysis. Even the wikipedia article
(hardly an indepth analysis) gets into some of the
complexities.
For instance, if, as some have proposed, the rise in average IQ is
carried mainly by the lower end of the distribution, it would seem
that improved access to education is at least, in part, helping to
raise IQ scores.
I am not committed to the role of education here, but it can't be
discounted outright.
|4.27.07 @ 6:56PM|#
So if every time I take an IQ test today, I score about where I did on IQ tests of the past, that means what?
It means that they are continuing to compare you to your peers. IQ tests are norm referenced, not criterion referenced.
How is it possible for a blind, web-based IQ test to know what my
peer group is? My score doesn't change if I 'tell' the test I'm 10
or 100.
The claim was made that the cohort of today's kids, taking a test
from the 60s, would score higher than the cohort of the 60s did on
the same test. Does that not imply that the 60s group should score
lower than modern kids on a test from today? If not, then what does
that claim mean?
|4.27.07 @ 8:51PM|#
"How is it possible for a blind, web-based IQ test to know what
my peer group is? My score doesn't change if I 'tell' the test I'm
10 or 100.
"The claim was made that the cohort of today's kids, taking a test
from the 60s, would score higher than the cohort of the 60s did on
the same test. Does that not imply that the 60s group should score
lower than modern kids on a test from today? If not, then what does
that claim mean?"
Without more details it would be hard to say for sure, but it
sounds like the test your using is comparing you to your peers
defined as "other people who have taken said web-based IQ test."
Otherwise, they may have collapsed the entire age range into a
single norm curve. Many of the web-base IQ tests I have seen just
use old norms collapsed across age groups... and seriously
over-estimate IQ.
The Flynn Effect has been documented around the world with well
controlled studies. A cohort of children from today taking an IQ
test from 1960 would be expected to score, on average, about one
standard deviation higher than the mean of the cohort on which the
test was normed.
To say the least, it would be difficult to travel back in time and
test the reverse hypothesis.
It clearly does not imply that someone who was a child in 1960 who
is now taking a well normed modern test should do worse (have a
lower score) than someone from a younger cohort taking the same
test, since both would have scores normed on their age group. Being
older (up to a point- if you were born in 1960, that trend will
turn around on your before you would like) predicts that you will
get more questions correct than those younger than you, but the
same factor holds for all of your peers, so your score does not
change relative to those you are being compared with.
If you are actually interested, the wikipedia entry on IQ tests is
reasonable in accuracy up to the point at which you see warnings
from editors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_tests
|4.27.07 @ 9:18PM|#
A very recent study on the Flynn Effect.
GENERATIONAL CHANGES ON THE DRAW-A-MAN TEST: A COMPARISON OF
BRAZILIAN URBAN AND RURAL CHILDREN TESTED IN 1930, 2002 AND
2004
ROBERTO COLOM, CARMEN E. FLORES-MENDOZA and FRANCISCO J. ABAD
Journal of Biosocial Science, Volume 39, Issue 01, January 2007, pp
79-89
Although gains in generational intelligence test scores have been
widely demonstrated around the world, researchers still do not know
what has caused them. The cognitive stimulation and nutritional
hypotheses summarize the several diverse potential causes that have
been considered. This article analyses data for a sample of 499
children tested in 1930 and one equivalent sample of 710 children
tested 72 years later, the largest gap ever considered. Both
samples comprised children aged between 7 and 11 who were assessed
by the Draw-a-Man test in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Further, one additional sample of 132 children was assessed in 2004
in a rural area very similar in several diverse factors to the 1930
urban sample. The results are consistent with both the cognitive
stimulation and the nutritional hypotheses.
Untermensch|4.30.07 @ 6:21AM|#
I'm going to have to challenge you on the 99.9% literacy rate statement. The challenge is what you define as "literate." Ability to read a stop sign? Or ability to read a job application. BTW, I'm assuming your figure excludes the significant population under the age of 6.
In Dan T's defense, I believe he was citing official US numbers for
adults. That said, my own experience puts functional literacy
numbers much lower. I know a number of adults who can, with
difficulty, read basic texts, but who do not read on a regular
basis because of their difficulty. I have no empirical evidence for
the numbers, but I'd put the actual literacy rate in the upper
eighth decile. The 99.9% figure, however, is just wrong when you
exclude those who would get "the cat sat on the mat" eventually,
but who can't tell you what it says without an effort...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245