2. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:08 AM PT
[continued from Message #1]
Sommers explains that schools around the country listen to these folks in the hopes of steering clear of complicated federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination in any educational institution receiving public funds.
NCSEE's agenda is based on the idea that girls do worse in school than boys. Never mind that girls on average get better grades than boys, take more rigorous academic programs, are more committed to school than their male peers -- and today make up a majority of college freshmen. Or that boys are more likely than girls to get in trouble, drop out and be diagnosed as learning disabled. Or that while the so-called math gap favoring boys is closing, the much larger reading gap favoring girls isn't.
NCSEE maintains that any advantage boys enjoy constitutes sex bias, while, it would seem, any advantage girls enjoy is a (rare) triumph of equity. NCSEE wants to dismantle this system of "injustice" by re-socializing boys. Or, as the keynote speaker told her rapt audience, "We have an incredible opportunity (to do so.) Kids are so malleable."
The gathered educators were glad to learn how and why to re-create boys. One speaker reported on a large-scale equity project, whose goal was to develop a curriculum for high school students that would enhance their "gender equity competencies" -- whatever that is. The results were "gender-equity modules" (GEMs) consisting of small packets of practice quizzes, worksheets and activities. In one exercise, members in small discussion groups were randomly given little bags filled with different amounts of beans. Each time a discussant talked he or she had to relinquish a bean, so some folks got to talk a lot more than others. This was to demonstrate that boys have more beans in life.
[continued]
3. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:09 AM PT
[continued from Message #2]
You see, today what was once referred to as "boys will be boys" behavior -- including competitiveness and aggressiveness -- is viewed by some as bad. But sharing and cooperation, generally thought of by the same group as female traits, are considered good.
Even apart from NCSEE elitists, that sort of thinking is widely reflected in today's schools. Millions of boys who would once be thought of only as having "ants in their pants" are now, for instance, medicated with Ritalin. And there are schools like the one in Lexington, Mass., that teach boys to quilt and another in Fairfax, Va., in which grade-schoolers performed a play where the princess and her maids destroyed the dragon while the boys helplessly looked on. And boys sports programs have been dismantled at some schools to make room for added girls sports programs -- whether or not girls expressed interest.
Sommers argues that to the extent traditional boyish behavior and activities aren't allowed in school, boys lessen their attachment to school. And she says that, combined with fewer traditional male role models to properly train and civilize boys (whether because of our more feminized culture or because more boys than ever are growing up without dads in the home), may be reasons why boys, not girls, are doing poorly in school.
In other words, boys are the ones falling behind and it's not because they aren't more like girls. It's largely because more and more of our schools and our culture are trying to feminize them instead of civilize them.
BETSY HART, a former White House spokesman, is a weekly commentator on MSNBC television news. She can be reached at hart@aol.com.
4. Ronski - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:44 AM PT
Educrat: "Kids are so malleable."
Another good argument for privatizing almost everything.
5. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
Thanks for the article, Irv and fraygrant who originally linked it. It's certainly provocative, if not entirely tosh.
As with any social construct, education finds itself subject to trends. And trends tend ultimately to function as little more than nuisances that incite change. So Betsy Hart pivots on this truth unwittingly and shows us little more in her article than the latest unsatisfactory reason for alarm. Boys are different from girls. Sure. Hell, boys are different from other boys. This is not in dispute. What I do find troublesome, however, is the author's wreckless treatment of an issue that she, along with her cited sources, decided to create on account of a trend, an ephemeral, necessary and finally forgettable trend. By her acknowledging some dehumanizing effect of education on students, the reader is forced to look up in a panic and call out for reason and sanity, because the educational system in this country is backwards, upside-down, inside-out and altogether a shambles.
No.
6. lazygeorge - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
I think it is possible to argue that boys and girls are poorly served by our schools but for completely different reasons. I have seen examples of both. I am not sure education is the zero sum game that some people claim. If girls do well it should not mean that boys do less well.
7. MizPhys - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT
My master's thesis was on the topic of gender bias in science education. In science, the bias is definitely against girls. Studies show that teachers call on boys more often, and give them more time to answer. Girls often get less "hands-on" learning in the lab, because they are less agressive in a group. Parental (and societal) expectations are often higher for boys in science. Science textbooks show many more pictures of males and use many more male names in examples.
In 1995, only 10% of degrees awarded in electrical and mechanical engineering went to women. Around 15% of physics degrees went to women. (Engineering Workforce Commission, as cited in Physics Today)
My own Bachelor's degree was in mechanical engineering, and the bias that I endured was horrific. That's why I decided to become a physics teacher.
8. ChristinO - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:24 AM PT
How dare anyone teach quilting to a boy!!!! It's only a matter of time before we destroy the whole fabric of our society with such trends!
9. bubbaette - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
Phyz
I particularly remember all the sports analogies I had to endure from male teachers during High school and two post-secondarty degrees. The ball's in your court... It's whatever down with _ seconds remaining...
I also had a proff who was always making "your old lady" jokes in class.
Jaysus! I always mentioned it in college in the teacher evaluations
that I was going to start answering back in sewing or cooking analogies just so *they'd* be clueless for a change.
10. phillipdavid - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:00 AM PT
I remember reading about a study last year which showed girls were catching up with boys in math and science. It said that in 1996 girls
performed just as well as boys in math and science on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a congressionally mandated test given to nationally representative groups of students. Slight differences remained among top-achieving students in science, where 12th grade boys continued to outperform their female classmates.
It also reported that girls outperformed boys on reading tests, and that gap was 3 times the gap between boys and girls in math and science.
11. MizPhys - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
The SAT is used as a predictor of success in college, yet it significantly overpredicts boys' scores and underpredicts girls' scores.
12. harper - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
When I was in high school (all-girls, parochial), I had a friend (female) in public school who wanted to take "Shop" rather than "Home Ec". Her parents had to sue the school district for the right. They won. Now boys can take "Bachelor Survival" courses ("Home Ec"). I think that education should be gender and ehtnic/color-blind. Everyone should have the same opportunities to learn. As a person who couldn't care less about school athletics, I think some leeway should pertain. For every dollar available for male athletics, a dollar should be available for female athletics at a school. If that dollar is not used, then it should revert to the other gender's program.
BTW, I think the article was a load of codswallop. That's "crap" in words of one syllable. For example, the passage: Millions of boys who would once be thought of only as having "ants in their pants" are now, for instance, medicated with Ritalin. " I have a friend with a 13-year old son. The kid has bounced off walls as long as I've known him, which is all his life. They enrolled him in martial arts classes, took him to league soccer and other athletics. Nothing helped to quell the "ants." He didn't do well in school, despite being incredibly bright; homework was a battle every night. Finally, as a last resort, they tried Ritalin. Worked a miracle. He's still an obnoxious little shit, but now he's calm, does his homework, does well in school, eats real food, etc. So general statements like the one above make me question the validity of the article as a whole.
13. MizPhys - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:04 AM PT
The SAT is also used as a criterion for many college scholarships. What has been the monetary loss to girls over the years?
14. ChristinO - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:04 AM PT
Does anyone still have links or figures on the veracity of the math/reading gap? As I recall, when we dicussed gender bias in the classroom before it was bandied about that girls only outperform boys in reading for a short while and then boys catch and eventually outperform their female classmates.
I wonder why Hart thinks that only boys get "ants". There could be any number of reasons for this appearance. The first that comes to my mind is biology--the male of the species is built to be more athletic/energetic---- and the second that comes to mind is that there is greater pressure on girls to "behave" and "act like a lady". Girls learn earlier to restrain themselves and do as they're told. I would assume that this self-discipline aids learning, but that it is eventually counteracted by the bias in favor of boys in education.
15. MizPhys - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:09 AM PT
The verbal portion of the SAT has been rewritten in recent years to try to lessen the gender gap. No such efforts have been directed at lessening the mat gender gap. *Actual gains* have resulted in girls' increases in math SATs.
16. MizPhys - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:10 AM PT
mat=math
17. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:27 AM PT
Here are some math achievement stats
18. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
Here are some reading achievement stats.
19. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
And some science proficiency stats
Actually, they're all proficiency stats.
20. msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 10:15 AM PT
Some data to help frame the discussion.
1995 Math and Science Achievement in Middle School Years, By Gender and Country.
A more comprehensive look at gender differences in math and science in the USt;.
Achievement in the US, 1997 Senate Committee Reportt;. Look down the discussion for information on gender differences in achievement in the various subjects.
Gender differences in Reading Proficiency, 1994 NAEP Report. Scroll down to the middle of the report for the gender stuff.
21. msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
Ha! I see Diva beat me to it.
22. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 10:22 AM PT
Dat's why dey call me de Duchess of Data around here (here meaning work.)
23. msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT
And here is some trend data on SAT scores by gender;
SAT's.
24. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
These links that have been provided signal what is wrong with the impersonal test-centered approach to teaching as much as they serve as a wake-up call to start individualizing instruction and gearing pedagogy toward the student.
25. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT
What I find interesting is the fact that there are greater discrepancies in proficiency, as rated according to race, than there are as rated according to sex.
26. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT
A whole different can of worms there, Deev. Care to open it up? (If so, this is sure to become a hotbed of race-related fingerpointing and nay-saying.) Go for it.
27. bubbaette - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
I would be willing to bet that socioeconomic status is a better predictor than race or sex.
28. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
Bubb
There are tables at that site (the one I linked to) that pretty much prove what you're saying.
29. bubbaette - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
Diva
If you use the parent's highest educational attainment as a substitute for income. I didn't see any parental income stats. Looks like the greatest factor for reading skills was the number of types of reading materials in the home.
30. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
bub and Deev (sound like a couple o' pop stars),
May we assert, for the sake of this discussion, that socioeconomic status and racial status are reasonably congruent? Plainly, may we say that blacks are the poorer and whites are the wealthier? (Uh-oh. The thread twists....)
31. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
duh, Diva.
I knew that.
32. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
Dan
No.
33. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:55 PM PT
Just kiddin', Dan, I felt like being autocratic for a minute.
34. bubbaette - Jan. 20, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
I agree with Deev. If you equate race with income, you slight a growing black middle class and may be led to make inaccurate generalizations.
35. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
You also confuse alterable with inalterable factors, which is terrible if you're contemplating policy.
36. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
bub,
Generalizations, by their very nature, harbor inaccuracies. But you can't fight them. Evil as they are, we work with their oppressive blessings all the time. Hell, they're the very warp and woof of deductive reasoning. I'm just trying to be realistic here.
Then again, this thread is about gender, not race. So I might consider shutting it right now.
37. TheDiva - Jan. 20, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
The other thing I found interesting was the slow, steady decline of scores over the years....save for the SAT scores, which take an upward turn about halfway through the table, if I remember correctly. I wonder if that increase correlates with the change (read: dumbing down) of the SAT.
38. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
Actually, only the math scores recover. Verbal scores have never recovered, I believe.
39. nowsmart - Jan. 20, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
Since I am of the WWII generation, served during three armed conflicts, married an educator and raised seven children, my knowledge of Sex Equity in Education is slanted. My obervations are simple; the american education system has been in the hands of women for the most part of my life. I had one male teacher thru the first 10 grades, (Shop Teacher), The females I came in contact with were dedicated professionals, including my wife, however, when the socialist democrat party took over the teachers union, many things changed, the biggest change was individual accountablity; both teachers, students and parents.There are volumes written on who and what is responsible for the sex equity problems in our scools, but I believe it goes back to the basic question: where is the individual accountability being placed? nowsmart@aol.com
40. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
DanDillon
"Generalizations... Hell, they're the very warp and woof of deductive reasoning. "
Therefore one needs to employ inductive reasoning first, to get accurate premises for one's deductions. (Which is what Bubbaette said in 34, but apparently you missed the point.)
41. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 3:11 PM PT
chloel,
Comity, babe, comity. No need to be peppery. Save your belligerence for those threads that call for it.
42. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 3:41 PM PT
DanDillon
Lazy argument deserves pepper. Comity? You achieve parvanimity, in calling disagreement with your ideas belligerence, instead of defending them.
43. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 20, 1999 - 4:00 PM PT
Message #30
I think a more serious person would say that race and socioeconomic status are correlated, not "congruent".
44. Seguine - Jan. 20, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
Chloe1
I have to conclude you've just called Dildo an upstart, and not a food item that may be served with either milk or meat. "Parvenuanimity" might then have been more apt, or "parvenuism"; possibly "parveniricity".
That aside, yours was a character assessment brilliant and clear, one sure to make Dildo sad; though he won't be able to put his twelve fingers on why, exactly.
45. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 6:47 PM PT
Re: The decline in SAT scores.
One of the most important reasons for the decline in SAT scores noted in most of the trend data is the increased number of students taking the SAT annually now compared to earlier periods (particularly the pre-1965 period). As more students take the exam, the sample distribution becomes more normal, and reaches down to a more "average" measure of student achievement. This may not seem important, but, in fact, is very important because it means that SAT scores from 1960 capture an average score for the top 3-5% of seniors nationwide, compared to SAT scores in the 80's where the average accounted for between 35-35% of all seniors nationwide.
Some have also argued that the decline also indicates that students were coming out of schools less prepared in the areas the SAT tests than previous generations. This is the argument most put forth as to why the scores have declined.
46. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
25-35%......
47. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 6:50 PM PT
Btw, SES might help account for the race/ethnicity achievement gap but not any gender gap, unless you are willing to accept that most girls are born in poor families and most males are born in wealthy families. A stretch by any definition.
48. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 6:53 PM PT
MsIT
Can't we get the SAT averages for the top 3%-5% of students now? How has that changed in the last thirty years?
Seguine
It's the opposite of magnanimity.
49. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 6:58 PM PT
Chloel
Yes, we can get that data, it's done by researchers frequently, but it is not maintained by the national data banks, and so rarely sees the light of day outside academia.
When we compare compatible tested populations over time, the SAT scores show no decline at all, in fact they trend slightly upward.
I believe I have some of that data in my office, I'll look for it tomorrow.
50. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
Another thread soiled. Sorry and ta-ta!
51. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:11 PM PT
huh?
52. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:11 PM PT
I realize that the source I'm quoting here is The Demon Book From Hell, the Bell Curve. However, it has nothing directly to do with race *or* intelligence, but SAT scores. And if it's not true or their numbers are bad, great. This is just something I've wondered about for a while.
"The case for a drop in the Verbal scores among the brightest can be made without subtle analysis. In 1972, 17560 college-bound seniors scored 700 or higher on the SAT-Verbal. In 1993, only 10,407 scored 700 or higher on the Verbal--a drop of 41 percent in the raw number of students scoring 700 and over, despite the larger raw number of students taking the test in 1993 compared to 1972.
...
Unlike the math scores, however, the Verbal scores did not rebound significantly."
53. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:12 PM PT
Calgal: You are going to get attacked by Elliot.
54. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:24 PM PT
Yes. I know. But it never seems I have to *do* anything for that to happen. A mere post by CalGal is sufficient. Content is irrelevant. I choose to poach a sheep.
Another article on the problems of the "best and brightest" that I read a while ago and have been wondering about.
The reason I ask these questions is because it seems unnecessary to focus on gender if we have other more serious discrepancies to address. I've long felt that we are ignoring our best and brightest students. So I thought I'd find out if this is in fact true, or just some urban legend.
55. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:33 PM PT
CalGal
Well, in my evening access of cynicism, my response to #54 is that a great deal of the problem is the fault of the students; and that the "best and brightest" are getting lazy all by themselves. This is probably caused by having gone to a poor, urban, mostly black grade school, and then a rich, ruburban, mostly blonde high school (both public). When trying to rationalize this impression, I wonder if we have been losing intergenerational social mobility in the last few decades, so that the golden children 'know' they only need to keep up with each other, not with some determined, encroaching Them.
Written down, this looks way too cynical, and there are all sorts of emendations I should make. Maybe someone has evidence to disprove it?
56. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:36 PM PT
"ruburban"
"Rooby-doo!"
(sorry. Couldn't resist.)
57. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:37 PM PT
More data to help evaluate the position given by Murray et al, as quoted in Message #53;
SAT scores by range, 1995.
Test takers as a percentage of HS graduates, percentage scoring over 600, 1972-1995.
58. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
Chloel,
Just to clarify--those numbers were not for black students, but all students.
59. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:41 PM PT
And yet another view of the SAT performance of students by class rank;
SAT scores over time by class rank.
60. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:56 PM PT
CalGal
Irrelevant to what I was saying; it was the *white* kids who I found lazy and complacent in the knowledge that their lives would slide gently from internship to management. Moreover, MsIT's Message 49 suggests that Murray et al. have bad numbers.
The article you link to in #54 is has the same irritating tone as _The Closing of the American Mind_; that of a pontificating poop who wants cubs to come eager to be licked into shape, and easy to lick.
By college, intellectual laziness is partly the fault of the student, especially the intelligent student. Only misinformation is totally the fault of the System. Ignorance falls between. By the *end* of college, a professor who finds his students as helpless as that author finds his *and still passes them* is bowing to Money, not Scholarship, and getting what he asked for.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Some cannot make or mold the young and mourn for
The wounded myths that once made nations good;
Some lost a world they never understood;
Some see too clearly all that man was born for."
61. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:57 PM PT
I notice the Atlantic Monthly article doesn't address the math performance of seniors over the same time period. Given how much math achievement has been stressed over the last few decades (and is still stressed), the maintainance of achievement levels by any slice of the pie over the longer term counters the "problem" with verbal scores to some extent.
In fact, I would suggest that the improvement in math achievement is probably of more import than the "decline" in verbal skills, and most probably reflects our lowered priority for the latter over the former both in the economy and in the general society (we pay more to people with better math skills than with better verbal skills).
62. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:00 PM PT
chloel
There is conflicting evidence on just what has occurred wrt declining performance among the top students, in particular, the data points chosen to begin and end the analysis matter a great deal. Depending on what year one starts the comparison, things can look better or worse.
63. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:05 PM PT
I laughed--I, too, thought of Bloom when I first read that article.
"By college, intellectual laziness is partly the fault of the student, especially the intelligent student. "
Hmm. If you have been able to skate through 12 years of school without working all that hard, it takes an extraordinary kid to suddenly turn around and exercise the brain. Especially since all but the very best universities don't require it.
As for the Ms' numbers, I'm sure they disprove TBC's. Alas, I'm lamentably weak at reading numbers. I needed a post saying something to the effect of "Oh, horseshit. The number of college students who scored above 700 was 22,956!"
64. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:14 PM PT
Ms,
It seems fairly reasonable to assume that grade-fudging can occur in the classes emphasizing verbal skills, but not in classes emphasizing math skills.
But test scores can't be fudged, period. So you raise math standards--grades go up, test scores go up. You raise humanities standards, grades go up--but not necessarily test scores.
65. Seguine - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:15 PM PT
"[Parvanimity is] the opposite of magnanimity."
Thanks, I just located it ("meanness, smallness of mind") in the OED.
However, you would have been within rights had you called him a potato.
66. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:18 PM PT
Also, Chloe--you "dumb down" standards, one could hypothesize that mediocre students are helped. But I can't help but think 12 years of stultifying the development of brighter students (if that is what is happening) wouldn't have a bad effect on their development. It's unfair to suddenly expect them to turn around when they're in college.
67. arkymalarky - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:20 PM PT
What's happening to a lot of our students is that they're not socially ready. They have no discipline about managing their time, and more than a few get to college and go hog wild without adult guidance.
68. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:22 PM PT
"But I can't help but think 12 years of stultifying the development of brighter students (if that is what is happening) wouldn't have a bad effect on their development. "
Let's drop the negative from that "would", shall we?
69. arkymalarky - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
By "our" I mean where I work.
70. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
CalGal
*What* industry do you work in, again? Aren't you surrounded by people who have burned, since infancy, to exercise their brains? Maybe you find them all extraordinary. I am of a less congratulatory/Californian temperament, and think it only to be expected of people lucky enough to be born with one.
What excuse has Singal for not flunking his feeble students, or giving them all "gentleman's C's"?
However..... between your comment about the 'best' universities, and MsIt's data, and her reinforcement that you can get different results by slicing the data differently: Can we prove any changes more dramatic than having more college students and quite a lot of terrible colleges? There are many more college places now than there were when the '60s began, aren't there? What conclusions can we draw from improving (yes?) economic returns to a college degree? Is a degree from Fake Patrician U. evidence of learning, or the equivalent of buying a commission in the Horse Guards?
71. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:29 PM PT
Eek! A rant.
"Aren't you surrounded by people who have burned, since infancy, to exercise their brains? Maybe you find them all extraordinary. I am of a less congratulatory/Californian temperament, and think it only to be expected of people lucky enough to be born with one. "
I don't have the foggiest idea what this means.
"What excuse has Singal for not flunking his feeble students, or giving them all "gentleman's C's"? "
Well, grade inflation is a problem, is it not? I don't know what his excuse is. I wasn't offering Singal as an authority, just that the issues he raises have bothered me for a while now. I was looking for information to confirm or deny.
I have no idea what your last paragraph means, either.
72. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:32 PM PT
"Is a degree from Fake Patrician U. evidence of learning...."
Generally, yes.
"...or the equivalent of buying a commission in the Horse Guards?"
Methinks you went to some land grant college.
73. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:34 PM PT
CalGal
How do you think schools are stultifying their good students? I agree they aren't all doing much to help them, but thinking beings who can 'skate through' school have a great deal of spare time to become experts on Burroughs, or worms, or locksmithing, or MD5. Their fault (assuming an available library and no worse than benign neglect at home) if they live for keggers instead.
You've also dropped my hypothesis that there's less reason for a brightish middle-class kid to work than there was two generations ago, because there's less chance of him/her being dislodged from an standard of mediocrity accepted in the work world, not just the schools. Pointy-Haired Bosses; what did they study?
Now I am wondering quite hard if a kid brighter than average for her/his SES has a better or worse chance now of moving up a slot than s/he did thirty years ago.
74. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:37 PM PT
PE! You're comng out *for* Fake Patrician U.? Truly, you never stale. (No, wait; you stale with forks.) You never fail.
Er, how fake are you willing to defend?
75. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:43 PM PT
Chloe,
I am not particularly concerned about any particular kid. As you say, it's his or her responsibility to perform.
But it benefits society for our brightest students to be required to perform up to their abilities, yes? And looked at it from *that* standpoint, I would rather not rely on the drive of individual kids, but rather kick their asses into performing.
Again, all of this assumes that we *are* dumbing down our requirements to the detriment of these brightest kids, which I don't know to be true. It is my fear, and it is certainly what I have experienced. But that isn't proof and I'm not offering it as such.
76. arkymalarky - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:48 PM PT
Actually, the opposite is the case. Gifted programs and advanced classes are increasing to meet the needs of these students. Academically they're working very hard in high school, but with a lot of guidance from teachers and parents. In college they're suddenly completely on their own and it's a different world. Teachers in high school are expected to push and encourage students and parents do the same at home. Often that encouragement abruptly disappears in college and many students aren't self-motivated and independent enough to take over on their own.
77. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:48 PM PT
Chloel,
"You've also dropped my hypothesis that there's less reason for a brightish middle-class kid to work than there was two generations ago, because there's less chance of him/her being dislodged from an standard of mediocrity accepted in the work world, not just the schools. "
No, I saw that. It's just--is *that* the reason it's okay to "dumb down" our curriculum for the brightest kids? Whether it's true or not.
78. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:49 PM PT
Calgal has taken the notion that a decline in verbal skills indicates that students are now "less capable" generally, then they were in earlier decades. I reiterate, the evidence is that in MATH kids are smarter than ever. In verbal skills, however, there are declines.
So, we have a limited area of deficiency, if one can even argue that, and the deficiency correlates to some degree with what skills are being most demanded by employers, at least wrt what price employers are willing to pay for such skills. Now, does this suggest that the deficit is due to grade inflation? No, I don't think one can connect the two. Does it suggest that kids are in any more stultifying educational environments than in previous periods? No. It does not.
79. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:52 PM PT
"But it benefits society for our brightest students to be required to perform up to their abilities, yes?"
Not necessarily.
It certainly benefits society for MORE children to be performing at higher levels than in previous periods, since that more widely affects the "average" level of skills among workers.
Whether it matters to society (or benefits society in any measurable way) if the top 10% have verbal skills comparable to 40 years ago is highly questionable.
80. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:54 PM PT
Arky,
"Gifted programs and advanced classes are increasing to meet the needs of these students. "
I'm glad to hear that, if it's true.
But gifted programs don't *require* performance in the lower grades--at least if Spawn's GATE program is any indication.
I guess what I would like to see is a far more rigorous curriculum required for brighter kids. And I know all the objections people have to that, and it's off topic for this thread. I was just looking for information about this group's performance--since it had been brought up.
81. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:55 PM PT
CalGal
But how can you assume it's the *schools* that are dropping their requirements? If employers have dropped their requirements instead, then students who studied for money, not curiosity, are going to avoid hard subjects. Schools could ignore this, requiring more & flunking more freely, but that won't pass most School Boards until most parents are afraid their kids will be unemployed/bombed by the Russkies unless they study harder. Colleges, in turn, don't flunk kids out when they're afraid of losing their tuition fees or USNWR rankings.
The Horse Guards: think Heyer; what a sprig did after being sent down, to prove he had money and connections. (Possibly imagined by Heyer, but I thought you'd catch the reference.)
The rant: I thought you were in Silicon Valley. All the programmers I think much of work their brains very hard, whether it was required or not, because they enjoyed it. I think this normal for a brainy person, not extraordinary.
82. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:56 PM PT
Chloel: Well, what on earth do you mean by "fake patrician U"? Don't you mean Princeton or Harvard? (I have actually pegged you for a Cooper Union gal....)
83. arkymalarky - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
"I guess what I would like to see is a far more rigorous curriculum required for brighter kids."
Actually, that is the case. There are more advanced classes being offered than ever before and the AP program is gaining more participation every year. These classes are very rigorous and challenging, and that's what people are increasingly pushing for. I can't speak for elementary, however.
84. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
Ms,
Message #79
Yes, that's accurately states the difference in our positions. I think it benefits our society to ensure that the brightest kids are performing at the level to which they are capable--in all areas of knowledge.
This has nothing to do with the *other* goal of educating everyone else. The two are not mutually exclusive objectives.
85. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:59 PM PT
Chloel
I don't think I'd argue that employers have LOWERED their standards so much as changed their demand for particular types of skills. Nor can one say this is only driven by industry, communities, made up of individuals, lobby for education to shift it's focus, to align itself more closely with the skill demands of the economy. It's not just one actor in the education policy setting arena, but a mass movement of communities shifting from one set of priorities to another.
86. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 8:59 PM PT
Arky,
"I can't speak for elementary, however."
Yes, that's the area where I think performance is optional, not required. And GATE programs apparently vary widely.
87. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:00 PM PT
Calgal
Yes, your vested interest in this area has been clear for a while now.
88. Seguine - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:04 PM PT
"You've also dropped my hypothesis that there's less reason for a
brightish middle-class kid to work than there was two generations ago,
because there's less chance of him/her being dislodged from an standard of mediocrity accepted in the work world, not just the schools."
What standard? How, in your hypothesis, would their chances of dislodgment be improved?
If this is a convoluted recap of your previous comments regarding a purported decline in social mobility, do support it with something other than your impression that golden children slack off. (Which, if they possess a CA gene, they admittedly do--but that's something we can't help them with, and shouldn't waste precious tax dollars attempting to remedy.) My own observations aren't consonant with yours at all: not only have middle and higher SES students never noticed they were in competition with anyone, other than one another, they haven't noticed lately.
The emergence of a black middle class for the first time in American history suggests that social mobility is at least greater than it once was for some. Can you point to some documented decline in elsewhere?
89. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:05 PM PT
Btw,
my analysis of what is beneficial to society is based on a cost analysis approach. If society invests heavily in education, they want the highest return, ie the largest payoff they can get. Educating a few children extremely well has a much smaller return to society (although the individual returns can be very high) then educating a very large group of children relatively well (compared to previous generations). That is, the likelyhood of the latter group significantly affecting labor productivity, quality, or some other element of the economy that leads to stronger economic growth is much higher than for the former group.
90. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:09 PM PT
Chloel,
It wasn't any one part of your rant I was questioning; I just couldn't follow.
"I thought you were in Silicon Valley. All the programmers I think much of work their brains very hard, whether it was required or not, because they enjoyed it. I think this normal for a brainy person, not extraordinary."
This is the flip side of your "hey, if they don't work hard, it's their problem." In both cases, you are saying that it's up to the kid. Well, obviously, it always is up to the individual at some level. But I think more should be done to ensure that kids who have average drive but lots of intelligence are educated to perform whether they seek this out or not.
Now--if these kids are doing well now with the current curriculum, then there is no cause for concern. That is why I asked if the numbers were accurate. But have you ever *seen* the gradeschool books from fifty years ago, when we were only educating the brightest? Even with numbers contradicting or disproving TBC ones I asked about, I wonder if we are demanding all we can of that group.
91. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:10 PM PT
"Yes, your vested interest in this area has been clear for a while now."
Vested? If you are referring to Spawn, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are *not* referring to Spawn, then *I* have no idea what you are talking about.
92. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:11 PM PT
PE: Your innocence is charming. I was thinking of much smaller, usually regional colleges, the kind that call themselves "The Harvard of North Dakota" and convince Dakotans of it (my apologies to sophisticated Dakotans).
The land-grant colleges seem to concentrate respectably on practical sciences. Little locally-snobbish colleges mostly turn out decent accountants, awful pre-business majors, and students of something wrongly called "Communications", but they do it in buildings with white pillars.
Not Cooper Union, no.
93. arkymalarky - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:13 PM PT
IOW, Chloel was referring to the type of university I attended, which is what I assumed when I read her post.
94. Msivorytower - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:14 PM PT
Yes, I'm referring to your child, whom you've described as being in gifted and talented programs for a while now.
Yes, you have a vested interest in seeing these programs improved and expanded because your son benefits from their improved quality. There is nothing wrong with this, per se, in fact, you act the rational parent when you do so.
I simply note that your vision of what benefits society by addressing this limited population is most likely colored by your self interest.
95. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:23 PM PT
Economic mobility in the United States.
96. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
arkymalarky
I definitely count you as a 'sophisticated Dakotan'.
Would going back to closed dorms and floor mothers help with the problems you describe?
97. Seguine - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
There is another possibile explanation of Americans' desire in the last decade to see education improve. It could be, simply, that standards are inexplicably *rising*.
Perhaps this is partly a result of a growing middle class, whose aspirations are not dissipated but healthy. Or, as Americans have become more connected to the rest of the world, and have been exposed to competition from foreigners in the upper socioeconomic realms of the workplace (science and tech, no longer just farming and garbage collection), the need for an educational advantage is perceived.
What was good enough a generation ago is no longer good enough--not because of racism, or an average decline in educational standards at the HS level, but because now we know better.
98. chloel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
Seguine
You seem to be saying that high-SES students were always mostly slackers. I would believe that most of everyone are always slackers, without the goad of fear, but I have the impression that from the, oh, 30s through the 70s, while Jews and blacks and immigrants were fighting their way into the middle class, the existent middle class suddenly realized they had to actually study to keep their places.
Yes, I'm looking for numbers on how well education can currently improve a person's overall rank, and it seems to be bitterly argued whether education is more or less useful than it used to be. I did say as I began that my impression is largely due to my tiny slice of personal experience. (I was hoping someone else would have clear evidence; there you go, I'm a slacker too.)
Incidentally, I'm not the one arguing that we should use precious tax dollars to rearrange school outcomes; I'm the one arguing that we don't know the schools are at fault.
99. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:27 PM PT
"There is another possibile explanation of Americans' desire in the last decade to see education improve."
One possible explanation is that households have finally noticed the increasing premia to education and are now responding to incentives.
100. CalGal - Jan. 20, 1999 - 9:29 PM PT
Ms,
You're completely wrong. And since I've never discussed it in those terms, keep him out of it.
I have never expected the schools to help my son out--I paid for him to go to private schools and will again. (And no, I don't support vouchers.) Any solutions I am looking for will be too far out to benefit him. Besides, I held these views long before he was born.
The difference between yours and my positions is philosophical. I've been consistent in preferring that brighter children be acknowledged and treated differently--while not disadvantaging anyone else. You are consistent in disapproving of that approach.
My son has nothing to do with it. Don't try to color my position by attributing it to self-interest.