Welcome to the Future of Education thread.
The call for the thread was to discuss the head of the U.Cal system's call for the end of reliance on the SAT in making admissions decisions. (I believe he does not rule out using the advanced tests in the process.) Richard Atkinson has claimed that the reliance on the SAT has resulted in teaching to the test, which is, of course an argument being used to oppose tests in general, the argument often being made by school teachers themselves.
Atkinson's position, of course, comes on the heels of a proposition vote by the people of CA to end affirmative action in admissions, and it is possible to view his position as opening the door to further defacto discrimination for and against classes of applicants. In the absence of an a more objective measure of merit, there is the heightened possiblity that seats at the universities will be guaranteed to groups in the name of such goals as "diversity," etc. (A case in Michigan challenging such preference systems will probably reach the Supreme Court in the next few years.)
Texas, under governor George Bush, instituted such a system as a substitute for the traditional quotas associated with affirmative action. I believe seats will be guaranteed to a percentage of each high schools top graduates. Thus less qualified graduates of poorly performing schools who happen to be in the accepted percentage will be admitted before the graduates of a good school that are not in that percentage.
Liberals in Texas liked the new plan, and folks such as FOB (formerly) Lani Guinier praised it.
2. arkymalarky - 3/17/2001 10:43:23 PM
I never understood the "teaching to the test" gripe. They learn the material, so they do well. They learn a logical process of eliminating choices and drawing conclusions, so they do well. They increase their comprehension and understanding reading test questions, so they do well. I've never known a standardized test that had all the questions distributed and taught in advance. That would be the only case in which the Teaching to the Test complaint would be legit, imo.
3. arkymalarky - 3/17/2001 10:44:49 PM
What brought this thread in? Glad it's here, sorry to post and run, but I'll check back in tomorrow.
4. CalGal - 3/17/2001 10:52:18 PM
To say nothing of the fact that if they focus on SAT II instead of SAT I, it will be even more "teaching to the test"--except in that case, the knowledge transfer is far more rote. What's particularly ironic is that this change is made primarily to increase minority enrollment--but the skew on SAT II is just as bad as it is on SAT I.
I like this piece by Jack White: Why Dropping The SAT Is Bad For Blacks
If I had my way, the University of California would keep using the SAT until black students catch up with whites, Asians and immigrants from the Caribbean. It's a matter of ethnic pride. I'm as fed up with the tortuous theories experts have concocted to explain why our kids' scores are the lowest of any racial group as I am with the bigots who claim that proves they can't ever measure up. There's simply no excuse for black youngsters with college-educated parents to perform worse than white youths whose folks only finished high school. The only way to silence the critics is to close the black achievement gap, not to throw out the test because we're embarrassed by the results.
5. Slackjaw - 3/18/2001 4:41:45 AM
The education establishment has yet to design a test that adequately measures everything we want teachers to do. Some things are hard to test -- insight, understanding rather than knowledge, future capacity & desire to learn, socialization.
If teachers do a lot of things, if available tests only measures some of them, and if those tests are somehow made more important to teachers (school pressure, financial incentives like in California), then "teaching to the test" is demonstrably harmful in that it encourages teachers to spend less energy on the unmeasured but important aspects of their jobs.
Answers don't have to be distributed for "teaching to the test" to be possible. General areas of question content, and general forms of test intstruments, are an imperfect but readily available substitute.
6. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 9:05:04 AM
Thus less qualified graduates of poorly performing schools who happen to be in the accepted percentage will be admitted before the graduates of a good school that are not in that percentage.
This is somewhat reductionist and incorrect to boot. The plan is to guarantee a place somewhere in the UT system for the top 10% of every high school graduating class, with preferences being accomodated if possible.
In addition, you assume that the top 10% of a poorly performing school will be less qualified (which you fail to define) than the 10 or 20% below the top 10% in a high performing school. Yet you present no evidence of this, just the standard hype that's been given ad nauseum.
This may be true for some students, but it's highly unlikely to be a systematic effect, given that almost every high school has very high performing students in their student body. That's why the 10% number was chosen.
The 10% cut off also encourages students in poor performing schools to continue to strive, with the reward being some certainty in getting into a UT school, if they choose to attend.
And while some students from high performing schools who aren't in the top 10% may be forced to attend a UT campus that wasn't their first choice, the system itself is not at maximum capacity yet, although the Austin campus is.
What's interesting to me in these sorts of debates is that everyone tends to forget that public universities represent a huge subsidy to middle and upper middle class families, as they're children are the ones most likely to attend.
7. RickNelson - 3/18/2001 9:47:34 AM
Subsidy is right. Here, the UofM is whinning that it's budget isn't being raised enough to keep its medical programs competitive on a national or international scale. UofM president Udoff wants money for higher professor salaries, intended to stave off their exodus.
One thing I do know about the numbers at the UofM is that tuition has gone up 2-5% every year since I attended in the early 80's. Of offerings, the UofM has decommissioned its General College, and built a shiney new museum, it's exterior shell a shimmery stainless steel. The structure fits well among the bluffs of the Mississippi, nestled up snuggly to the Washington ave. bridge (not). There is a secure, heated multi-storey parking garage near and under the UofM administration building. The ancient, historical and memorable stadium has been replaced. The arena has been replaced. The medical facilities have been updated, new stuctures built and money poured into the world-class designs. Well, There really is a lot to whine about, but what if, the administration thought for a second, and decided to work within its means? Is that a concept the education elite would or could grasp?
8. joezan - 3/18/2001 10:00:42 AM
I agree with Jack White. The case against the SAT on the grounds it "doesn't reflect Black culture" is the most damaging example of soft bigotry out there. I believe that anyone who propagates this nonsense, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, just doesn't believe that Blacks are capable.
The fact that students from Asia, the Indian sub-con, the West Indies and other far-flung regions regularly excel at the test should be more than adequate evidence that it is not "geared to Whites".
The fact that White American students from families making less than $10,000-a-year score higher on average than Black American students from families making over $50,000-a-year should be more than adequate to dispel notions of classism in the test.
But they don't.
Why is that?
9. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:20:07 AM
Well, Zan
According to Jensen it's because African-Americans tend, on average, to have lower IQ's than Anglo's (about 10 IQ points lower, actually)
Of course, Asian's have higher IQ's on average than Anglos, as well(about 10 IQ points higher). Perhaps we should eliminate any restrictions on Asian student admissions to public universities and just allow those who score the highest to take the positions as they open. We shouldn't consider anything else either, just SAT's, then we'd be sure we're getting only the "top" students (wrt IQ).
And, yes! lets get rid of those damn college athletic programs, since those students tend to have significantly lower SAT scores than any other group attending universities and colleges.
BTW, in my previous post they're = their. That's what I get for changing my thought mid stream.
10. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 10:25:28 AM
Slack,
I say the following as a teacher who's never considered any test in my instruction except when I had to teach certain things in social studies for the 8th grade MPT years ago, and when I've been paid to teach an ACT summer school for interested students. Test taking techniques are easy and quick to teach and to learn, most standardized tests are broad enough to measure what they're intended to measure without teachers even being able to adequately "teach to the test," and any teacher who's teaching the other necessary things such as you cite to students is also going to be competent enough to ensure that they have a good base knowledge and understanding and an ability to reflect that on the test.
FWIW, though, I agree wholeheartedly that pressure and holding a money sword over teachers' heads is not helpful, and that's especially true with these new additional minimum performance tests state governors and legislatures have been so enamored of lately. What a waste of energy and resources, whose main effect is to turn schools upside-down. They definitely result in teaching to the test, because they delineate in detail everything the teacher is supposed to teach. The kids who care also don't need more pressure, but those who bubble in answers in designs need some motivation--positive, negative, or both--to change their attitudes toward testing.
11. joezan - 3/18/2001 10:26:31 AM
Ms:
I've heard that.
But the IQ tests are rigged too, right?
Anyway, how is it that Black West Indian students do so much better than Black Americans?
12. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 10:29:12 AM
(to the Room, not Slack)
Another thing that bugs me is the "Bobby's not a good test-taker." Tell the Bar that when he flunks his exam. Not to belabor the obvious, but right, wrong, or indifferent, our competence in many fields (including teaching, finally and barely) is measured by testing.
13. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:34:26 AM
And, yes! lets get rid of those damn college athletic programs, since those students tend to have significantly lower SAT scores than any other group attending universities and colleges.
The gap is even larger in the elite schools, and it's not just football players. There was an excellent article in the New Yorker about it--elite schools recruit a number of usually white atheletes purely to play things like football, badminton, and lacrosse, and these students' performance gap in tests is substantial.
14. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:35:16 AM
Well it probably has something to do with sample size, that is the porportion of West Indian students taking the SAT.
One thing that's clear about the SAT is that the larger the sample size, the truer the scores tend to the mean of the population. For example, 40 years ago the percentage of students even taking the SAT was significantly lower than the percentage taking the SAT today. Part of the general decline in SAT scores observed from 1965 to 1990 had to do with this issue.
Another example of this is the Iowa performance on SAT. It consistently ranks as among the top 2 or three states for student scores, but if you look at the percentage of students taking the exam, it remains at between 5 and 10% of the total population that can take the exam (all juniors and seniors). California, on the other hand, has almost 50% of it's possible student population taking the SAT. The state average for CA is well below that of Iowa.
And what can one conclude from this? Can one conclude that all the kids in Iowa are smarter, on average, than those in California? I don't think so.
15. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:37:02 AM
What's interesting to me in these sorts of debates is that everyone tends to forget that public universities represent a huge subsidy to middle and upper middle class families, as they're children are the ones most likely to attend.
Yes, but when a state school is elite, do the subsidized people get preferences? I think the logic is that you can go to a UC, for example, but not necessarily the one of your choice.
16. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 10:39:40 AM
I've never taken the SAT. Here we take the ACT unless it's going to a school that won't accept ACT scores. Our testing sample for SAT is very small, too, if I recall.
17. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:40:57 AM
Yes, of course the subsidy works for the elite campuses of public universities. It's subsidy effect is even greater. Take the UC system. The top campuses are Berkeley, UCLA, and Irvine. Those campuses tend to have very high percentages of white, middle/upper class, students (excluding the ubiquitous college athletes). They have the most resources, the best faculty, and the same price tag as any other UC campus.
The subsidy is very alive and well in public universities, particularly those that are Research 1 institutions.
18. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:41:41 AM
Well it probably has something to do with sample size, that is the porportion of West Indian students taking the SAT.
True. But haven't they compared like to like in this population, as well?
And I can't come up with any way of explaining the fact that rich black kids do worse than poor white kids--unless poor white kids do better than rich white kids, too.
19. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:42:14 AM
It's = Its
I can't spell and eat at the same time this morning.
20. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:44:59 AM
Ms,
No, I think you miss my point. The only people who are subsidied are Californians. Out of state fees are higher, aren't they? (If not, I misunderstand something).
But Californians aren't given much preference for the elite schools in the system. The fact that the schools are mostly white isn't relevant to the subsidy charge, it's whether or not they are mostly Californian. So long as a taxpayer can be shunted off to a UC school, I'm not sure they are given first crack at the elite schools.
21. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:45:54 AM
Calgal
I told you, Jensen has the answer. Lower IQ's to begin with.
And ETS makes noises about how they try to adjust for those sample sizes, but they can't eliminate the effect entirely, nor does the general public ever see the data that has been adjusted for these supposed problems.
The media report on the general comparisons among states and among race/sex groups. The result is that the public tends to get the data that's easiest to understand and the most prone to qualifications and error.
22. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:48:21 AM
Cal,
I see your point. I'm not sure how the UC system handles this, but in Texas there's a cap on the percentage of students at the top campuses ( that would be Austin), that can be out-of-state, and an even lower cap on foreign born students.
You'd have to find this out, but I'd be surprised if the elite campuses were allowing more than 20% of their student body to be out of state.
23. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:49:45 AM
Ms,
But all that aside, whether the public sees the numbers or not, there is simply no analysis of the data that says American blacks aren't doing very poorly. The West Indies blacks may only be doing better because of the sample size, but the choice is between "American blacks don't do as well" or "All blacks don't do as well".
24. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:52:24 AM
Btw, the issue of out-of-state students crowding out in-state students at the elite public universities of the state is a huge political issue in every state. In part because the out-of-state fees never cover the full cost of student education either. In fact, out-of-state fees typically don't even cover half of the actual costs, whereas in-state fees typically only cover about a quarter (this is particularly true in western states).
25. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 10:56:12 AM
Cal
Jensen's analysis was confined to US data, I believe. But if there's any truth to it, it would suggest that "all blacks tend to have lower IQ's than other groups".
The fact that West Indian blacks do better, on average than American blacks doesn't say squat about anything. Every group has individuals in the extremely high IQ range, even blacks. Sample size would have everything to do with explaining the different performances of these two groups.
And I qualify my earlier statement, I don't believe ETS compares like samples within subgroups, only between them.
26. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:59:51 AM
The fact that West Indian blacks do better, on average than American blacks doesn't say squat about anything.
Yes, I know. I understood your point about sample size. I am saying that establishing the West Indian performance with appropriate sample size would do nothing to improve the scores of American blacks in relationship to whites and Asians. It would only demonstrate whether West Indian blacks have the same problem or not.
Did I miss your explanation of Jensen?
27. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:01:12 AM
Btw,
I'm pretty confident that were we to test the IQ's and SAT performances of students who are athletic we'd find significantly lower scores on average than those who tend to not be athletic (to the point of playing on sports teams after the elementary level).
I say we eliminate all athletic programs at universities, institute PE again and stop subsidizing the major sports leagues as their training grounds for potential employees.
28. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:02:13 AM
Cal
I agree.
My brief comment about Jensen was in post 8 or so.
29. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:04:54 AM
I think the admissions to elite universities depend on the field of study. The more renowned the field, the less likely Californians get any sort of preference. So Berkeley's law school is probably close to 50% or higher, whereas I'm sure they give Californians preference in African American studies. That balances out.
I agree that it's a hot political issue. I've been reading more about it in the papers over the past year.
30. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:10:04 AM
Cal
Again, I think this will depend on the state policy. It's highly unlikely that Bolt Hall accepts a higher percentage of out-of-state students than in-state, particularly if it's one of the top law schools in the state (which it is).
Texas, again, has a mandatory admissions policy for the law school (at UT Austin, the top law school in the state). It cannot admit more than 20% of the entering freshlaw class from out-of-state. Thus, 80% of the student population must come from within state. I'd be surprised if California allowed 50% of the students attending Berkeley's law school to be out of state.
My understanding of the caps on out-of-state students is that it applies by field as well as across the university, although there tends to be some leeway in allowing some fields to have a higher percentage (not much, mind you) of out-of-staters than others to maintain the university wide balance.
31. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:12:07 AM
Oh, I looked Jensen up. I remember now; I read about him first in The Bell Curve.
What's interesting is that if Jensen is correct about heredity and intelligence and if all the studies demonstrating that smart people are generally successful financially, then the rich black kids should be doing pretty well.
32. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:13:56 AM
Cal
It depends on how the family became wealthy. If it was by entertainment or sports, then it's unlikely any sorting by IQ occurred, as IQ has yet to be correlated with either the entertainment world or sports.
33. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:17:09 AM
Ha! you beat me to it. I was just composing a post wondering about the attainment of wealth and how it correlates. Boy, that would scare a lot of people shitless.
34. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:17:44 AM
Another issue wrt high SES black families is that there's some evidence that black college students are the one group where significant additional achievement sorting doesn't occur by the time of graduation.
That is, if you take an entering class of college students, almost every group except blacks experience further attrition of the lowest achieving students within the class by the time of graduation (where achievement is measured by standardized tests). Black student achievement remains constant (at the level of statistical significance) from enterance to graduation.
35. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:22:56 AM
I wish I could find my December 18th copy of the New Yorker. It had a piece by Nicholas Lemann on the Michigan lawsuit, affirmative action, and elite universities.
I can't remember if he asked this question, or if it came up for me while reading the article: the university leadership feels strongly that diversity is a critical part of an elite education, and that this overrides any other consideration.
Whether or not they are right in this belief, are they justified in continually ignoring both the Supreme Court and the will of the people (as reflected in the overturning of AA laws)? Are they justified in trying to circumvent the standards, meant to be imposed uniformly, in the name of diversity?
36. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:26:56 AM
Hey
I told you I'm game. Lets eliminate all admissions requirements except the SAT, and also remove any out-of-state barriers to enterance. Then we'd be sure only the "best" and "brightest" students were filling up the slots at public universities.
Of course, this would eventually lead to the demise of state funded higher education, since it would, over time, eliminate most white students, and probably most in-state students. What population in their right minds would agree to continue to fund higher education for other people's kids?
37. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:31:56 AM
No, that's not what I'm pushing. In fact, I linked in an article in the New Yorker about the elite universities use of affirmative action to bring in a bunch of mediocre white athletes to play badminton and lacrosse. Given a choice, I'd much rather they drop sports than diversity-based affirmative action.
I would rather that everyone admitted have to meet the same baseline in SATs, not a different one for blacks.
That said, I doubt that SAT admission only would lead to the demise of public schools. In fact, relatively few schools give a damn about the SAT. It's only the elite schools where it really matters.
But my question was more philosophical--what makes universities think they have the right to circumvent the guidelines that are clearly intended for them in the first place?
38. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:32:33 AM
And I've got nothing to lose by such a policy. My daughter is already scoring at 1000 on the SAT as a 7th grader. I figure she'll be in the 1400 range by the time she gets ready to apply for college.
In other words, such a policy won't hurt my family fortunes.
39. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:37:10 AM
Cal
Again if we believe Jensen and the correlation between IQ and SAT, then making the SAT the sole criteria for admissions would certainly put a huge dent in the white student population at public universities (particularly the top ones), since the Asian population is growing in America, and there will be plenty of potential college students to fill up those available slots.
Combine that with unlimited out of state access, and there'll be significant sorting occurring at the top institutions (beyond what already occurs). No state would continue to foot the tremendous costs of Research 1 institutions when the majority of the beneficiaries would be out-of-state or a relatively small minority group (unless that group were high SES whites).
40. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 11:38:55 AM
Interesting discussion. I'll have to give this some more thought. I am an affirmative action baby. I went to an elite school and my tuition and fees were generously subsidized.
I met a lot of kids at school who were accepted because their families had donated money to the university. If that's not affirmative action, I don't know what is.
41. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:40:24 AM
But I guess that suggests I'd have to qualify my earlier statement about the demise of state funded higher education. Actually, it might continue, it just won't be directed toward maintaining any elite universities, or even high ranking state schools.
In fact, I'd think the state would actively discourage support for any school that rated highly, as this would be a magnet for out-of-state applicants and cause crowding out of those lesser qualified, in-state students.
It could be interesting to watch how it plays out, though.
42. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:46:56 AM
Ms,
Well, I don't know that there will ever be unlimited out of state access.
But again--using California as an example, we're talking about Berkeley and UCLA (Irvine is questionable). So worst case, I suspect that all state universities would lose their ranking among the elite, because over time they would lose the funding that makes them elite.
The elite students aren't going to be competing for Berkeley or UC San Diego, but Berkeley or Harvard. So if Berkeley drops in quality, it just means that Harvard and other private universities will benefit. So if the state schools used SAT scores exclusively, it would temporarily make Berkeley and UCLA heavily (but not exclusively) Asian, presumably the public would get pissed and cut funding, and over time the elites would stop considering Berkeley and UCLA. Over time, state schools would just drop out of the elite ranks.
That's assuming you're right about Asians dominating completely. I suspect instead that whites and Asians will take up the majority of the slots and so long as whites are comfortably in the 40-50% range and state residents adequately covered, there won't be too much bitching.
43. CalGal - 3/18/2001 11:50:18 AM
Actually, it might continue, it just won't be directed toward maintaining any elite universities, or even high ranking state schools.
Cross post. Yes, that's what I predict as well.
I met a lot of kids at school who were accepted because their families had donated money to the university.
Oh, absolutely. That's the whole basis for accepting the kids of alumni, and I can't stand it. I'd do away with that before I'd do away with diversity acceptances--but universities will claim that the resultant loss of money would hurt them more in the long run, thereby losing their ability to help poor students, and so on.
Of course, if intelligence is inheritable, one would think most kids of the alumni would get into a great school anyway--and that's probably true, too. It's just a comfort level for the alumni in case they have a bad apple kid.
44. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 11:57:41 AM
Well, I think to do away with affirmative action, we would somehow need to change the way public high schools are funded. IMO, part of the problem is simply that kids from poor areas do not have access to the same level of public education that children from wealthy areas do. So poor kids are doubly disadvantaged in that they cannot get into elite schools, and are also unprepared to do the work.
45. CalGal - 3/18/2001 12:07:31 PM
Erin,
While I agree that funding public high schools is important, the fact is that you are arguing that AA is necessary because black kids are disproportionately poor. I agree, but AA doesn't discriminate on basis of need, but color.
For example, if we moved to a needs-based system, I believe that poor white kids benefit more than poor black kids.
But that begs one of the basic questions--and the reason why the UC President made this policy recommendation--why are black kids doing worse on the SATs, even when compared like to like? Or are they? If you check the IQ of their parents, is there any correlation?
Because while I do believe that intelligence is inherited, I don't believe that it is race-based. I believe there is some other correlation that will eventually explain the race performance gap (whether black to white or white to Asian or whatever).
I do believe it is important to find out. I think Jack White's article is on point. Sure, we can improve public schools and sure we can accept for diversity--but in the end, we need to know why the gap exists.
46. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 12:16:51 PM
I personally don't think black parents do enough to prepare their children for college in general. I know mine didn't, and they were pretty middle class. And my dad has worked in education for many years--he's going for his doctorate in higher education administration.
Other than that, I don't have much to offer. I didn't have a good high school record, didn't do that well on the SATs, though I always performed well above the norm (many grade levels higher) in other standardized tests.
I took no preparation courses for the SAT, and up until high school, went to pretty average public schools. My son will not suffer the same fate. I have no problem pushing academic achievement on him.
That said, I place no credence in the argument, "if we keep affirmative action, minority kids and their peers won't know if they really 'belong' at these elite schools," because I really don't care if they "belong." What matters to me is access. Because of my access, I have prospered in my professional career and achieved an upper-middle-class income.
47. vw - 3/18/2001 2:41:57 PM
Colorado College replaces SAT with Legos
Feb. 1 - Colorado College, in an effort to attract minority and disadvantaged students, is dumping those stodgy old college-admission exams in favor of a novel Lego-building test for a handful of applicants.
48. vw - 3/18/2001 2:42:28 PM
There ya go ... Legos are our Educational Future.
49. vw - 3/18/2001 2:42:29 PM
There ya go ... Legos are our Educational Future.
50. Åse - 3/18/2001 2:54:54 PM
Another excuse for spending inordinate amounts of cash on lego for the kid once she reaches that age (the true motive, of course, is so mom can play with them).
51. CalGal - 3/18/2001 3:03:23 PM
Think how expensive that testing method must be.
52. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 3:28:55 PM
Damn! I need to run out and buy my kid Legos--I don't want him to be disadvantaged 16 years down the road!
53. Autodaffy - 3/18/2001 3:37:53 PM
Here we go: legoing to the test.
54. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 3:42:02 PM
The test could disadvantage poor children, whose parents cannot afford Legos.
55. Autodaffy - 3/18/2001 3:44:33 PM
Yes, and the straight lines, rectangles and cubes that lego comes in might disadvantage those tending to see the world in curves. I think there might be a correlation with left-brain dominants or South Pacific Islanders on that one.
56. Åse - 3/18/2001 3:51:21 PM
It will clearly disadvantage curmudgeonly introverts who will hog all the legos and refuse to work with those other 9 dunces.
57. CalGal - 3/18/2001 3:52:39 PM
What? It rewards team work? Fuck that noise.
58. Cellar Door - 3/18/2001 4:09:00 PM
Yeah lets just give the little bastards a pile of pocket knives instead. Whoever survives gets to graduate.
Perfect trading for the Adult World, don't you think?
59. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 4:12:41 PM
Better yet, test their ability to knock out marketing plans, business plan, financial analysis, etc. Also good training for the real world.
Can you imagine yuppie parents purchasing flash cards on market analysis for their tots?
60. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 4:48:13 PM
The talk about Legos reminds me--It bugs the crap out of me when teachers spend valuable instruction time in core high school classes (even advanced ones) having their students do useless, time-eating projects, especially group projects. Mose and a few deadbeats got to make a salt map for history class. Did it have any historical signifance? No. Geographical significance? No. But it sure was pretty, especially when one of the moms decided to take out some of Mose's stuff and redo (her own kid's was apparently fine). Of course she's a middle school teacher and knows what they're looking for...forget we spent about twenty bucks on supplies that ended up being trashed. Oh well. They all got A's, so why am I bitching?
And we currently have on our school walls project posters that are supposed to reflect a project involving graphing survey results, that look like they were borrowed from the third grade "Is Pokemon Harmful?" class projects. It's all I can do to keep from committing an act of vandalism when I walk down the hall.
61. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 4:50:43 PM
And the medieval castles the history teacher had the kids do were cool, but all I could think of was how much history could have been learned in the amount of class time that was spent on those castles.
62. Autodaffy - 3/18/2001 4:51:18 PM
So,if the SAT isn't used, what is the substitute? How objective is the substitute measure?
63. CalGal - 3/18/2001 4:57:34 PM
Arky,
I hate that crap, too.
Auto,
Well, the UC pres wants to replace the SAT I with the SAT II, which is pretty silly. For one thing, blacks underperform and Asians overperform on those, too.
64. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 5:04:07 PM
What I hate most about it is that it's what the administration and school boards and parents just love to see. Style (hack, cough) wins over substance every time, and the shallowness and lack of interest in what's really taught in a classroom shown by the very same people who never shut up about how test scores need to come up and who spend endless hours wailing and "brainstorming" (any idea is great, so long as it's stylish, impractical, cheap, and doesn't come from a teacher who doesn't think just like them) in interminal meetings about it is enough to make me hurl.
I guess that belongs in the Rants thread.
65. Laura C - 3/18/2001 6:23:15 PM
Can you imagine yuppie parents purchasing flash cards on market analysis for their tots?
Well, actually, yes, because the grammar school I attended now offers PowerPoint presentation classes as part of their summer-school enrichment program. For middle schoolers.
66. CalGal - 3/18/2001 6:27:31 PM
Arky,
Are test scores really lower for everyone? I keep hearing that if you check test scores by income, the middle class and upper kids are doing fine.
Laura,
I'm not sure that's a terrible idea. Although Visio is more useful.
67. arkymalarky - 3/18/2001 6:40:47 PM
Cal,
I don't know. In the context of AR, we're one of the poorest states in the nation, and I've mostly taught in fairly lower-middle class districts. The school I'm at now had pretty low scores this fall. The one I'm returning to has always done better, though it's smaller and I always thought it was poorer. I may be wrong on that. AR did reach the national average on SAT9s this past year, though.
Power Point is cool, and middle schoolers can do great with it. Mose did a really neat one on Gustavus Swift in m/s. The only two types of projects I do are research projects and PowerPoint.
68. Laura C - 3/18/2001 6:45:37 PM
Oh, I'm probably just shocked because when I was there, the school was very artsy, Waldorf-influenced, students learned woodcraft and made their own maple syrup every year. Now all the summer classes are PowerPoint and Investing for Beginners. Clearly, the old order changeth.
69. Erin R. - 3/18/2001 7:02:25 PM
Investing for beginners is good. I could use some investing flash cards for my tot.
Kidding!
70. Shannon - 3/18/2001 7:38:54 PM
Interesting discussion.
My alma mater dropped the SAT requirement a couple of years after I graduated--sometime in the mid-90's, I think. A number of similar schools (small, private, Northeast) have done the same thing.
Has the SATII been shown to be a more useful predictor than the SAT? I've read that the SAT is a pretty good predictor of first year college success, but not of overall success or retention rates. Or at least that it doesn't add anything to other factors in making such predictions.
71. anomieme - 3/18/2001 9:39:03 PM
CalGal,
Just wanted to jump in quickly before the affirmative action comments got too old.
I changed my mind 20 years ago while arguing with a friend. "Role models", he said to me. It hit home that the big picture of AA is not to benefit the individual so much as to create a self-sustaining system for aspiring youth. I don't think we're there yet.
72. Åse - 3/18/2001 9:51:35 PM
But, why do role-models need to share particular attributes such as ethnicity or gender? I'm not sure I quite buy the role-model idea (partially because I never really had female role-models that I know of).
I'm not sure the "role-model" argument is well thought out. What does it mean anyway? What should it accomplish, what are the supposed mechanisms, and does it really work that way?
One thing I can see is that if professions/workforce are made up of a real mixture of people with different attributes rather than token individuals that can easily be sub-typed, one may get away from phenomena such as illusory correlations and its effect on stereotyping, and singleton effects.
73. RickNelson - 3/18/2001 9:59:26 PM
Get away from illusory correlations and stereotyping? Hardly; it wont happen, you have used a stereotype as well, labeling "real" as a sub-type of individual.
As for the role-model topic, I have had one role model in my life and found the experience of value without compare. (period, no more explaination is required)
74. Stumbo - 3/18/2001 10:18:53 PM
MsIT:
"This may be true for some students, but it's highly unlikely to be a systematic effect..." (#6)
Is it really that unlikely to be a systematic effect that the top 10%+1st student at one school be more qualified than the top 10%-1st at another?
"Perhaps we should eliminate any restrictions on Asian student admissions to public universities [...] And, yes! lets get rid of those damn college athletic programs..." (#10)
I certainly agree with the first recommendation. (I hear Berkeley undergrads are now 45% Asian; so not only blacks and Hispanics, but whites, too, are statistically under-represented. Is anyone in this thread seriously disturbed by this?)
Athletic programs can stay, as long -- and only as long -- as they bring in money. (I don't object to kids-of-alumni preferences, for the same reason: why not accept a dumb rich kid, if -- and only if, at least on average -- his presence pays not only for itself, but also for that of a smart poor kid or two? The same can't be said about accepting dumb poor kids.)
75. Stumbo - 3/18/2001 10:21:49 PM
Erin, #44:
"Well, I think to do away with affirmative action, we would somehow need to change the way public high schools are funded."
The two issues aren't connected, other than politically. Affirmative action should be done away with, and poor kids should be given decent educations. (Whether increased funding of public schools is the best way to achieve the latter is, at the very least, debatable.)
As it is, affirmative action is a band-aid solution to a much deeper problem. We let --or, arguably, force -- a shitload of kids go to lousy schools for 12 years or so; then, professing total surprise that they've grown up dumb and ignorant, we accept them into universities just as if they weren't. And then we act all surprised once again, when they generally don't do as well there as others do.
It may have worked for you, but it doesn't work for most. Access to an Ivy-League university doesn't mean much if, at age 18, you've yet to learn how to add fractions.
76. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:25:18 PM
Stumbo
Is it really that unlikely to be a systematic effect that the top 10%+1st student at one school be more qualified than the top 10%-1st at another?
It's possible that at the very top and very bottom of schools that this could be the case, but I've not seen any data on it. I also don't think it's likely to be systematic since, as I said before, almost all schools in Texas have high achieving students, even if it's a very small percentage. The 10% figure was chosen with that in mind, I believe, and was based on comparisons of TAAS scores among individual students.
If there is any crowding out effect by the 10% policy, I think it will be minor, and possibly not even statistically significant. If students in the very top schools are that qualified, then they're very likely to be able to attend any university they choose. The 10% plan doesn't carry any guarantee of payment for college, only a guaranteed place at one of the UT system schools.
Wrt to my other comments:
I personally don't have any problem with white students (and others) being crowded out of schools by Asian students if the criteria is going to be based soley on IQ and its test correlates. I think it fitting, personally, that the crowd that most whines about academic excellence get hoist with their own petard.
con't
77. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:33:21 PM
As to college athletic programs, if the issue is limited space being taken up by less qualified students in public universities, even if these programs bring money to them, it doesn't compensate for the wasted academic slots these kids take up. Here there really is an issue of crowding out.
And I have always questioned, with great skepticism, the amount of revenue athletic programs actually bring to top universities (which are the only one's I've had any experience with). I believe there are all sorts of costs that aren't included in the calculations, including the physical resources as well as academic resources used to support these programs.
If we're going to be serious about allowing access only to the most qualified students, then these programs should be the first to go.
But then, I'm not really an advocate of these policies. I simply see them as complementary to the argument that SAT scores should continue to be the sorting mechanism for college admissions. That SAT's are some sort of sacred cow that somehow separates the deserving from the undeserving. If advocates are really serious about it, then they should be forced to answer why SAT's shouldn't be the only sorting mechanism.
It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of this position that I object to.
78. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:43:25 PM
Btw Stumbo
Your rationale for accepting the children of alumni and dumb athletes won't hold water if they actually don't pay for themselves and a few other students. In fact, no one pays the true costs of their education at elite public institutions, not even at private institutions. The actual costs are typically anywhere from 2/3 to 1/3 more than anyone pays.
I remember data from Stanford that indicated even its tuition of $15,000+ in 1990 didn't cover more than half the true costs per student of their education.
79. MsIvoryTower - 3/18/2001 11:55:45 PM
My main gripe about athletic programs, however, remains that it represents a huge subsidy to the entertainment and sports market. Why should precious state resourses be siphoned off to subsidize major sports teams. It's not as if these organizations don't have tremendous resourses to develop their own talent.
In addition, the focus on athletic programs at the university level has eliminated any serious development of physical education programs available to the general student bodies. This is even more problematic at the middle and secondary school levels, where the majority of kids learn to be observers while a few participate in sports.
It's not only fostered a generally inactive adult population in America, it's also contributed to a decline in opportunities for all kids to participate in sports and in organized games.
And I don't want to hear about this crap that school sports are open to any kids, it's a lie. The sorting for athletic talent begins at the elementary level, and kids with interest but not superior skills get shunted to the side, discouraged, and generally stop participating by middle school.
But that's a rant for another day.
80. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 9:21:17 AM
"And I don't want to hear about this crap that school sports are
open to any kids, it's a lie. The sorting for athletic talent
begins at the elementary level, and kids with interest but not
superior skills get shunted to the side, discouraged, and
generally stop participating by middle school."
Quite so Missie...
81. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 9:45:41 AM
As I read through my copy of Arthur Jenson's "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement"(Harvard Educational Review 1969) I an struck by:
1) His reliance on(numerous citations) CYRIL BURT
2)Page 81 of the text, which states(Jenson's own words)...in relation to "negroes and "whites"..."when gross socioeconomic level is controlled the average difference reduces to about 11 IQ points"...
82. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 9:47:02 AM
Sorry, it is of course Jensen...
83. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 9:56:14 AM
If kids aren't eligible to be accepted to elite schools, how is this not tied to the shitty schools that produced them?
84. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 10:00:31 AM
Erin...even in the best schools imaginable, not all students do well.
85. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 10:09:42 AM
But on average, good schools will produce good students, no?
86. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 10:12:20 AM
Erin...surely so. I am unsure of your point as to the "eligiblity for elite schools"...
87. CalGal - 3/19/2001 10:13:07 AM
Erin,
I think Stumbo was making the same response I was earlier, in that bad schools can't rightfully be used to justify affirmative action. For one thing, affirmative action benefits people who may have actually gone to excellent schools, and exclude those who went to poor schools--by selecting a kid of rich black parents and excluding a poor white kid.
He is also pointing out that accepting people who aren't capable of doing the work does nothing to improve schools, so they aren't related.
I agree with that last, but I don't get the impression that most of the kids accepted to the elite schools under AA aren't capable of doing the work. It's just that taken as a group, the affirmative action pool is less qualified than the white pool. Obviously, this is also true of the athlete pool and the alumni pool.
88. CalGal - 3/19/2001 10:14:35 AM
Something you said earlier: there's no reason for minority graduates from Harvard or Stanford to feel as if their accomplishment is "tarnished". But then, I don't think it matters what they feel. If a minority candidate gets in and busts ass, getting great grades, great contacts, excellent reviews and recommendations on internships and so on, then their resume will be good regardless of color.
On the other hand, suppose I'm just trying to hire a bunch of bright people and interview two with degrees from Princeton: one white and one black, English or humanities degree, same decent average, nothing else really sticks out. If the white kid isn't an alumni or athlete entry, then most managers would know enough to want the white candidate. They might hire the black candidate because of diversity requirements, but they would have wanted the white. Not because of racism, but because the white kid had to survive a much tougher entry process to get into Princeton, which suggests they are the better candidate (if all I'm looking for is bright people).
Now, so long as the company is one that requires diversity, the black candidate is safe. But overall, I can't see how that perception doesn't hurt black grads of elite schools--that all things being equal, their desirability is of a lower caliber than white grads. Hurt them enough to devalue the elite education? No. But it's there, nonetheless, and I know any number of managers who discuss that sort of equation.
89. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 10:17:53 AM
I mean eligible to be accepted and to have at least average university careers.
I don't have a problem with eliminating AA in college admissions, as long as the general conditions and experience of public schools are improved.
I think that in the future, this is going to become more of an economic issue than a racial one.
90. Autodaffy - 3/19/2001 12:11:19 PM
I have heard of at least one lawsuit in CA to force the state to offer the same advanced hs courses in low-income school districts as in middle class ones. It would seem the anti-aa proposition has redirected attention where it is needed, elementary and secondary ed.
91. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 12:19:44 PM
Cal, that's an interesting perspective and something that would never occur to me. As an employer, I would have no way of know whether either Princeton grad was a legacy or AA student.
92. CalGal - 3/19/2001 12:56:27 PM
Erin,
But that's my point: if the candidate is black, it would automatically be assumed. And far too many managers probably wouldn't go the extra mile to wonder if the white student was an athlete or an alumni--although as I said, I've had conversations where this came up.
I don't want to make this sound like a big deal--for one thing, no manager could ever say, legally, that he'd used color as a deciding factor. Even if it wasn't the color per se, but rather the information it provided (lower standards to get into elite school). But managers use all sorts of reasons to hire or not hire, and gut plays a big part.
As I said, it doesn't mean that the person wouldn't get hired, but all things being equal it might affect the perception, change opportunities, job slots, and so on.
Black students who would have qualified under "white" standards for a non-athletic/alumni admissions make will often point this out. They resent the fact that people assume they couldn't have made it on their own merits.
93. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 1:28:24 PM
But how is anyone supposed to know if anyone gets ahead on their own merits?
94. Shannon - 3/19/2001 1:36:31 PM
And far too many managers probably wouldn't go the extra mile to wonder if the white student was an athlete or an alumni--although as I said
I just wanted to add that if you're talking about admission to Princeton, there are all kinds of weird factors that can come into play. I agree that managers likely wouldn't consider them, whereas they might make negative assumptions about a black graduate.
I am quite sure that being from an under-represented geographic area helped me get into the colleges I applied to. The only school I didn't get into was in the South. One interviewer as much as told me I'd get in because they wanted students from my state and they didn't have any. Yes, I had really good grades and good test scores too. And the schools I applied to weren't quite Ivy-level in terms of competition to get in. But I'm sure I'd have had a better chance of getting into an Ivy than another white student with the exact same grades and test scores who came from some wealthy New England suburb which was already well-represented in the student body.
95. CalGal - 3/19/2001 2:21:20 PM
Shannon,
The difference is that you would still (probably) have had to meet the same baseline standard that other white applicants do. So sure, "white student from the South with 3.9 GPA and 1400 SAT" gets in when "white student from New England with 3.9 GPA and 1410 SAT" doesn't, maybe. But when "black students with 3.9 GPA and 1100 SAT" get in and "white students with 3.9 GPA and 1100 SAT" are automatically tossed out (unless they are athletes or alumni kids) then it's a whole different level of factors in play.
Now if you're saying the differentiation between Southern kids and New England kids is that big, then I agree it's the same thing.
Erin,
I don't know if it's a matter of "getting ahead" or not. As I said, if the student had a hell of a resume after college due to the work he'd done, it would be irrelevant. But if it was a questionable resume, or not much on there, then many managers will go on gut and, in the case where a manager is just looking for really bright people, they'd know that the white kid would have had to have been a bit more extraordinary intelligence-wise than the black kid, in order to get in--to a non-trivial degree. That's the thing--the drop in SAT scores from one group to the other is pretty substantial.
96. Shannon - 3/19/2001 3:19:50 PM
I agree, CalGal, that those two scenarios are quite different. I just wanted to throw it out there, because I hear lots of people talk as though college admissions is (or should be) an exact science. For extremely selective colleges, that is not the case, nor do I think it should be. A school like Princeton is always going to have more qualified applicants than it has the ability to accept. If you determine that, in general, students with an SAT of at least 1300 and a GPA of at least 3.8 do pretty well at your college, and you get three times more of those kids applying than you have room for, I'm not sure that you should up it to 1500 and 3.9 to narrow the pool at that point. I think it may well be just as good for the school to look at things like extracurriculars, student backgrounds, etc.
97. CalGal - 3/19/2001 3:26:16 PM
Yes, I agree. In fact, that was what I mentioned to the Ms earlier when she suggested (sarcastically) that elite schools only use SAT scores. I don't think that's a good idea. But I do think a baseline is appropriate, and ideally, it should be the same baseline for everyone--even alumni and athletes.
BTW, I completely agree with the Ms about college athletics. Dump them.
98. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 3:46:38 PM
Just out of interest Missie...is that your point...that all college athletics should be dumped. Well, I know some great Wall-Street Investment Banking positions that are staffed only by athletes with superior GPAs from top colleges/universities...in fact they(The Wall Street Banks) have special staff that look only for these qualifications, so some think they are valuable. The Banks like the competitive nature and brightness combination, along with the ability to work with others for 7/24 The hire to resume ratio is over 1-God Only Knows, and the final interview(of two plus) including offer of position is about 5 to 40, and they only interview at particular schools....having played college athletics, at least in this case, is quite valuable. For many, it is also pure joy.
99. CalGal - 3/19/2001 3:54:53 PM
Actually, college athletes who go to elite schools have a much lower GPA and SATs, and are very likely to major in business--particularly men. So all you're really describing is an extension of alumni behavior. College athletes who went to Harvard and Princeton are more likely to hire their own. Nothing wrong with it, but it's hardly an indication that Wall Street thinks college athletics has any value.
100. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 3:57:36 PM
PP's
Actually, no it isn't my position. I would really prefer that college athletics be changed so that it isn't big business, and the focus be on play as an addition to one's academic studies instead of the main reason for being at the institution. I know of some great universities that 1) insist that their athletes meet the same admissions requirements as the rest of the student body; and 2) insist that the practice and game schedules take a second seat to the academic responsibilities of the students.
I'm appalled, however, at the exploitation of the majority of student athletes at most universities. These students are brought in primarily to play for the school, to attract fame and endowments to the university, and are given killing schedules that result in academics being well below any other priority in their lives. The fact that many(most) schools ignore their admissions requirements to bring in students with athletic skills only perpetuates this vicious circle.
There's something very wrong with college athletics at many schools, and I'd blame these big college league sports competitions first and foremost.
101. CalGal - 3/19/2001 3:57:54 PM
Sporting Chances: The Cost of College Athletics
Reprint of the New Yorker article. The print size is hard on your eyes; I recommend a larger font size. Great article that really has a lot of relevance to this conversation, I think.
102. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 3:58:40 PM
Although Calgal also makes a good point, I see.
103. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 4:00:45 PM
Here's something funny, Calgal.
I was an undergrad at UCLA, which didn't have an undergraduate business degree, only graduate. The majority of the student athletes majored in my field as a result, Economics.
I must say, it did wonders for my grades.
104. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:05:54 PM
There was no undergrad business major at Northwestern, my alma mater, which meant that most of the future yuppies were Econ majors.
105. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:10:55 PM
Investment Banks seldom hire undergrads with business majors. Economics, Math, Biochemistry are frequent academic histories...
106. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 4:15:21 PM
That is a very good article, Calgal.
I learned some new things, too. Always a pleasure.
107. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:15:48 PM
All right Missie them is fightin words...I know somebody that might not have kicked yer butt, but he would have given it a good push.
108. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:16:27 PM
Well, as the Ms and Erin just pointed out, a lot of elite schools don't offer "Business" degrees. The point is the same, though--check the managers. See how many of them went to these schools as athletes, or how many do in general. It's far more likely that a lot of Wall Street is made up of Princeton and Harvard scholarship jocks who like to hire their own than it is that the management teams independently decided there was some inherent Wall Street application to playing mediocre tennis for a school with a lousy sports program.
Now, show me that Wall Street is actively recruiting offensive line men who spent five years at UCLA and you'll come a bit nearer to convincing me.
109. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:16:41 PM
Although PsychProf is correct that many (if not all) investment banking firms have as one of their highest ranked hiring categories athletes from the Ivies (or the Little Three or a few others), it is more than just because of the combination of competitiveness, proven teamwork experience, etc., that they are looking for. For the ones who stick it out for a few years, they then are quite valuable in the "many of our clients are athletic wannabes and like to mix with those who were" game.
And, other than for the "name" athletes (say, the All-Ivies)in your "normal" sports like football or baseball, it is the more esoteric sports that have ultimate value in this little game. Sports like crew (particularly), squash and to a lesser extent tennis.
Subtlest in terms of the mixings they like to promote at places like, say, The Racquet & Tennis Club, Piping Rock or The Creek, but thriving at places like your generic hey-anybody-with-$1000-a-year-can-become-a-"member" Health & Racquet Clubs as well depending on the respective ages and managerial levels of the people involved.
Nothing particularly wrong with it as far as I can see.
110. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:20:08 PM
Well Cal, one of my sons best friends(in Investment Banking, where they work together) is an offensive lineman from Rice...block that. And, of Jan Jon is correct in his analysis. JanJon is probably his Senior VP....
111. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:20:10 PM
Nothing wrong with it--although I still think you'll find that most of the people hiring with that priority have the same background. However, PP appears to be citing it as proof of the academic value of atheletics at elite colleges--after all, see, Wall Street recognizes that it makes for better stockbrokers!--when it's nothing of the kind.
112. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:21:00 PM
Well Cal, one of my sons best friends(in Investment Banking, where they work together) is an offensive lineman from Rice...block that.
Rice is not UCLA. And you are doing nothing but proving the point. It's not the value of athletics. Rather, it appears that atheletes are better at helping their own than other categories of "privileged" applicants.
113. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:21:11 PM
Cal...Investment Bankers are not stockbrokers. Read up...
114. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:23:22 PM
Well Cal...we just disagree here. There can be a value to athletics that you seem to miss. In any case, that's what is going on.
115. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:27:53 PM
PP,
I was being rhetorical.
Here is the point: you are disagreeing with the Ms about the value of athletics in school. But your point comes down to this: The value of athletics at elite schools is that it gives these fairly mediocre athletes with lower SAT scores and overall performance a boost up to a better job than they could get otherwise, and that they then make a point of hiring other mediocre athletes who couldn't get into the school on their own merits. This creates a haven for said mediocre atheletes--who, coincidentally, are also generally white and upper middle class.
Gosh. Yes, I can see giving up 600 places at Princeton for mediocre rich white boy jocks. There's a tradition we don't want to abandon.
116. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:28:08 PM
well, its not stockbrokers per se that the investment banking world is into. What they want are people who have track records of being bright, disciplined, with a good work ethic and with a good respect for teamwork. Because, they will be working their asses off for the first few years in a milleu where all of those traits are essential. Participation in sports is seen as being evidence of all of the above, except of course for brightness and there are other measures for that. The "rubbing shoulders with admiring clients" comes later.
And, there indeed is a bit of the people hire people who are like them syndrome, since this system has been around for at least 50 years. (The old family ties/social register days are but a memory. Well, not that that doesn't help, but it isn't enough. By a long shot. Unless you are, of course, a Rockefeller, etc.
117. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:28:25 PM
There can be a value to athletics that you seem to miss.
Other than athletes hire their own? Not that you've demonstrated with your example, that's for sure.
118. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:33:32 PM
I think there is value in athletics, I'm jut not convinced that athletics are of enough value as to be a fair exchange for an elite education.
119. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:34:52 PM
Oh, yes. That's all I was referring to, sorry.
120. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:35:14 PM
Cal...JanJon captures it well...
"well, its not stockbrokers per se that the investment banking
world is into. What they want are people who have track
records of being bright, disciplined, with a good work ethic
and with a good respect for teamwork. Because, they will be
working their asses off for the first few years in a milleu where
all of those traits are essential. Participation in sports is seen
as being evidence of all of the above, except of course for
brightness and there are other measures for that. The
"rubbing shoulders with admiring clients" comes later."
121. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:36:18 PM
not to beat the horse dead, but PsychProf indeed has referred to values of athletics (as have I), such as developing discipline, a good work ethic, a respect for and ability to participate effectively in teamwork. Not necessarily skills that come easily to most kids. Nor are their other forums (maybe theater or certain types of musical groups) which lend themselves so well to the development of those traits.
I guess I could add competitiveness, too.
By the way, I speak as a virtual athletic geek. (My daughter IS very athletic and I can see the value to her of being so involved with several teams. Too soon to say about the boy.)
122. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:36:41 PM
PP,
He doesn't capture it at all. I suspect if you track the employment history, you will discover that the preference for jocks who went to elite schools came with the fact that one guy got hired in and began hiring more of his own. The rationalization came later.
123. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:43:52 PM
Cal...do you mind if I forward that to a bunch of Investment Bankers...it wil make their day.
124. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:44:56 PM
I am doing midterm grades and this discussion has saved me.
125. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:45:08 PM
CalGal - you suspect wrong. Just because that is your predisposition/firm belief doesn't make it correct.
126. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:45:44 PM
PP,
It will only make their day if they can understand it, and you know what jocks are like. After all, they sure as shit didn't get to school on their brains.
127. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 4:46:46 PM
While I think playing sports can be of value, my problem is that I don't see why intramurel college althletics is necessary to develop these skills. Every person should be able to develop such skills through team sports as part of a well-rounded education.
However, the present state of college (and high school) athletic programs is that everyone gets short changed. The athletes get short changed by being passed along and excused from meeting standards of academic excellence; all other students get short changed by not being able to participate in team sports and gaining that valuable educational experience.
The article above mentioned the profile of the average college athlete in 1951 as someone who was a walk-in player on a team of their choice. It wasn't the reason they came to college, their focus was on a well-rounded education, and team sports was just one part of that experience.
Now, I'm not one to wax poetically about bygone eras, but the loss of this sort of college athletic experience seems worthy of mourning.
128. janjon - 3/19/2001 4:49:17 PM
CalGal. You are woefully lacking in any understanding about these two little niches - Ivy League/other "elite" colleges admissions policies for athletes/hiring considerations for "Wall Street" investment banking firms.
129. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:50:59 PM
I confess I don't see *huge* value in athletics for my son, just *some* value. If he wants to pursue sports, I would support him, but not at the expense of academics.
130. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:54:21 PM
Cal...why is it necessary for you to be so insulting. Do you really think that "all" jocks have shit for brains...your dependence on stereotyping is not convincing.
131. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:54:27 PM
Janjon,
Oh, I dunno. Hiring is one area I'm pretty clear on. I am speaking broadly, which I suspect you don't quite understand. But I have few qualms about making an assumption about the incestuousness of Wall Street investment banking firms.
132. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 4:56:06 PM
Erin...Northwestern has some fine student-athletes.
133. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:56:41 PM
PP,
Lighten up. Good lord.
More substandard applicants get into the elite schools on athletics than they do on color. And, given that they are mediocre athletes to begin with and quite often white and upper middle class, that seems something worthy of the occasional mocking.
134. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 4:57:43 PM
Not until recently.
135. Autodaffy - 3/19/2001 5:10:49 PM
Is Bobby Knight, or the would be Bobby Knights, good for education?
What is the effect of ordinary students seeing the pampering of athletes? Of knowing the coach can have the president fired? Of having big universities known for their teams rather than their academic programs?
136. janjon - 3/19/2001 5:15:45 PM
CalGal. Well, being charitable, you may have broad knowledge about "hiring", (and, gee, it may be beyond understanding), but - and you can trust me on this one - you haven't got a clue about the two little topics - Ivy League admission policies re athletes and "Wall Street" investment banking hiring criteria - that are somehow, if peculiarly, the topics du jour.
I know about both.
137. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:17:09 PM
JanJon...me too. As you well know, mu son is both.
138. Laura C - 3/19/2001 5:27:19 PM
Since this conversation seems to keep coming back to Princeton, what about their new plan to spend some of their $8 billion endowment on grants, so that their undergrads will no longer graduate horribly in debt?
"Under a pioneering plan, Princeton is becoming the first university in the United States to do away with all student loans. Instead, it will give out only grants. No more student debt. No more pressure to become an investment banker just to be able to pay off big loans." --Christian Science Monitor article, quoted on Princeton's website
How will this change higher education? What effect, if any, will it have on the admissions process?
139. janjon - 3/19/2001 5:30:34 PM
well, peeling the grape a bit, I've been quite active on admissions work for my college (yes, an Ivy) for a number of years now and have sat on a special task force regarding admissions policies for athletes and other special categories for the past three.
And, lurching out for yet another grape to peel, I spent about a decade at an investment bank (small), mostly as a partner, and ran the hiring for several years. As part of that process, I got to know my counterparts at a number of the other shops around town quite well and know what they are looking for in hires and what value they place on athletic participation (note the word participation instead of success. Success is a special category, but participation is by far the more typical.)
140. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:31:37 PM
Laura..hahaha...too late for PP. A combination of Dartmouth for one and Harvard for the other cost me close to 200,000 bucks. I guess my timing was off...
141. janjon - 3/19/2001 5:32:11 PM
laura c. It is a commendable thing Princeton is doing. It also is designed to give them a competitive tool in terms of wooing kids who otherwise might be lured to the likes of Cambridge or New Haven. (or Palo Alto.)
142. Laura C - 3/19/2001 5:36:58 PM
Too late for me too, PP.
Janjon, yes, it will give them a competitive tool, at least till Harvard, Yale et al. match it. It will also significantly increase their yield of poor-but-smart kids, like the two in my HS class who couldn't make the numbers work and went to U of I instead. If I were running a honors college at one of the Public Ivies, I'd be watching this very closely.
143. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 5:37:20 PM
There were a lot of Stanford wanna-bes at Northwestern. I actually had two sisters who graduated from Stanford, one of which will soon be defending her dissertation from same.
144. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:38:44 PM
Erin...fine schools all. Somebody footed that bill huh...
145. Laura C - 3/19/2001 5:39:33 PM
I also wonder how this will affect undergraduates choosing majors. Why worry about the return on your tuition investment if you're not paying the bill? Will the economics and history departments decline, while English and art history soar?
146. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:40:32 PM
Erin...we interviewed a Stanford PHD just today for a faculty position...very impressive woman.
147. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 5:41:06 PM
My two sisters and I were all poor enough to qualify for aid and loans. My loans are under $17,000 now, don't know how much the sisters owe.
148. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 5:43:20 PM
What was her field?
149. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:43:51 PM
My wife and I both agreed on us footing the bill... we worked hard to do so, and now we're still using coupons at Stop & Shop...for some reason this cracks me up.
150. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 5:44:21 PM
Psychology
151. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 8:15:04 PM
Amateur athletics is fine. NCAA athletics is anything but amateur. It's a big business which tends to diminish the educational role of the universities it dominates. Many people piously bleat about the unfairness of affirmative action in college admissions but say nary a word about big time college sports recruiting which actually makes a negative contribution, at least if you believe universities should be places for learning and scholarship.
152. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:25:53 PM
There were a lot of Stanford wanna-bes at Northwestern.
Good lord, you make NU sound like a 2nd rate school. I'm sure there are many NU wannabes at Stanford, as it's easy to think of several fields and subfields where Northwestern is easily better.
153. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:28:22 PM
Laura C Message # 145
Why worry about the return on your tuition investment if you're not paying the bill? Will the economics and history departments decline, while English and art history soar?
Well, if the purpose of education is to maximize monetary return -- kind of a repugnant notion in general -- it doesn't matter who pays the bill or how much it is. Students will want to choose majors that lead to the most lifetime income for them, and that change is not affected (in any direct sense) by the tuition they pay.
154. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:36:15 PM
Arky, re. some early message around 8 or so on "teaching to the test" --
If it's an easy test and teaching to it doesn't require any reworking of class material, then by definition teaching to it isn't harmful.
If on the other hand your state hands down comprehensive, point by point standards, all of which could be on a test, which is made very salient to teachers as a performance benchmark, then teaching to the test will require a reworking of curricula.
And it's not then the case that someone who is "already teaching" the extra-standards things we find useful -- creativity, future interest and willingness to learn, citizenship, etc. -- will not let those suffer as a result of the new incentives. Teaching those things is not binary, taught or not taught, and more time on them counts. Ask yourself, could you benefit from more time in your day? If yes then at the margin more time is valuable, and then any reallocation of your time forced upon you by the higher-ups cannot (in your judgment as implied by your current allocation) improve the overall education of your students.
155. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 8:46:12 PM
What matters to an increasingly large number of graduates is the size of their student loans and their credit card balances. I have a niece who is working as a social worker, and who has a second job, trying to pay off huge student loans from undergraduate and graduate school. CityCorp just raised the rate on her balance to 19%, despite the fact that she has never missed a payment. If she were a lawyer or $100,000 MBA grad it would be one thing, but for a $30,000 social worker it's almost impossible.
156. Autodaffy - 3/19/2001 9:56:34 PM
Isn't part of what people mean by accountability the ability to know that someone who is in grade x has learned x, y and z? Is it unreasonable that, in an effort to guarantee a good education to all, that someone tests such things?
There may be many desirable qualities that we do not know how to test for. Knowledge of the alphabet and addition and subtraction are not among them.
157. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 10:02:37 PM
Fine, but tests alone don't provide the answers for correcting deficiencies in the system. These must come from actual changes in specific policies relating to
teacher training and qualifications
class size
school size
length of the school year
funding
curriculum
etc.
Depending on what is done with the test results, harm may actually come from over-emphasis (high stakes testing) on testing. And the wrong conclusions may be drawn from the results.
158. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 10:30:09 PM
Autodaffy Message # 156,
x, y and z are no problem, especially if they are already to be covered at the grade level anyway. If you think that's the content of the push for standards-based education I invite you to acquaint yourself with the new standards in California. It's more like x1, x2, x3, x4...
But in any case you are confusing social promotion with standards. It's one thing to say that there are standards everyone should meet by leaving a certain grade -- your point -- and it's entirely another to think you can (a) specify in those standards all the most useful things teachers can spend their time on (b) design a test to adequately account for them all.
159. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 10:42:43 PM
AR is doing the same thing.
I think the SAT9 is a valuable test. It isn't the be-all-end-all, but it's very useful for schools and states to make some general comparisons and strengths and weaknesses. These state tests, their specific yet vague (how do state ed depts manage that so consistently?) standards, the lack of correlation, meaningful progression, etc, are a bad trend, though, imo. We tried it when Clinton was gov, and damned if they're not pulling it back out of mothballs and turning into a nationwide trend with Bush at the helm. What a nightmare.
160. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 10:43:38 PM
Stick the word "identify" in there somewhere.
161. anomieme - 3/19/2001 10:59:18 PM
Ase,
Belated comment on your post...
"But, why do role-models need to share particular attributes such as ethnicity or gender? I'm not sure I quite buy the role-model idea (partially because I never really had female role-models that I know of). "
I'm not sure why, but if you were a black child in the 60's, your world was full of white doctors, dentists, and school teachers, lawyers, and TV personalities. A black child having no good family role models had very few other places to see successful people like him (her).
"I'm not sure the "role-model" argument is well thought out. What does it mean anyway? What should it accomplish, what are the supposed mechanisms, and does it really work that way? "
Honestly, I'm not sure either. But some things seem obvious. Having role models seemed obvious enough to me that I required no more persuasion.
"One thing I can see is that if professions/workforce are made up of a real mixture of people with different attributes rather than token individuals that can easily be sub-typed, one may get away from phenomena such as illusory correlations and its effect on stereotyping, and singleton effects. "
Token or not, you've got to get the diversity first. We sometimes forget that some children grow up with absolutely no nurturing, encouragment, or goal-oriented (much less education centered) examples. If a child is to aspire from his own inner fortitude, he must have some examples, some evidence that his hopes aren't futile.
162. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 11:04:15 PM
I also think it's important to remember that we're still in transition, no matter how little people see of it--especially whites, who tend to think if it's not observable to them it's not happening, so tend to disregard discrimination, etc. I try to remind my students that I went to a segregated school until 7th grade, and that's not that long ago. I agree with Anomieme's earlier post, that we're not ready to drop some of the efforts at equal access that were established for very good reasons.
163. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 11:08:47 PM
Sure, the SAT9 can be a useful thing. It's not that it can't be. When the politicals provide very high powered incentives to do well on it just because its results are observable, and that is what "accountability" means at the moment around here, they induce teachers to spend less time on other stuff that counts.
164. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 11:16:38 PM
I don't think we disagree. As a high school teacher I've found that kids who do well in class tend to do well on SAT9's, and it helps me identify weaknesses in reading and language skills, as it does for Bob in math. It's a good tool used in that general way, but when it's taken for more than what it can logically function as, then it becomes a problem; but what seems to be happening is that states are simply making additional tests which they identify as testing "minimum standards" (a joke) and adding them to the SAT9s. The effect is to pretty much gut the curriculum and take the joy out of teaching and learning.
And the sad fact is, at least in high school, a teacher who emphasizes what he or she knows students will need for college will find that most students will do just fine on the SAT9, but I don't know that the same could be said for these state-designed tests. (Can you tell I detest them?)
165. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 9:33:32 AM
I think it's interesting that people assume that because a person has a college degree, that person should be able to choose whatever profession s/he likes upon graduation.
166. Laura C - 3/20/2001 9:36:45 AM
Slackjaw -
Well, if the purpose of education is to maximize monetary return -- kind of a repugnant notion in general -- it doesn't matter who pays the bill or how much it is. Students will want to choose majors that lead to the most lifetime income for them, and that change is not affected (in any direct sense) by the tuition they pay.
What wonkers said in 155. Several of my friends would have majored in the humanities, but were afraid of graduating with $80K in debt and being unable to repay it on, say, a starting salary at an art museum. They weren't crass, just anxious and pragmatic. Removing that anxiety frees them to study what they would choose, not what will allow them to service their loans.
167. janjon - 3/20/2001 11:55:39 AM
Laura C - oh, no question that the small number of schools that can match Princeton in terms of eliminating student loans with straight grants will do so quickly. This will have some "competitive" impact, both with other of the Ivies and others that cannot afford to do so, and certainly with the elite public sub-schools you alluded to. But, the numbers of kids for which this is going to be applicable just isn't large enough to cause more than a ripple or two.
I think it is a very healthy development and indeed good use of their endowments. (Harvard's, at least until the last few weeks or so, had grown to 19 Billion.) To me, it is just more of the latest manifestation of the way most of the Ivies/other elites have moved so dramatically from being the schools of the privileged to being schools where the privileged can still get in if they are good enough in terms of matching enough of the criteria the schools now use. Wasn't too long ago that graduates of private/boarding schools (which themselves are also becoming much more egalitarian) made up more than half of entering classes at places like Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Now, hovering at about a third. Same type of parallel in terms of kids who now get some form of financial aid. And, cutting across all of this is the wonderful way in which those schools now are veritable ethnic rainbows. Again, wasn't too long ago (say 35 years) where an entering class of 1000 would have a handful of blacks, even fewer Hispanics and...Asian-Americans.
All of this, to me, represents American education's greatest strengths. It is the great equalizer in this country.
168. Shannon - 3/20/2001 12:07:09 PM
It also wasn't too long ago that the Ivies were all-male.
169. janjon - 3/20/2001 12:27:50 PM
true, but several of them (Harvard, Columbia, Brown) had "sister" colleges (Radcliffe, Barnard, Pembroke). Cornell and Penn have been co-ed for a long time.
170. bubbaette - 3/20/2001 12:31:03 PM
It wasn't so very long ago that the best state supported school in Virginia was all-male. In fact, the last state supported school in VA to go co-ed didn't do so until the 90's (VMI).
I don't think that most entering freshmen in college have any real concept of what their student loan debt means in terms of later repayment. For the past seven or eight years schools have been doing debt counseling for those receiving student loans, but even that is pretty abstract for someone who's never had to pay bills.
171. PsychProf - 3/20/2001 12:33:50 PM
Bubba...absolutely. I am convinced that many, at least freshman, do not believe that such loans are contracted with repayment as a condition.
172. janjon - 3/20/2001 12:35:51 PM
I haven't commented on the point several have made about how being free from student loans will/might encourage kids to seek out careers that don't start out with or even necessarily eventually add up to big bucks. I think that is a valid point. Now, if someone could find a way to make a lot of the lean careers (publishing, both books and magazines is a classic) at least pay more than starving wages (thereby making those who can afford to start out in them almost inevitably children of parents who can and indeed do subsidize them heavily), that also will be a real plus. Probably not possible, because of the classic supply/demand factor involved.
173. PsychProf - 3/20/2001 12:47:37 PM
Erin...I do know that is very difficult to gain acceptance to Northwestern.
174. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 12:49:43 PM
PP: it is.
175. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 10:32:33 PM
THE ISSUE: The effect of teachers
I wonder when it was that a number of Americans came to see teachers and teachers' unions as part of the educational problem. Perhaps someone with access to a lot of data can locate the date.
Teachers' unions, who at least speak for teachers, don't favor vouchers, privatization, accountability, testing, testing for teachers or closing failing schools. The do favor increased funding and spend multi-bucks in elections to increase their funding.
About twenty years ago the reports were that education majors were the absolute bottom of the SAT barrel on entering college. Has this changed? Is this a good situation for our children?
Schools of education have been harshly criticized for a variety of reasons: a single minded insistence on courses on educational methods as opposed to knowledge of the field being taught, failure to teach anything of practical use to new teachers, and teaching methods faddism that has in the trench teachers suffering whiplash as it changes from year to year and as they are top down forced to adapt to changes.
Teachers don't get no respect. Is that justified?
176. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 10:36:39 PM
Here is a simple question for those in the know: In the business world people are fired for failing to perform quite frequently. If you are a salesperson and do not meet quota, you are history. How often are teachers fired for failure to perform? Anyone have figures. My impression is that almost never is anyone fired for failure or, god forbid, simple mediocrity.
Am I wrong?
177. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:40:23 PM
I think it's interesting that people assume that because a person has a college degree, that person should be able to choose whatever profession s/he likes upon graduation.
If you have a degree from one of the elite schools, there's some degree of truth to that. Now a humanities degree from Holyoke might not get you a prestigious Wall Street job, but for a long time it got you recruited from most of the major companies who were looking for management fodder. You could also get sales jobs, marketing gigs, etc. I knew a lot of IBMers and AT&T middle management folk like that.
I can't swear this is still true; haven't run into the sort in a while now.
178. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:42:21 PM
Auto,
Well, firing isn't as certain as all that in the business world. Lord knows I think more should be weeded out.
It's hard to get teachers. You have a percentage who do it for love and are worth three times as much as they are paid, another percentage who do it because they're bottom of the barrel. It's never going to pay well, so I'm not sure there is any real solution.
179. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 10:44:27 PM
Nope, though I agree most ed depts are a big and unfunny joke, including the one I took part in. Secondary ed people don't spend much time there, though. I only took about three ed courses and a few weeks of prep courses for practice teaching. WRT unions, any union represents the interests of its members. No one should expect a teachers' union to advocate for anything but what teachers want. I don't belong to one (despite what Rose says), but their emphasis, at least here, has been on job security rather than working conditions and salaries (except for the big districts--you'd be crazy not to belong to one in that case), and since job security has never been a concern of mine, I see no need to pay dues to such an ineffective group.
180. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 10:47:16 PM
Oops. Got distracted before hitting post. Mine's to Auto's original post '75.
181. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 10:52:25 PM
Teachers' unions, who at least speak for teachers, don't favor vouchers, privatization, accountability, testing, testing for teachers or closing failing schools. The do favor increased funding and spend multi-bucks in elections to increase their funding.
Says who? You? I don't think you've supported this contention, and it certainly is counter to what I know about some of these issues.
And of course teacher unions support increased funding. The single most important factor that determines teacher salaries, regardless of supply, quality or any other factor, is the financial constraints of local and state funding. In addition, anyone who's ever worked in public education knows that schools are constantly being asked to provide additional services, additional skills, additional programs, all the while facing stagnant or declining real budgets.
And btw, corporations spend huge dollars on candidates that support their own special interests. Do you find this an indictment against them as well?
Here's what I know about some union positions. Unions don't support vouchers generally, primarily because most actual evidence suggests that 1) it won't solve many of the problems currently facing education; 2) it promotes stratification between groups and between schools; 3) it won't address the critical issue of special needs children.
Unions have supported accountability, teacher testing, and higher standards for teachers. However, they also support wage policies that are designed to attract more qualified students to the field as well.
About twenty years ago the reports were that education majors were the absolute bottom of the SAT barrel on entering college.
Do you know anything that's accurate about this subject?
182. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:00:33 PM
Ms. It,
As you love to say, and as most hack academics like to say, your assertions are not supported by data.
183. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:06:19 PM
Well, let's see you one-up her by providing some for you SAT assertion. And make sure coaches aren't figured in.
184. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:08:18 PM
And I must, just as an FYI, point out that in past education discussions Msit has posted more data to support her arguments than anyone.
185. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:12:45 PM
In creating the links to the NEA and AFT today I was surprised at the difference between the public positions that they take towards issues such as privitization, where you get disinterested, intellectual objections to to idea similar to the "it doesn't work" stuff above in opposition to vouchers. But when you go to, say, the AFT's website the emphasis is simply on the threat to current teachers' jobs.
This dichotomy, the claim to have the best interest of students as a motivation, contrasted to the self interest many can see in the unions' positions, is part of the reason, I believe, for the public increasingly seeing the teachers as part of the problem.
Their increasing identification with the Dem party is another. If they throw their lot in with the Dems exclusively, how should the non-Dem rest of America view them other than as a noxious group to be bearded?
186. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:15:45 PM
I will try, arky, to find statistics. I have been a follower of such things for nearly thirty years, and I don't doubt my memory on this. But twenty years is long ago, in internet time.
187. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:16:23 PM
Once again, they're unions. Dues are paid so that they emphasize the teachers' best interests. These are not professional organizations. They're unions.
188. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:18:13 PM
Twenty years is so long ago, I wouldn't consider it that relevant any more. There was a big drop in teacher quality for a time, but increased standards, testing, etc, have helped. Problem is that now there's a severe shortage of teachers.
189. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:23:51 PM
What data?
Your initial comments were the one's unsupported.
Al Shanker has pointedly come out in support of increased teacher standards, increased choice among public schools (what's called intradistrict transfer policies), and has agreed that teacher testing is acceptable if certain protections are in place.
As for your comment regarding education majors, that too is unsubstantiated. What has been true is that education majors, on average, scored at just below the mean of SAT scores among all college students. They were not the "bottom of the barrel".
Recent studies by Hanushek (and Pace) also suggest this is inaccurate. They argue that most of this data comes from the NLS high school studies, which provided data on the aspirations of high school seniors and compared that to their SAT performance. From that emerged a picture that college students majoring in education were drawn from the lower half of the SAT distribution among those attending college.
Note two things here, that is, if you can follow.
First, these studies compared SAT scores among students who actually started college, not all students who took the SAT. Second, the data was based on the aspirations of entering freshmen, and never really accounted for shifting of majors, attrition from the college population and other possible demographic changes.
190. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:24:04 PM
Hanushek's 1994 study actually traced cohorts of students and matched their SAT scores and their chosen major as they moved through college. He found that 1) attrition among the college population is related to SAT scores, with those students at the lower range of the distribution (among college students) having the highest rates of attrition (this shouldn't surprise anyone); and 2) there is additional sorting (by student achievement)and shifting of majors that occurs within the first two years. Thus if you look at students declaring education as their major as entering freshmen and compare their average SAT scores with those who eventually end up graduating in education, the scores are significantly different.
Those who end up graduating with teaching degrees have higher SAT scores than the original freshman population (who declared education as their major), and are above the mean SAT scores for all college students.
But hey, your mantra sounds so politically correct.
191. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:29:00 PM
"Once again, they're unions. Dues are paid so that they
emphasize the teachers' best interests. These are not
professional organizations. They're unions."
Yes, arky, they are unions, but when Sandra Feldman is on Talk of the Nation she speaks only of what is best for children, and never of what is best for the union, although what is best for children in her mind always turns out to be what is best for the union. This is insidious.
192. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:29:38 PM
Arky
I had to bite my tongue not to retort that the bottom of the barrel among college students came from the physical education departments, aka, the student jocks.
But hey, I'm going to play nice.
193. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:31:56 PM
"Al Shanker has pointedly come out in support of
increased teacher standards, increased choice among
public schools (what's called intradistrict transfer
policies), and has agreed that teacher testing is
acceptable if certain protections are in place."
Ms.It:
Do I need to tell you how many years Al Shanker has been dead?
194. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:32:49 PM
What has been true is that education majors, on average, scored at just below the mean of SAT scores among all college students. They were not the "bottom of the barrel".
Allowing for exaggeration, it's pretty damn close. It's certainly not a cheering thought, that's for damn sure. The mean SAT puts them just a bit below our current Pres, doesn't it?
Noting your further explanation (thanks, it was quite interesting), I would say that being just above the mean score isn't all that much more cheering.
Doesn't the average mean score of students intending to be ed majors being so low suggest that often the least able students are the ones intending to be teachers--even if they end up flunking out?
Also, isn't much of the resistance to teacher testing due to the fact that minority teachers often don't pass? This may have changed; the last time I remember this being a fuss was some ten years ago.
195. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:34:43 PM
He was a major spokesman for the AFT for decades. You assert claims about union beliefs. I'm stating his position that was the case well into the 90's.
And you've yet to substantiate any of your comments, just more PC tripe.
196. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:41:21 PM
Calgal
I expected better of you.
First, there's significant sorting that occurs between those aspiring to attend college and those who actually attend. The SAT pool is narrowed.
Second, the earlier studies were seriously flawed. They didn't account for shifting between majors, nor did they account for attrition among the college population.
Once this is done, students who major in education are at slightly above the mean of all college students wrt SAT scores.
Now, as to your other points.
How smart do you want our teachers to be? Do you want them to be rocket scientists? Engineers? Math majors? If so, then the single most important factor preventing the very top of the college student population from entering education in droves is salary, both starting and growth over time. Second will be working conditions. Third will be lack of ability to control their work product.
Personally, I think this issue is a red herring.
197. Autodaffy - 3/20/2001 11:43:30 PM
Woody Allen, in Sleeper, asks what happened to the world after he was frozen like a TV dinner and later thawed in a much changed world. The response: "Someone named Albert Shanker got his hands on an atomic bomb."
198. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:45:16 PM
Ms,
I was quibbling with your rebuttal, not necessarily agreeing with Auto. My first post about it stands (Message # 178)--there are those who do it because they love it, and those who do it by default. The money makes it a given that it's never going to get the best and the brightest unless they happen to also want to teach.
But I do think competency tests are reasonable to shoot for.
199. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:46:24 PM
Finally,
We aren't talking about education majors being just above or below the mean SAT score, as you ambiguously put it, we're comparing SAT scores among college students.
This is a more selective pool to start with. They are not at the mean SAT score to begin with. They have already been sorted by being admitted to a four year institution.
There is additional sorting that occurs through attrition rates (drop out rates). Again, then, the students who graduate will be from a higher portion of the SAT distribution of all college students, regardless of major.
See? This is a red herring.
200. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:47:16 PM
Auto daffy
You are clearly incompetent to lead this thread.
201. MsIvoryTower - 3/20/2001 11:49:43 PM
Competency tests are also a red herring.
By all means, institute them if it makes you happy. However, it generally only raises the costs to those considering majoring in the field, which, in turn, makes relative salaries look even worse, further discouraging top students from entering the field.
202. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:56:39 PM
However, it generally only raises the costs to those considering majoring in the field, which, in turn, makes relative salaries look even worse, further discouraging top students from entering the field.
But we're never going to get top students unless they love teaching, and that's a crap shoot. So you accept the fact that you will often get those at the lower end of the scale and focus on establishing competency. I don't see how competency raises the costs of a college degree, unless you are saying that it will cost them more money to learn the basics--and I can't much be fussed about that.
203. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:58:23 PM
In other words, the arkies, the phillipdavids and the like--if we accept that the bright, overqualified individual who loves teaching even if they could get paid three times as much in a different profession is the exception, rather than the rule, how would it change our attitude towards teachers?
204. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:00:16 AM
Calgal
Competency tests, if administered as part of a graduation requirement, or as a certification requirement, raise the cost of entering the field. Competency tests take more time, more study, and increase risk. Compare that to the salaries available to college grads in other fields, and the fact that no tests are required.
The effect is an increase in relative costs, not offset by any relative benefits, which act to dampen supply.
Btw, the impact on supply is more deleterious within subfields than at the aggregate level. And the fields most affected are precisely those with the greatest shortages.
205. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 12:04:54 AM
Now there are two types of tests required in many states, the NTE, a standard subject-area test, and a "basic skills" test, which is essentially a joke. Anyone who fails it should go slap the entire board and administrators of whatever college they attended. And yes, some people failed it when it was first implemented in AR, but those people should have never been teaching. Instead, of course, they were tutored and retook until they passed. States don't have the cojones, especially in light of the shortages, to back up anything they threaten regarding teacher requirements or accountability.
206. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:06:03 AM
Competency tests take more time, more study, and increase risk.
I can't believe that any competency test will take more time, study, and risk for a "top student". Not if the competency tests I've seen are any indication.
I suppose it is possible that competency tests will induce those who can't pass the test easily to become bartenders and cabdrivers, or try the real world as a college grad and see if they can buck the odds and not get fired. (Note: operating on the assumption that the usual ed major is the "just above the SAT mean" sort.)
But am I wrong in my memory that competency tests are primarily opposed because of their impact on minority teachers? Which brings us roundabout to the SAT issue again, if so.
207. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:06:12 AM
And yes, there will always be a small group of high achievement (by tested scores) college students who enter the field because of a vocation for teaching.
Competency testing will probably have a negligible effect on their supply.
I simply don't see the point of competency testing. What is it to accomplish? Where is it to be targeted?
Do we really care if our elementary teachers all come from the top 25% of graduating college students? I mean, they teach young children.
The majority of home schooled kids (which occurs most frequently at the elementary levels) are taught by parents with less qualifications (as measured by tested scores) than most elementary teachers, yet their children don't seem to suffer for it.
208. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:08:37 AM
Arky,
Message # 205. Exactly. If it increases the cost of graduation to pass a basic competency test, then by all means, toss the bugger out. It seems little enough to ask for. I don't think a subject area test ought to be that onerous--a reasonable score on a test the equivalent of the SAT II isn't that much to ask for high school level instruction, is it?
209. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:11:22 AM
Do we really care if our elementary teachers all come from the top 25% of graduating college students?
No. Competency and excellence are entirely different things. I'm taking it as a given that we won't get the top 25%. That's one of the reasons why I dislike the obsequious tone some people get when they talk about the noble profession of teaching. Many of them teach because they can't compete with the real talent. So we should view them as workers--singling out the excellent ones to teach the gifted kids, ideally.
As for homeschoolers, I still wonder what the stats are on their math and science scores.
210. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:12:27 AM
Calgal
You don't have to believe me wrt any sort of test rasing the costs of entering a field. It's been well documented by lots of labor economists and by those studying choice of college majors among students.
Any test, any increase in required classes, any increase in the total units required for a major, will raise the cost of obtaining a degree, and cause attrition from either the field or the college population.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a clear effect.
And of course those at the top of the achievement distribution face lower costs than those below them, it's one reason colleges have minimum SAT requirements to begin with, to minimize attrition due to these costs.
But we aren't going to generate a large enough supply of teachers by only trying to draw from the top of the achievement distribution because education cannot compete with other fields for those students. It can't compete wrt salary, working conditions, salary growth, benefits, or professional development and advancement.
211. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:19:25 AM
Ms,
I wasn't doubting you. I was saying instead that if basic competency raised the cost, that was a price I could live with.
I keep on saying that I don't want to draw from the top of the achievement distribution. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think we should stop fooling ourselves about it. Accept the fact that most teachers are not anything special, quit spouting nonsense about it as a noble calling, and accept the fact that most of them can teach kids what they need to know and that's quite enough. Pay the top level folks who show up a lot more money and give them the AP courses and the "smart kids".
212. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:23:13 AM
Calgal
Wrt competency testing and minority teachers:
probably the opposition is based to some degree on the increased risk competency tests pose for this population. And there are no easy answers.
Qualified minority college graduates are still in an advantageous hiring position. Firms compete to maintain, or increase, the diversity of their workforce, and they can pay for it. Education is in even a more disadvantaged position wrt attracting highly qualified minority students to the field than they are with the general student population.
Its really a mess.
213. Autodaffy - 3/21/2001 12:23:46 AM
Ms.It:"Auto daffy
You are clearly incompetent to lead this thread."
Thank you for sharing. If you want to leave, do so. Your invective tonight has been the least temperate voiced so far in this thread. I have agreed to host, not "lead," this thread.
214. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:28:34 AM
Autodaffy
We'll have to agree to disagree as to what monitoring a thread entails.
And if I'm the most invective this thread has gotten, I suggest you need some reading glasses. You're just mad cause you've been shown to be wrong.
215. Autodaffy - 3/21/2001 12:30:44 AM
Yes, and Albert Shanker has said...
217. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 12:35:13 AM
Btw
How long ago did Shanker die?
(hint: 1997)
218. Slackjaw - 3/21/2001 1:41:16 AM
LauraC Message # 166
They weren't crass, just anxious and pragmatic. Removing that anxiety frees them to study what they would choose, not what will allow them to service their loans.
But that's not the same as trying to maximize income -- that's trying to have fun with school subject to the constraints of paying off your loans. But the same choice of m maximizes both f(m) - t and f(m) - 0. The income maximizing choice is not affected by tuition costs.
219. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 7:06:43 AM
Missie..."Do we really care if our elementary teachers all come from the
top 25% of graduating college students? I mean, they teach
young children."
I'll think about this before I respond, but it's kind of a scarie statement.
220. bubbaette - 3/21/2001 8:27:23 AM
The notion that high school students should go into the teaching profession based on their love of teaching doesn't take into account that most really haven't any experience teaching to know whether they can do it. Per my conversations with my sis, learning a subject and teaching it are different. I would add to Missy's winnowing process student teaching and first few years of teaching to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The teaching profession has also been a political football for the past 20 years at least. There are loads of armchair quarterbacks who are quick to opine that teachers are overpaid lazy and ignorant, but who can't even instill discipline in their own kids, much less a classroom. Because teaching is the largest expenditure of local government and one of the largest expenditures of state government, and because most households don't have children in the schools, there's constant pressure to do things on the cheap. Given that there's so little respect for the teaching profession, that it's not very well-paid, and that teacher bashing has become a political sport, it's little wonder that students who have more lucrative and respected career opportunities aren't clamoring to enter the teaching profession.
221. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:07:34 AM
Okay, I've had a good night's rest.
First off, I want to apologize to Autodaffy. I should not have called him an idiot.
Second,
PP, I'd like to think we could recruit teachers primarily from the top of the college student population, but that's simply not going to happen.
Not only is the salary inadequate to attract large numbers of these students the growth of wages and opportunities over time is also inadequate to retain the them.
Add to this the significant change in public support for teachers in the classroom, and I'd have to say that most people who have the opportunity to leave teaching for higher paying and more autonomous work do so. In fact, among teachers already in the profession, those who leave tend to be those who have the most employment alternatives available to them, which includes significantly higher pay.
This doesn't mean that the teachers who remain don't have alternatives, only that the wages they'd be able to obtain aren't significantly higher, so this doesn't act as a factor for them leaving. Those who do stay in teaching, therefore, tend to be those who majored in english, languages, the arts, and the social sciences.
222. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:07:46 AM
One additional comment. Earlier Calgal stated that we should abandon the notion that teachers are anything special, that they should be seen as typical workers. This is also incorrect.
College graduates are not the typical worker. The average level of educational attainment among adult workers in this country is about 12.8 years of education, this may have reached 13 years in the latest census data. To say that teachers are grunt workers, undeserving of respect as professionals, because they don't come from the top 25% of college graduates is not only inaccurate but also adds to the public misperception about teacher quality.
This isn't to say that there aren't bad teachers. God forbid I'd be the last one to say that, but the data doesn't suggest that teachers are generally incompetent. Like any profession, there will be excellent teachers, good teachers, adequate teachers and very bad teachers.
I support any policy that weeds out bad teachers, however, I also recognize that such policies have reprocussions. They affect total teacher supply, and they affect teacher supply by field. Putting such policies in place without also addressing how they will add to current teacher shortage problems is not only shortsighted but irresponsible, and harms public education more than it helps.
223. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 9:22:55 AM
Missie...I often here this refrain from psyc majors/MAT wannabes, when it come to teaching math at the elementary level..."Well, they are just kids"...that is what I was responding to. Is there some literature which suggesds that cognitive development is not important for children , that I have indeed missed, I ask?
224. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:28:11 AM
Well, actually, I have some other comments regarding this issue of what constitutes excellence in teaching.
I also challenge the notion that we can identify high quality teachers soley by culling out those who are below a certain acheivement level in the college student population.
Consider my comment above regarding elementary teachers. Teaching elementary children takes a lot more than just performing well on the SAT. The elementary grades are critical to developing a child's love of learning, love of knowledge, and sense of competence in school. Teachers who work with this population need to know more than just content specific knowledge, they need to have skills in working with children as well.
They need to have flexibility so that they can adapt their knowledge base to different learning styles and different paces of learning among young children. We lose kids in elementary school and we stand a good chance of losing them for good in the education system.
We want teachers who are great at inspiring children to learn reading, basic writing, develop their imaginations, spur their interest in the sciences and the wonders of math; to instill a love of learning and to foster children's natural inquisitiveness. I'm more interested in attracting and retaining such teachers at the elementary level than in ensuring they come from the upper range of the college student population.
225. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:32:07 AM
PP
I think you read too much into that comment. We should have teachers who are well grounded in cognitive development in elementary classrooms, no question. We should have teachers who are capable of fostering the development of children on many levels, not only intellecual.
But I challenge you to defend that we need rocket scientists in the elementary classroom. We need people who have a good grasp of the concepts they must teach, this is different than requiring they be the best and brightest minds in those fields.
226. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 9:35:05 AM
Ivory...but how can you teach the "wonders of math" if you are not good at it, don't like it, and have avoided it at all levels of previous education? This is what I am concerned with. Although I cannot quote chapter and verse stats, my inclass and counseling experience validate the notion that many elementary school teachers come from this kind of math background.
227. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:39:10 AM
PP
True. This is a real problem. We need to increase the math skills of elementary teachers. I won't argue with you about that.
However, this still doesn't mean we need to be pulling elementary teachers from the top of the college student population. It means we need to require more math skills in those who do go into teaching.
Btw, requireing more math skills in the general college population wouldn't be a bad thing either. I know plenty of people who went through 4 years of college without ever taking a "real" math class for graduation. Same is true for the sciences as well.
Your comments apply to the majority of college students generally, not just teachers.
228. MsIvoryTower - 3/21/2001 9:41:40 AM
requiring...
and other errors...
229. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 9:43:53 AM
Yes...off to class. You owe me an e-mail, old friend.
230. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:39:15 PM
College graduates are not the typical worker.
Well, we're saying the same thing but from a different skew. I agree that college graduates are not a typical worker. However, the average teacher is significantly less desirable, competency wise, than the average high tech systems analyst, corporate lawyer, or investment banker. Yet there is a lot of rhetoric about how valuable teachers are, how noble their calling. I think instead that average teachers should be viewed as the equivalent of an RN, or an administrative assistant (not a clerical worker, but a skilled office worker, who often has a degree).
I support any policy that weeds out bad teachers, however, I also recognize that such policies have reprocussions. They affect total teacher supply, and they affect teacher supply by field.
Yes and yes. I submit that if we don't have enough teachers to pass a basic (very basic) competency test, then we deserve a crisis and should take the hit. Ideally, you bracket the competency tests with rules that will force a crisis--mandatory termination of teachers who fail the test, holding substitute teachers to the same standards.
If, as is quite possibly the case, most of the failures are in low-income areas I would also expect a program in place to act immediately on schools that have insufficient teachers. But I think forcing a crisis has a lot to recommend it.
Open Question: if teachers with college degrees can't pass a competency test and junior college graduates (or students) can, would you support a school who doesn't have enough teachers hiring uncredentialed people who can pass the competency test?
231. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:46:35 PM
I also challenge the notion that we can identify high quality teachers soley by culling out those who are below a certain acheivement level in the college student population.
Agreed, but keep in mind that I'm not interested in finding high quality teachers. For the most part, I'm not sure they are needed.
We want teachers who are great at inspiring children to learn reading, basic writing, develop their imaginations, spur their interest in the sciences and the wonders of math; to instill a love of learning and to foster children's natural inquisitiveness.
I think this romanticizes kids a bit too much. Not all kids are interested in this. Many would do well just to be taught a solid education without getting dewy-eyed about it.
Now, some kids do have that spark. So I would propose that these kids and the truly excellent teachers, the arkies and the like, be matched up. Pay the superb teachers a lot more and focus them on the smart and/or ambitious kids who want to learn all they can and soak up the learning. Or motivate the smart kid who isn't particularly interested in using his or her gifts.
Obviously, this creates a two-tier system and doesn't have a chance in hell of being implemented. But it also makes a lot more sense than distributing the talented teachers randomly.
232. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 6:35:30 PM
It only has a chance if there are different ed requirements for the two and enough incentives to keep people in teaching who would normally go elsewhere.
Part of the reason there's such a shortage of math teachers, at least here, is that BSE math majors have to take all but one or two of the courses a BS in math requires, and with active recruiting in the universities and nice signing bonuses it's very hard to keep those intending to be math teachers in the BSE programs. W