Diane Ravitch is a historian. Her book ‘‘The Death and Life of the Great American School System’’ will be published in February:
We educate because we want citizens who are capable of taking responsibility for their lives and for our democracy. We want citizens who understand how their government works, who are knowledgeable about the history of their nation and other nations. We need citizens who are thoroughly educated in science.Classic IQ-denialism. Only a select few are capable of truly understanding these esoteric concepts. Further, only an intellectually gifted child will find this type of education enjoyable. It's far more beneficial to teach practical skills than such ambiguous ones as "understanding how our government works" and "science". The populist masses speak in bumper stickers because that's what they understand. Attempts to provide them with a greater ken will assuredly fail. It's also quite obvious she's attempting to justify her own liberal arts education. Ivy League liberal arts graduates, proofreading in some New York City temp agency, don't realize that such study is largely irrelevant in the marketplace (not that I don't enjoy it though).
But because of our narrow-minded utilitarianism, we have forgotten what good education is.
The worst statement is the last one, where she characterizes our approach to education as "utilitarian". Unfortunately, it actually isn't, but I wish we would adopt a more efficient method by "investing" in the most academically able. While a "good" education, not necessarily defined as above, will likely benefit all children, our resources, of which education is surely a significant part, must be allocated properly.
Tom Vander Ark invests in edu-entrepreneurs and blogs at EdReformer.com:
But because education is largely protected from incentives and consequences, it lags in embracing technology.Of course, this is a very good idea. Learning should include more "fun". But it's not a necessary component of education. Pretty simple: The generation that made it to the Moon with a TI-83 learned from those crusty old textbooks everyone is always trying to throw out.
New tools already make possible a generation of schools that blend the best of online and on-site learning. They will be less expensive and more fun, delivering excellence with equity.
Susie Buffett is chairwoman of the Buffett Early Childhood Fund:
...emphasize early education. It wasn’t impossible for disadvantaged students to catch up later — just a lot harder, and costlier.How about we invest in the human capital with the most potential? Not the ones whose parents are crack addicts? This seems a lot like Head Start, which was a failure. Mrs. Buffet noted "highly trained teachers, down on the floor, talking, singing and inspiring". I wonder if Mrs. Buffet realizes the saccharine tone of her words.
Inside Educare, kids facing the worst odds find, beginning at birth, a full-day, full-year oasis. Visit and you’ll see highly trained teachers, down on the floor, talking, singing and inspiring.
Educare students come close to national norms by the time they reach kindergarten. That is big news, and a solid investment in human capital.
Geoffrey Canada is president and chief executive of Harlem Children’s Zone.
Our schools were designed to prepare children for jobs that predominated in the 1930s. Children didn’t need a thorough education for manufacturing jobs. Summers were for working in the fields with your hands, not sharpening your mind. One result is that we have one of the shortest school years in the industrialized world.Wow. This might be the best one. Children may not need specific training for manufacturing jobs, but surely, school can imbue them with behavioral norms that make them better equipped to handle tedious and arduous labor. But Mr. Canada clearly dismisses this honest work as below all the geniuses he has at Harlem's Children Zone. His last statement epitomizes liberal creationism regarding innate intelligence. And finally, kids don't need more school, they probably need less so as to not overwork them.
National success will not be based on how much iron ore was mined but on how many children can access the new international currency: intellectual prowess.
Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of ‘‘Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality.’’:
Discredit the bachelor’s degree as a job credential. It does not signify the acquisition of a liberal education. It does not even tell an employer that the graduate can put together a logical and syntactically correct argument. It serves as rough and unreliable evidence of a degree of intelligence and perseverance — that’s it. Yet across much of the job market, young people can’t get their foot in the door without that magic piece of paper.Finally some reasonable words from none other than Charles Murray. Anyone else slightly surprised the Times asked him to offer an opinion. They probably did so with the caveat that he avoid race and IQ.
38 comments:
The generation that made it to the Moon with a TI-83 learned from those crusty old textbooks everyone is always trying to throw out.
The HP-35 did not come out until some time in the '70s, like around '74.
As I recall, that was five years after the first moon landing.
The TI-83 was many, many years after that.
Diane Ravitch is a Jew. I'm 100% confident that she is aware of HBD, because she is a member of the most close-knit race. Jews fight as hard as possible to deny HBD because if accepted, mass knowledge of HBD will utterly destroy their ongoing work to disenfranchise Whites and promote race-mixing and reveal the true nature and strategies of Jews.
It may be proper time for you OneSTDV to study the Jewish question, of course if you do not belong to that race yourself.
Very recently I made fascinating discoveries in that field for myself.
lets see if you you publish my comment...
@ Anonymous:
I was just alluding to the fact that the computer on those spacecraft were less complex than the TI-83, which every single kid uses.
I agree 100% that
//Jews fight as hard as possible to deny HBD//.
I think also that we should follow the suggestion of esteemed OneSTDV to relegate the discussions of Jews (and bashing of them) to other sites.
Dear OneSTDV ! Can you point to reasonble sites, where to go for that ?
Respectfully, Florida resident.
"reveal the true nature and strategies of Jews."
Hilarious.
There probably are some sincere zionists out there that truly wish Jews had some strategy. Pretty obvious they don't.
Anyway, Diane Ravitz goals immediately reminded me of how special ed. students' goals are written after students are assessed. They are generally something on the order of percent measured performance like, student will be able to write a complete sentence 70% of the time. Since the kid is practically guaranteed not to become truly proficient, an alternative, some x% is the goal so that progress can have some quantitative measure. So when I saw Ravitz's goals, I thought, okay, now is she going to list the percentages we want, like 70% of the kids to be able to understand government and science at least 50% of the time.
I am not kidding. This is typically how educational objectives are written because everyone knows the standard mastery level of 95% being proficient 95% of the time is impossible. Mastery level proficiency is like multiplication tables: 95% of students should be able to get the basic multiplication facts correct 95% of the time. It only allows for careless error, not real gaps in knowledge.
As I've posted on other blogs, White Nationalists who blame their problems on Jews are no different from Blacks who blame their problems on Whites.
In either situation, it's a case of people who cannot acknowledge their own shortcomings looking for some other group to scapegoat.
Just as many Blacks believe that their problems are the result of Whites conspiring to keep them down, so too do White Nationalists believe that their problems are the result of Jews conspiring to keep them down.
Perhaps the most obvious counter-example to the White Nationalist position is that of Sweden. Sweden has essentially no Jews and yet is allowing Arabs to flood into the country. Exactly how are the Jews accomplishing this?
As for Jews, I actually partially agree with some of the following statements, like:
Jews are extremely close-knit (probably moreso than Italians and Irish). Jews are, though less than they used to be, very concerned with ethnic purity. Many are hypocrites with regards to Israel vs US immigration. They're not fond of white christians, as Larry Auster has stated.
But if you want a site criticizing Jews, this isn't one for you. IMO, as sabril notes, white Christians like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Juan McCain, and George W. Bush, are doing all they can to undermine the white race. The Catholic church and countries like Sweden and Finland are doing a great job at killing the West as well.
As for sites where one can find reasonable arguments against Jews, I'll admit it's tough to find b/c some people are afraid of being labeled a crazy person. Sailer is probably your best bet as he seems to be prety even keeled about Jews, yet willing to tell the truth when needed. Asuter, an ethnic Jewish convert to Christianity, has written about why Jews don't like flyover country whites. Guy White has some good stuff on Jewish liberalism.
How this discussion came to be about Jews, I have no idea. The post was about education.
This morning I saw on TV
“High schooler with Down Syndrome scoring TD [Touchdown]. Opposing team gives up shutout, lets 15-year-old Ziesel make score late.”
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32925774/ns/sports-other_sports/
It was arranged to improve his self-esteem.
How soon our society will arrange “High schooler with Down Syndrome found new proof of the Great Fermat Theorem” ? How much this self-esteem is worth, if it is not deserved by real achievement ?
Your Florida resident.
"Many are hypocrites with regards to Israel vs US immigration. "
I'd be interested to see the names of a few prominent Jews who are hypocrites on this issue. I'm not saying you are wrong, I would just like to see some names.
"How this discussion came to be about Jews, I have no idea."
The problem is that discussions of HBD inevitably draw anti-semites out of the woodwork.
"How soon our society will arrange “High schooler with Down Syndrome found new proof of the Great Fermat Theorem” ? How much this self-esteem is worth, if it is not deserved by real achievement ?"
Yes I saw this too, but on ESPN last week. I tihnk your last statement says it all. You always hear people say, "the person I learned the most from was the teacher/coach/parent that pushed me the hardest and when he'd give even the slightest compliment, like 'that wasn't the worst' it would mean the most."
Real accomplishment comes from struggle and if something is "good", then it's generally a struggle to get.
"I'd be interested to see the names of a few prominent Jews who are hypocrites on this issue. "
HBDBooks wrote about one of these guys last month. Don't feel like looking it up. But it's pretty simple. Take almost any liberal Jew in America and ask them about the Law of Return (which is the immigration policy of Israel intended to keep it a Jewish majority state). Almost all will agree that Israel should stay a majority jewish state and that highly limiting Arab immigration is acceptable for this goal (and b/c Arabs are a society depressing population).
But then liberal Jews advocate the exact opposite position for America and criticize anyone who wants to keep America a majority white country (Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a great example) and highly limit the immigration of a society depressing population like Hispanics.
I don't have specific names, but almost all liberal Jews will argue the two positions above. I've had conversations where this has occurred. I always start with the Israel part first so when we get to America, they squirm alot. One of my friends, who is a conservative Jew and has given some overt hints of HBD wrt to blacks, was very uncomfortable with white nationalism (or basically the sense that America should be kept majority white).
So I started with the Israel argument, then went to the American argument, saying "if it's OK for Jews to live amongst themselves and be governed by themselves, then why can't American whites have the same privilege?" He thought about it for a second, and he actually agreed. So I convinced him that wanting a majority white America wasn't such a bad position. One of my finer debating moments. [Note once again: I have given my opinion on white nationalism and for the most part, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting an ethnically homogeneous population, but I don't necessarily advocate America goes in that diredction, especially b/c it's impractical. See John Derbyshire's answer to this on HBDBooks which almsot exactly parrots my own].
"HBDBooks wrote about one of these guys last month. Don't feel like looking it up"
I have no doubt that Jews are not immune to hypocricy. However, I question whether it's as widespread as you seem to think.
We educate because we want citizens who are capable of taking responsibility for their lives and for our democracy. We want citizens who understand how their government works, who are knowledgeable about the history of their nation and other nations. We need citizens who are thoroughly educated in science.
Even if one accepts these arguments (which one shouldn't), these are not arguments for education beyond 8th grade or, at most, high school. Every citizen can know "enough" about the US government, history, and science from a well-designed elementary school curriculum. These are not reasons to go to college!
Let's leave aside that the education system we have right now does not do any of these things, which should raise questions in anybody's mind whether the government can or should be in the education business at all.
because education is largely protected from incentives and consequences, it lags in embracing technology.
Technology is irrelevant to education. For education you need two things: teachers able to teach and students willing to learn. The only "technology" you need is at most a chalkboard.
It wasn’t impossible for disadvantaged students to catch up later — just a lot harder, and costlier.
Sorry, it is impossible, and it's a waste of resources trying to achieve the impossible.
I'd be interested to see the names of a few prominent Jews who are hypocrites on this issue.
There are plenty of liberal Jews (in the USA and Israel) who are consistent, if suicidally stupid, in that they push for unlimited immigration for the USA and for Israel.
http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/2007-10-10/where_should_jews_stand_immigration
From there (announcement):
John Derbyshire is a columnist for the National Review, a critic of mass immigration into the US, and has publicly described himself as Jewcy's "shabbos goy." Gideon Aronoff is the head of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the zeyde of all Jewish-American immigration orgs. In this installment of Jewcy's Big Question series, they square off on the question, "Where should Jews stand on immigration?"
Respectfully, F.r.
F.R.
FR,
What's Jewcy's readership, a few thousand? There is no high arbiter within Judaism who can decide on a political position for all Jews. The baseline liberalism and paranoia of many Jews is more likely to determine their positions on immigration restriction than a debate on Jewcy. The Jew-haters raising of the "JQ" does nothing to decrease that paranoia, I assure you.
Thank you for your comment. Dervyshire's and Aronoff's dialogue is the first and the last time I read this Jewcy.com/.
I found the article among Derbyshire's articles.
Your F.r.
So I convinced him that wanting a majority white America wasn't such a bad position. One of my finer debating moments.
There is a MASSIVE hole in the American public debate right now for conservatives to say that America needs to be more like Israel.
"Israel has a wall, so we need a wall"
"Israel assassinates terrorists, so we need to assassinate gang leaders, who are domestic terrorists"
etc. etc.
The exact opposite tactic is taken by dummies like Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan. They notice that American Jews tend to be left wing for the US and right wing on Israel. So the dummies then push Israel to lay down and die just like the US, to be consistently left-wing throughout.
Exactly what does that gain anyone? That's exactly the same position as the left, as Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky!
Instead people who recognize the inconsistency should take a page out of Geert Wilders' playbook and start justifying every single American domestic policy initiative on the basis that Israel does it, so it should be good for us.
Use the reluctance to criticize Israel for the good of America!
The problem is that the paleos, unlike Wilders, are too hung up on past losses to be pragmatic in this fashion. Some of them in fact actually believe the Palestinians to be oppressed good guys rather than typically terroristically inclined Arabs/Muslims.
Personally as a cosmopolitan, mathematically inclined, libertarian-leaning, atheist hbd believer, there is no one I get along better with than right-wing Israelis.
Check out this video:
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/09/feeling-more-hate-in-jerusalem.html
That video is kind of a trip through the looking glass. White guy with American accent criticizing Jewish actions?? Dude in dreadlocks talking about how he dislikes blacks as leaders? Hot/stylish brown skinned girl talking about her disdain for Arabs, and how Obama = Osama?
Really weird.
But all I can say is...sign me the hell up! Are you telling me I can have modernity, hot babes, AND (effective if not explicit) hbd realism?
Time to make aliyah and find a beautiful Israeli girl to marry. Seriously, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Let me put it another way...
You know how the left constantly uses the Nazis? A la Godwin's law?
We need to use Israel more. Specifically, whenever a leftist proposes some crazy domestic policy, we need to say "the exact opposite of that policy is currently in place in Israel".
They'll say, "oh yeah, but we're not Israel, which is a racist/etc. state".
[Bang, right there, you cut off the oxygen of many of their fellow progressives and the infighting starts.]
You say, "what, so you think you're better than Israel? You think you're superior to the Jews, huh?"
It is childish but incredibly effective. They say Israel, you say Jewish. Constantly reframe and use it as a club to push *pro-American* policies.
Very powerful tactic on Daily Kos and related boards, I can attest to its surprising effectiveness. As I noted the funniest part is to watch the Jewish progressives turn on their compatriots when you bait the compatriots into (predictably) lashing out as Israel as a racist/apartheid state.
Then get your popcorn.
The unreformed Stalinist commenter abb1 on Crooked Timber is a real good example of this. S/he is a die-hard leftist who hates Israel so much that she causes this dissension on otherwise peaceful Yglesias threads.
And then the fur starts to fly!
There is no high arbiter within Judaism who can decide on a political position for all Jews.
Not to get off topic, but read the Jewish People's Policy Planning Institute's China policy. JPPPI is funded by the Israeli government and that document has many really interesting quotes.
http://www.jpppi.org.il/JPPPI/SendFile.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&GID=442
In regard to China, a long-term policy
strategy will require at least three steps:
■ A definition of the difference between Jewish
people and Israeli state policies. Obviously,
the two are not the same, although some-
times they will be closely coordinated and
often, cooperative. This report deals with
Jewish people policies.
■ An indication of the specific tasks of the main
branches of the Jewish people. With regard
to China, American Jewry is clearly of para-
mount importance (Chapter 3.3). American
Jews are able to achieve things that no other
branch of the Jewish people can achieve.
■ A priority-setting mechanism, or at least an
agreement on major priorities. This is a dif-
ficult step. Priority setting and a comparative
cost-benefit analysis of recommendations
are essential for a rational policy, but they
are sensitive and often politically impossible
or irrelevant because independent decision
makers and funding sources will do what
they consider most important.
"There is a MASSIVE hole in the American public debate right now for conservatives to say that America needs to be more like Israel. "
I basically agree and here's a hypothetical:
Suppose an Israeli politician were to say "I think Israel's policies should be aimed at maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel." It would be completely non-controversial.
Now suppose an American politician were to say "I think that the United States' policies should be aimed at maintaining a white majority in the USA." That politician would be instantly castigated as a racist and probably run out of office.
So basically the American left wing has set the terms of the debate. Which means they have won.
Instead of bashing Israel, right-wingers in the US should applaud Israel and seek to model our policies on Israel's.
The argument I and others (like sabril and Anonymous) have presented regarding Israel vs. American policy will work to undermine the inconsistency of American liberal Jews.
But to then justify our immigration/race policies by using Israel as a model probably won't work or at least without HBD. Israel justifies the law of return due to discrimination. No one will accept a similar argument regarding American whites.
BUT, one could use Israel in thr argument by showing that highly limited and racially based immigration/policies are not immoral. Then, we can use HBD to support why America should adopt these moral policies.
"Technology is irrelevant to education. For education you need two things: teachers able to teach and students willing to learn. The only "technology" you need is at most a chalkboard."
Nah, you can make huge progress using interactive computer based instruction. Obviously stronger students will still do better, but technology based methods are very effective. Also cheap and consistent compared to teachers with pensions and highly variable quality.
The only "technology" you need is at most a chalkboard.
I could see the benefit of face to face intstruction for children ages 5-16 because face to face learning disciplines the little urchins by forcing them to sit and pay attention for hours on end.
But for college age students, only a handful of courses truly require intense face to face instruction for multiple years such as learning to be a surgeon or the more advanced levels of physics and mathematics.
"or the more advanced levels of physics and mathematics."
I disagree. You learn from doing, sitting there with a textbook wrestling with a difficult concept, not mindless copying notes from the board.
I don't think that any one method is best for all situations. There are many effective means, and they all work better for brighter students. Technology can be a great way to learn. It should be used when it is appropriate, efficient and effective.
You learn from doing, sitting there with a textbook wrestling with a difficult concept, not mindless copying notes from the board.
Really?
I thought elite level mathematics and science courses would require face to face instruction about highly abstract concepts from the best minds, a form of instruction you couldn't get from just reading a textbook like one can for basic Calculus or Physics.
"I thought elite level mathematics and science courses would require face to face instruction about highly abstract concepts from the best minds, a form of instruction you couldn't get from just reading a textbook like one can for basic Calculus or Physics."
Well these best minds give you HW. But the only way to learn something is to do it yourself. And textbooks are generally great for learning highly complex material. All graduate level courses have textbooks for a reason.
It's the fact that it's written down in an organized fashion that makes it superior to discussion. Abstract concepts become less abstruse when written in front of you instead of floating in the auditory ether.
It is however very beneficial to discuss a problem once you've thought a lot about it. That can give new insights.
Florida Resident: Care to chime in?
Liberals want children to spend more time in the liberal indoctrination centers?
I, for one, am shocked.
Dear OneSTDV !
I ma flattered by your personal invitation to join the fry.
Different individuals have different optimal styles of study: one-to-one instruction (my own preference), or reading the book.
However, I am surprised that, of all places, here on OneSTDV Blog, participants of this discussion continue to imply the Blank Slate model. Namely, discussants imply that if the proper method of teaching (optimized individually) is used, anybody can reach any height of knowledge and mastery. Strong variant of refutation of that (incorrect) assumption is brilliantly presented by John Derbyshire:
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Straggler/073.html
My humble contribution to the subject is form experience of my own family (myself and my siblings) and my 3 kids. Cognitive abilities differ. The best parents (sure, my _were_ the best, R.I.P.) can teach you, but not higher than to the level, limited by child’s abilities.
Right now I am teaching mathematics separately to two 7 year-old kids of my dearest friends (for free, one for about 1 year continuously, other for about 2 months). All my year-long (and thorough, believe me) efforts meant nothing in comparison with the innate property of a child being smart. [Another friend of mine taught me an expression: “If you are not smart, you should better get an education”.] Out of being superstitious, I will not comment about my own kids; but yes, abilities vary.
As for the use of computers, I would like to make a reference to my posts on one of Amazon discussions, where I demonstrate combination of rather fine analytic mathematics (Newton’s binomial formula for fractional power) with the use of Microsoft Windows calculator:
http://www.amazon.com/tag/science/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgNo=208&cdPage=9&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2QBE9KA2R6X9Z&cdMsgID=MxU7NLXM09LE4Z#MxU7NLXM09LE4Z
http://www.amazon.com/tag/science/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgNo=209&cdPage=9&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2QBE9KA2R6X9Z&cdMsgID=Mx3SBGYEOVZ3E77#Mx3SBGYEOVZ3E77
Here is an interesting book: Huygens and Barrow, Newton and Hooke: Pioneers in Mathematical analysis and catastrophe theory, by V.I. Arnold.
From it (I cite by memory):
A comment by a living great mathematician (may be Arnold himself), who loves Newton's approach to differential and integral calculus, as opposed to the approach by Leibniz, whom that mathematician despises:
"He (Leibniz) invented the notations, which allow those who do not understand calculus, to teach it to those who will never understand calculus."
Somewhat elitist, but you can forgive it to a great person, who made that comment.
I wish the best to all the participants. Your Florida resident.
"And textbooks are generally great for learning highly complex material. All graduate level courses have textbooks for a reason."
I have to agree about learning from reading. Generally it is accepted that a person learns to read so that he can read to learn. My son basically taught himself Algebra in 5th grade by just reading the book. I usually find it easier to learn from a book than from direct instruction. Some people avoid reading for information. My friends and coworkers would ask me to help them with something on their computer and the first thing I would ask them was where their manual or instructions were and they would tell me either they didn't know or that they hadn't read them because they needed someone to show them. I am the opposite, I would rather use the book than have someone show me. It is faster and easier. It might be personality, but I am not sure.
I am not sure about the comment about Leibniz's notation. Obviously some standard symbolic notation is necessary.
"silly girl" said:
//I am not sure about the comment about Leibniz's notation. Obviously some standard symbolic notation is necessary.//
I agree 100%.
F.r.
Some of you say that the USA ought to be more like Israel in terms of racial/ethnic matters...but did you realize that it was not Israel who pioneered those views but rather National Socialist Germany. Israel is a ethnic-based National Socialist nation which resembles NS Germany very much.
So when you say that the USA should be more like Israel, you are also basically saying that the USA should be more like NS Germany.
"did you realize that it was not Israel who pioneered those views but rather National Socialist Germany."
Are you seriously claiming that Nazi Germany was the very first state to have policies aimed at ethnic/racial preservation?
I'm skeptical.
But anyway, assuming that's true, so what?
I am unconvinced -- to say the least -- by theories of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. On the other hand, Jews are as capable as any other people of hypocrisy and special pleading.
Case in point:
"Chinese workers at a company in Israel have been forced to agree not to have sex with or marry Israelis as a condition of getting a job. According to a contact they are required to sign, male workers may not have any contact with Israeli women - including prostitutes, a police spokesman, Rafi Yaffe, said."
The article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/24/israel1
The problem with setting up a school system in which "gifted" students are overtly rewarded for being "gifted" is that it makes a lot of people feel bad -- the kids who aren't labeled "gifted" and the parents who don't have "gifted" kids. For instance, it's telling that in a solidly white majority countries like Australia or Finland, tracking is not in vogue.
On the other hand, in Germany, they do have student tracking and the citizens seem to embrace it.
Perhaps if America became more of a welfare state like Germany, we could implement student tracking to our hearts content. Until then, what are telling students and their parents? "Oh, your child is of midling intelligence and probably won't earn as much as his gifted. Also, he or she will be all alone to fend for himself against those gifted students on the job market. But thems the breaks!" People are revolted by that.
""Oh, your child is of midling intelligence and probably won't earn as much as his gifted. Also, he or she will be all alone to fend for himself against those gifted students on the job market. But thems the breaks!" People are revolted by that."
This and the rest of your argument presumes that intelligence defines personal value, a concept promulgated by the elites. Intelligence generally defines societal value and does have strong negative correlation with dysfunction, but surely, it isn't a condemnation of an individual to say they're not intelligent. it's equivalent to noting someone's height or hair color.
And in America, we have tracking in HS and people don't seem opposed to that (well other than the dearth of NAMs).
Come on dude, when you note someone's height or color, you're not stating in other terms what their future earnings will be -- you're not stating all the paths that will be closed off to them. Sure, if you note a kid is probably going to be short his whole life you'll probably be noting that he or she ain't gonna make it in the NBA or be likely to be hired as a bodyguard...but, that's nowhere near as potentially devastating and alienating as telling someone they'll probably never make it in a profession in which brain power is important. Because we live in a society in which all jobs, more or less, benefit from more brain power and rarely rely on pure brawn (except the lowest of jobs.)
When you set apart kids as "gifted" you're more or less saying to everyone who is not gifted "these gifted children will, most likely, earn more than you and are more valuable to society." You note that "valuable to society" is just what "gifted" means. The other values you list as being important are just that -- values. Even those who
have them in spades will resent people who are "valuable to society" on the basis of their genes alone.
Moreover, in high school, you miss an important distinction -- AP classes are pretty much voluntary. It's not based on IQ, except in so far as the students who are attracted will likely to be smarter than the rest of the student population. It's like honor courses in college.
On the other hand, no parent who loves his or her child will welcome being told that his or her child is of average intelligence (or below) and that this will from now on determine that child's future schooling (and hence, future, period).
There are more people who will have average-intelligence students than will have gifted children.
Who do you think will get their way?
Now, as I said, if you set up a generous welfare state, you can set up a merciless IQ system along with it all you like. But as it stands, you must choose: Current "you're on your own" economic system + nebulous approach to IQ/HBD matters, or, "welfare state + HBD realism.")
"it isn't a condemnation of an individual to say they're not intelligent. it's equivalent to noting someone's height or hair color."
It's been pointed out that "stupid" is an insult in just about every culture on earth. Which is a problem, but still.
Post a Comment