 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2010 0:48, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>>> Education can have some effect on IQ tests (because education can eg.
>>> train a person to think geometrically), but AFAIK in the US and especially
>>> Europe all people have had the exact same education for quite many decades.
>
>> No they haven't. May I remind you of the private school debate here some
>> time ago. Remember who started that thread?
>
> Are you saying that in the US all firemen studied in private schools and
> that's why they got the job?
Is this your famous sense of humour again?
> Besides, at least here what is taught at schools is dictated by law.
> You *can't* have a school which skips teaching something, be it private
> or not. I don't know how it is in the US.
I don't know about finland, but here we have "good" and "bad" schools
eventhough they have the same requirement. Apart from the fact that some
are better funded and can therefore provide better education, there is
also the fact that when a school has a lot of people from less well off
background it is much harder to teach there. You loose much more time in
getting everybody's attention.
>>> If some group of people doesn't *want* to get educated, that's a different
>>> problem. It's *their* problem, not the problem in IQ or aptitude tests.
>
>> I can't see where this one comes from.
>
> It has been suggested that black people score more poorly in the fireman
> aptitude test because of a poorer education. And why would black people
> have a poorer education in the US? Is it because black people are not
> taught the same things as white people?
That was answered many times before. If you still don't get it, I might
reiterate below.
>> Are you aware that this could be interpreted as a racist remark?
>
> Of course anything that is not 100% politically correct can be
> interpreted as "a racist remark". So?
It is not about political correctness. That might have been a valid
argument if your remark was relevant, now you are simply broadening the
discussion to include more racial prejudice.
>> I am sure you don't mean to, but
>> suddenly starting to talk about "people that don't *want* to get
>> educated" in a discussion on how race influences test results is not a
>> smart move IMHO.
>
> Really? And what would be the alternative explanation for the claimed
> poorer education? I can think of three possible explanations:
>
> 1) Black people in the US are not taught at school to the same extent as
> white people.
Correct, indeed probably the main reason.
> I have hard time believing this to be the case, especially
> since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
> people do.
That is not true unfortunately. Many areas are either predominantly
white or predominantly black or predominantly hispanic etc. Hence they
don't go the the same schools. Primary school is always in the
neighbourhood. If you don't get a good start you chances of making up
are slim. Education is a non-linear process.
> 2) For whatever reason (maybe culture?) the average black person is not
> interested in educating himself.
partly true
> 3) Black people are unable to learn as efficiently as white people.
They are for reasons outside of them not for genetic.
> #1 doesn't work, unless you can show me some actual proof that black people
> are indeed being discriminated at schools in the US and not being educated.
See my last remark below and all the other explanations in my and other
peoples posts on this subject.
> #3 would be the racist point of view, by definition (ie. there's something
> about being black that makes the person dumb).
Ah, so you meant genetic.
> The only non-racist rational alternative is #2.
That is what you think. In fact it is not non-racial (because there is a
big correlation between race and social environment. At least in the
US). Also it is not the main explanation. #1 is.
> Making generalizations about a *culture* is not racism. Racism is an
> ideology based on the notion that some races of people are genetically
> superior to others.
>
>> I know you find that hard. You have said similar things many times. Yet,
>> Tatsachen" you might get what I meant
>
> Actually I have no idea what that means. Is it German? (Not that this
> invalidates your point.)
Yes it is German. It refers to the story that Hegel had a theory on
something and someone pointed out that it was at odds with the facts. At
Tatsachen". Which translates roughly as "so much worse for the facts".
To get that you need to know enough German to recognize the story and
you need to have been in an environment where someone was educated
enough in German philosophy that he or she was able and willing to tell
that story to you. In short you need to be white. A black guy with a PhD
in biomedical engineering is less likely to know this then me. Not
because of race, but because he did not live in the same environment as
I did.
>>> especially if both have gone to the same schools.
>
>> well, they didn't (on average), that is precisely the point.
>
> You mean that blacks are not taught the same things in the US as whites?
>
Yes, sigh. They don't go to the same schools. They grow up in different
neighbourhoods. Being born in a black neighbourhood will make sure that
you don't get the same amount of attention from the teachers, that your
fellow schoolkids will make it hard to study, that you watch different
programs on TV, that you will have a different pattern in spending your
free time, etc. etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 20:46, somebody wrote:
> You don't need a crystal ball if you are willing to learn from recent
> history:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
>
> and exercise a little bit of reason: As others have noted, it's very
> difficult to concoct a test that differentiates skin colour, and *not* level
> of education.
>
> I remember reading about this specific case earlier and the objection to the
> test was post-facto, that is, it did not result in acceptable quotas for
> minorities. It was claimed that the test included too much reading and
> comprehension type material, which was unfair to blacks (which ironically is
> itself a racist statement). I don't have references handy and cannot be
> bothered to look them up for you, do your own homework.
Yes, but according to the ruling, the key aspect here wasn't the mere
"discrimination", but the fact that the test didn't test whether they
were qualified to do the job. The court allowed the FD to make the case
that the test format was relevant to the job, and the FD didn't make the
case enough to please the court.
Yes, the objection may have been post-facto, but it wasn't an invalid
objection. Had the test discriminated, and the FD made a valid case that
the test is relevant to the job, then the status quo would have resumed.
--
When I was young, they told me anyone could become president. Now I'm
beginning to believe it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 21:04, Tim Attwood wrote:
> IMO, firemen should be able to read.
That's a sweeping statement. No one said they couldn't read.
> The courts seem to think that testing for any "skill cluster" that isn't
> strictly part of the job (as defined by the courts) is racist.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24firefighters.html?ref=nyregion
Yes, in a sense that's what they ruled. It's racist if that unnecessary
skill cluster showed a discrimination.
I can see it either way. On one level, it could have been a "harmless
accident" (who's supposed to guess that something like reading
comprehension would become such a big issue?). On the other hand, I can
also see it as "We know these guys suck at reading comprehension. Let's
make it a big part of the test, and set the time constraints in a manner
such that they're much more likely to fail."
--
When I was young, they told me anyone could become president. Now I'm
beginning to believe it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
> people do.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close
schools. Schools are funded by property tax. Children of poor parents go to
schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy
parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less
educated. So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you
just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money
isn't there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> A lot of questions about hockey?
I saw a funny black comedian talking about that, going on about sports and
how there are no black people playing hockey. "The only thing in the whole
game that's black is the puck!" And then he goes on to mention Tiger Woods
playing golf.
Very droll.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
> > people do.
> I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close
> schools. Schools are funded by property tax. Children of poor parents go to
> schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy
> parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less
> educated. So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you
> just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money
> isn't there.
Ok, maybe that's so. However, as it turns out, the perceived problem in
the fireman test was related to literacy. One would think that literacy is
such an ubiquitous subject matter in all schools, that at least *that* would
be the same for everybody (after all, it's hard to teach anything to anyone
who can't read and write properly), and if someone doesn't learn how to read
and write properly, the problem is not in the schooling system.
So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
I think my objection stands.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
> I think my objection stands.
It's hard to say. It's pretty easy to be literate and still a slow reader.
But yes, the idea that you can't read well and thus the test was unfair
seemed rather odd. I mean, it's a written test, you know? What do you expect?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2010 17:29, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
>>> people do.
>
>> I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close
>> schools. Schools are funded by property tax. Children of poor parents go to
>> schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy
>> parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less
>> educated. So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you
>> just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money
>> isn't there.
>
> Ok, maybe that's so. However, as it turns out, the perceived problem in
> the fireman test was related to literacy. One would think that literacy is
> such an ubiquitous subject matter in all schools, that at least *that* would
> be the same for everybody (after all, it's hard to teach anything to anyone
> who can't read and write properly), and if someone doesn't learn how to read
> and write properly, the problem is not in the schooling system.
Why don't you go find a job as a teacher in a primary school in a poor
neighborhood? You seem to be better qualified than the current teachers.
> So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
> I think my objection stands.
I don't think so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
> > I think my objection stands.
> I don't think so.
So they don't teach them how to read and write properly in the poor
schools either?
What do they teach there, then?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/30/10 08:33, Darren New wrote:
> unfair seemed rather odd. I mean, it's a written test, you know? What do
> you expect?
And the argument was that it shouldn't be one. The link Tim posted said
that one of the ways they made it better was to include diagrams, etc.
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
