Of course it’s pure pedantry. The bell curve gets a bad rap these days precisely because it’s been over-applied to explain/justify all sorts of dodgy things.
IQ and other measures of cognitive capacity differ by ethnic and/or cultural background wherever it is measured. So does educational attainment. These kind of claims are scientifically uncontroversial.
The answer to the logical question - what does this mean for how we order society? - is EXTREMELY controversial and divisive. To the extent that many in humanities faculties like to claim these differences do not exist, making it impossible to even ask the question.
I don’t think you have that right, the issue is often what is measured and how it is measured. Tweaking those changes results dramatically. Traditional IQ measurements are culturally loaded to favour certain groups by class or culture, thats not necessarily intentional but it does give an absolutely inaccurate measure of merit by group. So its not scientifically uncontriovesial if you are prepared to take on those influences. There are numerous studies that challenge the idea that IQ testing is accurate ad/or useful to talk about society, rather than say select for people with good short term memory skills, or enhanced analytical skills.
Right, using IQ as a measurement across racially diverse groups has been pretty much dissed. Cultural background is a much bigger determinant in outcome. Essentially IQ tests tell the middle classes their offspring are smart (whatever racial background that middle class is from).
Can anyone post any evidence backing up their claim that IQ is entirely environmental? It is in fact highly hereditary as all the science shows. I included a link to a scientific american article that specifically states this.
Here is an article attempting to refute this claim and one of the best I have read. It is also hopeless logically inconsistent and badly written. I can go through it paragraph by paragraph and demolish it but I’m not really that bothered or interested. His interesting result is that yes IQ is highly dependent on ethnicity, he also casually stereotypes based on races e.g. black students are more active. He abandons IQ in favour of school performance but never gives any reason as to why he does this. IQ/g-factor is specifically designed to be as culturally independent as possible, school exam results are the polar opposite. I assume this is due to the numerous scientific papers that show results inconsistent with his hypothesis.
EDIT: Interesting book
You have just proved my point for me.
You’re going from the wrong initial position, that iq tests are useful or valuable. They aren’t. They are pseudoscience in their broad claims, makeyuppy in their specific claims. Since they were popularised they’ve been dismissed as near worthless. That’s why universities don’tadmit based on iq, companies don’t recruit based on them and Mensa has more in common with a private member’s club than with the royal academy. As I am an iq genius, I must be right…
And you appear to be a white supremacist. DD and I are seldom fellow travellers, so it must be you who is in the wrong.
edit: PS I apologise if it looks like I called you a white supremacist, what I mean is that you are making yourself appear to be a white supremacist - the argument used is one that is trotted out by white supremacists and has been for years. Here’s a good summary of the arguments: skepdic.com/iqrace.html
I just linked to a mainstream critically reviewed book that breaks down IQ and how it is a significant indicator for the prosperity of entire countries. Your argument is based on… Nothing from what I can see except your opinion and maybe an article you half read a while back.
Irish Times feminists and their feminist enablers are banging the gender drum again:
- I’ve yet to see the statistics
- Are they including retired emeritus professors?
- What’s the average hourly rate?
- What about impact factor and gender among “senior academics” of Irish universities?
- What about senior administrative grades?
- The junior admins in universities are predominantly women - to be ignored?
- Seeing as the feminists are in to their slice-and-dice intersectionalism, what about other segments of the public sector and private sector? Everyone’s a victim and there’s a free money policy/quango for all?
Easy solution you just "self-identity" to claim promotion or discrimination if you don’t get promotion.
HEA board missing nine members.
Very important work. So important they don’t even need to bother with these massive committees.
Here’s a property related one:
I have never heard about the “Carillion” but slightly surprised that we get a UK company to build and operate Irish schools. Is Tom getting tired?
from a lecturer
Not all Leaving Cert students are suited to third-level education
The third-level system is overloaded and many are not suited to it anyway
Great article. The whole 2nd level system is geared toward pushing students into a system that many of them drop out of in very high numbers.
The drop-out rate particularly in the ITs is shockingly high and is a disgraceful waste of public funds. It’s a rare academic that will call bullsh1t on it. Most of them have a very ‘inclusive’ ideology and/or see any questioning of the value of education as an attack on their job.
The huge dropout rate has been an issue for some time. The entire efforts of the second level system are pushed into an exam that was originally designed to select entrants for the British civil service. One frequent criticism that many students in secondary school have as they face the leaving cert exam is that the system leaves you unprepared for life on the outside of the education system, the high drop out rate comes from people who don’t yet know what they want to do in life at age 17 or 18, so they go through the motions pushed by parents of accepting any college place that fits their points allocation before they realise this is not for them and they drift off into the work place and adopt other strategies to get wherever life takes them.
20 years ago when I did a Leaving Cert, higher level maths had already been “dumbed down”. The Higher Level curriculum was curtailed to make it more approachable in the hope more would do it. There was then an argument (reasonable) that the “bonus points” be removed, which in general they were. My understanding is that since then bonus points were added back to the new paper, and that this was then further revised and reduced in complexity.
I would say in this process as well as reducing the mathematical education of leaving cert students, you compromise the discriminating power of the examinations (i.e. to tell difference between different levels of student ability/accomplishment). It should be fine to have a paper that is “hard” but which you can pass, and where even good students afterwards are having to check things to work out how they did. For university entry, it’s used competitively, so as long as it’s fairly applied it should be ok (although you do need to have parity between subjects to avoid another level of cherry-picking of subjects).
Instead the aim seems to be having papers that many people can come out of feeling they’ve “aced”.
Contrasting examination feeling: GMAT testing is computer administered. The first question comes, you get it right, you get a harder question, get that right, you get a harder one. Eventually you get it wrong, so it’ll notch one down, then maybe up again, and so on. (Now and again you get an ungraded “new question” so that the system can grade that question’s difficulty versus the rest of the corpus.) So long as you’re not so smart that you’re “off the scale”, you’ll always end up feeling challenged because you’ll be fed questions until you start making mistakes.