Posted on 01/16/2007 6:19:46 AM PST by Pharmboy
Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.
Education is becoming the preferred method for diagnosing and attacking a wide range problems in American life. The No Child Left Behind Act is one prominent example. Another is the recent volley of articles that blame rising income inequality on the increasing economic premium for advanced education. Crime, drugs, extramarital births, unemployment--you name the problem, and I will show you a stack of claims that education is to blame, or at least implicated. One word is missing from these discussions: intelligence. Hardly anyone will admit it, but education's role in causing or solving any problem cannot be evaluated without considering the underlying intellectual ability of the people being educated. Today and over the next two days, I will put the case for three simple truths about the mediating role of intelligence that should bear on the way we think about education and the nation's future.
Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Speak the truth.
I was about to post this!
You're right about Murray. The Blank Slate idiots will be all over him for this (and his next articles on the same subject).
Popcorn time!
Half of all children are below average...
Murry more than anyone knows how bogus this sentence is... Half the children are not below average. Average IQ is a range and a substantial range, 68% of the population lies between 84 and 116 which is considered the average range. Another 16% is in the "smarter than average bear to genius range. Which leaves about 16% below average.
You are just redefining the term "average". Average, in its common meaning, means that half are below and half are above.
Someone with an 84 IQ is not "average." Unless you define "average" as "not quite clinically retarded."
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I don't think education reformers believe that they raise the IQ's of children by any significant degree. They want to educate the children to top levels of their various abilities. Am I missing something? Who is the target of his article?
He's speaking of the point average and you're speaking of the range average.
Murray exaggerates how dumb those slightly below average are.
With a little work, such people can attain a decent standard of education. It's amazing how much smarter it's possible to become by exercising the brain.
In any case, our whole population is working much below their abilities. Until we start bumping up against capacity limits, we should worry about other aspects of education.
WE just need to throw more money at the problem
Problem solved.
When one talks about IQ one normally talks about range average not point average. This is a discussion of functionality.
Someone with an 84 IQ is not "average." Unless you define "average" as "not quite clinically retarded."
Someone with an 84 I Q is definitely in the Average range. There is variablilty in the range. Here is a post to a graphic,
ranhttp://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/Overheads/BellCurve.htmge I wish I could post a no
Read the original article, and make a point of making it all the way to the end. It seems like many of the commenters who are popping off at Murray haven't really read him. He doesn't discount motivation at all, and he very narrowly defines what IQ means to someone's life. It's a simple fact that some people will never be PhDs in orbital mechanics no matter how hard they try. Better they should try for something that they can do.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
1) Let's not place unreal expectations on individuals. Not everyone can be an astrophysicist, molecular biologist or actuary. For that matter, neither can everyone be a professional athlete or Broadway star. Let's have this fact reflected in our approach to education.
2) Let's not place unreal expectations on our education establishment. Focus on dealing with realistic goals and alter those for people with different abilities.
Yes and he knows the uslessness of point average in IQ. IQ is a range scoring. If you have an IQ of 115 that means that at the 97% confidence level using the Stanford Binet or the Weschler, your IQ has a plus or minus variation of up to 5 point...ie range of 110 to 120.
That is how IQs are discussed.
That's fine, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Murray is referring to the common understanding of average, not range average. He is not required to use YOUR definition of average when making an argument.
He is not required to use YOUR definition of average when making an argument.
He is not using MY definition. He is setting up a strawman here. IQ is discussed in ranges like distance is discussed in miles. He is playing games. Mind you I admire his work, and the work of the Curve. I think that the two most compassionate chapters in social policy are the last two chapters of that book.
But this opening sentence is a poor ploy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.