hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>The inmates are running the asylum. They assume
>that everyone can learn a good amount at the same
>rate in homogeneous cl*****, and that the bright
>and gifted can learn it "deeper".
No. They DEFINE "a good amount" as what most kids manage to pick up
of the subject, REQUIRE that teachers attempt to teach that amount to
all students, and figure that WHATEVER the kids who are gifted can
learn above what is REQUIRED is more or less of equal im****tance, so
they don't much care if it is more or deeper or different, as long as
it doesn't cost too much.
>>>However, it is precisely the "most intelligent" who are responsible
>>>for the creativity.
>
>>That is questionable.
>
>It is, because many have had their ability to use
>their intelligence, or even their intelligence,
>weakened by the (expletive deleted) schools.
If that were really the case, then home-schooled kids, and those
educated at the few "academic private schools" would be showing up
their peers of comparable IQ who attend the public schools. I haven't
seen the evidence.
>>>It is not surprising that we would have more creative people than most
>>>other countries.
>
>>China has more "most intelligent" people than we do, by a factor of 4,
>>unless you assume that their population has a significantly different
>>bell curve. So if creativity is just another word for high
>>intelligence, they would have more creative people. But they don't.
>
>Many of their best come to the US and other western countries.
Even if you count all of those, they don't have more creative people.
And remember that China controls who gets to leave.
>Japan, which used to be highly creative, has lost it.
Japan was NEVER highly creative in technical fields. They built their
economy by copying western technology and producing it cheaply
efficiently.
>>>Perhaps what we need to do (this is VERY politically incorrect)
>>>is to separate those who can from those who can not very early on
>>>in school.
>
>>The United States is not that sort of country. If that is what we
>>"need" to do, we will find a different way, or choose a different
>>goal, because to do as you suggest would fundamentally violate our
>>cultural identity.
>
>Nonsense. It was the policy in the 19th century, and lasted
>mainly to WWII.
In the 19th century almost no one attended secondary education OR
college, regardless of their IQ.
It was money and location that determined access to education, not
intelligence.
>>Many who "can" don't *want*. And many of their parents don't "want",
>>either.
>
>This can be a problem. What do you propose to do about it?
Not much. Individual and parental rights are paramount in our
culture.
>Is depriving those who can and want an answer?
Those who can and want, in our culture can usually find a way. Maybe
not while they are kids. But society really doesn't place much of a
priority of meeting what kids want. Money still rules, and kids
generally don't have any.
>>>The widening income gap in this country is driven by (IMO) the gap in
education
>>>between the poor and the economically well-to-do. The poor are poor
>>>precisely because they have below average intelligence and hence get
"training" instead
>>>of "education".
>
>>George Bush was economically well off. What's your explanation for
>>him?
>
>What is the problem? I have seen his IQ estimated at 128.
And despite all his money, he has demonstrated that his education was
worthless. He comes across as neither well-educated NOR well-trained.
>>Those Asian immigrants who come over tend to arrive fairly poor. What
>>is your explanation for their success?
>
>They believe in education, in learning more and better.
Therefore it isn't about money, but about values.
American culture doesn't much value education. It values the ability
to make more money. Whichever, "education" or "training", advances
economic status, is what society values and is willing to pay for.
Those who want something else, can take what is given or pay for
something else on their own.
>This is in contrast to many Americans, who at most believe
>in grades.
Because grades result in more money than "education".
Those who wor****p the free market have to take the good and bad that
comes with it - both of which center on measuring everything in terms
of economic value.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
