Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant to say there is no real difference between adults of IQs of 100 and 130...
I would be willing to bet there is still a difference. We just don't know each other's IQ, nor most times does our boss.
Quote:
kids... tremendous differences... the problem is there are serious problems identifying these kids... but if that is solved... I think everyone would be happy... especially tax paying minorities that are probably starting to wonder... but I agree with you... in children there is a difference and that's why we need to learn how to accurately identify them...
I've worked in a state where they were IQ tested at the end of the year I taught them and I always looked at the scores when they come out just for my own curiosity. After over a decade of teaching, and well over a 1,000 students, I have yet to be more than 10 points off of a child's IQ except a couple of times. All those times the kid's IQ was lower than I thought. But high scoring kids? Nope, no problem seeing them. They truly think differently than "regular" kids. I'm a middle school teacher and I have correctly identified at minimum one minority child a year who was gifted and slipped through the cracks. You talk to any extent to them and you can see those wheels turning in their heads and logic that evades most kids that age. The real problem is that they don't all perform academically like we assume a gifted student should, especially minority students. The other problem is that teachers and parents often confuse bright hardworking rule following students with gifted students.
I would be willing to bet there is still a difference. We just don't know each other's IQ, nor most times does our boss.
Could be... I really don't go around asking people what their IQ is lol... but I am amazed at how a smart kid behaves...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
I've worked in a state where they were IQ tested at the end of the year I taught them and I always looked at the scores when they come out just for my own curiosity. After over a decade of teaching, and well over a 1,000 students, I have yet to be more than 10 points off of a child's IQ except a couple of times. All those times the kid's IQ was lower than I thought. But high scoring kids? Nope, no problem seeing them. They truly think differently than "regular" kids. I'm a middle school teacher and I have correctly identified at minimum one minority child a year who was gifted and slipped through the cracks. You talk to any extent to them and you can see those wheels turning in their heads and logic that evades most kids that age. The real problem is that they don't all perform academically like we assume a gifted student should, especially minority students. The other problem is that teachers and parents often confuse bright hardworking rule following students with gifted students.
And that's what I'm trying to say... I completely agree with you... and wasting a gifted child's mind is just... so wrong... and in my years... I haven't met any gifted kids at a normal school always perform above everyone else... at some point they just get bored...
"I meant to say there is no real difference between adults of IQs of 100 and 130."
Sure there is. About half the population is in the 90-109 IQ range.
But only about 2% of the population is at 130+.
That is an enormous difference in cognitive ability.
Of course there is... but no BIG differences like in kids... I'm in the 130+ and I don't think people next to me are less smart... I think knowledge and education are a big factor on how an adult develops rather than IQ... but in kids... if a kid has a higher IQ than his or her classmates... they definitely know it... and that's because it is a BIG difference...
There are plenty of low-income Asian Americans who get into TJ. Refugees, even--people who come here with nothing.
Going back a few decades, many Jews were poor or middle-class--and yet their kids did well in school and got into the best universities. The same has happened with Indian Americans in the last 30 years.
Why? Because those cultures emphasize academic achievement. And in particular, I think Asians gravitate to the sciences as a realm where the good-old-boy network doesn't hold sway, where the rewards go to those with the superior combination of raw intellect and hard work. With math and science, it's not who you know, but what you can prove in a study. Chirpy personalities, good looks, family connections, and butt-kissing don't help much. When you show up in a country as the low group on the totem pole, the promise of such an un-rigged, merit-based profession is obvious.
White Gentiles--we're still the largest ethnic group, with a lot more economic diversity than other groups. It's a small subset of the white Gentile population that puts the same emphasis on learning that Asians and Jews do. Even among many wealthy whites, it's more about getting rich than intellectual achievement. I think that's the natural consequence of being the dominant group for so long. In 100 years, maybe the Chinese and Indians will be as lazy as us.
African Americans are also not monolithic, and there are, obviously, plenty of black families who emphasize education. But just like white culture, black culture in general doesn't hold education above all else, the way Asian culture does.
This complaint is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of. "Coalition of the Silence"--if you're gonna form a coalition to complain about academic matters, at least make sure the name of the coalition is gramatically correct. But even "Coalition of the Silent" would make no sense, in that they're supposedly against some silent cabal bent on keeping blacks out of TJ.
I heard it somewhere that MIT, Cal Tech, and to some extent Princeton put more weight on your academic records (GPAs and test scores) than on soft skills/extra curriculars. If you are into Math and Science there is no easy way out, you got to put in the hard work and prove it in your study. For many students especially to African American/Hispanic students, Math and Science are considered boring and hard subjects. Why should we force students into something that they have no interests in? I bet the admission rate at TJ for African American and Hispanics are the same for Asians/Whites. The problem is too few applicants.
I think what the NAACP should focus its energy on getting another "Harvard" like magnet school where more "context" with test scores will be considered in admission. I think such school will appeal more to the students where personalities and soft skills play a bigger role.
Of course not. But that does not mean that better methods of recognizing gifted youth should not be in place. That would definitely bring equilibrium to the statistics.
Please do tell what these "better methods of recognizing gifted youth" are -- especially the kinds that will suddenly identify more gifted black and Hispanic children who are apparently being failed to be identified as such by the established methods of testing.
Quote:
Genes have no input. Cultural differences on the other hand do, but only to IQs less than say 150 or 160...
That's is absolutely incorrect. Genes most certainly have a measurable, significant impact, whether we are discussing IQ or health/resistance to disease or athletic ability. That's just estblished science. Of course, the environment also does. The dispute is usually over which has more or less in given circumstances with given population groups. For me, the more interesting question (also increasingly of greater interest to scientists) is how genes and the environment affect and shape each other. Mind you, this is when dealing with populations in the aggregate (where the law of averages apply), not individuals. After all, I am a big fan of the film Gattaca (in which a naturally-born, genetically flawed main character overcomes all and achieves his dream of space travel).
Quote:
No additional resources are needed. If you see the statistics, black and hispanic minorities were not only under represented in admissions... also in number of applicants... that means that they did not feel ready to apply... and why is that?... because they are probably not... and the only way to make them ready is to be objective when they are very young, recognize their talent and give them the same opportunity to be in an advanced program at a young age... if you put money into trying to make a 6th grader so he can improve... is too late... and it is a waste of money... you change the rules of the game when they are 6 yrs old... wait 8 years and you'll see the difference... very little money is needed to do that...
You will have to be more specific as to how changes can be achieved with "no additional resources" or even "very little money."
Quote:
I gave you an extreme example so you could see a big gap... but there are others... Chile and Argentina in South America, Switzerland and Austria in Europe, Mexico in "Central" America... all those countries are in the same geographical location with the same "ethnicity" and "genes" as those around them and there are large gaps... which makes me conclude that IQs are primary guided by factors OTHER that genetics... and also I would hate to think that someone is born to fail just because of his/hers genes...
As I mentioned repeatedly, there is strong correlations between economic development and IQ, so I don't understand what you are disputing here. My only caveat involves East Asians, which the data bear out.
And, again, no one suggested that "someone is born to fail just because of his/hers [sic] genes." Individuals can certainly overcome inborn disadvantages though with difficulty. But that's not what we are discussing here. When we are discussing large numbers of people, the law of probabilities applies.
Quote:
Again... the older someone gets, the more socio economical factors affect someone's outcome... but children are not like that... that's why if you make it fair for everyone when they are children then TJ admissions will be at equilibrium...
I don't know what you mean by the older/younger here. But your second sentence seems to suggest things are not "fair for everyone" and that is the reason for the disparity in TJ admissions.
Quote:
Are you implying that East Asians are a superior race? XD
I am not implying anything other than draw conclusions from where the data lead us. East Asians DO have consistently higher than average IQ regardless of environmental factors (excepting, of course, highly extreme situations like starvation) -- again East Asian children adopted by non-East Asian parents display East Asian-level IQ averages. They also seem to be the healthiest on average (Asian women in Bergen County are the longest living American females while Asian men in Fairfax are the longest living American males) per given level of healthcare input. And I am absolutely NOT attributing all of this to genes alone. This appears to be more the case of a genetic advantage multiplied by cultural advantages or, better yet, the two factors mutually reinforcing one another (to put very crudely, something along the lines of higher IQ people shaping a culture to enhance learning which in turn produce more high IQ people which in turn and so on).
Words like "superior" entail value judgments that should be decoupled in this kind of a discussion. After all, having higher IQ and living longer do not necessarily make one more moral, just, prudent, honorable, chaste, etc. -- qualities that *I* consider marks of a better human being.
Quote:
... wow... accepted fact... I did my bachelors and masters in Engineering at two different (very good) universities and in both of them I saw the same thing... all ethnic groups were as prepared as the other and they were well represented... even in MIT the % of minorities that apply are almost the same as the ones accepted (for undergrad of course... international students mess up graduate admissons' statistics)... are FCPS kids different than the rest of the country?
I am an Ivy League university graduate with advanced degrees who worked in academia as a researcher for some time. I also had the misfortune of working at the admissions office of a highly competitive university (which was investigated by the federal government, along with several others, for enacting quotas). The investigation found that the universities in question likely discriminate against Asian students in favor of blacks and Hispanics, but declined to prosecute. I'll let you form your own conclusions from that.
One of the sad ironies about all this is that, in effect, Asians have now become the new Jewish people (who also faced quotas in the past) and many of the people practicing this discrimination happen to be Jewish! (Of course, that is not unique -- the dominant Anglo-Saxons mistreated the Irish immigrants in this country and the eventually assimilated Irish then doled out the same kind of "they can't be civilized as we are" treatment to the later arriving Italians.)
East Asians DO have consistently higher than average IQ regardless of environmental factors (excepting, of course, highly extreme situations like starvation) -- again East Asian children adopted by non-East Asian parents display East Asian-level IQ averages. )
Even with all those hundreds of millons Chinese peasants they have higher average IQs than Western Europeans? I did not know that. What are the numbers? I didn't think there was any difference in IQ between the races.
Please do tell what these "better methods of recognizing gifted youth" are -- especially the kinds that will suddenly identify more gifted black and Hispanic children who are apparently being failed to be identified as such by the established methods of testing.
It is very simple actually. First we have to realize that gifted kids are not necessarily the ones with better grades (actually most of the time they dont have very good grades as the normal school routine bores them)... And just do one individual test to every kid. I like the fact that they do it in first and second grade, but it should also be done in kindergarden... but assess them individually... not in group... and let that be the sole factor that decides who gets in AAPIV in third grade... do not allow re takes in any of the years... and as you are doing them for three years, drop the lowest one and average the other two... grades should not be a factor and a teacher's opinion shouldn't be a factor either... to break ties... do another test. [/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
That's is absolutely incorrect. Genes most certainly have a measurable, significant impact, whether we are discussing IQ or health/resistance to disease or athletic ability. That's just estblished science. Of course, the environment also does. The dispute is usually over which has more or less in given circumstances with given population groups. For me, the more interesting question (also increasingly of greater interest to scientists) is how genes and the environment affect and shape each other. Mind you, this is when dealing with populations in the aggregate (where the law of averages apply), not individuals. After all, I am a big fan of the film Gattaca (in which a naturally-born, genetically flawed main character overcomes all and achieves his dream of space travel).
You will have to be more specific as to how changes can be achieved with "no additional resources" or even "very little money."
Apples and oranges... I agree with you there are noticeable difference in health/resistance... but not in the percentage of people born with high IQs (IQ > 160... even not a big difference for IQs > 140)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
As I mentioned repeatedly, there is strong correlations between economic development and IQ, so I don't understand what you are disputing here. My only caveat involves East Asians, which the data bear out.
Maybe they are not human and come from another planet?... because there are other Asians (non east asians) and several countries with strong east asian genes that do not have the same results... how would that be explained?... if genes are so important?... and if you have done research... as I am sure you have for what you say below... then you know that if you want a result... you can get there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
And, again, no one suggested that "someone is born to fail just because of his/hers [sic] genes." Individuals can certainly overcome inborn disadvantages though with difficulty. But that's not what we are discussing here. When we are discussing large numbers of people, the law of probabilities applies.
I am actually talking about really smart kids (IQ>140)... very low percentage... but equal percentage in every country, every race, every ethnicity, etc... below 130 should not be admitted into the AAPIV program...
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
I don't know what you mean by the older/younger here. But your second sentence seems to suggest things are not "fair for everyone" and that is the reason for the disparity in TJ admissions.
Younger 9 yrs old or younger... older... 10 yrs old or older... yes, and im not suggesting it... admission statistics shows it... there is disparity... and the only way to fix it is when they are children (preK, K, 1st, and 2nd grades)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
I am not implying anything other than draw conclusions from where the data lead us. East Asians DO have consistently higher than average IQ regardless of environmental factors (excepting, of course, highly extreme situations like starvation) -- again East Asian children adopted by non-East Asian parents display East Asian-level IQ averages. They also seem to be the healthiest on average (Asian women in Bergen County are the longest living American females while Asian men in Fairfax are the longest living American males) per given level of healthcare input. And I am absolutely NOT attributing all of this to genes alone. This appears to be more the case of a genetic advantage multiplied by cultural advantages or, better yet, the two factors mutually reinforcing one another (to put very crudely, something along the lines of higher IQ people shaping a culture to enhance learning which in turn produce more high IQ people which in turn and so on).
Words like "superior" entail value judgments that should be decoupled in this kind of a discussion. After all, having higher IQ and living longer do not necessarily make one more moral, just, prudent, honorable, chaste, etc. -- qualities that *I* consider marks of a better human being.
if you talk about individual people sure you can describe a better human being... but when you generalize it to the whole east asian region... im pretty sure you are talking about a superior something... And, if you have the chance go to any good engineering school... and, at least what I've seen, is that if there is someone in the program that got his or her undergraduate from Chile, that person has the highest GPA and is doing the most original research... Should we conclude that Chile has the most very high individual IQs? (the most people with IQs > 160)... doubt it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
I am an Ivy League university graduate with advanced degrees who worked in academia as a researcher for some time. I also had the misfortune of working at the admissions office of a highly competitive university (which was investigated by the federal government, along with several others, for enacting quotas). The investigation found that the universities in question likely discriminate against Asian students in favor of blacks and Hispanics, but declined to prosecute. I'll let you form your own conclusions from that.
Although Ivy Leagues are not known for good technology majors I guess it has the same issues all universities do... and that is that A LOT of Asians apply... and it is not that they are smarter than everyone else, but 30% of 1000 is still less than 10% of 5000. But that happens mainly in graduate school with international students... for undergraduates... not as much... but still I doubt all these kids have IQs > 140... and those are the kids I am talking about...
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
One of the sad ironies about all this is that, in effect, Asians have now become the new Jewish people (who also faced quotas in the past) and many of the people practicing this discrimination happen to be Jewish! (Of course, that is not unique -- the dominant Anglo-Saxons mistreated the Irish immigrants in this country and the eventually assimilated Irish then doled out the same kind of "they can't be civilized as we are" treatment to the later arriving Italians.)
Isn't the percentage of AA kids supposed to increase there due to the recent influx of African immigrants? I read somewhere that that group is expected to surpass Asian Americans academically.
Perhaps if people perceived TJ as Cal Tech rather than Harvard or Cal Berkeley this wouldn't be quite as big an issue. Maybe what FCPS needs to do is build a Harvard/Berkeley equivalent, an elite school with a broader scope, possibly in a different part of the county.
Thats funny. Thanks for the laugh. You think immigrants from Africa are going to surpass american born Chinese academically. I know many Chinese families in fairfax that start prepping their kids to go to TJ as early as 4. LMAO God luck with competing against that with single parent household or low income.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
