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.
That also would work. I just don't understand why meddle in the one part of the system that actually works.
Right, and the fact that there are other parts of the system that also work. There's actually pretty good trend lines overall for NYC's public school system, in the context of US urban public school systems, despite most people tunnel visioning in on just the negative aspects. It seems like a really huge waste of time and effort to meddle with a part of the system that works rather than expanding that part and other parts that are working and setting up trials for new strategies.
you do realize you contradicted yourself by saying don't base it on test scores, but then you threw in an arbitrary value of 90% + "other qualities", right?
so you just screwed over the guy that got 89% and had excellent "qualities".
and what are these qualities? who is determining them, and judging them? sounds very subjective and ripe for bias.
Or how about expanding the program that actually works? Since NYC population has grown, adding 2 extra specialized schools wouldn't hurt. Providing free SHSAT prep in middle schools also wouldn't hurt.
won't work to quell the opposition. the asians that didn't qualify for the top 3 will fill these schools and the liberals will continue to cry foul.
won't work to quell the opposition. the asians that didn't qualify for the top 3 will fill these schools and the liberals will continue to cry foul.
Maybe won't quell all the opposition, but it's still a good idea and not all the seats will go to Asians just as it's not the case currently and at some point you run out of qualified Asian students each year compared to seats available at a good school. Plus, the expansion of free SHSAT prep in middle school with enough community outreach for more students and parents to be aware of such is nice.
I think the better middle path is to put up more good schools, but do it with the proposed reformed criteria (keep in mind, there are currently NYC public high schools that perform as well as the specialized high schools, but with different and usually much more varied admissions criteria). It's still selecting kids that have a strong baseline aptitude so the results will probably still be good, and more good schools that are also better geographically distributed around the city to shorten student commutes which are good things. This at least trials it without mucking with a working system. If the outcomes turn out better than the specialized high schools, then there's actually a better case for rolling out a reformed admissions system and it will quell some of the opposition to these reforms AND you end up with more seats at good schools available.
So Carranza will drive the most motivated and capable set of students in the NYC system out to the suburbs, essentially destroy the magnet system, and the enter system will be like the $hithole local schools. In the end no one wins.
So Carranza will drive the most motivated and capable set of students in the NYC system out to the suburbs, essentially destroy the magnet system, and the enter system will be like the $hithole local schools. In the end no one wins.
There are multiple magnet schools within the NYC public high school system at this point including those that do not use the SHSAT. I don't think the reforms of the specialized high school admissions criteria is a good use of time and energy as there are more productive pathways, but given that the reforms also call for a baseline level of aptitude and that there are other magnet schools and good high schools within the system, I also don't think this is some kind of death knell to the public school system either. Arguing against something does not necessarily require imagining an unsubstantiated worst case scenario.
Maybe won't quell all the opposition, but it's still a good idea and not all the seats will go to Asians just as it's not the case currently and at some point you run out of qualified Asian students each year compared to seats available at a good school. Plus, the expansion of free SHSAT prep in middle school with enough community outreach for more students and parents to be aware of such is nice.
I think the better middle path is to put up more good schools, but do it with the proposed reformed criteria (keep in mind, there are currently NYC public high schools that perform as well as the specialized high schools, but with different and usually much more varied admissions criteria). It's still selecting kids that have a strong baseline aptitude so the results will probably still be good, and more good schools that are also better geographically distributed around the city to shorten student commutes which are good things. This at least trials it without mucking with a working system. If the outcomes turn out better than the specialized high schools, then there's actually a better case for rolling out a reformed admissions system and it will quell some of the opposition to these reforms AND you end up with more seats at good schools available.
it certainly is better than lowering the standards for the sake of diversity and inclusitivity.
but these are all bandaids to the real issue.
the quality of the students are largely what makes the school perform well, if we're going by test scores as the metric.
you can take a school with very little funding, but with good teachers and students, they will outperform a school that spends twice as much per student in a bad school.
good students will create good schools, bad students will destroy good schools.
the real shame are the kids that are bright, but aren't given the chance to shine because they're in a bad district with teachers that don't care, or can't teach because of bad disruptive students.
yes, feel free to speak on the OP's behalf on the parts I did not address or may have missed.
i await your rebuttal so we can further our discussion with actual points made.
This is actually pretty inaccurate within current research for various reasons, so I'm not sure why you think this is true.
Even when this was a big topic of conversation and a commonly held belief with The Bell Curve being a hot topic popular science piece, the idea was that race mattered quite a bit, but with quite a bit of individual variability within races (as in, it's fairly common for an above average person in what the book suggested as a less intelligent race to have a higher IQ than someone who was below average in what book suggested as a more intelligent race). The author also had a problem with East Asians, because to that author they were obviously less intelligent despite higher scores and somehow in that special case it was due to cultural differences (LOL!).
what book? what author?
of course there's going to be outliers. are you going to make the argument that because Yao Ming is 7'6" tall, therefore asians are not shorter than average?
what book? what author?
of course there's going to be outliers. are you going to make the argument that because Yao Ming is 7'6" tall, therefore asians are not shorter than average?
The book is The Bell Curve as mentioned in the post you’re quoting. Is it odd that you want to claim knowledge of the general subject, but didn’t immediately recognize a text that has been a massive centerpiece to arguments and studies on the matter?
And the point isn’t about far outliers—it’s about those within a first standard deviation and how much overlap there is among peoples even among studies that point towards a correlation between genetics and intelligence. Even that’s in contention, because these don’t necessarily hold across cultures so it’s odd when people of like genetic makeup can have different standardized testing results.
These findings are also thrown even further in a loop when studies indicate different intelligence levels not just in regards to correlating with cultural practices, but also prenatal and early childhood development ones such as the strong correlation between lead exposure and intelligence or iodine deficiency and intelligence.
Also, even your Asian height example is somewhat off. South Korea’s measured the largest average height increase over the past several decades with South Korean women gaining close to an average 8 inches in height since the early 20th century to today and young South Koreans are now on average pretty tall. These people aren’t of different genetic makeup than the Korean communities of Uzbekistan, Japan, and North Korea and yet are much taller, so even here there is an apparent strong difference created by environmental factors and cultural practices.
Now does this mean that all peoples on average are the same across all metrics? No, of course not. What it so far does point to is that there is a pretty narrow band among humans for things such as both height and intelligence, the overlaps are very large, and environmental and cultural factors play a large part in the variability within that narrow band.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-20-2019 at 06:13 PM..
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.
