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'm not saying the NCLB findings aren't correct. Based on what was found they seem logical on the surface. However, what the blog points out is that the tests removed certain types of questions that boys scored well in.
No, that's not what the blog points out. You don't understand what you're reading. You did not read his links. He is either purposely misleading you, or is confused himself. You're making a point that does not exist. The NCLB standardized tests did not remove anything. A. It was the first year of the tests (2002), so there wasn't anything to change. B. It simply mimicks what is taught in HS at the most basic level. What changed are the SAT questions in 2005, to make them similar to what is taught in public HS education (or so it's thought).
The first thing you need to do is research the NCLB act. Then, review the tests nation wide. Each state has its own process. Next, read the first link in his opening paragraph, which addresses the study. It's 2-3 pages. Then, look at his analysis, which is based on News article that addresses the SATs. This is only 2 pages, maybe 3. Then he links a 1992 study. The SATs and this particular study have nothing to do with the NCLB tests. OTOH, NCLB may have something to with the new SAT test questions.
Honestly, this is ridiculous. I keep repeating myself. I've actually read it. It's plain as day.
I'll spoon feed this for you. His first claim in his opening statement is this quote, which he bases his following analysis on...
"However, Hyde and her colleagues are concerned about one facet of the standardized tests they looked at in their study. In most of the states they gathered data from, and from most grade levels, the standardized tests did not include problem- solving questions."
This is what the researchers say in the citation that you did not bother to read...
"Not surprising, the study also found that teachers and parents still consider boys to be better at math than girls. And, girls still believe themselves to be inferiro to boys in math and, thus, often avoid math classes in school.
Hyde remarks, "Stereotypes are very, very resistant to change, but as a scientist I have to challenge them with data.
The study also found that boys of Caucasian-American background (white) did better than white girls. However, Asian-Amerian girls did better than Asian-American boys. The statistics could not make statements for boys and girls of Hispanic...", African, and ..."American-Indian descent".
However, Hyde and her colleagues are concerned about one facet of the standardized tests they looked at in their study. In most states they gathered data from, and from most grade levels, the standardized tests did not include problem solving questions.
According to the CNN article, such complex problem-solving questions are needed to gain the ability to succeed in high levels of science and math. If tests don't assess these reasoning skills, they may not be taught, putting American students as a disadvantage to students in other countries with more challenging tests.
Hyde comments "It keeps girls and women out of a lot of careers, particularly high-prestige, lucrative careers in science and technology."
The concern is that this will hurt girls, not necessarily boys, tho, standardized tests can do so generally. Why? Do you care why, Nutz? Has it dawned on you yet? Of course not. The only reason for the closing gap is because girls started taking classes in maths when they normally opted out in the past. They had to in order to pass the standardized tests. If these tests do not include problem-solving questions, the fear is that girls will not bother to take higher level math classes. It has absolutely nothing to do with boys. But, the concern that neither group will take higher level maths because they want to focus on standardized tests is valid and the main complaint for this policy.
Have I made this clear enough?
Quote:
And to clarify one thing, nobody has said girls are innately inferior to boys. Jumping to that conclusion or framing the argument as such is equally disingenuous as shaming anyone that challenges feminism as being mere misogynists. Boys and girls are different and each have their own natural strengths and weaknesses. The feminists in academia love to point out aspects where girls fall behind and take great steps to equalizing things. You never hear the reverse about how boys do poorly in other areas. Where is their special interest groups fighting on their behalf?
You can take your robot-oriented language and sell it to another fool. Don't give this shame cr*p when you are too lazy to even bother researching a topic you're arguing. Or bothering to understand the blog you are using. You're blogger guru is confused. It's the blind leading the blind.
eta: I will add my own generalization here. What you're doing is common. It's indicative of laziness and a lack of critical thinking. If this is what adults are doing, sure, our children will be in trouble. And while the lot of you point fingers in whatever direction that feels good, so long as you don't have to apply a little brain muscle, the US is going to be out-paced at every turn. I find it beyond weird that while we have so much information at our finger tips, some people just get lazier.
gwyn, I'm having a hard time following your entire post, so if I misunderstand along the way, please correct me.
I haven't read either, but I'm looking at Jared Diamond's book on wiki right now. While I'm not seeing anything noting division of labor and general intelligence, there is mention of...
"The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of non-farming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries by using the "Guns" and "Steel" of the book's title." Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi Braunwyn,
I supposed they did not mention that in the article., but having read the book, I recall his observation that people in industrial societies tended to seem less alert and comparatively dull. Though Wikipedia is not always the best place to find things. The wealth of the West is by division of labor much more so than native intellect.
Since Adam Smith is now public domain.
Chapter 1
Of the Expenses of the Sovereign or Commonwealth
PART 3
Of the Expense of Public Works and Public Institutions
ARTICLE II
Of the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth
...
In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilised society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.
Quote:
This suggests allowances for growth through division of labor, so I'm not sure where a reduction in intelligence would fit.
Somewhat addressed above but I am sure it is related to ceiling effect in testing. Not only can ceiling effect prevent the discovery of the intellect, I am sure it prevents it from advancing.
It is probably the micro equivalent of labor and capital inputs where at some point one input shows diminishing returns. A 100 seat factor will show benefits of labor input until 100 seats at which time it will begin to lag with diminishing returns until more capital is invested. For example an obsession with improving rail may miss the possibility of flight. Some "lack of specialization can provide advancements as the returns diminish. My prediction is that mature industries tend to be more vulnerable to dulling the mind yet that is where most men were employed.
Quote:
As far as people being obsessed with their careers- I'm not sure what to think about that. I figure folk either want to make more money for greater consumption (wealth in any form [material goods, power, etc), have a genuine drive to provide community support, or have a need to distract. Two of three here could be deemed one-dimensional, tho, I'm not sure I quite understand what that means either.
It depends on what that role is. I wonder just how interesting Tiger Woods is. Perhaps he had a valid excuse in that he had nothing else to say and they used sex to pass the time. Yet his specialty made him wealthy. I would surmise most labor in the past as monotonous. I could see the opposite being true were intelligent people are selected by thinking their way out of menial tasks when they had an intensive like a freeman over a slave.
Quote:
I agree, but I can understand goals of equal outcome. It's another face of competition and taking advantage of available tools.
There is a competition and there is monopoly. Using social forces for outcome is monopolistic. A distinguishing characteristic of competition is improvement of a competitor. A distinguishing characteristic of monopolistic practice is to degrade a competitor. It is one thing that feminism purportedly addresses. If a man uses his strength to prevent a woman from performing a task she does better than he, he is abusing his monopoly of strength. The end result is not that he improves, but that he has degraded her ability to excel.
Quote:
Eh, as mentioned previously, and as seemingly highlighted by Diamond, people will make use of the resources available. I don't think we should fault ourselves for that. It's quite natural. The public school system is the avaible tool for the lower SES classes. It still won't level the playing field, tho. There are those of us who will still have access to resources not available to others.
The public school system has no economic justification. It is a logical fallacy of composition to not sever the link between wealth redistribution and education. The public school system is actually a tool of class warfare by the elites of our society.
Few Gender Differences in Math Abilites, Worldwide Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Jan. 6, 2010) — Girls around the world are not worse at math than boys, even though boys are more confident in their math abilities, and girls from countries where gender equity is more prevalent are more likely to perform better on mathematics assessment tests, according to a new analysis of international research.
Feminism has hurt family and society as a whole. Don't get me wrong. Women should have the same rights as men when it comes to employment, education, the military, obtaining credit, voting, and driving. However women need to get it out of their heads that they can raise children on their own. Most violent criminals were raised by women without a father in the home.
Feminism has hurt family and society as a whole. Don't get me wrong. Women should have the same rights as men when it comes to employment, education, the military, obtaining credit, voting, and driving. However women need to get it out of their heads that they can raise children on their own. Most violent criminals were raised by women without a father in the home.
Indeed. Yet "grrrl power" still persists and women are still lied to that they can "have it all". Well no, sorry, life doesn't work that way. But the hard core feminists believe they can. And if they can't they make laws so they can. We're seeing this in the UK and mainland Europe where socialism is in full effect. If you want your nationalized healthcare, if you want your paid 39 weeks of maternity leave, if you want all these social reforms so WOMEN can have babies and the govt subsidizes their choices in life, then WE the taxpayers are going to be paying for it. You know how? Taxes. I for one do not want the 50-60% tax rates that it takes to prop up such a system. Furthermore, every single world empire that has embraced this kind of feminized socialism has fallen. There's strong historical trends that indicates feminization precedes an implosion of the system. And it'll happen even faster if men get in on the action. Right now in the UK businesses are hesitant to hire women because of the liability they impose. If men bring the same liability by getting equal paternity leave then the businesses will collapse. That's where this is all heading if we keep on track. Also, what happens when men start getting in on the action of having kids without women in their lives by bypassing American women using foreign surrogates (or in the future artificial wombs)? It's already starting to happen! This is the result of feminism driving a wedge between the genders by giving women unrealistic expectations. Plus the legal landscape from decades of misandry makes having serious relationships with women a liability now.
If you want to have it all then you need to take responsibility for yourself and your actions. If that means not having a kid until you're 33 when you have a good paying job and can afford it, then so be it. If that means settling down in your early 20s to have a bunch of kids and letting the husband be the provider, then so be it. If you want to have it all, then realize it's too late to have a family because men don't want the village bicycle and your body isn't fertile, well, that's the result of your own behavior and actions and nobody is to blame but yourself. Ladies, nobody said life was fair or easy, and no you are not entitled to anything but the PURSUIT of happiness. Feminism has entrenched the idea in women's minds that they can have it all, that they deserve to have it all. The reality is you only deserve to get what you work for. Relying on handouts from the govt to subsidize your life's choices with regards to your brave new world mating strategies is, shall we say, unrealistic and completely unacceptable in my book.
You would make it sound as tho. All women just choose to have children out of wedlock and expect taxpayers to foot the bill. Your leaving out a entire mass of widows and divorced women left with children and no father. And of course all the working mothers out there.
You also make it sound as tho all women want nationalized healthcare and all that is pays for is maternity leave. Not true. Working women have their own insurance and it is up to the employer as to how much leave you can take. Many employers also offer paternity leave.
Im not sure what you mean by wanting to have it all. Feminism is about equal legal and social rights. I guess I wanted it all in wanting the right to an education and equal employment (which I had) so I could raise my children after their father died and left us with nothing. If not for these rights (feminism) I would definately had to live off gov. assistance because I would have had no way to support myelf or family. Or perhaps you would prefer the days widowed women had to put their children up for adoption and work the street corner just to eat.
I understand your problem with nationalized health care, high taxes and too many fatherless children, but these issue have more to do with social reform than feminism. There have always been health issues, taxes and starving bastard children it is just a matter of how society deals with it.
Looks like we are all over the place again. Feminism is an abstraction as the Greek ism suffix implies. Who defines this?
Depending on who one asks it has legal, social and cultural aspects. Allowing women freedom and equality under the law has little to do with the more recent ,and idiotic idea, that women are equivalent. In Hollywood how often do we see 125lb women beating up 250lb muscle bound men? Even if this is relegated to fantasy, why do we as a society fantasize about this? We begin to have dangerous and silly ideas like 125lb police of any sex .
How is a female police officer supposed to subdue a guerrilla without a firearm? It escalates the violence. Its just common sense but we have lost it. Would I want a female partner? Heck no.
How is a female police officer supposed to subdue a guerrilla without a firearm? It escalates the violence. Its just common sense but we have lost it. Would I want a female partner? Heck no.
Maybe you should take the blinders off and see people as individuals. My brother had a female partner (they do carry firearms and tazers) he had no problem with her other than she was a hard arse and never cut anyone a break. He got a different male partner that almost got him shot because he stood there fumbling with his tazer while and armed man was approching them. My brother had to step up and draw his weapon.
Again, nothing to do with feminism, hollywood, or the acient Greeks.
Looks like we are all over the place again. Feminism is an abstraction as the Greek ism suffix implies. Who defines this?
Depending on who one asks it has legal, social and cultural aspects. Allowing women freedom and equality under the law has little to do with the more recent ,and idiotic idea, that women are equivalent. In Hollywood how often do we see 125lb women beating up 250lb muscle bound men? Even if this is relegated to fantasy, why do we as a society fantasize about this? We begin to have dangerous and silly ideas like 125lb police of any sex .
How is a female police officer supposed to subdue a guerrilla without a firearm? It escalates the violence. Its just common sense but we have lost it. Would I want a female partner? Heck no.
You've obviously never met my aunt, who is in the LAPD. All 6'2 of her.... with a New Yorkers attitude!
I've been asked to join the military AND been given an invitation to join the LAPD and be a correctional officer on multiple occasions because I'm also a 6'1 tall women who doesn't take crap from anyone.
Don't paint all females with the same brush.
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.
More on Math & Gender
