General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
s0me0nesmind1
 
s0me0nesmind1's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta View Post
I already said you were wrong (although I was a bit more insulting) regarding the graphic you posted of the distribution of IQ by race, but you seemed to ignore it.

It was an entire sidetopic generated from a reply of redrum. I didn't want to dive into it given the thread OP - however the fact that you disagreed with it isn't a point, illustrate why or just don't post Where was your point in that worthless blabbering 1 sentence opinion reply on factual data? I would have been glad to reply if you had something to reply to.
__________________
8e12bfe909ef9fcfaa2d400a638d4801 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
◑ ◔
╔═╗
║▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
╚═╝
Old 09-13-2012, 09:30 AM s0me0nesmind1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#121  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0me0nesmind1 View Post
It was an entire sidetopic generated from a reply of redrum. I didn't want to dive into it given the thread OP - however the fact that you disagreed with it isn't a point, illustrate why or just don't post Where was your point in that worthless blabbering 1 sentence opinion reply on factual data?

Because the argument (or graphic, in this case) is not appropriate. It's just a graphic, which you then use to bastardize some argument. The *real* discussion for that graphic is whether IQ as a latent construct that is unable to be measured directly should even be used for such statistical comparisons. Adjusting for socioeconomic status in models does not remove the perceived "racial gap", but many of the other likely confounders for the divide (even if we accept that IQ is measured without error, which it isn't) cannot be easily controlled for. THAT is why I said what I said--not because I didn't want to argue with you, but because I'm nearly 100% sure you don't know a thing about psychometrics and measurement theory, and how something like an assessment for an abstract concept such as "IQ" is developed, tested, and interpreted. I know this because of how you used that graphic. And chances are, were I try to try explain it to you (like I am now), you'd discount it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, though.

This is why I don't see the value to really trying to argue with you in this thread. I actually used to work in this field--I have both real-world experience as a teacher at the middle school, high school, and university level and, later, as a doctoral-level researcher in education policy, teacher practice, and academic achievement. I will grant you that my field of research was not educational economics--where the true work in labor, teacher pay, and ability is evaluated (see work from The Equity Project or by Fryer in the past 5 or 6 years, it's REALLY good), but I followed it religiously. And truth be told, I agree with many of the statements you've made regarding unions and teacher wage/demands, if you weren't such a dick about it.

Even though I no longer work in education research, I still love to discuss it. But when I see some of your "first principles" in this thread (I won't waste my time going back to try specifics, but some that came to mind were about how teaching isn't difficult, or grading takes no time at all, etc. etc.), they are so biased and filled with some unjustifiable hatred that I consider arguing with you to be a useless endeavor. You may change an occasional perspective or give one rational thought, but the underlying logic you are using for many of your arguments is just offensive, and specifically designed to be inflammatory. That's not debate, that's you fallaciously trying to hammer opponents with insults and mischaracterizations of education to win.
Old 09-13-2012, 09:39 AM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#122  

astriy
 
astriy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Please to be providing evidence.

Anecdotally, there are plenty of areas around here that don't fit that formula in terms of absolute outcomes. Fairfax County has about the best schools in the nation but pays ~20% less than Montgomery County across the river. There are big variations across MoCo too, and the union has mandated that there aren't regional variations in pay so...

Unions can't really mandate anything. If the local elected government does a bad job with union negotiation and budgeting, it's not an indication that the unions are the problem.

Like I said, you cannot say that paying teachers more has ever led to a decline in education quality. There's always going to be a school district here and there that does well despite paying less, but on the average in this country districts that pay teachers more give their kids a better education.
Old 09-13-2012, 09:49 AM astriy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#123  

s0me0nesmind1
 
s0me0nesmind1's Avatar
 
So quick question before I reply in full: Are you theorizing/suggesting that based on how IQ is measured that it favors certain races? Or am I missing something?

The graphic doesn't make arguments about what other factors may be going into the results such as socioeconomic status, it's just showing the results of the data.
__________________
8e12bfe909ef9fcfaa2d400a638d4801 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
◑ ◔
╔═╗
║▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
╚═╝
Old 09-13-2012, 09:57 AM s0me0nesmind1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#124  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0me0nesmind1 View Post
So quick question before I reply in full: Are you theorizing/suggesting that based on how IQ is measured that it favors certain races? Or am I missing something?

The graphic doesn't make arguments about what other factors may be going into the results such as socioeconomic status, it's just showing the results of the data.

No--although that has been an argument made before, as there is evidence that cultural variations in the concept of education, learning and intelligence make a standard assessment of IQ moot. However, contrary evidence exists (as it always does) that shows test bias is not enough to explain the divide. The main argument is that IQ, as a latent variable, may not an appropriate measure to compare ethnic variation in the first place. It's mostly because people see this graphic and use it (like you did) to imply that there is a genetic variation in innate intelligence. Now, this might actually be true, there are theories and evidence for all sorts of interpretations. It could be genetic. Or it could be entirely cultural, which is a modifiable input. But without that context, you misrepresent the data. The data might just be data (and it is), but you used it for a specific, and arguably unfair, purpose.

Of course the graphic doesn't make arguments about any potential confounding bias. It's just a graphic. But I find it amazing that you would so easily say this, because of how your post was framed. Redrum made the (wrong) point that if American schools wanted to be "good" again, they should return to segregation. You posted that graphic as a way to lend evidence to his argument. You say "data never lies". Really? I can make data lie 1,000 ways to Sunday. I can take any data and evidnece you give me, for damn near anything, and make it look completely different and able to draw completely contradictory statements. Data can always lie. Now for this case in particular, the distributions of IQ by race are completely valid. But using a graphic as evidence for an argument when that graphic either a) should not be used for that purpose at all or b) should not be used without numerous qualifiers to aid in interpretation, well that's just down right myopic. You're being purposefully negligent, just like anyone else who hides behind a staitistic because either they don't know the actual research behind it, or simply don't care.

edit: I'm not trying to come off as mean or antagonistic with this post, just the use of methodologically sound evidence and proper interpretation of statistics is a particular soft spot of mine.

Last edited by Vendetta; 09-13-2012 at 10:14 AM..
Old 09-13-2012, 10:06 AM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#125  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
We're also having a back-and-forth about this in a debate society, to save time here's my most recent contribution to the actual policy debate of the union crap:

I see both sides of this argument. I would argue, first and foremost, that Ms. NAMEWITHELD is correct in the necessity of union (or "union-esque") organizations to protect teachers, mostly due to student accusations (it happens more often than you might think). It's a terrifying prospect that a teacher can immediately be put on probation/temporary suspension if a student accuses him or her of anything improper, and even risk losing their job--a district will rarely go to bat for a teacher if it meant avoiding a national spotlight and lawsuits.

I also understand the perspective of Chicago teachers who are worried about teacher evaluation. The teacher evaluation system currently under development in NYC is problemmatic, I would not want to be a teacher evaluated by such an equation. It's very easy to get this sort of thing wrong, so it's natural for teachers to be concerned. Performance evaluation in education is naturally exceedingly tricky, particularly as we are working with humans, not widgets. To be honest, in my opinion any discussion as to the merits of performance-based pay necessitates a concurrent discussion with performance assessment in the first place--which unfortunately really complicates things. I'm not saying it's impossible, and that's why I mentioned TEP--which is testing high salaries (100+) with performance bonuses and require incredible teacher quality and professional development. The difference though is that it's a charter school, so really it's a question of choice--if a teacher wanted the benefits of a highly educated professional base, as well as an exceptionally high salary (all things considering) such at that at TEP, they must accept that there will be a performance evaluation and job security is not guaranteed.

All that said, the Chicago teachers seem to want to have their cake and eat it too, and at the end of the day the strike just keeps kids out of the classroom. It's the "all for one" mentality I dislike. "Won't someone please think of the children!!!"
Old 09-13-2012, 10:26 AM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#126  

OneWhoKnows
(Morbo)
 
OneWhoKnows's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta View Post
We're also having a back-and-forth about this in a debate society, to save time here's my most recent contribution to the actual policy debate of the union crap:

I see both sides of this argument. I would argue, first and foremost, that Ms. NAMEWITHELD is correct in the necessity of union (or "union-esque") organizations to protect teachers, mostly due to student accusations (it happens more often than you might think). It's a terrifying prospect that a teacher can immediately be put on probation/temporary suspension if a student accuses him or her of anything improper, and even risk losing their job--a district will rarely go to bat for a teacher if it meant avoiding a national spotlight and lawsuits.

I also understand the perspective of Chicago teachers who are worried about teacher evaluation. The teacher evaluation system currently under development in NYC is problemmatic, I would not want to be a teacher evaluated by such an equation. It's very easy to get this sort of thing wrong, so it's natural for teachers to be concerned. Performance evaluation in education is naturally exceedingly tricky, particularly as we are working with humans, not widgets. To be honest, in my opinion any discussion as to the merits of performance-based pay necessitates a concurrent discussion with performance assessment in the first place--which unfortunately really complicates things. I'm not saying it's impossible, and that's why I mentioned TEP--which is testing high salaries (100+) with performance bonuses and require incredible teacher quality and professional development. The difference though is that it's a charter school, so really it's a question of choice--if a teacher wanted the benefits of a highly educated professional base, as well as an exceptionally high salary (all things considering) such at that at TEP, they must accept that there will be a performance evaluation and job security is not guaranteed.

All that said, the Chicago teachers seem to want to have their cake and eat it too, and at the end of the day the strike just keeps kids out of the classroom. It's the "all for one" mentality I dislike. "Won't someone please think of the children!!!"

What are your thoughts on tenure?
__________________
Intarweb married to [H]ustler 12/08/03
OWK of Team OWK
Gen[M]ay Motorcyclist 2004 YZF-R1 / 2006 YZF-R6
Rang3find3r: "I am VERY proud of my victory over touareg, because shit, what the fuck else do I have to be proud of?"
Old 09-13-2012, 10:36 AM OneWhoKnows is offline  
Reply With Quote
#127  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
I should also say that most modern teacher evaluation systems are based, at least in part, on something called value-added modeling. Value-added models (VAM), in a nutshell, try to predict an expected students performance given a vector of possible confounding variables, such as socioeconomic status. The difference in actual student performance relative to predicted values is considered the "value added" by the teacher, and is used in some way as a metric of teacher evaluation--sometimes in reference to previous years performance or as a comparison measure to other teachers with similar student distributions. And in most cases, the VAM only forms one part of teacher evaluation, as part of a portfolio model. The biggest problem with these systems is that they are just models, and as such are subject to multiple sources of bias. The biggest one, if I recall correctly, is that the inclusion (or exclusion) of certain variables can drastically chage a teachers' VAM score. Which equation is the right one? Well, who knows? And that's why the teachers are usually so up in arms over this.

Here's an example of a previous VAM, at least how I last remember it:

Old 09-13-2012, 10:43 AM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#128  

s0me0nesmind1
 
s0me0nesmind1's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta View Post
Because the argument (or graphic, in this case) is not appropriate. It's just a graphic, which you then use to bastardize some argument. The *real* discussion for that graphic is whether IQ as a latent construct that is unable to be measured directly should even be used for such statistical comparisons. Adjusting for socioeconomic status in models does not remove the perceived "racial gap", but many of the other likely confounders for the divide (even if we accept that IQ is measured without error, which it isn't) cannot be easily controlled for. THAT is why I said what I said--not because I didn't want to argue with you, but because I'm nearly 100% sure you don't know a thing about psychometrics and measurement theory, and how something like an assessment for an abstract concept such as "IQ" is developed, tested, and interpreted. I know this because of how you used that graphic. And chances are, were I try to try explain it to you (like I am now), you'd discount it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, though.

This is why I don't see the value to really trying to argue with you in this thread. I actually used to work in this field--I have both real-world experience as a teacher at the middle school, high school, and university level and, later, as a doctoral-level researcher in education policy, teacher practice, and academic achievement. I will grant you that my field of research was not educational economics--where the true work in labor, teacher pay, and ability is evaluated (see work from The Equity Project or by Fryer in the past 5 or 6 years, it's REALLY good), but I followed it religiously. And truth be told, I agree with many of the statements you've made regarding unions and teacher wage/demands, if you weren't such a dick about it.

Even though I no longer work in education research, I still love to discuss it. But when I see some of your "first principles" in this thread (I won't waste my time going back to try specifics, but some that came to mind were about how teaching isn't difficult, or grading takes no time at all, etc. etc.), they are so biased and filled with some unjustifiable hatred that I consider arguing with you to be a useless endeavor. You may change an occasional perspective or give one rational thought, but the underlying logic you are using for many of your arguments is just offensive, and specifically designed to be inflammatory. That's not debate, that's you fallaciously trying to hammer opponents with insults and mischaracterizations of education to win.

Ok where to start -

First, Data can NOT be manipulated. Data is just data. It is plots on a graph generated by 2 Qualifiers: Race & IQ# - the plots pointed with qualifiers correctly titled won't lie. What does lie is anyone who tries to generate a word summary report describing how said results came about (or rather, how they believe it came about). And that - of course - can always be manipulated. So frankly, I don't know why you judged so much based on my 1 sentence reply to redrum with the graph picture.

The graph isn't suggesting how it comes about, but regardless the point of the graph is to show that one is inferior to the other based on the concept of IQ. If my previous sentence is somehow in any way wrong (especially the use of "inferior") - than please let me know. At no point did anyone say why they are inferior - whether it is genetically, racially, socially, spiritually, evolution, whatever you will.



Back to the Teacher Union -


Quote:
I will grant you that my field of research was not educational economics--where the true work in labor, teacher pay, and ability is evaluated (see work from The Equity Project or by Fryer in the past 5 or 6 years, it's REALLY good)
Equity Project looks very interesting just glancing over the wikipedia of it. Have any particular studies / articles that you referenced from 4-6 years? I'd like to see the results myself. I will shit my pants if it agrees with anything this union disgorges from their mouths.




Quote:
And truth be told, I agree with many of the statements you've made regarding unions and teacher wage/demands, if you weren't such a dick about it.
Well thank you - As one of the few decent users here, I'm glad to see you don't have a case of mild retardation - which many people here should really get tested for. Sorry if I'm a dick about things, it's just my nature - especially in the subject of politics. It comes naturally. After you see things in life such as Apple fanboi's that have no facts, figures, or reasoning that just answer everything with "Look, it's just better!" it tends to bring out that side of you

I don't try to be bias, but people who think their work is the hardest possible work is just mind boggling stupidity sometimes. IT goes hand-in-hand with the "Everyone is special" and "You aren't a loser, you were the LAST winner!" thoughts that go through today's idiocracy.
__________________
8e12bfe909ef9fcfaa2d400a638d4801 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
◑ ◔
╔═╗
║▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
╚═╝
Old 09-13-2012, 10:46 AM s0me0nesmind1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#129  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneWhoKnows View Post
What are your thoughts on tenure?

I think it is completely ridiculous for a public K12 teacher to have a tenure option--these teachers are supposed to teach, and teach defined curriculum. There should not be an option for them to prosthelytize, nor do they do any research that could be considered "taboo". I don't think they should have the same protection as a university professor, who may well be working in a contentious field and need that protection.
Old 09-13-2012, 10:47 AM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#130  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by astriy View Post
Unions can't really mandate anything. If the local elected government does a bad job with union negotiation and budgeting, it's not an indication that the unions are the problem.

Like I said, you cannot say that paying teachers more has ever led to a decline in education quality. There's always going to be a school district here and there that does well despite paying less, but on the average in this country districts that pay teachers more give their kids a better education.

You said it was directly the single biggest cause of better education. I'm going to postulate that districts that pay their teachers more have higher budgets in general and also happen to be teaching wealthier kids.

And if all you can say is "paying teachers more doesn't lead to declines in quality," I think you need a better argument for spending taxpayer's money.
Old 09-13-2012, 12:12 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#131  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0me0nesmind1 View Post
$70k isn't THAT high of a Salary. The places I am positioned to hit in my career easily hit the $150-$250k - So you have old ass teachers that sit there teaching the same crap to the same level - $76k is not jack shit if your final destination in life is sitting in a public school teaching little shitheads
Yeah...."positioned to hit" does not mean "76k is shit money to me right now." So good work lying about your salary on the Internet.

Quote:
It's funny though, it's like I have fans about my life. Maybe I should start blogging?
Act like a big enough of an irrational cunt to enough people and some of them will be motivated enough to dig up your past posts to demonstrate that fact.
Old 09-13-2012, 12:14 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#132  

s0me0nesmind1
 
s0me0nesmind1's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Yeah...."positioned to hit" does not mean "76k is shit money to me right now." So good work lying about your salary on the Internet.

Where the fuck did I say my salary? And where the fuck did I say 76k was shit money? Personally, if 76k is as high as it gets for me I would consider myself a failure. That doesn't mean it's not higher than what I currently make Way to misinterpret my posts broceritops.
__________________
8e12bfe909ef9fcfaa2d400a638d4801 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
◑ ◔
╔═╗
║▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
╚═╝
Old 09-13-2012, 12:16 PM s0me0nesmind1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#133  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by asa View Post
as i said, my neighbor is a teacher
during the week she typically works a 11-12 hour day, and she usually works 4-6 hours one day of the weekend

"isn't any different than any other job."
"certainly isn't any harder"

So the Chicago teachers are asking for an average salary of $90k. Here are some other fields that make that kind of money:
Computer Science (CS) $97,900
Nuclear Engineering $97,800
Biomedical Engineering (BME) $97,800
Economics $94,700
Mechanical Engineering (ME) $94,500
Statistics $93,800
Industrial Engineering (IE) $93,100
Civil Engineering (CE) $90,200
Mathematics $89,900
Environmental Engineering $88,600
Management Information Systems (MIS) $88,200

Now, are we really going to say that teaching is harder and/or requires more talent than nuclear engineering? These are fields that companies literally cannot find enough people to fill openings, and most people really just aren't capable of handling that kind of education. The same just isn't true of teaching, and it doesn't make sense to pay them on scale with those other jobs. It's not an easy job, but it's stuff most anyone can learn and be at least nominally effective if they care and have passion.
Old 09-13-2012, 12:21 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#134  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0me0nesmind1 View Post
Where the fuck did I say my salary? And where the fuck did I say 76k was shit money? Personally, if 76k is as high as it gets for me I would consider myself a failure. That doesn't mean it's not higher than what I currently make Way to misinterpret my posts broceritops.

I already quoted your post. You said "76k is not much to me either." At best it's a pathetic humblebrag about your postulated future earnings.
Old 09-13-2012, 12:23 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#135  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.