3 ms·

There is considerable evidence showing this is more or less true. "Intrinsically unschoolable" is a strong and incorrect statement, but "less schoolable" yields

There is considerable evidence showing this is more or less true. "Intrinsically unschoolable" is a strong and incorrect statement, but "less schoolable" yields similar conclusions and is well supported by research. Consider Raj Chetty's work; he shows that the primary determinant of student performance is intrinsic student qualities, but that teachers also matter a fair bit. http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/value_added.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/value_added.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/w19423.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/w19423.pdf Why would you consider this factual claim to be an "incoherent position"?

tptacek 10y ago
The papers you've cited make essentially the opposite case as your comment does. Chetty's work suggests that a single year of teaching under a high quality teacher raises the lifetime earnings expectation of a student by $50,000.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The papers show large and significant effects from student quality as well, a position you described as "incoherent". The fact that teachers also have an effect doesn't change this. If you were actually correct, and teacher quality was the primary determinant, then we could skip VAM and just use raw test scores to measure teacher quality. I.e., if teacher A had a class of underprivileged black students while teacher B had a class of rich Asian students, and teacher B got higher test scores, that would be evidence teacher B was a better teacher. Is this actually your belief?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Can you point out the section of the major Chetty VA study that distinguishes student circumstances from student intrinsic quality? The context of the thread you've jumped into is what the best intervention to circumstance might be to improve outcomes for students. You appear to be begging the question.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I don't know what you mean by "intrinsic". Kalium said: The educational experience of students is not dictated wholly by teachers, curriculum, and facilities. You seemed to disagree with his claim. Due to this apparent disagreement, I interpreted "intrinsic" to mean something other than teachers, curriculum and facilities. The Chetty paper, and the entire need for VAM (as opposed to just measuring raw test scores), shows this to be true. Do you believe this to be false?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Maybe somebody else can restate the point I'm trying to make in a form that will make more sense to you.
        whybroke 10y ago
        Ironically, yummyfajitas definition of "intinsic" to mean "not teachers, curriculum, nor facilities" would thus include life circumstance. For example, the kid's quality of life outside of school. Which is demonstrably improved by helping poor kids with rent. Which I believe he is trying to argue against.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Is it clear to anyone else that 'yummyfajitas is implying that the kinds of students who attend poorly-performing schools are genetically incapable of academic performance? I may be misreading. I'd like a second opinion. I'd rather not assume people I'm arguing with hold revolting core beliefs. This would not be, like, the first time I'd jumped the gun on something like this: I myself hold a (probably faulty) core belief that the median HN participant is likely to host retrograde beliefs about race, which is unfair of me too.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm genuinely curious why you are asking third parties to put words into my mouth. Why not just ask me? If you want a summary, I don't share your religious faith that God ensured an identical statistical distribution of genes across all subpopulations when he created man. But Kalium's argument is not dependent on this - there are more things in the world than simply teachers, curriculum, facilities and genetics. For example, poor people might be disproportionately bad parents (perhaps they exhibit many bad behaviors which also make them poor) and this might cause their children to be disruptive in school. That's a concrete theory that's directly compatible with your secular faith in statistically identical genetic distributions, but still supports Kalium's claim.

tptacek 10y ago

The papers you've cited make essentially the opposite case as your comment does. Chetty's work suggests that a single year of teaching under a high quality teacher raises the lifetime earnings expectation of a student by $50,000.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The papers show large and significant effects from student quality as well, a position you described as "incoherent". The fact that teachers also have an effect doesn't change this. If you were actually correct, and teacher quality was the primary determinant, then we could skip VAM and just use raw test scores to measure teacher quality. I.e., if teacher A had a class of underprivileged black students while teacher B had a class of rich Asian students, and teacher B got higher test scores, that would be evidence teacher B was a better teacher. Is this actually your belief?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Can you point out the section of the major Chetty VA study that distinguishes student circumstances from student intrinsic quality? The context of the thread you've jumped into is what the best intervention to circumstance might be to improve outcomes for students. You appear to be begging the question.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "intrinsic". Kalium said: The educational experience of students is not dictated wholly by teachers, curriculum, and facilities. You seemed to disagree with his claim. Due to this apparent disagreement, I interpreted "intrinsic" to mean something other than teachers, curriculum and facilities. The Chetty paper, and the entire need for VAM (as opposed to just measuring raw test scores), shows this to be true. Do you believe this to be false?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Maybe somebody else can restate the point I'm trying to make in a form that will make more sense to you.
      - whybroke 10y ago
        Ironically, yummyfajitas definition of "intinsic" to mean "not teachers, curriculum, nor facilities" would thus include life circumstance. For example, the kid's quality of life outside of school. Which is demonstrably improved by helping poor kids with rent. Which I believe he is trying to argue against.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Is it clear to anyone else that 'yummyfajitas is implying that the kinds of students who attend poorly-performing schools are genetically incapable of academic performance? I may be misreading. I'd like a second opinion. I'd rather not assume people I'm arguing with hold revolting core beliefs. This would not be, like, the first time I'd jumped the gun on something like this: I myself hold a (probably faulty) core belief that the median HN participant is likely to host retrograde beliefs about race, which is unfair of me too.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm genuinely curious why you are asking third parties to put words into my mouth. Why not just ask me? If you want a summary, I don't share your religious faith that God ensured an identical statistical distribution of genes across all subpopulations when he created man. But Kalium's argument is not dependent on this - there are more things in the world than simply teachers, curriculum, facilities and genetics. For example, poor people might be disproportionately bad parents (perhaps they exhibit many bad behaviors which also make them poor) and this might cause their children to be disruptive in school. That's a concrete theory that's directly compatible with your secular faith in statistically identical genetic distributions, but still supports Kalium's claim.