3 ms·

>I'm just saying that it's a weak argument to point out that success in school is linked with wealth. Would you like to say that the Earth is flat, disease is

>I'm just saying that it's a weak argument to point out that success in school is linked with wealth. Would you like to say that the Earth is flat, disease is caused by an imbalance of humors, and Adam and Eve tamed dinosaurs for use in ancient rodeos while you're at it? Because those would have more chance of being correct than what you're saying. Socioeconomic security correlates more strongly to educational outcomes than ANY other variable, including IQ.

dogruck 9y ago
Ah, the straw man technique. Well played. In a perfect system, what correlation would you expect between wealth and success in school?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Forget about "perfect". In a merely better system, "success in school" would be the last thing anyone thought about. The purpose of school is not to determine how well children navigate various arbitrary obstacles to learning. The purpose is to teach them, in whatever individual fashion best helps them to learn. If that doesn't happen it is a failure of the school, not of the child. In a "perfect" system, the idea that anything about school would correlate with wealth would be viewed with deep suspicion. We're very far from that situation.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I interpret your point as "in a perfect system, school will be a playground, with no connection to a career, and everyone will have equal wealth." I do agree that schools are culpable when a child (and parents) fails. I do not agree that we should take away the student's agency.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Did school teach you to over-interpret? I don't mention playgrounds, nor the "agency" of 6yos. Do you trust your 6yo's agency next to a busy highway? No? Then why is she responsible for dealing with her teacher's poor attitude and teaching habits?
losvedir 9y ago
This seems like kind of a low effort comment. Are you disputing any of these claims: * IQ or other measures of aptitude contribute to success in school * IQ/aptitude are heritable * IQ/aptitude contribute to success in life Because those all seem sort of reasonable to me, and would explain the top comment of "wealth is the largest predictor of educational attainment", without some sort of nefarious inequality good school / bad school thing going on. I think that's what GP was getting at. I think you're arguing about magnitude of effect? That, while that's true, socioeconomic status effects educational attainment far more than natural aptitude? That also seems plausible to me, although not guaranteed to be correct. Do you have any sources on the relative effects of each contribution? I'd be curious to see.
- tptacek 9y ago
  SES and IQ are not orthogonal. In the limited studies we have, SES interventions generate durable IQ gains, gains substantially larger than the supposed gap between races. The grandparent comment is "not even wrong".
  - losvedir 9y ago
    > interventions generate durable IQ gains Oh, really? That's awesome. I was under the impression this wasn't possible. Do you have any resources on what the interventions were? I'm interested from a selfish parental perspective...
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Start here and follow links: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-... (This only looks like a Vox article; it's actually an open letter from authoritative researchers Vox happens to be publishing.)
      - dogruck 9y ago
        I read the Vox piece, and I don't find it logical. Do you think a fair summary is "nature has a larger impact on IQ than nurture?" Note the article does concede that genetics impact IQ. Somewhat related: I find it amusing when parents talk at length about how similar their children are to themselves and to past relatives -- and then pivot to essentially argue that every individual has equal capabilities.

dogruck 9y ago

Ah, the straw man technique. Well played. In a perfect system, what correlation would you expect between wealth and success in school?

jessaustin 9y ago
Forget about "perfect". In a merely better system, "success in school" would be the last thing anyone thought about. The purpose of school is not to determine how well children navigate various arbitrary obstacles to learning. The purpose is to teach them, in whatever individual fashion best helps them to learn. If that doesn't happen it is a failure of the school, not of the child. In a "perfect" system, the idea that anything about school would correlate with wealth would be viewed with deep suspicion. We're very far from that situation.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I interpret your point as "in a perfect system, school will be a playground, with no connection to a career, and everyone will have equal wealth." I do agree that schools are culpable when a child (and parents) fails. I do not agree that we should take away the student's agency.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Did school teach you to over-interpret? I don't mention playgrounds, nor the "agency" of 6yos. Do you trust your 6yo's agency next to a busy highway? No? Then why is she responsible for dealing with her teacher's poor attitude and teaching habits?

losvedir 9y ago

This seems like kind of a low effort comment. Are you disputing any of these claims: * IQ or other measures of aptitude contribute to success in school * IQ/aptitude are heritable * IQ/aptitude contribute to success in life Because those all seem sort of reasonable to me, and would explain the top comment of "wealth is the largest predictor of educational attainment", without some sort of nefarious inequality good school / bad school thing going on. I think that's what GP was getting at. I think you're arguing about magnitude of effect? That, while that's true, socioeconomic status effects educational attainment far more than natural aptitude? That also seems plausible to me, although not guaranteed to be correct. Do you have any sources on the relative effects of each contribution? I'd be curious to see.

tptacek 9y ago
SES and IQ are not orthogonal. In the limited studies we have, SES interventions generate durable IQ gains, gains substantially larger than the supposed gap between races. The grandparent comment is "not even wrong".
- losvedir 9y ago
  > interventions generate durable IQ gains Oh, really? That's awesome. I was under the impression this wasn't possible. Do you have any resources on what the interventions were? I'm interested from a selfish parental perspective...
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Start here and follow links: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-... (This only looks like a Vox article; it's actually an open letter from authoritative researchers Vox happens to be publishing.)
    - dogruck 9y ago
      I read the Vox piece, and I don't find it logical. Do you think a fair summary is "nature has a larger impact on IQ than nurture?" Note the article does concede that genetics impact IQ. Somewhat related: I find it amusing when parents talk at length about how similar their children are to themselves and to past relatives -- and then pivot to essentially argue that every individual has equal capabilities.