5 ms·

According to this source of unknown reliability ( http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spending.html#usgs302a http://www.usgovernmentspending.co

According to this source of unknown reliability ( http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spending.html#usgs302a http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin... ) state & local spending as a percentage of state nominal GDP went from 20% to 24% from 1992 to 2009. Don't know the numbers going back to 1960, but I'd be shocked if spending was lower then. For the change in average levels of education and knowledge, the cause seems pretty obvious to me. If you extended the border of California 400 miles south into Mexico, the average state scores on tests of math, history, and English would obviously go down, simply because of the composition of the population. Similarly, if you move 10 million Mexicans into California, the average test scores of the people living within the borders of California will fall (even if there is no change in the amount of learning for one individual person). In general if you look into correlations between education spending and test scores, there is very little correlation. If you look into the correlation of ethnicity and test scores, its very significant.

mkr-hn 16y ago
Here's an excerpt from the bio of the guy who runs the site: "Despite 35 years living in Seattle, I instinctively revolted against the suffocating left-coast culture of the Soviet of Washington, and came to revere the four great Germans who helped inspire the Reagan revolution: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin." However, he does link to real government sources (near the botton), so you can check to see if he weighs by ideology when posting numbers.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I applaud you for making an observation which could easily fuel an ad-hominem attack on an obvious partisan, and then holding back after observing that regardless of his biases, he is just tabulating official numbers.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    When I see source and unknown reliability in the same post, my instinct is to check and make sure the person who said it knows where to find the tools to make that judgment on their own. Sometimes they end up in disagreement with me, but I always prefer informed and still wrong to uninformed and wrong[1]. :) [1]Which is not to say these numbers are wrong or right. I'm speaking generally.
neeson 16y ago
To rephrase what you just said: Mexicans, because of their ethnicity, are less able to understand (for instance) mathematics, even when given the same amount of instruction, than people of the ethnicities that characterize the population of California circa the 1960s (i.e. predominantly white). Did I get that right?
- bokonist 16y ago
  Mexicans in general score lower on tests of English and math, both in Mexico and America. See for one example: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html#axzz0xaC7EpRR http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html#axzz0xaC7EpRR This data is well known and not-controversial. The reasons for the test score disparity are quite controversial. My point is simple. You have a group A of 10 million that on average score 450 on the math SAT. You have a group B of 10 milllion that score 500 on average. If you randomly move 5 million from group A to group B, then statistically, the average score of group B will fall to ~481.
  - neeson 16y ago
    Thank you for the numbers. Point well made.
- lzw 16y ago
  Ah, and a racist troll to boot! Hilarious!
erikpukinskis 16y ago
In general if you look into correlations between education spending and test scores, there is very little correlation. If you look into the correlation of ethnicity and test scores, its very significant. Good job, you just discovered that our standardized tests scores are biased in favor of white kids.
- gwern 16y ago
  Which is why those ethnicities then go on to have perfect 4.0 GPAs and rack up countless patents & inventions and start tons of successful new companies, thus proving those standardized tests wrong in the most effective way possible.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Accept of course those standardized tests are the gatekeepers to the best schools, best programs, best networks, and likely even confidence and motivation. A better way to show that standardized tests mean nothing is to have every student take them, but then store them away for the next 40 years. No one knows the results. And then in 40 years correlate the results of these tests with "life success". We've already seen with one similar measure "IQ test", which has little bearing on academic placement, that it turns out to have very little utility in predicting "life success". UPDATE: Link on IQ -- http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html
    - Daniel_Newby 16y ago
      You are lying with statistics, albeit possibly unknowingly. That article comes right out and says that IQ does not have an effect on life outcomes, if life outcomes are normed for educational attainment. It then goes on to say that IQ does not predict career success, if career success is measured by money and normed for career type. That's like saying air temperature has no effect on snow cover, if snow cover is corrected for season. And altitude.
      - 16y ago

mkr-hn 16y ago

Here's an excerpt from the bio of the guy who runs the site: "Despite 35 years living in Seattle, I instinctively revolted against the suffocating left-coast culture of the Soviet of Washington, and came to revere the four great Germans who helped inspire the Reagan revolution: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin." However, he does link to real government sources (near the botton), so you can check to see if he weighs by ideology when posting numbers.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I applaud you for making an observation which could easily fuel an ad-hominem attack on an obvious partisan, and then holding back after observing that regardless of his biases, he is just tabulating official numbers.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  When I see source and unknown reliability in the same post, my instinct is to check and make sure the person who said it knows where to find the tools to make that judgment on their own. Sometimes they end up in disagreement with me, but I always prefer informed and still wrong to uninformed and wrong[1]. :) [1]Which is not to say these numbers are wrong or right. I'm speaking generally.

neeson 16y ago

To rephrase what you just said: Mexicans, because of their ethnicity, are less able to understand (for instance) mathematics, even when given the same amount of instruction, than people of the ethnicities that characterize the population of California circa the 1960s (i.e. predominantly white). Did I get that right?

bokonist 16y ago
Mexicans in general score lower on tests of English and math, both in Mexico and America. See for one example: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html#axzz0xaC7EpRR http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html#axzz0xaC7EpRR This data is well known and not-controversial. The reasons for the test score disparity are quite controversial. My point is simple. You have a group A of 10 million that on average score 450 on the math SAT. You have a group B of 10 milllion that score 500 on average. If you randomly move 5 million from group A to group B, then statistically, the average score of group B will fall to ~481.
- neeson 16y ago
  Thank you for the numbers. Point well made.
lzw 16y ago
Ah, and a racist troll to boot! Hilarious!

erikpukinskis 16y ago

In general if you look into correlations between education spending and test scores, there is very little correlation. If you look into the correlation of ethnicity and test scores, its very significant. Good job, you just discovered that our standardized tests scores are biased in favor of white kids.

gwern 16y ago
Which is why those ethnicities then go on to have perfect 4.0 GPAs and rack up countless patents & inventions and start tons of successful new companies, thus proving those standardized tests wrong in the most effective way possible.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Accept of course those standardized tests are the gatekeepers to the best schools, best programs, best networks, and likely even confidence and motivation. A better way to show that standardized tests mean nothing is to have every student take them, but then store them away for the next 40 years. No one knows the results. And then in 40 years correlate the results of these tests with "life success". We've already seen with one similar measure "IQ test", which has little bearing on academic placement, that it turns out to have very little utility in predicting "life success". UPDATE: Link on IQ -- http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html
  - Daniel_Newby 16y ago
    You are lying with statistics, albeit possibly unknowingly. That article comes right out and says that IQ does not have an effect on life outcomes, if life outcomes are normed for educational attainment. It then goes on to say that IQ does not predict career success, if career success is measured by money and normed for career type. That's like saying air temperature has no effect on snow cover, if snow cover is corrected for season. And altitude.
    - 16y ago