9 ms·

I don't think that those beliefs are a workable explanation here. These proposals come from committees and groups of people, and it's just not realistic to wri

I don't think that those beliefs are a workable explanation here. These proposals come from committees and groups of people, and it's just not realistic to write off the entire group of people behind these proposals as having some uniform set of beliefs like that, especially when they give other rationales for the proposals! The current school system makes decisions in middle school (8th grade and earlier) which determine whether or not each particular student will be able to take calculus in high school. This is, simply put, insane. Because it's obviously insane, when you introduce questions of race and class into the mix, then it's easy to apply pressure to the department of education to come up with a proposal that changes things. And then you end up with bad proposals... why? Because these proposals are produced by poorly-shepherded committees full of government employees under political pressure, and it's much easier to come up with a bad proposal that responds to political pressure than it is to come up with a good proposal. There's just no need to try and explain that this proposal is bad because the people who made it have bad beliefs. I'd characterize this as fundamental attribution error here... "the committees made a bad proposal because of wrong beliefs" versus "the committees made bad proposals because it's easier to respond to political pressure than to write a good proposal".

ravi-delia 5y ago
I feel like in this case fundamental attribution error would go the other way, no? The explanation you offer is that there aren't circumstantial factors dominating the decision (the beliefs on this particular issue), but a fundamental flaw in how committees work. To be clear, I agree that this is an inevitable result of the decision-making structure, I've just only ever seen fundamental attribution error referring to mistakes in the other direction.
- klodolph 5y ago
  That's an interesting way of looking at it. I would never describe someone's beliefs as "circumstantial", and I would also never think of being on a committee as something "intrinsic".
  - ravi-delia 5y ago
    Ah, now I get it! I was thinking of the committee as the entity, not the people on it. Then the question is "why did the committee make a bad call?" where "the topic in question coincidentally misaligned with the views of the members" is the specific cause and "committees always make bad calls" is the general cause. But looking at it from the perspective of the people makes it clear what you were going for
jollybean 5y ago
There are no two people in the world with the same beliefs - nobody is suggesting that. There is however a very broad movement of people who believe that unequal outcomes are a manifestation of racism and so they act accordingly in their roles in government etc.. Many of these people are in the civil service and so this will influence their view. It would be 'insane' to ignore this movement, it's one of the most powerful social forces in the US right now.
- klodolph 5y ago
  You're saying it's one of the "most powerful social forces in the US right now"... is there any particular reasoning here? To be honest, it sounds like an extremist take on the nature vs nurture argument which has been playing out for millennia and I don't see a reason to believe that somehow the extreme version nurture side of the argument has become dominant here. If anything, it's easy to remember the pendulum swinging back and forth in the past decades, and the pendulum doesn't seem to swing that far in either direction. > Many of these people are in the civil service and so this will influence their view. It influences the political pressures placed on people in the civil service more than anything else. People in the civil service are in the civil service for a long time, typically. Often they are in the civil service for decades. On the other hand, elected officials and political appointees rotate in and out much more quickly. I know people in the civil service, they have a much more long-term and level-headed view of things, and my impression is that they "weather the storm" of changing political pressures. At least, the ones who survive in the job do. Political appointees and elected officials are much more mercurial. Appointees know that their position is (somewhat) an extension of their own political power to begin with.
  - tonguez 5y ago
    “I don't see a reason to believe that somehow the extreme version nurture side of the argument has become dominant here” watch “the news” or go on twitter
    - klodolph 5y ago
      Twitter's algorithm promotes whatever tweet will make people angry, because angry people spend more time on Twitter. I'm on Twitter, but I've been on Twitter for a while now, I've selected who I follow, and my feed just doesn't get that kind of noise in it at any significant level. Most of what I see on Twitter is people arguing about Elden Ring or showing off how they can access YouTube from a Mac SE or something. "The news" is dominated by organizations which are trying to maximize their social media engagement metrics so they can get more money from advertisers, so they're subject to the same forces that drive Twitter. Neither of these sources reliably give you a picture of national affairs. Right now the best I can do is get a picture of local affairs by talking with people that I happen to encounter because I live near them.
rayiner 5y ago
It sounds like you and OP differ only in that he thinks the people on the committee have these beliefs, while you’re implying that they’re afraid of “political pressure” from people who hold these beliefs. Which I suspect is correct.
- klodolph 5y ago
  I was thinking less that they are "afraid" of political pressure, and more that responding to political pressure is one of the things that these committees do, by design. Political pressure is a manifestation of the population's problems / beliefs / perceptions. It's wrong to bow completely to political pressure, but it's also wrong to ignore it.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    I agree with you somewhat, but I think there's an important distinction to be made. If a political decision-making process concludes "men account for more road traffic deaths than women, but we've decided that gender can't be taken into account when pricing car insurance" that's fine; the facts have remained the facts, and a political decision has been made by a political process. But if the same process concludes "men and women cause the same number of road traffic deaths" the process has gone off the rails despite the fact the outcome is the same because in one situation the facts have been acknowledged and the decision to act contrary to them made knowingly; while in the second situation that isn't the case.
    - leaflets2 5y ago
      Or if they sabotage the education for the women: give them a shorter drivers license education so they'll crash as much as the men
namelessoracle 5y ago
If you talk to these people though. They DO have bad beliefs. Let's not even talk about politics. Their goal is to get a kid a degree,(especially in groups that dont normally get degrees) and many of them believe just having the degree to get past the job resume hurdles is good and helping people. They ignore the fact that the degree is supposed to be a proof of "This person has X skillsets at minimum". It no longer is. There is basically no job in the United States that cares if you have a high school diploma or GED other than government jobs. They are repeating this process with College right now. The College Diploma is now the new High School Diploma, and pretty soon jobs are gonna want Masters or Doctorates for entry level. This is a bad belief, they don't (or won't) understand that they are ruining and devaluing a thing by their actions and beliefs.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  You can't get a college degree without passing the College Algebra weedout course (let alone Calculus, which is required for the bulk of STEM courses), and you can only realistically pass College Algebra by getting a lot of rigorous math in K-12. Lowering the bar is doing every student a disservice, and the most vulnerable students will be the hardest hit.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - namelessoracle 5y ago
    You'd think that but there are work arounds. Yes pretty much every college requires "college algebra". But some schools have "college algebra for stem majors" vs "college algebra for non stem majors". Guess which one is easier, has lots of bonus credit and extra curricular stuff to earn extra credit. (You attended the college showing of "vagely related math movie?! Here's 10 points on your final!") And also grades on a curve. Also you only need 69.5 (and sometimes just a D!) to graduate. There's also other cheats/hacks. Like lots of state schools will let you transfer from a community college with credit for your "core courses", and some of those have questionable standards. There's also the fact that college algebra usually has some kind of test out or online option. There was a whole sub industry of "pay you to take the online test for me" at colleges for stuff like college algebra. Some of those courses did have some kind "you have to take 1 test in person so we know its you" rule. But they didnt check super heavily that you were actually that person other than a cursory examination of your drivers license name matched who was supposed to take the test. (and oh boy let me tell you about how covid and masks interacted with all of that) Dont get me started on the "Statistics for Sociology" that was different than actual "Statistics" (but fulfilled the Stats requirement for the degree) This is also ignoring that taking College Algebra to begin with IN COLLEGE. Was a major sign you were not a Stem Major. Stem Majors took that in high school and were taking at minimum precalculus. (and even that was viewed as the slow lane, you should be talking Calc 1 as a red blooded STEM freshman)
smugma 5y ago
While I agree that the proposals are bad, I don't blame "committees full of government employees". One of the lead proponents/authors is distinguished Stanford Professor Jo Boaler. It's interesting that a lot of the arguments made in favor of the changes are done in the name of equity, but Boaler herself has been put on the wrong side of racial equity, threatening to call the cops on a Black Berkeley CS professor. This article [0] is gossipy, but it's both interesting and relevant how "Nice White People" can hurt the minority groups they are supposedly trying to help. Hurt by taking away opportunities to take calculus, and hurt by threatening legal action against one of the few minority CS professors at a leading research institution. [0]: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Stanford-professor-Karen-speaks-out-17064784.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Stanford-professor-Ka...
- fn-mote 5y ago
  > One of the lead proponents/authors is distinguished Stanford Professor Jo Boaler.. I have an issue with the parent's gossipy put-down of Professor Boaler. I think it's important to emphasize that genuine intellectuals who have put serious thought into this proposal support it. I would prefer more serious engagement with it, even if on HN the majority disagree.
- rayiner 5y ago
  It's mind boggling to me that this Twitter fight gone wrong is a bigger deal to people than the lack of scientific rigor in Boaler's work.
  - ummonk 5y ago
    No, the point is that the fight undermines Boaler’s use of the racism / equity card which she uses in response to critics of her work.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      Oh, I missed the context: https://stanfordreview.org/boaler-professor/ https://stanfordreview.org/boaler-professor/. I didn’t realize Boaler had a history of doing that (though I guess I’m not surprised). Prof. Nelson sounds like a champion.
zozbot234 5y ago
> The current school system makes decisions in middle school (8th grade and earlier) which determine whether or not each particular student will be able to take calculus in high school. This is, simply put, insane. It's not clear that this is the case. The "current approach" is to offer Algebra I in middle school, which ought to leave plenty of time for students who want to shape up in math and be prepared for HS calculus to do so. Push advanced math later in the curriculum, and you just expose the students to even higher-stakes dilemmas. Lowering standards is no solution, since you'll just end up with lower education quality for all students, that will make it even harder for them to catch up to reasonable levels. This is the broad background of OP's letter.
7speter 5y ago
I don’t necessarily agree with the proposal in california, but do all students need to take calculus in high school? What about solid coverage of algebra 2 and pre calc before higher education. Community college is a great place to take a calc class (or even a pre calc class) affordably. Source: took pre calc, calc and stat in community college after being signalled to that I was terrible at math throughout high school.
- andrewprock 5y ago
  No one is suggesting that all students take calculus in high school. What is being recommend is that no one take calculus in high school. Both of these ideas are bad, but only one of them informs the California Math Framework.
  - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
    > No one is suggesting that all students take calculus in high school. It’s very commonly taught in 10th grade in France, Germany, Singapore and Taiwan (where I used to teach). It’s not universal by any means but as far as I can tell, the idea that calculus should be delayed until university is a nearly uniquely American idea. https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/calculus-around-the-world?format=amp https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/calculus-around-the-wo...
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      "Very commonly" in STEM-focused prep schools (i.e. the "academic" part of the tracked education system that's common outside the US). Which leaves you with very roughly the same percentages as the U.S. approach where Calculus is an elective course.
      - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
        > roughly the same percentages as the U.S. approach where Calculus is an elective course I can’t speak with certainty about other places but this directly contradicts my experience living most of the past 20 years in Taiwan (and speaking with friends who taught mathematics in the public school system). Many, many people not on a STEM track learn calculus in high school.
ryukoposting 5y ago
I like your argument. It's basically Hanlon's razor.
CivBase 5y ago
> These proposals come from committees and groups of people, and it's just not realistic to write off the entire group of people behind these proposals as having some uniform set of beliefs like that, especially when they give other rationales for the proposals! You don't have to write off entire groups of people - just the few at the top. They got there by sucking up to those who were already at the top. Everyone else just has to keep quiet if they want to keep their job. Worse, they're expected to express visible support for their "superiors" and their ideas if they want to keep their jobs.
pyuser583 5y ago
I suggest reading: https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/ https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/ It’s an account of how a very diverse group of scholars advising the United Nations ignored research contradicted their ideological views. One of the scholars even admitted in private some of their recommendations were “wrong.” The group was chosen for its expertise and diversity. I’ve served on school boards. They’re heavily susceptible to group think. Once the culture wars get involved, peoples minds turn off.
- zaroth 5y ago
  It can also be straight up dangerous to try to express a countervailing opinion.
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  That is just an overall terrible outlook for the UN, how can this be the common denominator for nations? It seems that it becomes the personal outlet for some people.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Not really specific to the UN. These sorts of international NGOs all have the same problems. The WHO is worse. The whole idea of global governance is really only attractive to one particular type of person, and they aren't accountable to anything really, so of course you end up with this sort of groupthink.

ravi-delia 5y ago

I feel like in this case fundamental attribution error would go the other way, no? The explanation you offer is that there aren't circumstantial factors dominating the decision (the beliefs on this particular issue), but a fundamental flaw in how committees work. To be clear, I agree that this is an inevitable result of the decision-making structure, I've just only ever seen fundamental attribution error referring to mistakes in the other direction.

klodolph 5y ago
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I would never describe someone's beliefs as "circumstantial", and I would also never think of being on a committee as something "intrinsic".
- ravi-delia 5y ago
  Ah, now I get it! I was thinking of the committee as the entity, not the people on it. Then the question is "why did the committee make a bad call?" where "the topic in question coincidentally misaligned with the views of the members" is the specific cause and "committees always make bad calls" is the general cause. But looking at it from the perspective of the people makes it clear what you were going for

jollybean 5y ago

There are no two people in the world with the same beliefs - nobody is suggesting that. There is however a very broad movement of people who believe that unequal outcomes are a manifestation of racism and so they act accordingly in their roles in government etc.. Many of these people are in the civil service and so this will influence their view. It would be 'insane' to ignore this movement, it's one of the most powerful social forces in the US right now.

klodolph 5y ago
You're saying it's one of the "most powerful social forces in the US right now"... is there any particular reasoning here? To be honest, it sounds like an extremist take on the nature vs nurture argument which has been playing out for millennia and I don't see a reason to believe that somehow the extreme version nurture side of the argument has become dominant here. If anything, it's easy to remember the pendulum swinging back and forth in the past decades, and the pendulum doesn't seem to swing that far in either direction. > Many of these people are in the civil service and so this will influence their view. It influences the political pressures placed on people in the civil service more than anything else. People in the civil service are in the civil service for a long time, typically. Often they are in the civil service for decades. On the other hand, elected officials and political appointees rotate in and out much more quickly. I know people in the civil service, they have a much more long-term and level-headed view of things, and my impression is that they "weather the storm" of changing political pressures. At least, the ones who survive in the job do. Political appointees and elected officials are much more mercurial. Appointees know that their position is (somewhat) an extension of their own political power to begin with.
- tonguez 5y ago
  “I don't see a reason to believe that somehow the extreme version nurture side of the argument has become dominant here” watch “the news” or go on twitter
  - klodolph 5y ago
    Twitter's algorithm promotes whatever tweet will make people angry, because angry people spend more time on Twitter. I'm on Twitter, but I've been on Twitter for a while now, I've selected who I follow, and my feed just doesn't get that kind of noise in it at any significant level. Most of what I see on Twitter is people arguing about Elden Ring or showing off how they can access YouTube from a Mac SE or something. "The news" is dominated by organizations which are trying to maximize their social media engagement metrics so they can get more money from advertisers, so they're subject to the same forces that drive Twitter. Neither of these sources reliably give you a picture of national affairs. Right now the best I can do is get a picture of local affairs by talking with people that I happen to encounter because I live near them.

rayiner 5y ago

It sounds like you and OP differ only in that he thinks the people on the committee have these beliefs, while you’re implying that they’re afraid of “political pressure” from people who hold these beliefs. Which I suspect is correct.

klodolph 5y ago
I was thinking less that they are "afraid" of political pressure, and more that responding to political pressure is one of the things that these committees do, by design. Political pressure is a manifestation of the population's problems / beliefs / perceptions. It's wrong to bow completely to political pressure, but it's also wrong to ignore it.
- michaelt 5y ago
  I agree with you somewhat, but I think there's an important distinction to be made. If a political decision-making process concludes "men account for more road traffic deaths than women, but we've decided that gender can't be taken into account when pricing car insurance" that's fine; the facts have remained the facts, and a political decision has been made by a political process. But if the same process concludes "men and women cause the same number of road traffic deaths" the process has gone off the rails despite the fact the outcome is the same because in one situation the facts have been acknowledged and the decision to act contrary to them made knowingly; while in the second situation that isn't the case.
  - leaflets2 5y ago
    Or if they sabotage the education for the women: give them a shorter drivers license education so they'll crash as much as the men

namelessoracle 5y ago

If you talk to these people though. They DO have bad beliefs. Let's not even talk about politics. Their goal is to get a kid a degree,(especially in groups that dont normally get degrees) and many of them believe just having the degree to get past the job resume hurdles is good and helping people. They ignore the fact that the degree is supposed to be a proof of "This person has X skillsets at minimum". It no longer is. There is basically no job in the United States that cares if you have a high school diploma or GED other than government jobs. They are repeating this process with College right now. The College Diploma is now the new High School Diploma, and pretty soon jobs are gonna want Masters or Doctorates for entry level. This is a bad belief, they don't (or won't) understand that they are ruining and devaluing a thing by their actions and beliefs.

zozbot234 5y ago
You can't get a college degree without passing the College Algebra weedout course (let alone Calculus, which is required for the bulk of STEM courses), and you can only realistically pass College Algebra by getting a lot of rigorous math in K-12. Lowering the bar is doing every student a disservice, and the most vulnerable students will be the hardest hit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- namelessoracle 5y ago
  You'd think that but there are work arounds. Yes pretty much every college requires "college algebra". But some schools have "college algebra for stem majors" vs "college algebra for non stem majors". Guess which one is easier, has lots of bonus credit and extra curricular stuff to earn extra credit. (You attended the college showing of "vagely related math movie?! Here's 10 points on your final!") And also grades on a curve. Also you only need 69.5 (and sometimes just a D!) to graduate. There's also other cheats/hacks. Like lots of state schools will let you transfer from a community college with credit for your "core courses", and some of those have questionable standards. There's also the fact that college algebra usually has some kind of test out or online option. There was a whole sub industry of "pay you to take the online test for me" at colleges for stuff like college algebra. Some of those courses did have some kind "you have to take 1 test in person so we know its you" rule. But they didnt check super heavily that you were actually that person other than a cursory examination of your drivers license name matched who was supposed to take the test. (and oh boy let me tell you about how covid and masks interacted with all of that) Dont get me started on the "Statistics for Sociology" that was different than actual "Statistics" (but fulfilled the Stats requirement for the degree) This is also ignoring that taking College Algebra to begin with IN COLLEGE. Was a major sign you were not a Stem Major. Stem Majors took that in high school and were taking at minimum precalculus. (and even that was viewed as the slow lane, you should be talking Calc 1 as a red blooded STEM freshman)

smugma 5y ago

While I agree that the proposals are bad, I don't blame "committees full of government employees". One of the lead proponents/authors is distinguished Stanford Professor Jo Boaler. It's interesting that a lot of the arguments made in favor of the changes are done in the name of equity, but Boaler herself has been put on the wrong side of racial equity, threatening to call the cops on a Black Berkeley CS professor. This article [0] is gossipy, but it's both interesting and relevant how "Nice White People" can hurt the minority groups they are supposedly trying to help. Hurt by taking away opportunities to take calculus, and hurt by threatening legal action against one of the few minority CS professors at a leading research institution. [0]: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Stanford-professor-Karen-speaks-out-17064784.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Stanford-professor-Ka...

fn-mote 5y ago
> One of the lead proponents/authors is distinguished Stanford Professor Jo Boaler.. I have an issue with the parent's gossipy put-down of Professor Boaler. I think it's important to emphasize that genuine intellectuals who have put serious thought into this proposal support it. I would prefer more serious engagement with it, even if on HN the majority disagree.
rayiner 5y ago
It's mind boggling to me that this Twitter fight gone wrong is a bigger deal to people than the lack of scientific rigor in Boaler's work.
- ummonk 5y ago
  No, the point is that the fight undermines Boaler’s use of the racism / equity card which she uses in response to critics of her work.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Oh, I missed the context: https://stanfordreview.org/boaler-professor/ https://stanfordreview.org/boaler-professor/. I didn’t realize Boaler had a history of doing that (though I guess I’m not surprised). Prof. Nelson sounds like a champion.

zozbot234 5y ago

> The current school system makes decisions in middle school (8th grade and earlier) which determine whether or not each particular student will be able to take calculus in high school. This is, simply put, insane. It's not clear that this is the case. The "current approach" is to offer Algebra I in middle school, which ought to leave plenty of time for students who want to shape up in math and be prepared for HS calculus to do so. Push advanced math later in the curriculum, and you just expose the students to even higher-stakes dilemmas. Lowering standards is no solution, since you'll just end up with lower education quality for all students, that will make it even harder for them to catch up to reasonable levels. This is the broad background of OP's letter.

7speter 5y ago

I don’t necessarily agree with the proposal in california, but do all students need to take calculus in high school? What about solid coverage of algebra 2 and pre calc before higher education. Community college is a great place to take a calc class (or even a pre calc class) affordably. Source: took pre calc, calc and stat in community college after being signalled to that I was terrible at math throughout high school.

andrewprock 5y ago
No one is suggesting that all students take calculus in high school. What is being recommend is that no one take calculus in high school. Both of these ideas are bad, but only one of them informs the California Math Framework.
- AlchemistCamp 5y ago
  > No one is suggesting that all students take calculus in high school. It’s very commonly taught in 10th grade in France, Germany, Singapore and Taiwan (where I used to teach). It’s not universal by any means but as far as I can tell, the idea that calculus should be delayed until university is a nearly uniquely American idea. https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/calculus-around-the-world?format=amp https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/calculus-around-the-wo...
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    "Very commonly" in STEM-focused prep schools (i.e. the "academic" part of the tracked education system that's common outside the US). Which leaves you with very roughly the same percentages as the U.S. approach where Calculus is an elective course.
    - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
      > roughly the same percentages as the U.S. approach where Calculus is an elective course I can’t speak with certainty about other places but this directly contradicts my experience living most of the past 20 years in Taiwan (and speaking with friends who taught mathematics in the public school system). Many, many people not on a STEM track learn calculus in high school.

ryukoposting 5y ago

I like your argument. It's basically Hanlon's razor.

CivBase 5y ago

> These proposals come from committees and groups of people, and it's just not realistic to write off the entire group of people behind these proposals as having some uniform set of beliefs like that, especially when they give other rationales for the proposals! You don't have to write off entire groups of people - just the few at the top. They got there by sucking up to those who were already at the top. Everyone else just has to keep quiet if they want to keep their job. Worse, they're expected to express visible support for their "superiors" and their ideas if they want to keep their jobs.

pyuser583 5y ago

I suggest reading: https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/ https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/ It’s an account of how a very diverse group of scholars advising the United Nations ignored research contradicted their ideological views. One of the scholars even admitted in private some of their recommendations were “wrong.” The group was chosen for its expertise and diversity. I’ve served on school boards. They’re heavily susceptible to group think. Once the culture wars get involved, peoples minds turn off.

zaroth 5y ago
It can also be straight up dangerous to try to express a countervailing opinion.
raxxorraxor 5y ago
That is just an overall terrible outlook for the UN, how can this be the common denominator for nations? It seems that it becomes the personal outlet for some people.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Not really specific to the UN. These sorts of international NGOs all have the same problems. The WHO is worse. The whole idea of global governance is really only attractive to one particular type of person, and they aren't accountable to anything really, so of course you end up with this sort of groupthink.