The problem with admitting the top 10% of students to the university

[Loren Pechtel]

Man, LP is pretty smart, being able to draw a bell curve using a single data point!

We have the midpoint of the curve. It's not hard to see roughly where the sides will be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Student performance is going to be pretty much a bell curve. If the middle of the curve is that low, the top 10% is also pretty darn low.

This assumes the top 10% of such a low performing school actually want to go to college. Probably not.

You're probably right. However, I was posting this as a refutation of previous posts who have defended the 10% policy. Admittedly, it's an extreme case but it makes it pretty clear that top 10% doesn't mean college-worthy.

 

[Trausti]

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/proje...-41-of-high-school-students-earn-below-10-gpa

And I don't think this is a case of a bad school, but rather schools with a population of students who don't care about learning.

Why do you think that students don’t care about learning?

One of the key characteristics of children is that they are hungry to learn. What makes these students different?

Ah, our contemporary noble lie. Wouldn’t it be beautiful if this were true? But the truth is that the predominant factor between “good” schools and “bad” ones are the students who go there. Teachers don’t teach; students learn. And students who want to learn can do so without their teachers.

 

[laughing dog]

Student performance is going to be pretty much a bell curve. If the middle of the curve is that low, the top 10% is also pretty darn low.

This assumes the top 10% of such a low performing school actually want to go to college. Probably not.

You're probably right.

Since your OP is about a outcomes in an academic year for a school system not an individual school, why would the top 10% of students in the Baltimore public school system probably not want to go to college?

 

[Trausti]

You're probably right.

Since your OP is about a outcomes in an academic year for a school system not an individual school, why would the top 10% of students in the Baltimore public school system probably not want to go to college?

Eh, one could imagine tiger moms sending their kids to the least dangerous of the schools in the district to get around the anti-Asian prejudice in university admissions.

 

[laughing dog]

You're probably right.

Since your OP is about a outcomes in an academic year for a school system not an individual school, why would the top 10% of students in the Baltimore public school system probably not want to go to college?

Eh, one could imagine tiger moms sending their kids to the least dangerous of the schools in the district to get around the anti-Asian prejudice in university admissions.

Have you ever heard of the dictum that when you find yourself in a hole to stop digging?

 

[Toni]

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/proje...-41-of-high-school-students-earn-below-10-gpa

And I don't think this is a case of a bad school, but rather schools with a population of students who don't care about learning.

Why do you think that students don’t care about learning?

One of the key characteristics of children is that they are hungry to learn. What makes these students different?

Ah, our contemporary noble lie. Wouldn’t it be beautiful if this were true? But the truth is that the predominant factor between “good” schools and “bad” ones are the students who go there. Teachers don’t teach; students learn. And students who want to learn can do so without their teachers.

What an ignoble bunch of bullshit that is.

Studies have shown that when teachers are told that the students in their class are especially bright, the students indeed perform better, regardless of their achievement and apparent potential up to that point. Similarly, when teachers are told that the students in their class are below average--student achievement somehow manages to be below average.

I'm 100% certain that given enough time, you would have learned to use a toilet and a spoon properly but I'm also 100% certain that you learned these skills more quickly and efficiently because someone helped you learn. The same with algebra (if you are indeed able to perform algebra), physics, chemistry, etc. It is postulated that given an infinite amount of time, a room full of chimpanzees would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare and so I am certain you would have learned to read on your own but you probably shaved a few years off the learning curve with the help of teachers.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, our contemporary noble lie. Wouldn’t it be beautiful if this were true? But the truth is that the predominant factor between “good” schools and “bad” ones are the students who go there. Teachers don’t teach; students learn. And students who want to learn can do so without their teachers.

What an ignoble bunch of bullshit that is.

Studies have shown that when teachers are told that the students in their class are especially bright, the students indeed perform better, regardless of their achievement and apparent potential up to that point. Similarly, when teachers are told that the students in their class are below average--student achievement somehow manages to be below average.

I'm 100% certain that given enough time, you would have learned to use a toilet and a spoon properly but I'm also 100% certain that you learned these skills more quickly and efficiently because someone helped you learn. The same with algebra (if you are indeed able to perform algebra), physics, chemistry, etc. It is postulated that given an infinite amount of time, a room full of chimpanzees would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare and so I am certain you would have learned to read on your own but you probably shaved a few years off the learning curve with the help of teachers.

Having had the vibrant experience of attending inner city schools, I can say with great confidence that many students there did not give a shit for learning. Don’t blame the teachers; many tried desperately to get the kids to care. Ain’t happening.

 

[Trausti]

Eh, one could imagine tiger moms sending their kids to the least dangerous of the schools in the district to get around the anti-Asian prejudice in university admissions.

Have you ever heard of the dictum that when you find yourself in a hole to stop digging?

The tiger moms certainly teach their kids this. A bit better than blaming others but yourself for failure.

 

[barbos]

Studies have shown that when teachers are told that the students in their class are especially bright, the students indeed perform better, regardless of their achievement and apparent potential up to that point.

Yeah, but how large is effect? Studies have shown it's 25%. The rest is genetic.
I am all for telling students they are great, but don't expect miracles.

 

[Trausti]

Studies have shown that when teachers are told that the students in their class are especially bright, the students indeed perform better, regardless of their achievement and apparent potential up to that point.

Yeah, but how large is effect? Studies have shown it's 25%. The rest is genetic.
I am all for telling students they are great, but don't expect miracles.

Academic achievement is highly heritable. But the blank slate is the fiction many would prefer to believe.

 

[Politesse]

Studies have shown that when teachers are told that the students in their class are especially bright, the students indeed perform better, regardless of their achievement and apparent potential up to that point.

Yeah, but how large is effect? Studies have shown it's 25%. The rest is genetic.
I am all for telling students they are great, but don't expect miracles.

Wow, even more vaguely defined numbers without sources. Y'all are really setting the bar high for academic rigor, we should absolutely run the university system based on your opinions!

 

[barbos]

Studies have shown that when teachers are told that the students in their class are especially bright, the students indeed perform better, regardless of their achievement and apparent potential up to that point.

Yeah, but how large is effect? Studies have shown it's 25%. The rest is genetic.
I am all for telling students they are great, but don't expect miracles.

Wow, even more vaguely defined numbers without sources. Y'all are really setting the bar high for academic rigor, we should absolutely run the university system based on your opinions!

Sources have been provided here a million times already.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow, even more vaguely defined numbers without sources. Y'all are really setting the bar high for academic rigor, we should absolutely run the university system based on your opinions!

Sources have been provided here a million times already.

Barbos, a 25% impact, originating from some event, doesn't imply a thing about events which generate other effects.

The fact that a single teacher can shift performance this dramatically (And 25% is dramatic!) Does not imply all other shifts are genetic. It just means that, in the course of a single school year, a belief that one is capable has a large (25%!) impact on grades. That is already a miracle.

By your own numbers.

 

[barbos]

Wow, even more vaguely defined numbers without sources. Y'all are really setting the bar high for academic rigor, we should absolutely run the university system based on your opinions!

Sources have been provided here a million times already.

Barbos, a 25% impact, originating from some event, doesn't imply a thing about events which generate other effects.

The fact that a single teacher can shift performance this dramatically (And 25% is dramatic!) Does not imply all other shifts are genetic. It just means that, in the course of a single school year, a belief that one is capable has a large (25%!) impact on grades. That is already a miracle.

By your own numbers.

25% is not dramatic and teachers can't even have that. 25% of variation is environmental which includes more parenting than teachering.
And 75% is genetic. Parenting/teachering is really overrated.

25% of standard deviation is what separates good teachers/parents/environment from bad teachers/parents/environment.

 

[untermensche]

Genetics is nothing but potential.

It takes experience to bring out that potential.

And to maximize potential exposure to modes of thinking must begin early.

By first grade many have not maximized their potential due to a lack of exposure to thoughts and ideas at home.

Or due to a stressful home environment.

 

[Jarhyn]

Barbos, a 25% impact, originating from some event, doesn't imply a thing about events which generate other effects.

The fact that a single teacher can shift performance this dramatically (And 25% is dramatic!) Does not imply all other shifts are genetic. It just means that, in the course of a single school year, a belief that one is capable has a large (25%!) impact on grades. That is already a miracle.

By your own numbers.

25% is not dramatic and teachers can't even have that. 25% of variation is environmental which includes more parenting than teachering.
And 75% is genetic. Parenting/teachering is really overrated.

25% of standard deviation is what separates good teachers/parents/environment from bad teachers/parents/environment.

At this point with politesse, I want to see what studies you base this on specifically. Because I remember very similar things "being studied before" back in 2000, and the source material for that education was from the 80's, and psychology goes bad after 10 years or so.

We need to check the use-before date.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Man, LP is pretty smart, being able to draw a bell curve using a single data point!

We have the midpoint of the curve. It's not hard to see roughly where the sides will be.

Yup, one point curve extrapolation is a piece of cake.

 

[laughing dog]

Eh, one could imagine tiger moms sending their kids to the least dangerous of the schools in the district to get around the anti-Asian prejudice in university admissions.

Have you ever heard of the dictum that when you find yourself in a hole to stop digging?

The tiger moms certainly teach their kids this. A bit better than blaming others but yourself for failure.

You are wearing out that shovel and you haven’t gotten anywhere.

 

[Trausti]

The tiger moms certainly teach their kids this. A bit better than blaming others but yourself for failure.

You are wearing out that shovel and you haven’t gotten anywhere.

Eh, that one’s not as good as the original.