Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

SHould schools be based on IQ levels?

porcupinesRcool
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:34:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am not really sure what to think of this topic but it matters which way you make me decide to go!! Have fun with it!
PORCUPINESrCOOL
unheard
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 5:07:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should not be based on IQ! Firstly I will start by saying I'm actually 14.
I'm always at the high IQ level, always getting distinctions. My best friend is the complete opposite, she got kept down one year, shes a year older. All my friends are far bellow me. If I wasn't in their class they would fail. I help them a lot. All through my schooling I've been classed as a teacher. I think on the other side and I have different ways of explaining things. Mainly because I understand everyone learns differently. Me personally I'm a book learner, I don't need people to teach me. Any way I'm just trying to say with out a mixed IQ level people will stay at low rates. Smart people help not so smart and not so smart can always help smart. You need a mixed IQ level to learn.
Unheard...Getting my view heard
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 11:26:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 5:07:41 AM, unheard wrote:
It should not be based on IQ! Firstly I will start by saying I'm actually 14.
I'm always at the high IQ level, always getting distinctions. My best friend is the complete opposite, she got kept down one year, shes a year older. All my friends are far bellow me. If I wasn't in their class they would fail. I help them a lot. All through my schooling I've been classed as a teacher. I think on the other side and I have different ways of explaining things. Mainly because I understand everyone learns differently. Me personally I'm a book learner, I don't need people to teach me. Any way I'm just trying to say with out a mixed IQ level people will stay at low rates. Smart people help not so smart and not so smart can always help smart. You need a mixed IQ level to learn.

*Almost* this. Having a mix of different abilities can help people learn. This can be seen in Japanese schools, where the children who are ahead help those that are behind, and in that way everyone learns. However, IQ can, at best, only predict ability, and even then it's still very generalized. Take the example of someone with a lower IQ who is outstanding at art. Should he be held back in artistic classes because of his IQ? No, because that wouldn't make any sense. He's great at art. Keep him in the same class, or if he's really fantastic, put him in the next more advanced class. Only extreme variations in ability should merit changes in class placement.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 3:30:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:34:18 PM, porcupinesRcool wrote:
I am not really sure what to think of this topic but it matters which way you make me decide to go!! Have fun with it!

No because it is impossible to measure one's IQ. An IQ test cannot truly measure one's Intelligence Quota, it only tests one's ability to take IQ tests. If you test high, you have a high IQ, but if you test low, you might still have a higher IQ than what is actually being tested. An IQ test simply proves that you are at-least as intelligent as tested, but that does not mean that is how intelligent you actually are.

Education should be based on ability, where the teaching style is suited to the student's learning orientation. Those with a greater latent potential should also be challenged more.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:30:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

That's segregation based on work ethic not intelligence. Intelligence is a measure of how much (or how little) you have to work to achieve the same results as someone else. But ultimately the only true variable in placement from high school to real life is work input.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

That's segregation based on work ethic not intelligence. Intelligence is a measure of how much (or how little) you have to work to achieve the same results as someone else. But ultimately the only true variable in placement from high school to real life is work input.

That's a good point. I think intelligence is certainly a factor too though. For example, a lazy but very intelligent person knows they can pass AP classes with not much effort so they might do it. But yeah, work ethic is probably the bigger thing
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
NationalForensicsLeague
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 8:38:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No. IQ does not necessarily mean one is smart or unintelligent. There are magnet schools/programs that separate students.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 1:49:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2013 3:30:21 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:34:18 PM, porcupinesRcool wrote:
I am not really sure what to think of this topic but it matters which way you make me decide to go!! Have fun with it!

No because it is impossible to measure one's IQ. An IQ test cannot truly measure one's Intelligence Quota, it only tests one's ability to take IQ tests. If you test high, you have a high IQ, but if you test low, you might still have a higher IQ than what is actually being tested. An IQ test simply proves that you are at-least as intelligent as tested, but that does not mean that is how intelligent you actually are.

IQ is the ability to score well on IQ tests. People who study such things do not claim that it is any more than that. The reason the measure is useful is that it has a great deal of predictive ability. It was invented to select Army pilots in WW I, and was advanced in the 1930s to select college students. A guy at Harvard promoted the use as a way to find students with ability who hadn't had the benefit of attending expensive private schools. The SAT was an IQ test until 1992, when the test was changed to include measures of achievement rather than focusing on ability. The pre-1992 SAT was intended to have (math score + verbal score)/10 = IQ. They didn't quite make that happen, but there are conversion tables.

Schools in Japan and Taiwan, for example, use mixed class with the understanding that the students who are ahead will help those who are lagging. It works for them. I think sorting by IQ would be better for the US. I think it would keep the brighter students challenged and interested. The US is lagging so far behind in STEM education that something ought to be done to improve that situation, and sorting should help.
Racola
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 3:16:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
intelligent quotient or IQ testing is only one way of quantifying 'intelligence' it should not be assumed that an IQ is static or even a fair way to measure intelligence. I prefer Howard Gardeners theories of multiple intelligence.

Our education systems place emphasis on academic achievement, yet throughout history and in modern culture the most highly acclaimed individuals are sports persons with 'physical intelligence', artists and musicians.
Sagey
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 1:43:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with some of Roy Latham's statement.
IQ only really tests the ability to do IQ tests.
Actually IQ tests a genetically derived capability to perform the tasks that IQ tests check for, which is to be able to resolve complex puzzles.
This does not mean the high IQ child will become intelligent, in fact, history has demonstrated that very high IQ individuals make extremely stupid mistakes.
Having a potential for something is different to being able to apply such talent properly.
Even education will fail if the high IQ student doesn't reason rationally, nor can be bothered to learn. I had a high IQ friend who dropped out of education, to basically work driving trucks, because he found education boring and simply wanted an easy living.
Education is an individual thing and it should be concentrated on those that have the drive to learn, regardless of their IQ.
Confucius had the right idea, give everybody in a society equal access to education and those that really decide that they want it can thrive on it, while others like my IQ of 140 friend can also choose to not be educated.
Sagey
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 2:00:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
IQ testing can be carried out at a younger age than other intelligent tests, as the basics are designed for monkeys, so a child can perform many of the simpler IQ test tasks.
IQ appears to be genetic so a person may not improve by any more that 2 or 3 points, regardless of how hard they train themselves.
A better test for useful intelligence is RQ (Rational Quotient) testing, though this is what good education institutions are trying to improve. So a high RQ usually results from a good education of a very willing student.
Industries in many countries, such as Australia, and possibly the US are devising RQ testing to screen applicants for jobs. Because it has been demonstrated through OH&S studies that having high RQ workers helps reduce workplace risks and accidents.
As well as improves workplace efficiency.
Though RQ levels can not be tested until the child reaches an age of 7 or 8, then it can be determined how rational their perception of events and situations are.
The good thing about RQ is it can be improved by the willing individual.
One person who is regarded by many as being Extremely Intelligent is Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, to has his own science broadcast sessions that span the globe.
Yet, as Karl freely admits, he only has an IQ of 110, which is pretty much only average.
The reason he is so Very Intelligent is that he constantly seeks to be educated and thus improved his own RQ to well above average.
He is just one of the most Rational people on radio today.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:35:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:34:18 PM, porcupinesRcool wrote:
I am not really sure what to think of this topic but it matters which way you make me decide to go!! Have fun with it!

There is an interesting pattern among those who wish to segregate academics on the basis of IQ, the basis of what is abstractly referred to as "academic ability" and the like. The pattern is this: those who wish for academic segregation firstly believe themselves to be particularly brilliant, and view others as conspicuously not brilliant. Secondly, those who think themselves bright and clever as such only wish for that segregation because they think they are, because of something they perceive to be innate about themselves, quite entitled to better education than those "other" lot who are less than brilliant. Thirdly, those who think themselves to be particularly brilliant as described above, are often more stupid, less intelligent and entirely less motivated to excel academically at all because excelling academically in a truly rigorous program requires an inordinate amount of effort that properly should overwhelm all but the most brilliant and motivated.

Don't even get me started about parents...

That is, at least, what I have noticed from my time spent as both a student and as a teacher...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:46:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

In my not so humble opinion... AP classes are too easy, and should be the minimum standard for all high school classes. I'm also of the radical belief that standardized testing other than the SAT and ACT is stupid, serves no practical purpose and that it should be wholly done away with. I'm furthermore of the radical belief that if AP classes are too hard for any student, than that student ought to be in trade school. I'm additionally of the radical belief that America needs more trade/skilled labor schools. I'm likewise of the radical belief that textbook companies are one of the central reasons why American education is as fvcked as it is.
Tsar of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:53:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The RQ concept is interesting. I searched the web, and apparently no RQ test currently exists. Some received a $1 million grant this year to develop one, and there are other efforts ongoing, but nothing seems to exist. The idea is that rational thinking is often foiled by various blocks to recognizing the logical outcome, so high IQ people often make bad investment decisions and the like. It will be interesting to see how the theory pans out.

IQ scores are good predictors of success (as measured various ways) for IQ's up to about 130. IQ's above 130 yield no greater chances of success, on average. It seems Isaac Newton was a genuine super genius, but Einstein had an IQ only in the 140's -- not remarkable compared to his brilliant contributions to science. So clearly something other than IQ is going on. Maybe that's RQ.

The theory of multiple intelligence doesn't seem to add much in practice. The old-fashioned math and verbal skills seem to be much more important that the others. There are so few jobs for musicians, athletes and such that assessing those skills doesn't seem too important. The few with high aptitudes in those areas can be identified by other means.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:58:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:53:30 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The RQ concept is interesting. I searched the web, and apparently no RQ test currently exists. Some received a $1 million grant this year to develop one, and there are other efforts ongoing, but nothing seems to exist. The idea is that rational thinking is often foiled by various blocks to recognizing the logical outcome, so high IQ people often make bad investment decisions and the like. It will be interesting to see how the theory pans out.

IQ scores are good predictors of success (as measured various ways) for IQ's up to about 130. IQ's above 130 yield no greater chances of success, on average. It seems Isaac Newton was a genuine super genius, but Einstein had an IQ only in the 140's -- not remarkable compared to his brilliant contributions to science. So clearly something other than IQ is going on. Maybe that's RQ.

The theory of multiple intelligence doesn't seem to add much in practice. The old-fashioned math and verbal skills seem to be much more important that the others. There are so few jobs for musicians, athletes and such that assessing those skills doesn't seem too important. The few with high aptitudes in those areas can be identified by other means.

Multiple intelligence theories get academic credence more for political reasons than because of their own merit...
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 9:46:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

In my not so humble opinion... AP classes are too easy, and should be the minimum standard for all high school classes. I'm also of the radical belief that standardized testing other than the SAT and ACT is stupid, serves no practical purpose and that it should be wholly done away with. I'm furthermore of the radical belief that if AP classes are too hard for any student, than that student ought to be in trade school. I'm additionally of the radical belief that America needs more trade/skilled labor schools. I'm likewise of the radical belief that textbook companies are one of the central reasons why American education is as fvcked as it is.

I don't think those are very radical beliefs. I guess it would be now with the self esteem police insisting every child is an Einstein. When I was studying for AP tests last year, I would do old practice problems and it was quite clear that the standards of difficulty have declined drastically as more and more people take AP classes
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Sagey
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 4:28:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
True, there is no standardized RQ tests, though industries are deriving their own on what their particular needs are, when it comes to making rational decisions and considerations within their industry, or tailor made specialized RQ tests.

As far as a global standard, I don't think it will happen in the foreseeable future.
I know of many High IQ individuals who are in menial positions and jobs, my best friend has a measured IQ of 140 and works as a welder repairman, though he is brilliant when it comes to understanding complex circuitry and we worked together on small electronics projects. My future son-in-law has a measured IQ of 160 and works as a warehouse clerk.
He too is brilliant at playing perception games, where he is just starting to challenge my daughter (as she judges men on their intelligence, if they cannot challenge her intellectually, she doesn't want to know them), she also has a very high, though unmeasured, intelligence with a scientific and a medical degree (both with honors) under her belt.
My own IQ was measured at 150 when I was 14, though I've probably lowered it by 50 points from severe abuse and neglect. LOL :-D~
So, there are an awful lot of very high IQ individuals who simply lack the drive to learn.
RQ would indicate a natural affinity to learn, because it is a performance measure, rather than IQ which is a measure of genetic potential to grapple complexities, but without a drive to achieve (which I never had during my youth) a high IQ won't amount to much.
It's the old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink".
You may present a high IQ student with information, but you cannot make them learn.
An RQ would be a measure on how determined, driven a student is to learning.
When I was teaching and coaching, I had the same problem, the most naturally talented children were very frustrating to teach, because many plateaued at a high level, due to natural ability, but, they refused to strive to improve.
They were often passed by those of lesser natural ability, but with a natural drive for improvement or what I call natural competitiveness. They are usually the ones who reach the top.
If we occasionally find a gifted student with natural competitiveness, it's a winner.
IQ is the gift, RQ is the willingness/drive to learn or competitiveness.
IQ will be wasted if they have no drive. As in the case of Moi!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 4:58:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 9:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

In my not so humble opinion... AP classes are too easy, and should be the minimum standard for all high school classes. I'm also of the radical belief that standardized testing other than the SAT and ACT is stupid, serves no practical purpose and that it should be wholly done away with. I'm furthermore of the radical belief that if AP classes are too hard for any student, than that student ought to be in trade school. I'm additionally of the radical belief that America needs more trade/skilled labor schools. I'm likewise of the radical belief that textbook companies are one of the central reasons why American education is as fvcked as it is.

I don't think those are very radical beliefs. I guess it would be now with the self esteem police insisting every child is an Einstein.

I find this an especially annoying talking point because it's not a meaningful complaint. What would rather kids be told: "you're probably not going to accomplish much in life, so don't bother"? Like I said - work ethic, not intelligence is the only true variable in scholastic success. Therefore the function of those encouraging statements is to boost work ethic - you're more likely to work hard if a lot is expected of you (and you're made aware of that).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 5:29:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 4:58:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2013 9:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

In my not so humble opinion... AP classes are too easy, and should be the minimum standard for all high school classes. I'm also of the radical belief that standardized testing other than the SAT and ACT is stupid, serves no practical purpose and that it should be wholly done away with. I'm furthermore of the radical belief that if AP classes are too hard for any student, than that student ought to be in trade school. I'm additionally of the radical belief that America needs more trade/skilled labor schools. I'm likewise of the radical belief that textbook companies are one of the central reasons why American education is as fvcked as it is.

I don't think those are very radical beliefs. I guess it would be now with the self esteem police insisting every child is an Einstein.

I find this an especially annoying talking point because it's not a meaningful complaint. What would rather kids be told: "you're probably not going to accomplish much in life, so don't bother"? Like I said - work ethic, not intelligence is the only true variable in scholastic success. Therefore the function of those encouraging statements is to boost work ethic - you're more likely to work hard if a lot is expected of you (and you're made aware of that).

No, but telling them right off the bat that they're special, important, intelligent, and talented even when they aren't is not the right way either. When everyone gets a participation award and is told that they're the best it ruins the motivation to compete and creates entitled, spoiled brats. It's all about balance, telling kids they're worthless isn't the right way to go but convincing them that the world revolves around them is not the right way to go either.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 6:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 5:29:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 4:58:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2013 9:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

In my not so humble opinion... AP classes are too easy, and should be the minimum standard for all high school classes. I'm also of the radical belief that standardized testing other than the SAT and ACT is stupid, serves no practical purpose and that it should be wholly done away with. I'm furthermore of the radical belief that if AP classes are too hard for any student, than that student ought to be in trade school. I'm additionally of the radical belief that America needs more trade/skilled labor schools. I'm likewise of the radical belief that textbook companies are one of the central reasons why American education is as fvcked as it is.

I don't think those are very radical beliefs. I guess it would be now with the self esteem police insisting every child is an Einstein.

I find this an especially annoying talking point because it's not a meaningful complaint. What would rather kids be told: "you're probably not going to accomplish much in life, so don't bother"? Like I said - work ethic, not intelligence is the only true variable in scholastic success. Therefore the function of those encouraging statements is to boost work ethic - you're more likely to work hard if a lot is expected of you (and you're made aware of that).

No, but telling them right off the bat that they're special, important, intelligent, and talented even when they aren't is not the right way either. When everyone gets a participation award and is told that they're the best it ruins the motivation to compete and creates entitled, spoiled brats. It's all about balance, telling kids they're worthless isn't the right way to go but convincing them that the world revolves around them is not the right way to go either.

What do participation cards have to do with anything? Kids understand that everyone who participates gets one, and that sort of demonstrates the significance of their work to them. No one feels accomplished by getting a participation certificate. So that shouldn't bother you.

Furthermore, spoiled brats are spoiled brats - they don't become that way because of encouraging words and high expectations from the schools. If anything, your blame should lie squarely on parents and nothing else. Schools have nothing to do with the development of that kind of entitled psychology.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 6:55:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 6:08:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2013 5:29:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 4:58:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2013 9:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

In my not so humble opinion... AP classes are too easy, and should be the minimum standard for all high school classes. I'm also of the radical belief that standardized testing other than the SAT and ACT is stupid, serves no practical purpose and that it should be wholly done away with. I'm furthermore of the radical belief that if AP classes are too hard for any student, than that student ought to be in trade school. I'm additionally of the radical belief that America needs more trade/skilled labor schools. I'm likewise of the radical belief that textbook companies are one of the central reasons why American education is as fvcked as it is.

I don't think those are very radical beliefs. I guess it would be now with the self esteem police insisting every child is an Einstein.

I find this an especially annoying talking point because it's not a meaningful complaint. What would rather kids be told: "you're probably not going to accomplish much in life, so don't bother"? Like I said - work ethic, not intelligence is the only true variable in scholastic success. Therefore the function of those encouraging statements is to boost work ethic - you're more likely to work hard if a lot is expected of you (and you're made aware of that).

No, but telling them right off the bat that they're special, important, intelligent, and talented even when they aren't is not the right way either. When everyone gets a participation award and is told that they're the best it ruins the motivation to compete and creates entitled, spoiled brats. It's all about balance, telling kids they're worthless isn't the right way to go but convincing them that the world revolves around them is not the right way to go either.

What do participation cards have to do with anything? Kids understand that everyone who participates gets one, and that sort of demonstrates the significance of their work to them. No one feels accomplished by getting a participation certificate. So that shouldn't bother you.

And that would be fine if it wasn't accompanied by phrases like "we're all winners" and cheapening the win for the kids who accomplish something. It's the fear of accidentally hurting a child's feelings and the discouragement of competition. Maybe it wasn't like this where you lived, but that was certainly my experience with a lot of people interacting with younger kids. Like I said, it's a matter of balance because we don't want to make winning everything--but we don't want to make it unimportant either.


Furthermore, spoiled brats are spoiled brats - they don't become that way because of encouraging words and high expectations from the schools. If anything, your blame should lie squarely on parents and nothing else. Schools have nothing to do with the development of that kind of entitled psychology.

Parents definitely get the majority of the blame, no question. But it's the whole culture that facilitates this, if we're all winners none of us are. There's a difference between encouragement and telling a child that no matter how bad they perform they're still a winner and doing it right. I think it does them a HUGE disservice.

Also merry Christmas! :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 7:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rather than explicitly segregating students based on IQ, I think schools should teach classes at varying levels of difficulty to accommodate for the wide range of academic ability that exists in students (as well as their willingness to actualize it). Classes should remain open to any student who wishes to enroll as to avoid arbitrary barriers. This way, only that which is demonstrably relevant to academic performance i.e., academic output, would be isolated as a predictor.
cs2
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes. Instruction should be homogeneous. When you have a wide variety of student intelligence, those at the bottom get left behind, and those at the top are bored to tears, wasting their time. As a result, both tend to act out more than if they were fully engaged.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 9:15:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 6:55:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 6:08:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2013 5:29:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 4:58:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2013 9:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think it's worth noting that there already is de facto segregation within schools based on intelligence. At my school if you were an AP kid, you basically didn't interact with anyone who wasn't in AP unless you were in an activity with them. Not because we were stuck up jerks, but because there simply no opportunity to interact with each other

In my not so humble opinion... AP classes are too easy, and should be the minimum standard for all high school classes. I'm also of the radical belief that standardized testing other than the SAT and ACT is stupid, serves no practical purpose and that it should be wholly done away with. I'm furthermore of the radical belief that if AP classes are too hard for any student, than that student ought to be in trade school. I'm additionally of the radical belief that America needs more trade/skilled labor schools. I'm likewise of the radical belief that textbook companies are one of the central reasons why American education is as fvcked as it is.

I don't think those are very radical beliefs. I guess it would be now with the self esteem police insisting every child is an Einstein.

I find this an especially annoying talking point because it's not a meaningful complaint. What would rather kids be told: "you're probably not going to accomplish much in life, so don't bother"? Like I said - work ethic, not intelligence is the only true variable in scholastic success. Therefore the function of those encouraging statements is to boost work ethic - you're more likely to work hard if a lot is expected of you (and you're made aware of that).

No, but telling them right off the bat that they're special, important, intelligent, and talented even when they aren't is not the right way either. When everyone gets a participation award and is told that they're the best it ruins the motivation to compete and creates entitled, spoiled brats. It's all about balance, telling kids they're worthless isn't the right way to go but convincing them that the world revolves around them is not the right way to go either.

What do participation cards have to do with anything? Kids understand that everyone who participates gets one, and that sort of demonstrates the significance of their work to them. No one feels accomplished by getting a participation certificate. So that shouldn't bother you.

And that would be fine if it wasn't accompanied by phrases like "we're all winners" and cheapening the win for the kids who accomplish something.

"Participation trophy" culture is worthless at best, and an affront to genuine accomplishment at worst.

It's the fear of accidentally hurting a child's feelings and the discouragement of competition.

While wanting to avoid hurting the way a child feels about themselves is the main reason for "participation trophy" culture, the problem is that in trying to boost self image and confidence, what has been the result is a generation of lazy, entitled sociopaths who do not know how to function in a world where they are not the subject of constant praise for everything good and bad that they do. From time to time, people fvck up. It's a good thing that people feel bad about themselves when they fvck up, so that they are motivated not to fvck up in the future. It's also indispensable that when people fvck up, they are encouraged to learn from their mistakes. Consequently, when they later redeem themselves or accomplish something worthwhile, that they feel good about themeless. That radical concept (I use that phrase with a degree of tongue-in-cheek condescension) is something we've lost now; and have replaced with sanctioned individual weakness of character, which on a larger scale translates into a weakness of culture.

Maybe it wasn't like this where you lived, but that was certainly my experience with a lot of people interacting with younger kids. Like I said, it's a matter of balance because we don't want to make winning everything--but we don't want to make it unimportant either.

It was, for me, and it disgusted me then as much as it does now.

Furthermore, spoiled brats are spoiled brats - they don't become that way because of encouraging words and high expectations from the schools. If anything, your blame should lie squarely on parents and nothing else. Schools have nothing to do with the development of that kind of entitled psychology.

Parents definitely get the majority of the blame, no question.

No, I don't think so. I think kids are to blame, because they are the generation that exerts the most influence on themselves. In the past, kids worked, they had jobs and responsibilities and were held accountable. Now, kids have "social time" and "twitter" and all that jazz, such that wherever they are, they can socialize with one another. They get together and whine about their parents, about their schools and about their lives... and they wonder why nothing ever improves.

But it's the whole culture that facilitates this, if we're all winners none of us are.

I agree, but let's draw a distinction between adolescent/young adult culture and mature adult culture. They're in the same place, but they're totally different. The former has Miley Cyrus and reality TV. The latter has Tom Hanks and Greys Anatomy.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 9:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 9:15:20 PM, YYW wrote:

While wanting to avoid hurting the way a child feels about themselves is the main reason for "participation trophy" culture, the problem is that in trying to boost self image and confidence, what has been the result is a generation of lazy, entitled sociopaths who do not know how to function in a world where they are not the subject of constant praise for everything good and bad that they do. From time to time, people fvck up. It's a good thing that people feel bad about themselves when they fvck up, so that they are motivated not to fvck up in the future. It's also indispensable that when people fvck up, they are encouraged to learn from their mistakes. Consequently, when they later redeem themselves or accomplish something worthwhile, that they feel good about themeless. That radical concept (I use that phrase with a degree of tongue-in-cheek condescension) is something we've lost now; and have replaced with sanctioned individual weakness of character, which on a larger scale translates into a weakness of culture.

In any competition, the participants know who's excelling with respect to the average - and that success carries inherent value. Participation certificates and comments designed to boost confidence become symbols of mediocrity (and this is always understood by those receiving them). I want to know why you think this culture isn't just meaningless/ineffectual but negative. Have you seen anyone feel accomplished or successful because of it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 10:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 9:51:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/29/2013 9:15:20 PM, YYW wrote:

While wanting to avoid hurting the way a child feels about themselves is the main reason for "participation trophy" culture, the problem is that in trying to boost self image and confidence, what has been the result is a generation of lazy, entitled sociopaths who do not know how to function in a world where they are not the subject of constant praise for everything good and bad that they do. From time to time, people fvck up. It's a good thing that people feel bad about themselves when they fvck up, so that they are motivated not to fvck up in the future. It's also indispensable that when people fvck up, they are encouraged to learn from their mistakes. Consequently, when they later redeem themselves or accomplish something worthwhile, that they feel good about themeless. That radical concept (I use that phrase with a degree of tongue-in-cheek condescension) is something we've lost now; and have replaced with sanctioned individual weakness of character, which on a larger scale translates into a weakness of culture.

In any competition, the participants know who's excelling with respect to the average - and that success carries inherent value. Participation certificates and comments designed to boost confidence become symbols of mediocrity (and this is always understood by those receiving them). I want to know why you think this culture isn't just meaningless/ineffectual but negative. Have you seen anyone feel accomplished or successful because of it?

I think it's because kids know participation trophies are meaningless that it's harmful. I think they understand the difference between meriting a reward and merely being given an award, for precisely the reason you said. And, given that they understand that distinction and that "rewards" are awarded in a way that is not congruent with merit, it is harmful.

But, in response to your point that participation trophies are mediocrity's markers, if people understand that they are worthless and do not boost self confidence or any of that jazz (i.e. facilitate their intended effect) why award them?
Tsar of DDO
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 2:15:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If schools were based on IQ levels, then IQ tests would have to be run on almost 3 billion people...
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite