How California Leads the world in education

I don't understand why people need to complicate a simple idea.

50% of students in a class should make fairly the same grades due to their intelligence.

25% do better than the other 50% due to general differences of intelligence and natural aptitude, ie, they are naturally smarter.

25% do worse than the 50% due again to differences of intelligence, they are less intelligent, or unmotivated.

So even if one is curving the grading just to pass 95% of all students, 25% of students are still less intelligent and behind the other 75%, that number does not change.

This is not to say the bottom 25% can not through study and perseverance become among the top 25% by hard work and dedication. But it is to say they will be in the lower percentile of the top 25% and never reach the levels of the top 1-5% of the top 25% of students, those who have both the higher natural intelligence along with the hard work, dedication and perseverance in their studies.

Inequalities of intelligence are a fact of life, and one can not simply wish them away. Covering up the inequality as if it doesn't exist, does not make it disappear anywhere but on paper.

"

KimchiGirlx3 wrote:

Inequalities of intelligence are a fact of life, and one can not simply wish them away. Covering up the inequality as if it doesn't exist, does not make it disappear anywhere but on paper.

The problem is not those inequalities for a lot of people, it's the social and economical consequences. If you don't adress both, this will happen again.

Hell, in some places people treat you like shit for being intelligent, discouraging people to think. On those places being intelligent doesn't guarantee you shit, so people rather be bullies to ascend socially.

Intelligence is a perceived value attributed to a person in the context in which that person presents himself in.

It can be as easily proven on paper as it can be dis-proven, it's all subject to the criteria utilized.

Intelligence is just another stick utilized to create distinctions and push the crowd around with. It's a similar concept like democracy.

It's a circular concept that eats its own gratification.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit :

"

NeroNoah wrote:

so people rather be bullies to ascend socially.

This is intelligence.

Well, with intelligence I wanted to say language, math and logic skills. I know there are many types of intelligences, but those traits are traditionally thought as "intelligence".

The point remains, people want to ascend socially and economically, and treating like shit the have nots forces people to be cheaters and assholes.

"

KimchiGirlx3 wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Hell, in some places people treat you like shit for being intelligent, discouraging people to think. On those places being intelligent doesn't guarantee you shit, so people rather be bullies to ascend socially.

How far can one go in those communities which shun intelligence in favor of being a bully? of course, their potential is diminished and they can never reach the same level of intellect or wealth as if they were from a community which favored intelligence and rational debate over bullying.

Perhaps that was your point thought and I misunderstood the comment.

If we looked at grades like this:
0-25 - D
26-74 - C
75-94 - B
95-100 - A

I don't think we would find any problem failing anyone who didn't make at least a C, the bottom 25%. Curving the grades to where 15-20% pass undeservedly creates additional entitlement which spreads to the communities as well.

Many people forget what it means to be responsible for their own actions and face the consequences of their irresponsibility. Value of hard work and responsibility is lost. The student who should try harder to improve his grades, ends up not taking responsibility cause he knows most people are going to pass anyways, he is given a passing grade he didn't earn. Or affirmative action, a person getting into a top-tier not because they are a good fit and productive student, but because a quota needs to be met, then later having to drop out cause they can not keep up with the pace of the class work load. People feeling entitled is a result of people given too many things that they did not earn, of people expecting to be given things in the future and not feeling responsible for their actions and lack of productivity or laziness.

"

KimchiGirlx3 wrote:

Many people forget what it means to be responsible for their own actions and face the consequences of their irresponsibility. Value of hard word and responsibility is lost. The student who should try harder to improve his grades, ends up not taking responsibility cause he knows most people are going to pass anyways, he is given a passing grade he didn't earn. Or affirmative action, a person getting into a top-tier not because they are a good fit and productive student, but because a quota needs to be met, then later having to drop out cause they can not keep up with the pace of the class work load. People feeling entitled is a result of people given too many things that they did not earn, of people expecting to be given things in the future and not feeling responsible for their actions and lack of productivity or laziness.

While personal responsability must exist, the consequences for irresponsability should have an upper ceiling. Beyond that, you just make people miserable for the sake of making them miserable, not to incentivize people to work harder. One thing a lot of people that talk about personal responsability ignore is that other people failing has consequences for the rest.

For example, a lazy parent can have effects over their children development. The lack of healthcare means less risk taking, more money saved rather than injected into the economy (like consumption, investments and start ups). An unhappy population that can't work themselves out of a hole are more likely to be corrupt, selfish or start revolutions. The best way to bring Communism is to not help lower classes.

A lot of people talk about entitlement and laziness, while ignoring the counterpart that is the lack of opportunities, unfairness and randomness.

Balance must be achieved between personal responsability and external help.

Each case is a case and should be seen through properly.
a lot of people that DO deserve what they get are seen as poor victims and given more than they should by bleeding heart retards who think everybody is a poor victim of circumstances.
I understand very well a bad start as I myself had a quite unfortunate childhood with a violent father, fighting families and early monetary difficulties, but it should not be an excuse for everything.
On the other side, poor people that try to fight their condition are often not as recognized enough.

I'll give two examples of people I know IRL:

Kid 1 lived alone with his father, a drunk who'd often beat him.
Kid 1 had no manners, is father would surely not attempt to educate him other than with a belt. Some people in the school tried to help him a lot, kid 1 thought he was better than everyone and would often spit on other people, bully others, steal and overall be disrespectful to people who had never done anything to him. His feelings of superiority came from the fact he was good at football, in fact, he was so good, one of the 3 big national teams offered to hire him (Sporting). Kid 1 had a rare opportunity that most kids could only dream of, his life would be set if he took that offer; Kid 1 chose to do drugs instead and lazy off into a self-destructive spiral

I remember I tried to become his friend and ease him into being a better person, this was before he started taking drugs. I lent him the only valuable toys I ever had as a kid, and he proceeded to sell them to a cousin.

Stupid people nowadays say "oh poor Kid 1, he was such a victim of circumstances. While forgetting that despite many best efforts to educate him, help him and befriend him, he was literally a piece of shit to everybody and saw them as inferior to him.


Now comes kid 2:

Kid 2 lived in a house 1/4 the size of Kid 1's house, Kid 2 father was a drunk who abandoned him by grade school (or before, not sure now), his mother was handicapped with birth defects and would spend her time lazying off in cafés, his brother was a drug addict.. Kid 2 did steal initially, but kid 2 was smart enough to realize it was wrong, Kid 2 wanted a better future.

Kid 2 worked his ass studying, often being top of the class despite malnutrition. Kid 2 looked out for small jobs, kid 2 saved money for years, despite many a times his brother stealing all his savings of years to buy drugs, Kid 2 would not give up and continue to stay strong, kid 2 was writing a novel in his free time, Kid 2 worked in a factory when he grew up, he worked to save enough to take a course in university to be a translator. Kid 2 made it. I remember some people (my mother included) even asked me how I could be friends with Kid 2, "he's poor". Pretty disgusting.

Stupid people dont even remember Kid 2, stupid people are too busy making themselves feel better by giving money to Kid 1 and saying he's a poor person. Meanwhile I know he spend some of it on drugs already, I personally wouldnt mind it one bit if he dies of a overdose, and its not because he stole from me as a child, its because he's a piece of shit who does not deserve the charity he's getting.

I believe in second opportunities, I dont believe in the 100th opportunity.

You may cry and call me mean, I call myself a realist, a lot of people go through a lot of shit, and they have choices they can make.
The way society is idolizing thugs is disgusting.

If you can help someone, see that you help someone who deserves it.

See the full picture, not just what you want to see.

I see this a LOT in nowadays left, the 3 monkeys who think if you dont help everyone you must be some kind of devil, and that everyone they help is good with no chance of the opposite ever being true (well, american left is one special kind of retard).

Sad truth is, lots of pieces of shit abuse other people goodwill.
Add a sob story and see the money flowing in. Be especially careful of charities. Loads of them give more money to themselves than they ever give to the people they are helping (and that's not to count leeches like grown up Kid 1 and fake charities like kony and whatnot).
If you want to help, help those closer to your location, help those you are sure need help.
I know it might be harder to interact with people for some, but that's the way you can be sure you are doing good.

I believe in give people many chances, given that I can understand they actually deserve them. I'll be against handouts, though. I prefer investments.

Ask yourself: why people become assholes? Some people just get carried away and become that way because they haven't seen a better side of life, or society just pushes an incorrect idea of success (bullying and corruption have cultural roots after all). The rest are sociopaths. I would try to distinguish between both groups, because the first one has a chance of redemption. It's not unheard of. I've read about japanese surgeons that practiced vivisection in WWII and then tried to redeem themselves talking about the horrors of the war and not letting their country forget.

The football player example can be a result of a culture that overrates football, to the point of letting pass that stuff. Drugs are a result of those excesses, or just a way to fill some void. He can be unredeemable, but I don't know for sure. It's a complex problem, and I wouldn't write off that person yet. For example, once he ruins his life, and hits the bottom, it's the best moment to rebuild him to something acceptable.

Most jerbs will get automated away in 20 years anyway. Either we go full socialism by then or we'll see mass starvation and civil wars everywhere.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I believe in give people many chances, given that I can understand they actually deserve them. I'll be against handouts, though. I prefer investments.

Ask yourself: why people become assholes? Some people just get carried away and become that way because they haven't seen a better side of life, or society just pushes an incorrect idea of success (bullying and corruption have cultural roots after all). The rest are sociopaths. I would try to distinguish between both groups, because the first one has a chance of redemption. It's not unheard of. I've read about japanese surgeons that practiced vivisection in WWII and then tried to redeem themselves talking about the horrors of the war and not letting their country forget.

The football player example can be a result of a culture that overrates football, to the point of letting pass that stuff. Drugs are a result of those excesses, or just a way to fill some void. He can be unredeemable, but I don't know for sure. It's a complex problem, and I wouldn't write off that person yet. For example, once he ruins his life, and hits the bottom, it's the best moment to rebuild him to something acceptable.

I agree with what you are saying, Its just the mindless judgment people pass on some cases that really bother me. People are too quick to label a person either a criminal or a victim and they often let feelings take over facts.

I guess the only thing I can say about either group is that I dont believe either really cares for the case. Even the ones who are on "the good side".

I cannot be very positive regarding change though, from most I've seen my life, people DONT change... however you do got a point on hitting rock bottom. and I'd say for a lot, it does take a make-it-or-break situation for change to happen. or some newfounded hope;

For example, the brother of Kid 2 was a druggie for most of his life, but a few years ago he got a girlfriend and while I do not know how exactly, Im pretty sure she was a good influence on him, since, last I saw him, he completely stopped consuming and was taking a government founded course with her.

Regarding Kid 1 and football... that was his dream, he wanted in, I was for a time on the same team as him and I remember he was really good and would spend overtime training because he loved it. Its really quite amazing how he managed to ruin it.