You Get What You Pay For

Off Topic
101

[quote]tpa wrote:
Rockscar wrote:

You prove my point. I am however prejudice though…in a lot of ways. Who isn’t? I develop my own judgements based on MY experiences.

I would hope that you are mature and intelligent enough to not make statements or judgements about an ENTIRE CULTURE based on your experiences with a small portion of a demographic. For example if you saw a black man committing a crime, would it be ok for you to say that blacks are criminals?

[/quote]

No, because I’ve seen and know many who are not. I did not say “entire” culture, I said most don’t value education. Sorry but that’s what I see.

Also I just realized I’m dealing with a Canadian.

OOPs…that was racist…

102

[quote]tpa wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Just about every kid these days has a computer in their house now. Between that and iPods, cellphones, and all other manner of digital crap kids absolutely can’t live without…I think they get enough exposure to technology.

Computers are so common, that it’s not even considered technology now. They are more like appliances (TV, oven, diswasher, computer, microwave…) Schools aren’t using computers to teach technology, they are using them to teach math and reading and social studies…A lot of the curriculum now is computer based self-paced instruction.

It’s not like in the 80’s where we learned how to actually write basic computer programs in the computer labs. Computers are teachers now.

First, please don’t assume that every kid has a home computer, iPod, and cellphone. There are many areas where students with home PCs are the minority.

Second, do you really think that the kids with home computers are using them for to analyze spatial data with geographic information systems or to examine and manipulate large data sets, or to create and modify spreadsheets or to design structures with Autocad, etc.

[/quote]

Show me a high school kid who doesn’t have an iPod or a cellphone or a PDA. And do you believe schools are actually using computers to “analyze spatial data”? No. They are using computers to take and grade tests. Kids, well, at least my kid, goes to the classroom computer to take his math and reading tests. A lot of his education is self-paced. The teacher gives assignments and expects the students to do them on their own and take their tests on the computer. There is less and less student/teacher interaction.

103

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Just about every kid these days has a computer in their house now. Between that and iPods, cellphones, and all other manner of digital crap kids absolutely can’t live without…I think they get enough exposure to technology.

Computers are so common, that it’s not even considered technology now. They are more like appliances (TV, oven, diswasher, computer, microwave…) Schools aren’t using computers to teach technology, they are using them to teach math and reading and social studies…A lot of the curriculum now is computer based self-paced instruction.

It’s not like in the 80’s where we learned how to actually write basic computer programs in the computer labs. Computers are teachers now.

Exactly. The point of education is to have your brain be a computer independent of other tools.

There is a difference between training and educating. A well-trained computer expert who knows how to run every conceivable program and search for information but can’t do anything when you take his tool away - i.e., a long division problem or explain the War of 1812 - is not educated.[/quote]

Good point.

I’ve taught an SAT prep course for two years and everything said about the test is true.

The truly damning point about the SAT’s (and the ACT’s, though I’ve no knowledge of that particular test) lies in one statistic: the demographic group that does the best is…wait for it…rich kids.

Why?

Because their parents all shell out thousands (my class ain’t cheap) to have their kids take courses on how o beat the test.

Any test where a check and 24 hours will raise your grade by 200 points cannot possibly be any sort of honest broker of intelligence.

(And for those of you who never took a class, let me assure you that the SAT is eminently beatable.)

104

[quote]harris447 wrote:

(And for those of you who never took a class, let me assure you that the SAT is eminently beatable.)[/quote]

The test just lays there and you apply the knowledge in your noggin’ to it. It isn’t working against you. You don’t have to “beat” it.

Visit a rich white school and a poor minority inner-city school and see who is getting the best education. Is there any mystery why the rich white kids do better?

105

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Any test where a check and 24 hours will raise your grade by 200 points cannot possibly be any sort of honest broker of intelligence.[/quote]

Your class must be a lot better than mine. I can’t raise a student’s score by 10 points for just a check and 24 hours. In my class, kids have to actually study, do homework, and put forth some effort. The rich kids in my classes who don’t work don’t succeed at improving their scores.

106

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Also I’ve found that the Mexican culture does not really value education as much as Americans, so parents are not involved and as encouraging with regard to education and success

I did not say “entire” culture, I said most don’t value education. Sorry but that’s what I see.[/quote]

Most = more than half. That is still a pretty large assumption.

And I just realized I’m dealing with an American

107

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Good point.

I’ve taught an SAT prep course for two years and everything said about the test is true.

The truly damning point about the SAT’s (and the ACT’s, though I’ve no knowledge of that particular test) lies in one statistic: the demographic group that does the best is…wait for it…rich kids.

Why?

Because their parents all shell out thousands (my class ain’t cheap) to have their kids take courses on how o beat the test.

Any test where a check and 24 hours will raise your grade by 200 points cannot possibly be any sort of honest broker of intelligence.

(And for those of you who never took a class, let me assure you that the SAT is eminently beatable.)[/quote]

Rich kids get better scores because they are better educated, as doogie pointed out. The fact that rich kids are better educated than poor kids is not a fault of the test itself. The test just brings it to light. The phenomenon would exist without it.

108

[quote]PGJ wrote:
tpa wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Just about every kid these days has a computer in their house now. Between that and iPods, cellphones, and all other manner of digital crap kids absolutely can’t live without…I think they get enough exposure to technology.

Computers are so common, that it’s not even considered technology now. They are more like appliances (TV, oven, diswasher, computer, microwave…) Schools aren’t using computers to teach technology, they are using them to teach math and reading and social studies…A lot of the curriculum now is computer based self-paced instruction.

It’s not like in the 80’s where we learned how to actually write basic computer programs in the computer labs. Computers are teachers now.

First, please don’t assume that every kid has a home computer, iPod, and cellphone. There are many areas where students with home PCs are the minority.

Second, do you really think that the kids with home computers are using them for to analyze spatial data with geographic information systems or to examine and manipulate large data sets, or to create and modify spreadsheets or to design structures with Autocad, etc.

Show me a high school kid who doesn’t have an iPod or a cellphone or a PDA.
[/quote]

How about any school located by a low income / public housing area. How about the school I teach at.

Well I teach grade 12 Geomatics. Analyzing and manipulating spatial data is the focus of the course. The Geomatics course is part of the Ontario geography curriculum. In fact the Ontario curriculum requires that students are exposed to GIS and other geotechnologies (i.e. GPS, remote sensing) from grades 6 through to grade 12. So yes, I do think schools use computers to analyze spatial data.

Well just like in any profession, there are people who are shitty at their job. Teaching is no exception. If that truly is the case then it sounds like your kid’s teachers aren’t very good. Still I can’t honestly believe that you would rather have your kid complete his entire elementary and secondary schooling without any exposure to computers and technology.

109

The American school system should be made much more competetive. Every test should be posted on a big ass bulletin board, and every student in every grade ranked against eachother. Better to find out that you are the 200/210 smartest in your grade, in your school when you are in 5th grade and can do something about it still, then when you are trying to get a job and your only options are burger king and cashier at (insert grocery chain here).

Guess what… if your child feels bad because he now sees that he is dumber then 90% of his grade GOOD, he should. Read a fucking book and do something about it.

110

[quote]PGJ wrote:
I actaully fell asleep in the middle of the SAT (this was 1986). Barely did well enough to get into a State school (950 total). Got a BA at State U. then went on to get a Masters Degree from a very prestigious University. SAT is not a good indicator of potential or ability.
[/quote]

Ha, ha! You know, I think I did, too in 1990. Didn’t give much of a rat’s ass what my score was, and still don’t. Did my first 2 years at a very good community college and transfered to university, saving thousands of dollars in the process.

111

The problem is that historically, you could be border-line retarded and graduate High School. That is the whole point of the SAT. It doesn’t matter if you can take a class and get a little better of a score. It is a general indication of your education level. If you get a semi-decent score, you’re probably not going to get crushed in college if you are willing to work hard.

Conversly, grades don’t really mean anything. You could have taken easy classes, or been a jock and given the grades. I started high school in CAL and due to the fact I was a football player, didn’t have to do anything for straight “A’s.”

When I went to Utah, I had to relearn everything. If I had been allowed to stay in CAL my grades would have been the same as Utah, but you can bet your ass I would have failed the SAT/ACT. There has to be some sort of standard. As far as the school system is concerned… up through High School you are still being taugh the basics. If you can read, you can survive life, sort of.

College is where people start having to perform or fail. And even though the US’s high schools education is not great, our colleges are the best in the world. And that is what matters. Period. A great high school education will only get you so far in life. It is your college education that takes you further. As long as our colleges are the best and we conduct a brain drain on the rest of the world, the US will continue to be ahead of the curve.

112

[quote]doogie wrote:
ron33 wrote:

Within the last few years our local schools started getting a lot of south of the border immigrants,instead of them learning english the school hires interpreters to communicate with them and their parents.I have heard this costs an extra 50-60 $$ an hour.

These kids come to school a couple weeks here and there ,then they will be gone for weeks or a month then show up back at school.they are always going between here and Mexico.If an u.s. citizen did that they would want to put you in jail and take your children away from you.Its B.S. that our system has to cater to these people.

90% of my students are classified as migrants. Their parents bust ass in the hot fields for 16 hours a day. The kids bust ass right beside their parents on weekends and during the summer. When they are down here they live in one room cinder block homes they are building themselves in the colonias.

These same kids have a passing rate well into the 90% range, with half of them being commended by the state for their performance. For the most part, Mexican immigrants bust their ass and most of them bust their kids’ asses to make sure they aren’t in the fields forever.
[/quote]
Doogie ,you must be getting a different crop of imigrants in your neck of the woods,the one’s we are getting are the drug dealers ,thieves,and they also have been committing a lot of rapes and murders’for the population size around here.We must be getting the criminal element that are trying to get as far away from the border as they can…

113

Excellent, our schools are generating plenty of slaves who’s only source of income will be the military, after all, this “war on terror” will last 100 years, right???..

114

[quote]Lando034 wrote:
I started high school in CAL and due to the fact I was a football player, didn’t have to do anything for straight “A’s.”
[/quote]

Really? In high school? Why? I mean, in college in can understand, as the football team makes the school a shitload of money, and the administration has a vested interest in pressing teachers to pass athletes.

I played high school football and none of my teachers gave a shit except maybe for a gym coach or two, but that actually made me work harder in the class, as I was expected to set a good example as a varsity athlete.

Everything else you wrote is spot on.

115

[quote]doogie wrote:
harris447 wrote:

(And for those of you who never took a class, let me assure you that the SAT is eminently beatable.)

The test just lays there and you apply the knowledge in your noggin’ to it. It isn’t working against you. You don’t have to “beat” it.

Visit a rich white school and a poor minority inner-city school and see who is getting the best education. Is there any mystery why the rich white kids do better?[/quote]

The rich, white kids have better educations than the poor kids, yes.

But: I was just talking about the SAT’s.

Gimme two kids, the apocryphal twins they use in studies, both with the same education, work ethic, background, etc.

I’ll take one kid and teach him how to take the test. The other one walks in cold.

My kid wins by 200 points.

Why? Because the SAT’s are absolutey working against you. There are traps, tricks, and bullshit points of grammar, math, and technique that will fuck up even a smart kid every single time.

Maybe the off-the-street smart kid will get as many questions right a the kid I taught; he’ll get more wrong, though. My kid will leave more questions blank, because he knows that a blank answer doesn’t affect your score, whereas a wrong one does.

My kid doesn’t care about the order of the questions: he does the ones he can answer right first.

My kid knows how many of the “Error ID” section (in which you have a sentence with underlined words and you find the mistake) are correct as written.

My kid knows to never read the passages in the Reading Comp, just to read the questions, THEN look for the answer in the passage.

My kid knows about the MIT study that found a direct correlation between the length of the essay and the score.

Education is one thing, the SAT is another.

116

Why? Because the SAT’s are [u]absolutey[u] working against you. There are traps, tricks, and bullshit points of grammar, math, and technique that will fuck up even a smart kid every single time.

Maybe the off-the-street smart kid will get as many questions right a the kid I taught; he’ll get more wrong, though. My kid will leave more questions blank, because he knows that a blank answer doesn’t affect your score, whereas a wrong one does.

My kid doesn’t care about the order of the questions: he does the ones he can answer right first.

My kid knows how many of the “Error ID” section (in which you have a sentence with underlined words and you find the mistake) are correct as written.

My kid knows to never read the passages in the Reading Comp, just to read the questions, THEN look for the answer in the passage.

My kid knows about the MIT study that found a direct correlation between the length of the essay and the score.

Education is one thing, the SAT is another.

[/quote]
This is exactly what I was trying to say. The test test how well you know how to take the test. The ACT has the same traps and tricks to it. If you want your kid to do well on the test, invest some money and send them to a course or at the least by them a Kaplan or Princeton Review prep book or cd.

117

More proof of how much government schools suck.

Sounds like the government needs to get out of the education business… too bad it’ll never happen.

118

[quote]tpa wrote:
Why not get rid of the SATs and base college entrance on the student’s high school average. Or perhaps their average in senior classes but must include 1 math, 1 science, 1 English, 1 History/Geography, etc.
[/quote]

Some high schools give inflated grades. That would give those students an unfair advantage.

SAT’s are not the problem.

Keeping kids that don’t belong in the classroom is a bigger problem.

119

[quote]doogie wrote:
blooey wrote:
You know, “teaching the test” gets bandied about a lot, but I seriously doubt anyone knows what it really means.

As background, I was a tutor for the SAT I/II and AP tests for about 2 years (if you eliminate the breaks between sessions). Many students came to my classes without proper math or English skills. I found that the easiest way to prepare them for the test was (wait for it, wait for it) to teach them proper math and English skills.

Sure, I “taught the test,” but only in that I knew which subjects had to be covered because they were on the test. But guess what? The subject list was pretty comprehensive.

In my opinion, this “teaching the test” phenomenon has more to do with the incompetence of teachers. A competent teacher will never “teach the test,” except perhaps in the few weeks before the actual exam, since it is by far easier to teach the subject at hand.

In fact no students really lose out if the “teaching the test” phenomenon exists. If you think about it, teachers who only “teach the test” likely do not know their subjects very well anyway, so their students have not lost any more than they would have already.

Dead on. Teach them to read, teach them math, and they pass.

NCLB has definitely exposed crappy teachers. If you feel like your kid’s teacher is “teaching to the test”, be thankful there is a test. That is a shitty teacher. If they weren’t at least held accountable for teaching your kid MINIMUM skills, your kid (with that teacher) would end up even farther behind than he/she is going to while being “taught the test.”
[/quote]

I did well enough on my PSAT’s and SAT’s to win a National Merit Scholarship as well as a number of minor scholarships. This along with jobs and loans allowed me to go to college.

I did not practice or take any SAT classes.

I was a “poor” white kid in a rich white high school.

The SAT was not a bad test. The smart kids did well. The stupid kids did not. I could have (and did) accurately predicted the scores for most of the kids that took it.

120

just wanted to point out there was a score drop just because the new format came out. the test is a lot longer now. the score drop doesnt indicate that our educational system is getting worse. its probably the opposite actually. more people are going to college nowadays.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Seems that, much as our society wants to escape from reality by not investing in education, reality comes and bites you on the hind quarters.
[/quote]