CNN: IQ scores are falling and have been for decades, new study finds

[TK]

42 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 I need only be told by a monitor and I will vacate the Tailgate. 

First of all, it’s Moderator. A monitor is most likely what you’re reading this on. 

 

And secondly, I’m pretty sure I’ve told you before that Tailgate probably wasn’t for you.   

[PF Chang]

I don't think we're getting dumber as in "less intellectually capable" but it does seem like we're lowering the bar educationally and calling it progress. 

 

We have more college grads now, but are they meeting the same standard? Or are we just making it easier to graduate so that colleges can keep raking in the money? 

 

Take a look at what happens to A grades and C grades over time. I don't think it's because we're more intelligent now. 

 

[Veryoldschool]

5 minutes ago, TK said:

First of all, it’s Moderator. A monitor is most likely what you’re reading this on. 

 

And secondly, I’m pretty sure I’ve told you before that Tailgate probably wasn’t for you.   

 

Fair enough, it's your board, I'm leaving the Tailgate.

[The Evil Genius]

18 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

I don't think we're getting dumber as in "less intellectually capable" but it does seem like we're lowering the bar educationally and calling it progress. 

 

We have more college grads now, but are they meeting the same standard? Or are we just making it easier to graduate so that colleges can keep raking in the money? 

 

Take a look at what happens to A grades and C grades over time. I don't think it's because we're more intelligent now. 

 

 

I wonder how much that has to do with schools having to chase $s for performance and teachers having to teach towards standardized testing?

 

****..I remember for awhile when an "A" was 95 and higher (70 and lower was failing). I think it dropped down to 90 for an "A" at Kempsville Jr High/KHS in the late 80s.

[JCB]

TEG, I was wondering that same thing. Chronologically it tracks with that change (more or less). And at uni level, same thing with the increasing shift to reliance on part-time teaching and departmental funding as a function of bodies in seats (grade distribution being something that can tank future enrollments).

[The Evil Genius]

 

I'll say this...parents have a lot easier time now staying involved with their kids grades. That might explain the better grades...or maybe it's circumstance. But no longer can you really hide the report card. ?

 

Also..as a non parent...can I still say how stupid i think common core math is? Why punish kids who understand real math principles?

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

My kid is only in Kindergarten but there is a huge gap between the more capable and less capable kids in her class. For some kids, english is a second language. Thats a tough way to start out. 

[twa]

9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I wonder how much that has to do with schools having to chase $s for performance and teachers having to teach towards standardized testing?

 

****..I remember for awhile when an "A" was 95 and higher (70 and lower was failing). I think it dropped down to 90 for an "A" at Kempsville Jr High/KHS in the late 80s.

 

Chasing tuition and propping up the student loan/grant pipeline probably has something to do with it in colleges.....and watered down degrees

 

I think HS's are generally doing a better job as far as not just advancing them grades to get them thru the system(compared to my days).....of course if you are not on the AP track it is still lacking to a degree.

 

standardized testing really just monitors the lower levels and substandard teachers

[dfitzo53]

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I'll say this...parents have a lot easier time now staying involved with their kids grades. That might explain the better grades...or maybe it's circumstance. But no longer can you really hide the report card. ?

 

Also..as a non parent...can I still say how stupid i think common core math is? Why punish kids who understand real math principles?

Huh?

 

I hear this complaint a lot.  What is it that you don't like about the common core, and why do you think it punishes kids who understand "real math principles"?

 

For context, I'm a middle school math teacher with a decade of experience.

[The Evil Genius]

134-52=

 

The old way was:

 

  144

-   52

_____

    92

 

(14-5) and (4-2)=92 (really the reverse as you solve from right to left).

 

The common core methods I've seen are ridiculous (to me). Basic arithmatic doesn't need people to have to group the numbers in hundreds, tens, and ones on a chart...or become so overly complicated that it takes minutes to solve a problem that basic math skills solve in 10 seconds.

 

Again..I'm a non-parent..I just see my fellow gen x'ers still struggling to get their kids through this new math..and when I look at it, I don't see how it's easier, simpler, or faster (and/or better).

 

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

The common core methods I've seen are ridiculous (to me). Basic arithmatic doesn't need people to have to group the numbers in hundreds, tens, and ones on a chart...or become so overly complicated that it takes minutes to solve a problem that basic math skills solve in 10 seconds.

 

Again..I'm a non-parent..I just see my fellow gen x'ers still struggling to get their kids through this new math..and when I look at it, I don't see how it's easier, simpler, or faster (and/or better).

I remember being entirely frustrated back in grade school when we were forced to solve math problems through "Understand, Plan, Solve, Look-back".  Had to write out a god-damned dissertation on understanding the problem, how your are going to solve it, actually do the math, and then do it in reverse to prove the answer.  When it's a problem that I can do entirely in my head, why do I need to follow your annoying ****ing 12-step program?  Had similar frustration when they were teaching "Adjusted front-end estimation".  If you had, say, the number 260, and they wanted you to use the Adjusted Front-end Estimation to the two most significant digits (though I don't think they taught the term "significant digits" yet), they forced us to separate it into the numbers 200 and 60, and then round the number 60 up to 100, and then add it back to the 200.  It was forbidden for me to just do the obvious thing and round it to whichever digit instead of doing this pedantic break-down method.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I saw this show about IQ tests a while ago and thought it was interesting.  I make no guarantee about the validity of what they say.

 

 

8 hours ago, grego said:

 

 

6/2(1+2)

9

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

134-52=

 

The old way was:

 

  144

-   52

_____

    92

 

(14-5) and (4-2)=92 (really the reverse as you solve from right to left).

 

The common core methods I've seen are ridiculous (to me). Basic arithmatic doesn't need people to have to group the numbers in hundreds, tens, and ones on a chart...or become so overly complicated that it takes minutes to solve a problem that basic math skills solve in 10 seconds.

 

Again..I'm a non-parent..I just see my fellow gen x'ers still struggling to get their kids through this new math..and when I look at it, I don't see how it's easier, simpler, or faster (and/or better).

 

I was against common core from just looking at the example questions they give.  Once my wife explained the methodology behind it, I actually like it.  It seems to match the way I do more complex math in my head.  

 

For a basic example, say 112 x 7, I would take 11 x 7, add a 0 to it, then 7 x 2, and add that the number I had. 

 

Common core seems to actually how I do math in my head naturatly.  Problem is everyone thinks different.  I know one thing that frustrated me as an instructor was I needed to figure out how each student thought so I could find the best way to explain it to them.  I can't imagine how difficult that is for a teacher with 30 kids in their class.

[Renegade7]

@TheGreatBuzz  Adam Ruins Everything is a great show.  Cross-referencing never hurts, but he's pretty on point.  Check his one on immigration courts, there really isn't much disputing it.

[twa]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

I remember being entirely frustrated back in grade school when we were forced to solve math problems through "Understand, Plan, Solve, Look-back".  Had to write out a god-damned dissertation on understanding the problem, how your are going to solve it, actually do the math, and then do it in reverse to prove the answer.  When it's a problem that I can do entirely in my head, why do I need to follow your annoying ****ing 12-step program?  Had similar frustration when they were teaching "Adjusted front-end estimation".  If you had, say, the number 260, and they wanted you to use the Adjusted Front-end Estimation to the two most significant digits (though I don't think they taught the term "significant digits" yet), they forced us to separate it into the numbers 200 and 60, and then round the number 60 up to 100, and then add it back to the 200.  It was forbidden for me to just do the obvious thing and round it to whichever digit instead of doing this pedantic break-down method.

 

I failed algebra 2 because I refused to write out formulas

I'd give the answers at each step ,but I was damned if I was going to write out each step.

 

**** em.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I failed algebra 2 because I refused to write out formulas

I'd give the answers at each step ,but I was damned if I was going to write out each step.

 

**** em.

I used to do the same.  I would get mad as hell that I would get the right answer but was "wrong" for not showing my work.  I'm sorry the dumb asses sitting around me couldn't do it in their heads.

[grego]

10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@TheGreatBuzz  Adam Ruins Everything is a great show.  Cross-referencing never hurts, but he's pretty on point.  Check his one on immigration courts, there really isn't much disputing it.

 

i havent seen that one, but cross referencing is a good idea. 

 

the first claim in the video that they reference- 

"(IQ tests) are deeply biased and controversial tools that might not predict intelligence at all"- steve connor, the independent, december 21, 2012. 

 

heres the article. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

 

it doesnt say that. it says this- "The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits"

 

i see nothing about bias and the only thing that could be considered controversial is that the article says IQ tests dont go deep enough 

 

"Instead of a general measure of intelligence epitomised by the intelligence quotient (IQ), intellectual ability consists of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility. Although these interact with one another they are handled by three distinct nerve “circuits” in the brain, the scientists found."

 

i always liked the show but started questioning it when i saw the pocahontas episode which seemed to have a very 2018 take. i believe there were 5 references. 4 were from one book from one author.