New Mexico the dumbest state for 2nd year straight

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 12:52pm

Master of Ossus wrote:At least in my case, this isn't a false-dilemma since I've explained WHY using money as a way of measuring education is misleading.

And I can use the British example to show why high school graduations or even university admissions can be misleading. If you want to throw out forms of data based on the fact they might produce a misleading result, then you might as well just give up the whole enterprise.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-10-21 02:42pm

Darth Wong wrote:No, I'm arguing that all of these factors should be taken into account, not forcing us to choose one or the other in a grotesque false-dilemma fallacy as you would so idiotically have us do.

What false dilemma? Of course costs should be taken into account.. but, ceteris paribus, high costs are NOT GOOD (I thought this was self-evident).

To the extent that the funding is shown to influence other positive factors it is redundant (its influence is already measured in those factors). To the extent that it has not been shown to influence other positive factors, its inclusion as its own positive factor is somewhere between arbitrary and backwards. Get it?

Is it multiple-choice? If so, it's a poor test. Good testing requires too much labour on the part of the markers, and standardized tests can't afford that.

I'm not clear on how this supports your claim that they primarily measure memorization skills.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-21 02:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:And I can use the British example to show why high school graduations or even university admissions can be misleading. If you want to throw out forms of data based on the fact they might produce a misleading result, then you might as well just give up the whole enterprise.

Mike, since the sensationalist title of the study's results can obviously not be supported by the data they used to compile it, this strikes me as a method of dodging the burden of proof. You cannot support a study that professes to compare results (ie. intelligence of people in a state) by citing inputs that may or may not be good indicators of those results.

They should have sampled something like test scores, or IQ's.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-10-21 03:51pm

California is lower than Tennessee?????
Damn LA and Central Cal holdin' us down! ...And Oakland. And Berkeley. And Northeast OC. And Eureka. And pretty much every city that is a terminal point for a Bart line...

Other than that, we got a lot of smarts.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 05:23pm

The Dude wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:No, I'm arguing that all of these factors should be taken into account, not forcing us to choose one or the other in a grotesque false-dilemma fallacy as you would so idiotically have us do.
What false dilemma? Of course costs should be taken into account..

And yet you originally said "Shouldn't graduation rates and proficiency be enough?" which obviously excludes any other factor from consideration, including class sizes. If this is your way of conceding without admitting you conceded, I accept.

but, ceteris paribus, high costs are NOT GOOD (I thought this was self-evident).

Not NECESSARILY good. The point is that a severely underfunded system is worse, which is even more self-evident. And I do like the way you're dismissing their entire study based on twenty one different factors all taken into account, based solely on your "better-funded systems aren't necessarily better" complaint.

To the extent that the funding is shown to influence other positive factors it is redundant (its influence is already measured in those factors). To the extent that it has not been shown to influence other positive factors, its inclusion as its own positive factor is somewhere between arbitrary and backwards. Get it?

When you have TWENTY ONE DIFFERENT FACTORS, you are bound to have some arguable overlap between different factors. So what? If you care to produce your own study which comes to dramatically different conclusions based on what you perceive to be superior criteria, go right ahead.

Is it multiple-choice? If so, it's a poor test. Good testing requires too much labour on the part of the markers, and standardized tests can't afford that.
I'm not clear on how this supports your claim that they primarily measure memorization skills.

Oh, so if I can point out how the test is shitty, that has no bearing on your claim as long as I don't doggedly defend my earlier and admittedly oversimplified description of their deficiencies?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-21 05:24pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:And I can use the British example to show why high school graduations or even university admissions can be misleading. If you want to throw out forms of data based on the fact they might produce a misleading result, then you might as well just give up the whole enterprise.
Mike, since the sensationalist title of the study's results can obviously not be supported by the data they used to compile it, this strikes me as a method of dodging the burden of proof.

Don't be a moron; the text of the article clearly states that it's about public school quality, not actual intelligence which is inherited anyway. The fact that you seize upon a whimsical title as an excuse to dismiss an article is pathetic.

You cannot support a study that professes to compare results (ie. intelligence of people in a state) by citing inputs that may or may not be good indicators of those results.

Perhaps you should change your username to "Mister Pedantic".

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-21 05:27pm

Alyeska wrote:
Montana ranks one of the lowest on school funding in the entire country. Our teachers are paid for shit. Alaska has some of the highest paid teachers and starting sallaries of $50,000 are not unheard of.

The state also has a much higher cost of living then most and is Alaska and thus very remote. Teachers of a given quality would have to be paid more simply to get them to come.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-21 05:39pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Iowa is in the top 10. Of course.

w00tag3

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-21 06:05pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Montana ranks one of the lowest on school funding in the entire country. Our teachers are paid for shit. Alaska has some of the highest paid teachers and starting sallaries of $50,000 are not unheard of.
The state also has a much higher cost of living then most and is Alaska and thus very remote. Teachers of a given quality would have to be paid more simply to get them to come.

Even teachers in the Anchorage school district earn that much money. Actualy the teachers in Bush Alaska earn even more.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-21 06:16pm

PA's 8th? Wow. I'd never have guessed that from some of the other students I know in my school. I expected NJ to be quite high, no surprise there.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-21 06:17pm

Badme wrote:PA's 8th? Wow. I'd never have guessed that from some of the other students I know in my school. I expected NJ to be quite high, no surprise there.

Bah, I can't read. *9th.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2004-10-21 06:58pm

Hmmm..... North Carolina is right in the middle (#25, which is probably what it was previously IIRC) I would've actually expected it to be lower.

However, in my case I find the thing about averages very easy to believe - my particular county and the surrounding area would have higher quality schools than the rest of the state. (It's a realitivly rich area that depends on high-tech businesses, as well as having a number of universities around.) The rest of the state, I'm not so sure of.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-21 07:06pm

Louisiana. 46.

I am absolutely not surprised at all whatsoever except the fact it's _not_ 50th.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-10-21 07:07pm

Haven't we had this discussion before? Anyway, what's interesting to me is that the highest ranked Sun Belt state is North Carolina, at 25, and the bottom three states are all among the fastest growing in the nation. If class size and per-pupil spending figure heavily into the rankings, then states where the population of school age children is growing faster than school buildings can be expanded and school budgets are increased will be consistently at the bottom of the rankings, even if they're making a good faith effort to provide quality education.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2004-10-21 07:22pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Louisiana. 46.

I am absolutely not surprised at all whatsoever except the fact it's _not_ 50th.

Indeed, another great victory for Louisiana as we stay static right above rock bottom.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-10-21 07:51pm

The Dude wrote:Are per-pupil expenditures, class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios (putting aside that this seems to be triple-counting spending) really meaningful measures of intelligence?

Shouldn't graduation rates and proficiency be enough?

Well, yes, except New Mexico has both abnormally high dropout rates, and its students do poorly in standardized testing.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-10-21 07:54pm

Holy Shit! Fourth from the bottom! Louisiana is moving up baby!

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-10-21 09:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:And yet you originally said "Shouldn't graduation rates and proficiency be enough?" which obviously excludes any other factor from consideration, including class sizes. If this is your way of conceding without admitting you conceded, I accept.

Sorry - I though you figured out that my original response was to the "Smartest to Dumbest" thing. But sure, I'll concede that things like class size matter - even independently of their direct influence on learning.

Not NECESSARILY good.

No, NOT GOOD. Ceteris paribus means "all things being equal" Spending more for equal results is NOT GOOD. The study's methodology will rank a more expensive system above a cheaper one if they are equal in all other factors, which is inane. If you can't concede this point (or if you would prefer to pay higher fees to your son's school for no additional educational benefit to him), there's no sense in going on.

The point is that a severely underfunded system is worse, which is even more self-evident.

That's nice. If a system is severely underfunded, this will be reflected in the other factors.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-21 09:33pm

RedImperator wrote:Haven't we had this discussion before?

Yeah. I think I started a thread on it two years ago, when I was doing a speech on affirmative action and ran across some stuff.

Anyway, what's interesting to me is that the highest ranked Sun Belt state is North Carolina, at 25, and the bottom three states are all among the fastest growing in the nation. If class size and per-pupil spending figure heavily into the rankings, then states where the population of school age children is growing faster than school buildings can be expanded and school budgets are increased will be consistently at the bottom of the rankings, even if they're making a good faith effort to provide quality education.

That's one of our problems here in FL (#39! We're not slipping! W00T!) In my county, we've expanded from 12 public high schools in 2001 to 14 in 2003, and we'll need 2 more by next year. Average size of those schools? Roughly 3000. Constant. We've added ~12,000 students to the HS system in 4 years (as near as I can tell). And they're still building 10,000 acre housing developments in the areas that are most overcrowded (which are the rural schools, since we draw from the edge of Orlando to the fucking East Coast).

I'm still uncertain about the overall influence of class size, though. About 30% of studies find a smaller class size helps, 30% find it causes harm, and 40% find no effect at all. This suggests that any change in education quality due to class size is vanishingly small, although I do agree it probably is more of an aid to the more timid and less aggressive students (I was highly aggressive intellectually, so class size was a non-issue when I was in grade school). The big problem with trying to reduce class size is finding enough qualified teachers. Central Florida is thousands of teachers short of what it needs with current class sizes of ~30 to 40 (depending on grade level). Shrinking class sizes to 20 would mean we would have half or less than half of the trained teachers we need.