Well, a lot of people care.
What if they don’t learn in the normal pattern a neurotypical kid does? My daughter, for instance, has autism. By age six, she could read a text presented to her out loud with high apparent fluency. If the idea was to have her read a book to other kids, or give a speech, you’d probably have to say she reads way beyond her grade level, maybe at high school level. But if it’s about what she actually understands, she is behind grade level.
Well, thanks for showing once again that you are an ignoramus about how to use google (not the scholar one this time) *:
(PDF File)
Neven Sesardictt Department of Philosophy,
Lingnan University, Hong Kong
Well, he did publish alright, but relying on a philosopher talking about science in a philosopher’s journal is not a good cite about the issue. What it was clear in my previous post though is that others have confirmed what Scarr reported decades ago.
Well then thanks for the tip—if not the gratuitous insult. 
One more thing: Books that pop up from searches should be omitted because, besides not being proper studies, many times it means that the proponents of an idea do not have confidence with their evidence or peers that would agree with their shoddy research.
Guess what Murray and their ilk prefer to go for?
Or maybe they just want to make some money out of the deal.
How do you explain the fact that the editor of the journal Intelligence said Sam was right to defend Murray and Hernstein as having done legit (not “shoddy” or “pseudo-“) science?
You don’t see any problems having a 17 year old sitting in class with 8 year olds?
The reason that we have public schools is to have an educated populace. An educated populace is better for society, as it not only creates productive members to help in industry and commerce, but it also lowers crime.
These kids that you have just given up on with an “oh well” are far more likely to turn to crime than a kid that was not left behind to rot.
It seems better to invest a bit in these kids, as it actually benefits us as well. Lower crime means that we have to pay less for our police and courts and prisons. Lower crime means that we don’t have our stuff stolen. Lower crime means that we are more secure in our selves and our families against violence.
Pay me now, or pay me later…
This is why we really need to just completely reformulate schools and education from the ground up. It’s not just your daughter with a particular learning disability. Most people don’t learn in exactly the way that they are expected to, by sitting in a classroom for 8 hours a day, concentrating on a subject for an hour, then going on to the next. Especially in grade school, where all the subjects are lumped together and taught by the same teacher (who is very rarely much of an expert in any of these subjects.)
What is the point of having your daughter sit through a reading class over and over, when the problem isn’t her reading, it’s her comprehension, a part of reading that is not taught nearly as much as how to translate the symbols on a page into words that can be spoken? She may also do great in math, but terrible in history and science. In order for her to repeat the history and science that she didn’t get the first time, she also has to sit through the math class that she did.
Classes should be more modular, with “certificates of achievement” awarded as you complete modules. Some may complete the modules faster than others, and if you fail a module, you just retake the module, and maybe some prerequisite work if it is needed, rather than having to retake the whole class or grade.
Also, require higher scores to complete modules. If you pass with a 70%, that means that you didn’t actually understand 30% of the material you were presented with. Then you are expected to go onto the next class that builds on that, which means you are set up for failure.
Personally, I think if we eliminate the traditional classroom setting as the default method of education, people of all demographics will get a drastically improved educational experience, and virtually all of the complaints found in this thread become obsolete.
Well, a 17 year old that reads or does math at the 8 year old level shouldn’t be a senior in high school or playing D1 footballl.
True enough but schools can’t solve cultural problems with the tools schools currently have.
Those are all good ideas.
[Moderating]
You’ve made your point with that post. Continuing to repost it in this thread is getting into spam territory. If you want to continue to call SlackerInc stupid, you’re going to have to start innovating.
[/Moderating]
K9b, just FTR my daughter does get an individualized education, from several different teachers. I’m very happy with her school and would not want it to be reformulated from the ground up. Your ideas are good, but much of that has already been incorporated into 21st century pedagogical methodology.
Ah, yes; as you show here, you did not read the thread* :), basically we should go for what Reich and others noted, Murray and their ilk do use good science wrong to “deduce” racist solutions to the problems they see.
*And as you showed, you demonstrated to be clueless about how to look for information even when posted before too.
I actually agree with that, but you said something different just upthread, that it was “shoddy science”. Why not just phrase it the way you are doing now? Did you just now change your mind?
Not in the least, remember, we are dealing with pseudo-scientists, they do love to use real science, but their conclusions do not follow the good data they get their paws on.
As your reply shows, it is clear that you need to learn about what are the usual steps of science: (We really need to assume that you do not know… really)
The shoddiness of Murray and even Sam comes at their Data/Analysis and Conclusion steps as we have seen, they can have good data and facts but their analysis of it and the conclusions are shoddy and racist.
In the case of Murray you also were helpful on pointing at the Chicago intervention, that ended up showing that Murray and others were dead wrong about Hispanics. So when Murray (and Sam) continues to say that the evidence for his claims has grown stronger that was complete poppycock.
Round and round we go. So now I will ask again: “How do you explain the fact that the editor of the journal Intelligence said Sam was right to defend Murray and Hernstein as having done legit (not ‘shoddy’ or ‘pseudo-‘) science?” You cannot have it both ways, GIGO!
Your genes are failing you again. 
I already replied to that, back in post #973
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20884405&postcount=973
And yes, I actually do start that post by commenting: “So we come full circle”, Round and round we go with your inexperience and stupidity. I pointed then to the Emeritus condition of Richard J Haier, who is that editor. In other discussions related to science I have found that that means that he is a former researcher that is not active in their field any more. Too many of those in the fringe sciences to count. But enough of them in some journals to let shoddy science to be published.
So thank you once again for showing to all that you are not really trying. Or learning for that matter.
It has to be pointed here too that you are not showing enough awareness to realize that having good data does not become good science automatically.
So, demanding that “You cannot have it both ways” in this case is actually you showing gross misunderstanding or wilful ignorance of the steps of science even. Conclusions and analysis are parts of science, and they can indeed be made with bad faith or bad intentions while other steps are relatively OK.
Hence the point that Murray and their ilk did and continue to do shoddy science.
So Haier is on the “fringe” now too. Seems to me you are using circular reasoning, defining anyone who defends Murray’s science as, ipso facto, a pseudoscientist themselves. Very tidy—you’re guaranteed never to have a conflict! :dubious:
Nope, I was going to point out too that that is one way to see it, but what The Guardian reports points yet to another way to see where Haier is coming from: Haier can be seen as a proponent of “lets toss all of it to the wall and see what sticks”.*
So when he said that "I prefer to let the papers and the data speak for themselves.” That can also mean that even he is aware of the shit in a paper or book, but he will let others decide. (I mean, I would think that is a very lazy and convenient way to work in a journal, but it can be defended… a little)
As we have seen by the evidence and by researchers smarter than I am, like Reich, most researchers have decided that Murray and their ilk are racists and their use of genetics to reach their conclusions and their societal solutions are misguided.
Aren’t there any papers on the internet you can misunderstand for free?
Wrong!
[spoiler]The $1,00 per student gap that GIGObuster actually quoted in his post is the gap before the 40% adjustment. They did the “40% adjustment” as a secondary analysis, and that resulted in a $2,000 gap.
Cite:
And from the paper:
[/spoiler]
You are conveniently eliding Reich’s criticisms of anti-Murray academics, who “are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations”.
He elaborates:
Note that several points in those excerpts serve as direct rebuttals to assertions made in this thread. If we were litigating against each other in court, you would not be wise to choose Reich as your expert witness.
Hey, look at that: you’re finally right about something! You got me, good for you. Good for you.
I know you’d like to quote this admission and repost it over and over, but you were called to heel on those shenanigans. Still, they can’t stop you from printing this out, putting it in a nice frame, and displaying it in a prominent location in the hole you crawl out of at night. Maybe you can even be buried with it. Your life’s greatest triumph, huzzah!