public versus private schools

[Pilot Doc]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting theories in one of his books (Outliers, I think) about the achievement differences seen between different cultures. His theory is that rice farming cultures are much better suited to modern life than other agrarian bases. Rice farming apparently has a pretty predictable relationship between work invested and crop yield. As such, places that grow rice developed a cultural ethic of hard work and individual responsibility. Most other ways of finding food are subject to outside forces that can overwhelm the most industrious farmer or gatherer - hence less emphasis on the sort of values that happen to be useful in 21st century technological societies.

 

[2win]

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting theories in one of his books (Outliers, I think) about the achievement differences seen between different cultures. His theory is that rice farming cultures are much better suited to modern life than other agrarian bases. Rice farming apparently has a pretty predictable relationship between work invested and crop yield. As such, places that grow rice developed a cultural ethic of hard work and individual responsibility. Most other ways of finding food are subject to outside forces that can overwhelm the most industrious farmer or gatherer - hence less emphasis on the sort of values that happen to be useful in 21st century technological societies.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1269967&page=1
"Asian-Americans comprise only 4 percent of the United States' population, yet they make up 20 percent of the Ivy League."

 

[deleted126335]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1269967&page=1
"Asian-Americans comprise only 4 percent of the United States' population, yet they make up 20 percent of the Ivy League."

How shocking and unexpected!!! A culture that prizes education and hard work succeeds out of proportion to their numbers. Despite looking different. That is what makes this country special.

 

[2win]

How shocking and unexpected!!! A culture that prizes education and hard work succeeds out of proportion to their numbers. Despite looking different. That is what makes this country special.

👍👍👍
Yep - I didn't hear "positive discrimination".....

 

[hoyden]

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting theories in one of his books (Outliers, I think) about the achievement differences seen between different cultures. His theory is that rice farming cultures are much better suited to modern life than other agrarian bases. Rice farming apparently has a pretty predictable relationship between work invested and crop yield. As such, places that grow rice developed a cultural ethic of hard work and individual responsibility. Most other ways of finding food are subject to outside forces that can overwhelm the most industrious farmer or gatherer - hence less emphasis on the sort of values that happen to be useful in 21st century technological societies.

The key words )))))

 

[Bertelman]

Let us not so soon forget.

You are out of control.

 

[cfdavid]

Whoa, hold on, I don't think he was advocating setting up camps for dumb people, as appealing and entertaining as that may be. The slippery slope and eugenics and Nazi references are a bit over the top.

I think the point he was raising is simply that despite what 'politically correct' people may argue, diversity might not be useful goal in and of itself. Clearly a racially diverse population isn't a prerequisite for a nation's success (he provided several examples), so maybe the United States doesn't need to shoehorn diversity into every aspect of everything we do.

What's so awful about aspiring to live in a meritocracy?

This is exactly what I was trying to point out.

Clearly we live in an ever shrinking world, with global trade amongst people of diverse cultures, races, and religions. This includes record levels of migration etc. So, it's a major benefit to learn, and better understand those different from us. It's also of benefit to respect their cultures and traditions and to see things from another's perspective.

I've raised some "provocative" concepts simply because of the borderline brainwashing that many of us have grown up with. The motives of which I'm still trying to figure out.

cf

 

[cfdavid]

You are out of control.

Indeed she may be.....lol

 

[cfdavid]

As much as I respect your opinion on many issues, your statements above have very dangerous leanings, especially with the cultural history I'm assuming you have based on your name.

I know about Godwin's law, but this is one instance in which valid comparisons can be made with Eugenics.

Seriously, I don't know what "cultural history" my name implies. I'm curious what you're refering to however. Maybe I'm just not thinking....

 

[Eta Carinae]

You are out of control.

Drawn...or scripted 😉

 

[Eta Carinae]

There is a difference between culture and genetics. I buy the argument for cultural conditioning; and I believe the assumption of genetic or racial hierarchy is based in fallacy. I don't see any similarity between appalachian caucasians and British caucasians. A closer similarity is made between the German and Japanese cultures of industry and commitments to education.

And I think the trends that are observed in different communities/countries are better attributed to cultural differences than genetic differences.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Seriously, I don't know what "cultural history" my name implies. I'm curious what you're refering to however.

I apologize. I made a huge gaffe by assuming that you were Jewish 🙂eek🙂...until I took a history lesson as quoted below.

Not true. I do believe that cf david is an antisemite.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=675648
read the whole thread from the beginning.

Pardon me. My misstatement.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Originally Posted by cfdavid
Have you considered genetics? While the Indian continent is not overwhelmingly intelligent (by modern methods) of measurement), there are MANY Indians that succeed and are superbly intelligent. This does not apply to the masses of India however. China is a different story however, if one believes in IQ's and methods of measurement.

Also the assumption of intelligence based on race/genetics was the underlying basis for the practice of eugenics. Or am I wrong?

You are better served by considering a person's culture, IMHO.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Not to do a rapid topic change, but moving away from genetics & eugenics, I read an interesting article in the Atlantic about good teachers and the difference they make regardless of school setting.

Essentially it tracked the conversation in DC schools about good teachers and the difference they can make. One especially good teacher (in a poor neighborhood) got 45% of his class to increase at least 1 1/2 years of knowledge in the one year that he had them. The article points out that at this rate, if the students (who were in 4th grade, I think) had him for 3 consecutive years, they would've been out-testing their classmates in richer DC suburb schools. Meanwhile, a teacher who had taught for 23 years and made $80,000/yr. received a class who had 66% of students testing at or above grade level and at the end of the year only 44% were testing at the proper grade level.

The amazing thing was that in all of DC's research, the schools largely have the same quality of teachers on average. Variability within a school is much, much higher than variability between schools.

So, instead of debating between public vs. private, you could just get the school your kid(s) attend to tell you which teachers have the best improvement in their pupils' testing scores, then request your child get that teacher. Just my 2 cents.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[deleted126335]

Not to do a rapid topic change, but moving away from genetics & eugenics, I read an interesting article in the Atlantic about good teachers and the difference they make regardless of school setting.

Essentially it tracked the conversation in DC schools about good teachers and the difference they can make. One especially good teacher (in a poor neighborhood) got 45% of his class to increase at least 1 1/2 years of knowledge in the one year that he had them. The article points out that at this rate, if the students (who were in 4th grade, I think) had him for 3 consecutive years, they would've been out-testing their classmates in richer DC suburb schools. Meanwhile, a teacher who had taught for 23 years and made $80,000/yr. received a class who had 66% of students testing at or above grade level and at the end of the year only 44% were testing at the proper grade level.

The amazing thing was that in all of DC's research, the schools largely have the same quality of teachers on average. Variability within a school is much, much higher than variability between schools.

So, instead of debating between public vs. private, you could just get the school your kid(s) attend to tell you which teachers have the best improvement in their pupils' testing scores, then request your child get that teacher. Just my 2 cents.

Malcolm Gladwell had a chapter in his most recent book, "What the dog saw" which agreed with this thesis Bottom line you are better off with a good teacher in a bad school than a bad teacher in a good school. He also concluded that canning the bottom few percent of teachers would have an incredibly positive effect on education. The teachers unions are zero benefit to students. They exist to advocate for their members.

 

[dhb]

Variability within a school is much, much higher than variability between schools.

I could not agree more, my bothers and i went to the same school but i feel my education was vastly superior.

 

[2win]

Malcolm Gladwell had a chapter in his most recent book, "What the dog saw" which agreed with this thesis Bottom line you are better off with a good teacher in a bad school than a bad teacher in a good school. He also concluded that canning the bottom few percent of teachers would have an incredibly positive effect on education. The teachers unions are zero benefit to students. They exist to advocate for their members.

Does this theory applies to higher education (universities) and residency programs?
Interesting....

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Does this theory applies to higher education (universities) and residency programs?
Interesting....

I can't imagine it wouldn't, honestly. From individual experience, I know the amount I learned from good professors was radically different compared to what I learned from bad professors.

It might be mitigated somewhat by the fact that you're more adult and can do more studying on your own, but still, a good professor will help you get excited about the material and get you to do more self-study as well.

 

[2win]

I can't imagine it wouldn't, honestly. From individual experience, I know the amount I learned from good professors was radically different compared to what I learned from bad professors.

It might be mitigated somewhat by the fact that you're more adult and can do more studying on your own, but still, a good professor will help you get excited about the material and get you to do more self-study as well.

Yes - but when you put in your CV - Vegas School of Medicine versus Mayo - nobody cares if you had a great teacher in Vegas.....