What’s Wrong with the World

"Mr. Jennings also said the board was plagued with 'a general unwillingness to face the facts' of the chaos it created."

I nominate for Understatement of the Year. Second?

This is why I consistently point out that the carrot must have a stick to back it up on WWwtW discussions about social programs.

I'm called cruel, unchristian, etc.

I'm also consistently proved right by the behavior of those "helped" by these programs.

You forget item 9 1/2. The School district lost accreditation.

In many of the school systems across America the teachers have been reduced to babysitters at best. In more and more schools systems across that same America, they have been elevated to wardens without guns to back up their attempts to keep order in the jail. It's all a mess. And at the root of every mess is sin and a culture that embraces it while holding to a form of godliness.

Steve,

Wow.

I just finished Murray's latest book and while his ideas for reform are excellent, it is worth repeating for everyone his four basic truths that he builds the book around:

1) ability varies;

2) half of children are below average;

3) too many people are going to college;

4) the future of America depends on how we educate the academically gifted.

If the entire educational establishment could just absorb the truth of 1 and 2, we would be in a lot better shape than we are now. Steve Sailer is funny about how these simple truths will come crashing into the befuddled minds of meddling bureaucrats and lawyers who are concerned about potential discrimination in the Los Angeles schools:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/03/obamas-first-discriminating-school.html

Scott W.: seconded. and thirded. and fourthed. and I am unanimous in that!

Mike T: I assume that you've seen this (ironically titled) short piece by Charles Murray: "The advantages of social apartheid", which points out the disastrous consequences of our refusal to apply the stick when it comes to bastardy. Anytime anybody calls you cruel or unchristian for making similar points, just think of what good company you're in.

Gina Danaher: I can't agree that the root of every mess is sin, but certainly many. And the wages of sin is death.

Jeff: if I could press a button and make somebody Dictator Of The World For Life, it would be Charles Murray. Brilliant yet relentlessly practical, fearless in the face of the thought-police, and overflowing with real (as opposed to lefty pretend) benevolence.

Of course, he'd turn down the job. But one can dream.

If I may insert something on the bastardy problem without (hopefully) thread-jacking, this is why we should be alarmed at trends in law and society that discourage adoption. I recently was told by someone in New Zealand that it is probably illegal in New Zealand for a young woman, pregnant out of wedlock, to designate that she wants Christian parents for her child if she decides to place the child for adoption. Adoption agencies aren't allowed to "discriminate"--in that or other ways. This discourages adoption, since it is understandable that a mother (say, a girl from a Christian home who fell into sin) wants to be able to designate something like this that she thinks understandably will give her child the best shot at a good life. That, in turn, means more out-of-wedlock babies are raised by single mothers or by single mothers and grandparents, which should not be the norm. Similarly, legal "reforms" in the United States and elsewhere whereby a biological father can forbid placing a child for adoption *without even being willing and able to take full custody of the child himself* have discouraged adoption. I know of one young woman who was tricked by a man who pretended to marry her (literally). She ended up pregnant, and the marriage-faker told her he "wouldn't let her" place the child for adoption. Result: Another little boy being raised by his mother without a father. Sometimes, of course, the statement that a man "won't let" the child be placed for adoption is simply a bluff intended to pressure her to abort. But the girls always believe it and set themselves up psychologically for intending and having to raise the child alone if they do not have it killed. Adoption is out the window as an option.

It's a serious issue, and I think that if bastardy were considered a more serious problem, we might revisit these sorts of legal barriers and remove them. I cannot say how get-down-and-kiss-the-ground grateful I am that my (exceedingly nasty) biological father, who objected strenuously by letter from France to my being placed for adoption, had no say-so in the matter. My life is a gift from God.

1) ability varies;

2) half of children are below average;

3) too many people are going to college;

4) the future of America depends on how we educate the academically gifted.

1) is obviously true. 2) is a sad axiom of those who want to give up on people. How do we know what half of people we have in a classroom? What if a classroom is full of people in the top half? It would be unjust to rob someone of a good education because someone pigeonholed them into number two, which I believe happened to some of my peers while we went through the public school system together.

3) is probably true. I'm uncomfortable with 4) since it probably follows from 2).

Mulder, who are these people "who want to give up on people?" Could you name some names and provide some evidence for that *extremely nasty* charge?

Well I can't speak for you, Steve, but I can give you an important example from my own experience (without naming the names though...that seems a little over the top and, frankly, not relevant to demonstrate that some people are lazy and all too willing to label people, something I'd be shocked to see you not agree with).

In 7th grade, some of us students (I'd guess roughly half just thinking of faces) were placed in the pre-algebra class, myself included. Other students were not, they were placed in the basic math class. Being so young at the time, I wondered the reason. I knew I was a good student and deserved the chance to take the class, but why not some of my friends? I wondered what the criteria had been for some of us to go through and not others.

Looking back, is there any doubt that the administration looked at grades and said, "Well some of these people are just not college bound" perhaps that they were even below average. But what if, Steve, they had been wrong to say, at the 7th grade juncture, these children are "below average" and not college bound? What if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy?

As a adjunct instructor at a community college, I haven't had any student that is unable to do the work. I simply won't label them as children who were "below average".

So, I think it's only fair, Steve, to ask you to give me names and evidence of the people in the world who are "below average".

And, for the record, I think the public school system is a grand liberal experiment gone totally wrong. Humpty just can't be put back together again.

Homeschooling is my preferred method to deal with 1). And, interestingly enough, how many homeschooling parents on here think 2) about their own children?

Mulder, as I'm sure you know, (2) is, as a matter of statistical fact, absolutely unassailable.

In 7th grade, some of us students (I'd guess roughly half just thinking of faces) were placed in the pre-algebra class, myself included. Other students were not, they were placed in the basic math class. Being so young at the time, I wondered the reason. I knew I was a good student and deserved the chance to take the class, but why not some of my friends? I wondered what the criteria had been for some of us to go through and not others.

Or it could have been like my school where the principal realized that she might scar half of the students for life from trying algebra since many of us weren't ready to dabble in it (pre-algebra being just the dilettante stage of algebra). There are proven developmental issues that many people have with certain subjects like math and science where their brains literally aren't mature enough to really grasp the subject. I was one of those. By the time I reached college, my main problem with math was a lack of education due to having had mostly bad teachers.

By the time I reached college, my main problem with math was a lack of education due to having had mostly bad teachers.

I can't tell you how many times students have told me this and I don't doubt that it's true. Teaching math takes a certain kind of patience that not everyone has. Certainly there are learning issues which have to be worked through by some, but that's just part of what makes the public school system broken. A homeschooling setting can provide the kind of environment one needs to work through these issues.

However, with the right kind of teachers, you could have made progress.

Mulder, as I'm sure you know, (2) is, as a matter of statistical fact, absolutely unassailable.

Then I will silently retreat, good sir.

I can't tell you how many times students have told me this and I don't doubt that it's true. Teaching math takes a certain kind of patience that not everyone has.

I realized what the problem was when I finished my Calculus class in college: it was the first class where the teacher actually explained **why** the logic works and what the goal really is.

However, with the right kind of teachers, you could have made progress.

Perhaps, but progress is not so much the issue as timing. I would have been better prepared in college, no doubt, but that is not to say that algebra in the 8th grade (we skipped pre-algebra and went straight into algebra) would have been appropriate for most of the students. Plenty of those students did just fine when they took it in 9th grade.

There are statistical problems with arguing from "what home schoolers think about their children" against the (as Paul says) statistically unimpeachable proposition that half of the children in the world are below average. (Is the Lake Woebegone fallacy now to be a required mental attitude in the name of "not giving up on people"?)

Average or above-average parents are less likely than below-average parents to have below-average children. Of course, it happens; it's just statistically less likely. And below-average parents are less likely than other parents to home school. You do the math.

That being said, I fully believe that there are children who are below-average who are home schooled. In our present environment we tend to call any such child "learning disabled," which I think is rather unfortunate. The sort of tracking Mulder deplores--simply realizing that Johnny isn't college material-- would be a more healthy response than saying that Johnny "has ADD." Anymore, you have to "have" something in order not to be regarded as college material, and sometimes the college is forced to accommodate you even if you do "have" something. All of which is ridiculous. The college industry in our country is grossly inflated, and that inflation is not good for young people, either. And that's not even mentioning the absolute junk with which some college classes fill their heads and without which they'd be better off anyway.

I'll add that our society as a whole does a miserable job of addressing the condition of those of below-average intelligence. Not only do we like to pretend that they don't exist, but we have also so ordered our educational system as to slowly grind them to bits. Vocational schools, the trades, the dignity of even manual labor -- these vital social resources for the more humble of intellect have been declining for decades. After about 3rd grade, our educational system increasingly selects for the bright and talented students, and neglects the dull and modestly-gifted, all while covering the whole business in a mass of platitudes and utopianism so that no compassionate realism can penetrate.

Steve:

Mulder, who are these people "who want to give up on people?" Could you name some names and provide some evidence for that *extremely nasty* charge?

Why, those evil folks who don't believe that 100% of people can be above average, of course!

I'll add that our society as a whole does a miserable job of addressing the condition of those of below-average intelligence. Not only do we like to pretend that they don't exist, but we have also so ordered our educational system as to slowly grind them to bits. Vocational schools, the trades, the dignity of even manual labor -- these vital social resources for the more humble of intellect have been declining for decades.

Paul, that is so very true and it really is criminal. It's also another disastrous fruit of egalitarianism, which doesn't know what to do with inequality - if everyone has to be equal, then we all have to be on the right side of the curve and there is something hideously wrong with those who aren't.

Just the other day I was listening to an NPR interview with Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, who was pushing the idea that everyone in America - EVERYONE! - should have some "higher education", no excuses, and that such was the goal of the Obama administration. What idiocy! And what a recipe for failure, alienation and despair for those unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side of the bell curve.

I have to admit that I read “below average” as some kind of combination between intelligence rating and potential (and some other less important factors). Reading it as just intelligence rating makes me change my tune quite a bit (perhaps I’m one of these below averagers). 2) isn’t bad if, by it, we’re making rules for ourselves not to go out of our way to help students who don’t want to help themselves. We can’t, “just pass ‘em” and I run my courses the same way, no apologies.

But my point, Lydia, was not pit emotion against stats, but to point out where our biases stand. Which of us are willing to put our children out there as the ones below average? I merely want to caution against unfair assumptions against "the other guy's" kids.

What idiocy! And what a recipe for failure, alienation and despair for those unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side of the bell curve.

The problem doesn't stop there. Most college degrees are of little value to employers, but students are continually suckered into those paths by a system which encourages them to believe that a degree, any degree, is a ticket to a better life. The problem becomes a real injustice when those students go tens of thousands into debt for those degrees. I've met a few girls who were literally over $100k in debt for an education in **education** and **dietetics** (two paths likely to pay about $20k-$25k/year where they lived).

Mulder - I think that it's just crazy - and deeply destructive - to say that to track people into the career paths in which they're most likely to succeed is to "give up" on them.

Based on a lifetime of experience, I'd say that the average plumber or fencer or nurse practitioner lives a better life and contributes more to the community than all but a very, very few academics.

Forcing the academic path, starting with stuff like geometry and algebra, on kids who hate it and who have no talent for it and who have plenty of other better paths in life is much, much worse than giving up on them: it is legalized torture, for them and for their teachers.

Paul, I was nodding my head in total agreement until I got to this:

"After about 3rd grade, our educational system increasingly selects for the bright and talented students, and neglects the dull and modestly-gifted..."

No, no, no! The truth is precisely the opposite. The higher the grade level, the more resources get wasted on trying to force "the dull and modestly-gifted" into the academic mold, while the bright and talented students sit in the back sleeping, or playing video-games or text-messaging on their calculators.

And don't even get me started on the endless cascades of cash flushed down the toilet of Spec. Ed.

The system doesn't serve the elite at the expense of the people - *it dis-serves everybody.*

And to the extent that the Bush's & Obama's of this world get their way, things will only get worse.

Steve, very well-said.

Mulder, I hope that if my kids really were below average I would have the intelligence, knowledge, and honesty to say so. Because I don't believe in giving out a lot of highly personal information in open Internet forums, I won't go into a discussion of the relative academic strengths and weaknesses of my children, but believe me, they have them, and I am probably considered by other people who know me personally to be almost brutally honest in discussing them and comparing them. As an objective matter, and based on extensive information and a good amount of testing and clear evidence of aptitude in areas like chess, I do not believe any of them is below average in mental ability. It doesn't follow that they all belong in an intensively academic life path, college plans, etc.

Jeff Culbreath @ 1:05 a.m. + Mike T @ 7:51 a.m. - what can I say but: high five!

And don't even get me started on the endless cascades of cash flushed down the toilet of Spec. Ed.

And this is where I'm coming from! Spec. Ed. is where the cash is. The more students in there, the more cash for a school (a crude equation but you get the idea). I simply don't trust the current system, or even a reformed system, to make these correct judgments, at least when there's cash involved. Students can be pushed into Spec. Ed. who may not really belong there. An interesting author on topics like this is here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ Some of you are probably familiar with him.

One thing I'm not saying is that everyone belongs in college or on a purely academic path. But I'm much more inclined to give them that option rather than let an administrator, who may have never even met the student, make the determination for them that they don't stand a chance.

And as a math teacher, it's my job to take exception when you compare algebra to torture!

Mulder - perhaps we don't disagree quite as much as I thought.

But, heck, speaking as one math teacher to another, let's face it: heaven for one student is hell for another.

For me, the world of mathematics & logic is a perfect world of crystalline beauty.

But, for my kids (i.e., the kids stuck in remedial math), it was nothing but torture.

Steve writes:

The higher the grade level, the more resources get wasted on trying to force "the dull and modestly-gifted" into the academic mold, while the bright and talented students sit in the back sleeping, or playing video-games or text-messaging on their calculators.

This reminds me of ... well, of many things, but what I have in mind at the moment is a comment a peer made in graduate school when I brought up the problem of largely ignoring the truly gifted kids -- the ones who could be doing serious college level work in highschool and actually pushing back the frontiers of ignorance by their 20s. My friend deprecated the idea of serious education enrichment, championing instead a robust course of remedial education for those who were struggling. I pointed out that resources, if not precisely zero-sum, would definitely be reallocated away from the gifted students under his prescription. He shrugged and replied, "So a few of the gifted students are a little underchallenged. So what?"

See Charles Murray's point 4), noted by Jeff Singer above.

"So a few of the gifted students are a little underchallenged. So what?"

If only there were some way for me to travel back through time and space to give this this guy a well-deserved punch in the nose.

But, hey - he's won, we've lost.

So maybe we're the real fools, here.