You've dug up similar stuff before, and when we d\ug into it we found that what the Cato Institute has ignored is that high school completion rates ha ve gone up a lot over the period in question.
formatting link
formatting link
It's a lot cheaper to throw out the harder-educate kids than it is to give them extra tuition they need to get them through to graduation.
There are more kids being educated so there are more 17-year-olds still in school, being tested for reading, math and science skills. It may be odd th at hanging onto the less easily educated students hasn't dropped the averag e measured performance at 17, but it's not in the least surprising that mor e teachers have had to work harder (and collect more pay) to manage this
g
Chalk up another example of James Arthur - and the Cato Institute - seeing what they want to see in the data, and ignoring what was actually going on.
Since James Arthur has already had one bloody nose from peddling this nonse nse, it's a little surprising that he's tried to sell it here again.
Sure. Personnel departments do all sorts of useful stuff. Just don't let th em near technical hiring,
I was quite specific about my objection - the problem I was high-lighting w as letting them near technical hiring.
Then the ad should have been drafted more carefully,or placed where fewer u ninteresting people would have read it.
The problem is that the personnel department would have been glad to "help" and would rejected most of the resumes for the wrong reasons.
You really do need to have the resumes read by somebody who knows what they are looking for
I met the personnel officer for the firm that hired me after I graduated in the university milk round - when people who were close to graduation talke d to personnel officers from firms that might hire them.
He wanted to spend the interview reading - out loud - the pamphlet that I'd already been sent and had read. I suggested that this wasn't a useful way of using the time, but he kept on reading and I ended up walking out.
I actually got hired by the engineers I ended up working with. The intervie w didn't take long. They asked me how a Xerox machine worked, and I told th em - it wasn't something that had been taught in my Ph.D. course, but I'd b een curious - and I did it well enough that the guy who was subsequently my boss said "you're hired". He wasn't being entirely serious, but that's how it played out.
You may have started that comment with "Nope" but it strikes me that you've just rephrased what I said.
My version of that is that being polite can be a waste of time.If you don't state something forcefully enough that somebody can't ignore it, you can f ind that they will ignore it. It doesn't need a tantrum, but the target won 't like it much.
No one is saying that smart people can't be prima donnas, but those that ar e do tend to spend a certain amount of their time establishing their positi on at the top of the pecking order.
It may be worth the effort to make sure that people will do things your way without wasting too much of your time by demanding detailed justifications , but few people are so smart that this is an actual waste of time, as oppo sed to a wise precaution.
t what the Cato Institute has ignored is that high school completion rates have gone up a lot over the period in question.
e them extra tuition they need to get them through to graduation.
n school, being tested for reading, math and science skills. It may be odd that hanging onto the less easily educated students hasn't dropped the aver age measured performance at 17, but it's not in the least surprising that m ore teachers have had to work harder (and collect more pay) to manage this
ing
g what they want to see in the data, and ignoring what was actually going o n.
sense, it's a little surprising that he's tried to sell it here again.
So (if we believe these incompetent Vogons' graduation _estimates_), ~6% of the school population staying a couple extra years or so 'til graduation accounts for per-capita K-to-12 spending increasing by a factor of ~2.85?
You're insane. (Dan would never make that mistake.)
( It only tacks on ~6% * 2 yr/13 yr = 1%. )
You seem only ever able to make qualitative arguments, and unable to judge when they're orders-of-magnitude nutty. That explains a lot.
at what the Cato Institute has ignored is that high school completion rates have gone up a lot over the period in question.
o give them extra tuition they need to get them through to graduation.
in school, being tested for reading, math and science skills. It may be od d that hanging onto the less easily educated students hasn't dropped the av erage measured performance at 17, but it's not in the least surprising that more teachers have had to work harder (and collect more pay) to manage thi s
being
ing what they want to see in the data, and ignoring what was actually going on.
onsense, it's a little surprising that he's tried to sell it here again.
of
If you look at the data with your incompetent Vogon eyes, you see 6% increa se in the school population, and expect to see a 6% increase in labour cost .
Sadly, your incompetent Vogon brain failed to take on board my central poin t, which is that the extra 6% was a lot harder teach.
You are inane, and you've fallen into a trap that even Dan would have avoid ed.
It would, if those students were as easy to teach as the rest of the studen t population. They aren't. They don't want to stay at school and just keepi ng them in class takes a lot of effort, and teaching them anything a whole lot more.
It's as much cultural as anything else - minority students are more prone t o drop out because that's what their relatives did, but there are also elem ents of domestic American culture which don't see much point in education.
Both you are krw seem to have decided that you know all you need to know, a nd that there's no point in learning anything new - or God forbid - differe nt.
e
Your attempt to make a quantitative argument, ignoring what was actually go ing on - hanging onto the "less easily educated students" - does make it cl ear that your idea of "quantitative" is "something vaguely numerical which appears to support my pre-existing point of view".
If you want to try to quantify the extra effort required to educate a stude nt who doesn't want to stay on, be my guest, but I suspect that the effort is beyond what's left of your brain - right-wing re-education camps tend to take a lot out of you. The critical faculties are obviously the first to g o, but quantitative skills don't seem to be far behind.
I'm merely following your example, except that you carry on posting right-w ing nonsense (again and again), and I carry on pointing out that it is nons ense.
that what the Cato Institute has ignored is that high school completion rat es have gone up a lot over the period in question.
to give them extra tuition they need to get them through to graduation.
ll in school, being tested for reading, math and science skills. It may be odd that hanging onto the less easily educated students hasn't dropped the average measured performance at 17, but it's not in the least surprising th at more teachers have had to work harder (and collect more pay) to manage t his
s being
eeing what they want to see in the data, and ignoring what was actually goi ng on.
nonsense, it's a little surprising that he's tried to sell it here again.
% of
n
5?
ease in the school population, and expect to see a 6% increase in labour co st.
int, which is that the extra 6% was a lot harder teach.
ided.
ent population. They aren't. They don't want to stay at school and just kee ping them in class takes a lot of effort, and teaching them anything a whol e lot more.
to drop out because that's what their relatives did, but there are also el ements of domestic American culture which don't see much point in education .
and that there's no point in learning anything new - or God forbid - diffe rent.
dge
going on - hanging onto the "less easily educated students" - does make it clear that your idea of "quantitative" is "something vaguely numerical whic h appears to support my pre-existing point of view".
dent who doesn't want to stay on, be my guest, but I suspect that the effor t is beyond what's left of your brain - right-wing re-education camps tend to take a lot out of you. The critical faculties are obviously the first to go, but quantitative skills don't seem to be far behind.
-wing nonsense (again and again), and I carry on pointing out that it is no nsense.
His point still stands. An extra 6% of difficult kids taking another 185% t he cost does not compute, unless you're really claiming they require that t imes as many teachers per child.
d that what the Cato Institute has ignored is that high school completion r ates have gone up a lot over the period in question.
is to give them extra tuition they need to get them through to graduation.
till in school, being tested for reading, math and science skills. It may b e odd that hanging onto the less easily educated students hasn't dropped th e average measured performance at 17, but it's not in the least surprising that more teachers have had to work harder (and collect more pay) to manage this
ess
seeing what they want to see in the data, and ignoring what was actually g oing on.
is nonsense, it's a little surprising that he's tried to sell it here again .
~6%
crease in the school population, and expect to see a 6% increase in labour cost.
point, which is that the extra 6% was a lot harder teach.
voided.
udent population. They aren't. They don't want to stay at school and just k eeping them in class takes a lot of effort, and teaching them anything a wh ole lot more.
ne to drop out because that's what their relatives did, but there are also elements of domestic American culture which don't see much point in educati on.
w, and that there's no point in learning anything new - or God forbid - dif ferent.
judge
y going on - hanging onto the "less easily educated students" - does make i t clear that your idea of "quantitative" is "something vaguely numerical wh ich appears to support my pre-existing point of view".
tudent who doesn't want to stay on, be my guest, but I suspect that the eff ort is beyond what's left of your brain - right-wing re-education camps ten d to take a lot out of you. The critical faculties are obviously the first to go, but quantitative skills don't seem to be far behind.
ht-wing nonsense (again and again), and I carry on pointing out that it is nonsense.
the cost does not compute, unless you're really claiming they require that times as many teachers per child.
I don't know where he got the 6% from. The US high school completion rate w as about 80% in 1970, and about 90% in 2009. That's a difference of 10%, no t 6%.
Lots more teacher attention for the really difficult kids is going to trans late into more effort put into the merely ordinary kids - you are going to change the way the teachers approach every kid that they teach. For 10% of the kids on their own to use 185% of the original teaching effort, the hard
-to-educate kids would need to get 12 times as much effort per kid. Classes don't work like that.
The was an episode in the TV show "The Wire" which purported to show specia l classes for creamed-off hard-to-educate kids - half the hard-to-educate k ids were presented as having mental health problems, which probably does ha ppen in real schools. Nut cases can take up a lot of a teacher's time, and being able to throw them out must have saved a lot of effort and expense.
What is actually going to happen in real classes is that all the lower achi eving kids are going to get more effort. The ones who wouldn't have made it in the past would then get perhaps four time as much effort, the ones who would have been in the middle of the class get maybe twice as much effort, and the ones who would have cruised through wouldn't get any more effort. T hat more or less fits the the 285% increase in cost. I suspect that the ext ra time with hardest-to-educate kids is actually going to increase exponent ially, possibly even hyperbolicly as you step down the educatibility peckin g order, but even a linear increase of teaching time per kid gives you a pl ausible result.
Some kids can teach themselves - but the school then has to put in an effor t to make sure that they don't get too far ahead of themselves and the rest of the class, and know how much they are officially expected to know.
If you don't throw out the hard-to-educate kids you've got a different - an d more expensive - kind of school. The economic benefits of getting a 90% g raduation rate, as opposed to 80%, are considerable and when you bear in mi nd that a lot of those extra graduates are going to come from minority grou ps, the social and political benefits are also well worth having.
James Arthur feels the pain in his wallet from that 285% increase. He is le ss sensible of what his money is buying.
d that what the Cato Institute has ignored is that high school completion r ates have gone up a lot over the period in question.
is to give them extra tuition they need to get them through to graduation.
till in school, being tested for reading, math and science skills. It may b e odd that hanging onto the less easily educated students hasn't dropped th e average measured performance at 17, but it's not in the least surprising that more teachers have had to work harder (and collect more pay) to manage this
ess being
seeing what they want to see in the data, and ignoring what was actually g oing on.
is nonsense, it's a little surprising that he's tried to sell it here again .
~6% of
ion
.85?
crease in the school population, and expect to see a 6% increase in labour cost.
point, which is that the extra 6% was a lot harder teach.
voided.
udent population. They aren't. They don't want to stay at school and just k eeping them in class takes a lot of effort, and teaching them anything a wh ole lot more.
ne to drop out because that's what their relatives did, but there are also elements of domestic American culture which don't see much point in educati on.
w, and that there's no point in learning anything new - or God forbid - dif ferent.
judge
y going on - hanging onto the "less easily educated students" - does make i t clear that your idea of "quantitative" is "something vaguely numerical wh ich appears to support my pre-existing point of view".
tudent who doesn't want to stay on, be my guest, but I suspect that the eff ort is beyond what's left of your brain - right-wing re-education camps ten d to take a lot out of you. The critical faculties are obviously the first to go, but quantitative skills don't seem to be far behind.
ht-wing nonsense (again and again), and I carry on pointing out that it is nonsense.
the cost does not compute, unless you're really claiming they require that times as many teachers per child.
That's right. Sloman's making up stories: a) that 6% of the kids are 30x harder to teach, and b) that that is where we are spending all of this additional money.
Sloman's fabricating pure fantasy, but he seems oblivious to how absurd. That's what I meant by him seeming incapable of judging quantity, e.g., relative contributions of various factors, or the physical implications of his hypotheses.
Have we trebled the number of teachers per capita? Have class sizes fallen by 2/3rds? Or do 6% of students have three times as many teachers as the rest? Of course not.
6% of students attending a couple extra years does not explain a 185% increase in costs.
5% the cost does not compute, unless you're really claiming they require th at times as many teachers per child.
was about 80% in 1970, and about 90% in 2009. That's a difference of 10%, not 6%.
nslate into more effort put into the merely ordinary kids - you are going t o change the way the teachers approach every kid that they teach. For 10% o f the kids on their own to use 185% of the original teaching effort, the ha rd-to-educate kids would need to get 12 times as much effort per kid. Class es don't work like that.
ial classes for creamed-off hard-to-educate kids - half the hard-to-educate kids were presented as having mental health problems, which probably does happen in real schools. Nut cases can take up a lot of a teacher's time, an d being able to throw them out must have saved a lot of effort and expense.
hieving kids are going to get more effort. The ones who wouldn't have made it in the past would then get perhaps four time as much effort, the ones wh o would have been in the middle of the class get maybe twice as much effort , and the ones who would have cruised through wouldn't get any more effort. That more or less fits the the 285% increase in cost. I suspect that the e xtra time with hardest-to-educate kids is actually going to increase expone ntially, possibly even hyperbolicly as you step down the educatibility peck ing order, but even a linear increase of teaching time per kid gives you a plausible result.
ort to make sure that they don't get too far ahead of themselves and the re st of the class, and know how much they are officially expected to know.
and more expensive - kind of school. The economic benefits of getting a 90% graduation rate, as opposed to 80%, are considerable and when you bear in mind that a lot of those extra graduates are going to come from minority gr oups, the social and political benefits are also well worth having.
less sensible of what his money is buying.
I don't know if you got my reply to this, it's not showing up here for some reason.
I usually don't bother replying to the left any more, especially the ones that are deep in their own universe. For example he actually believes the intended purpose, and likely result, of the Iran deal is to prevent them from getting nukes. Considering that the deal includes a promise that we will help them prevent cyber attacks on their operations, they are extremely clever in the way they hide their true intentions. But why bother answering that?
und that what the Cato Institute has ignored is that high school completion rates have gone up a lot over the period in question.
t is to give them extra tuition they need to get them through to graduation .
still in school, being tested for reading, math and science skills. It may be odd that hanging onto the less easily educated students hasn't dropped the average measured performance at 17, but it's not in the least surprisin g that more teachers have had to work harder (and collect more pay) to mana ge this
- seeing what they want to see in the data, and ignoring what was actually going on.
this nonsense, it's a little surprising that he's tried to sell it here aga in.
,
l
increase in the school population, and expect to see a 6% increase in labou r cost.
l point, which is that the extra 6% was a lot harder teach.
avoided.
student population. They aren't. They don't want to stay at school and just keeping them in class takes a lot of effort, and teaching them anything a whole lot more.
rone to drop out because that's what their relatives did, but there are als o elements of domestic American culture which don't see much point in educa tion.
now, and that there's no point in learning anything new - or God forbid - d ifferent.
o
lly going on - hanging onto the "less easily educated students" - does make it clear that your idea of "quantitative" is "something vaguely numerical which appears to support my pre-existing point of view".
student who doesn't want to stay on, be my guest, but I suspect that the e ffort is beyond what's left of your brain - right-wing re-education camps t end to take a lot out of you. The critical faculties are obviously the firs t to go, but quantitative skills don't seem to be far behind.
ight-wing nonsense (again and again), and I carry on pointing out that it i s nonsense.
5% the cost does not compute, unless you're really claiming they require th at times as many teachers per child.
James Arthur is in typical strawman mode. The argument is not that the extr a students that take you from an 80% graduation rate in 1970 to 90% in 2010 are 30 times harder to teach, it's that the schools have changed to be abl e to pay enough attention to the 10% of the students population that they p reviously let drop out to keep them in school and interested enough to grad uate.
This means devoting more time to all the marginal students - you don't know who's going to drop out until they actually drop out - and to spending mon ey on truant officers to haul in the students whi try to skip school.
James Arthur's fantasy of a school system which could raise graduation rate s from 80% to 90% is the product of a slightly more diseased imagination.
James Arthur's *quantitative* estimate that you can raise the graduation ra te by 6% (in reality 11%) by putting in 6% more hours reflects a rather mor e unrealistic image of how secondary education works. It's not stuffing a p rinted circuit board - some kids are easy to teach, and others take more ef fort.
The ones that were thrown out in 1970 won't have been the easiest ones to t each
Rhetorical questions. James Arthur could have looked up some answers, but d idn't. Keeping unwilling students in the school system does take more than more intensive teaching - truant officers have to work a lot harder, and bu lly/fine the parents into making sure that their kids go to school
It was 11%. and and if you have to teach them (and their marginal companion s who did scrape through) more intensively it can explain a lot of that in crease in cost - all of it isn't implausible.
I imagine that there's a more reliable analysis around than that provided b y the Cato Institute (which completely ignored the better performance of th e more expensive school system) but we can rely on you not to be able to fi nd it.
I suspect that the Cato Institute swept a number of other changes in the sc hool system under the carpet when they presented their analysis - in Austra lia the schools have taken on a certain amount of child-minding responsibil ity, making life easier for working mothers, which has made them more expen sive.
No sane person could think that it was aimed at anything more than slowing down the process.
How does anybody know what their *true* intentions are?
James Arthur finds that rational criticism is weaving fantastically improba ble theories because it isn't based on the right-wing nonsense he is commit ted to propagating. Anything the Cato Institute says has to be correct and reliable, even when less heavily indoctrinated observers can recognise it a s one-eyed right-wing propaganda.
John Larkin doesn't like being shown up as a gullible sucker, and I've done it often enough that he associates my posts with a deflation of his vanity.
He's more comfortable describing these deflations as pointless insults rather than as the correction of mistakes.
Or maybe he's just too dumb to recognise when he has got stuff wrong.
It doesn't seem to be coming up. I got on a plane on Sunday and flew to Amsterdam, so I haven't been paying attention for the last few days, not that there's been much to pay attention to.
James Arthur still seems to think that anything that comes out of the Cato Institute is the last word on the subject, no matter how much reality has been swept under the table.
I'll answer since I don't want to be ambiguous. "They" refers to the left, including you. "Their intentions" refers to the intention or purpose of the deal.
But if "death to America" repeated for 40 years doesn't make Iran's intentions clear, that's just another example of your denial of reality.
I somehow doubt that the Iranian cries of *death to America* represent any kind of national plan to kill a lot of Americans.
Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979 - 37 years ago - after the Irani ans had had enough of the Shah and kicked him out. Everybody was well aware that the CIA had engineered the coup that had put the Shah into power in 1
953, and were - and probably still are - unhappy with the US, who also seem to have persuaded Sadam Hussien to try and invade Iraq from 1980 to 1988.
The US has contributed to the deaths of a lot of Iranians over the years. I t may take them a while to feel that they don't need effective weapons with which to defend themselves.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.