http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/toda...begon.html

Quote:National studies and surveys suggest that college students now get more A's than any other grade even though they spend less time studying. Cramer's solution -- to tack onto every transcript the percentage of students that also got that grade -- has split the faculty and highlighted how tricky it can be to define, much less combat, grade inflation."

See? And you thought public education wasn't working!

(05-30-2012 02:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/toda...begon.html

Quote:National studies and surveys suggest that college students now get more A's than any other grade even though they spend less time studying. Cramer's solution -- to tack onto every transcript the percentage of students that also got that grade -- has split the faculty and highlighted how tricky it can be to define, much less combat, grade inflation."

That's actually a great idea..

Clearly if all these Kids are getting A's then the schools are not teaching hard enough material... Lets double the course load.

(05-30-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 02:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/toda...begon.html

Quote:National studies and surveys suggest that college students now get more A's than any other grade even though they spend less time studying. Cramer's solution -- to tack onto every transcript the percentage of students that also got that grade -- has split the faculty and highlighted how tricky it can be to define, much less combat, grade inflation."

That's actually a great idea..

Clearly if all these Kids are getting A's then the schools are not teaching hard enough material... Lets double the course load.

In all fairness, this may be just fine. I think they should dig out some 100 year old tests, and see how the students do. If they're way better than students from that era, then maybe the grades are justified.

I doubt it, but there are deeper questions as to what grades are supposed to mean.

(05-30-2012 02:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 02:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/toda...begon.html

Quote:National studies and surveys suggest that college students now get more A's than any other grade even though they spend less time studying. Cramer's solution -- to tack onto every transcript the percentage of students that also got that grade -- has split the faculty and highlighted how tricky it can be to define, much less combat, grade inflation."

That's actually a great idea..

Clearly if all these Kids are getting A's then the schools are not teaching hard enough material... Lets double the course load.

In all fairness, this may be just fine. I think they should dig out some 100 year old tests, and see how the students do. If they're way better than students from that era, then maybe the grades are justified.

I doubt it, but there are deeper questions as to what grades are supposed to mean.

I not only doubt it I'd almost bet money against it..

(05-30-2012 02:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 02:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 02:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/toda...begon.html

Quote:National studies and surveys suggest that college students now get more A's than any other grade even though they spend less time studying. Cramer's solution -- to tack onto every transcript the percentage of students that also got that grade -- has split the faculty and highlighted how tricky it can be to define, much less combat, grade inflation."

That's actually a great idea..

Clearly if all these Kids are getting A's then the schools are not teaching hard enough material... Lets double the course load.

In all fairness, this may be just fine. I think they should dig out some 100 year old tests, and see how the students do. If they're way better than students from that era, then maybe the grades are justified.

I doubt it, but there are deeper questions as to what grades are supposed to mean.

I not only doubt it I'd almost bet money against it..

All signs point to the continued IQ growth throughout the population, even among the top 5% of scorers. Add in the increased ability to actually physically gain information (not just limited to libraries/books/etc), and the increased understanding of the learning process itself, and I think the smart money would be on us.

Though I don't have a major problem with the idea of including the percentage of kids who got A's in the classes, Hell, in my chem I class I was the only A out of 4 different classes the teacher had that semester, and it's not that he was a bad teacher, he was just tough and stickler for details. That A should definitely count for more than anothers who happened along a teacher who gave nothing but online tests and multiple extra credit opportunities.

(05-30-2012 04:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  All signs point to the continued IQ growth throughout the population, even among the top 5% of scorers.

I have a hard time with that. If anything, it's because colleges are taking the best and brightest foreign students - if anything. American students are beginning to really suck compared to the rest of the developed world.

Well damn what's wrong with me?

What happened to grading on a curve?

(05-30-2012 04:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  All signs point to the continued IQ growth throughout the population, even among the top 5% of scorers.

And what signs would those be?

(05-30-2012 06:32 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  What happened to grading on a curve?

I'm not sure I like curves. The best idiot is the A student, you know, that sort of thing.

(05-30-2012 04:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 04:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  All signs point to the continued IQ growth throughout the population, even among the top 5% of scorers.

I have a hard time with that. If anything, it's because colleges are taking the best and brightest foreign students - if anything. American students are beginning to really suck compared to the rest of the developed world.

It's called the Flynn Effect, and it's been observed throughout the world. It was theorized to be mostly attributed to better nutrition/lack of diseases which stunt development, but it seems to keep increasing even beyond that albeit at a slightly slower rate.

(05-30-2012 06:33 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 04:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  All signs point to the continued IQ growth throughout the population, even among the top 5% of scorers.

And what signs would those be?

Just the simple fact that IQ tests must be normalized every decade or so for them to not to inflate scores beyond what they are intended to signify (100 being average with a set standard deviation). In 1932, the average test score using the current test without normalization would be 80, 20 IQ points below the current average, with almost 25% of them being labeled 'deficient'.

(05-30-2012 10:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Just the simple fact that IQ tests must be normalized every decade or so for them to not to inflate scores beyond what they are intended to signify (100 being average with a set standard deviation). In 1932, the average test score using the current test without normalization would be 80, 20 IQ points below the current average, with almost 25% of them being labeled 'deficient'.

That's a poor interpretation of those results.

A better explanation is that teachers teach to the test. The material on IQ tests tends to be what is covered in academic settings. Basically, teachers thought they were creating "smarter" pupils by teaching to those tests.

In reality, knowledge has likely gone down. In 1932 women knew how to sew, bake and cook, men knew how to farm, and there were plenty of mechanical devices that they could repair. IQ tests were meant to test beyond that common, widely held knowledge.

Today's society lacks most of that practical knowledge, and instead people know textbook information. IQs aren't going up, rather this is a PR campaign by teachers and psychologists.

(05-31-2012 06:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 10:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Just the simple fact that IQ tests must be normalized every decade or so for them to not to inflate scores beyond what they are intended to signify (100 being average with a set standard deviation). In 1932, the average test score using the current test without normalization would be 80, 20 IQ points below the current average, with almost 25% of them being labeled 'deficient'.

That's a poor interpretation of those results.

A better explanation is that teachers teach to the test. The material on IQ tests tends to be what is covered in academic settings. Basically, teachers thought they were creating "smarter" pupils by teaching to those tests.

In reality, knowledge has likely gone down. In 1932 women knew how to sew, bake and cook, men knew how to farm, and there were plenty of mechanical devices that they could repair. IQ tests were meant to test beyond that common, widely held knowledge.

Today's society lacks most of that practical knowledge, and instead people know textbook information. IQs aren't going up, rather this is a PR campaign by teachers and psychologists.

This is a PR campaign by teachers and psychologists? What the f*ck are you even talking about? Did you even read the link? It's simply an effect a researcher noticed, and one that has been recorded in dozens of different populations throughout the world. I'm not even aware of one instance where this effect has been utilized by educators as proof that they were doing their job, I'm guessing one reason that is is because that's not what a rising IQ level would imply at all.

Furthermore, 'teach the test'? Do you even know how IQ tests work? The closest argument one could make along those lines is that as our population advances, our population is more accustomed to tests in general, but if you'd read the link, there's other more compelling reasons for this rise. The information on an IQ test isn't released, nor is it information that one can review for effectively either. Not to mention I feel the need to repeat the fact that every population that has been studied has seen this same effect, throughout the world, and it's fairly constant. It's so widespread that a major theory to explain it is an increase in heterosis for christs sake.

(05-31-2012 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is a PR campaign by teachers and psychologists? What the f*ck are you even talking about?

If you don't know, then why do you keep talking further?

(05-31-2012 07:31 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is a PR campaign by teachers and psychologists? What the f*ck are you even talking about?

If you don't know, then why do you keep talking further?

What I mean is, this is an obscenely idiotic stance to take. The person who discovered this phenomena, and who it's named after, intended to use this as proof that IQ tests don't work. It isn't some singular study done by a PAC funded 'independent' research organization, it is a collection of dozens of studies, done in dozens of countries, which have all found the same trend.

The fact of the matter is, all signs point to current students being more intelligent than past students. All you have to go on is your skewed opinion of higher education, I am using vast amounts of quantitative evidence to back up my claim. If you're truly a doctor of chemistry, you'd know which one carries far more weight.

(05-31-2012 09:56 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 07:31 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is a PR campaign by teachers and psychologists? What the f*ck are you even talking about?

If you don't know, then why do you keep talking further?

What I mean is, this is an obscenely idiotic stance to take. The person who discovered this phenomena, and who it's named after, intended to use this as proof that IQ tests don't work. It isn't some singular study done by a PAC funded 'independent' research organization, it is a collection of dozens of studies, done in dozens of countries, which have all found the same trend.

Actually I read the article after I posted and many of the hypotheses match mine. So I am amused that you criticized me.

What is interesting is the improved nutrition and reduced pollution theories, although I'm not sure that Pb was a big issue in 1932.

Quote:The fact of the matter is, all signs point to current students being more intelligent than past students.

You should have read the article. Because that's not the case. There were plenty of other explanations being offered.

Quote:What is interesting is the improved nutrition and reduced pollution theories, although I'm not sure that Pb was a big issue in 1932.

Wasn't it in gasoline and paints at that point in time? I also read another article that another factor which might be even more difficult to measure yet have a major impact in this area is diseases a mother was exposed to either before or during pregnancy.

Quote:Actually I read the article after I posted and many of the hypotheses match mine. So I am amused that you criticized me.

The hypothesis that 'it's a conspiracy by educators' isn't one of them, and that's the one I'm taking issue with because it's f*cking laughable.

Quote:You should have read the article. Because that's not the case. There were plenty of other explanations being offered.

There are, yes, but most still point towards the same trend; that current students would score better on past tests than past students. Even if the IQ trend is completely limited to their ability to take tests, which I think could be a contributing factor but is clearly not the major factor, it would still translate to my original claim being correct.

(05-31-2012 10:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:What is interesting is the improved nutrition and reduced pollution theories, although I'm not sure that Pb was a big issue in 1932.

Wasn't it in gasoline and paints at that point in time?

Yes it was in gasoline by then. Interesting. Although there were far fewer automobiles at that time, but it's worth exploring. Of course that means all those progressive professors of the '60s were really idiots.

Lead in paint has been a bogeyman of lawyers, that hasn't been a widespread problem, ever. Oh, and it wasn't out of greed that manufacturers used lead. Titania in paint leads to rapid peeling b/c of photochemistry. It takes some clever processing to make it neutral.

Quote:I also read another article that another factor which might be even more difficult to measure yet have a major impact in this area is diseases a mother was exposed to either before or during pregnancy.

Plausible.

Quote: Even if the IQ trend is completely limited to their ability to take tests, which I think could be a contributing factor but is clearly not the major factor, it would still translate to my original claim being correct.

No, b/c then it indicates that the tests are flawed, and not a fair measure of IQ, at least not from a longitudinal perspective.

Jay Matthews wrote some time back that higher grades weren't a problem b/c current students did so much more than in the past. E.g., his daughter was writing full essays in spanish in her 4th year.

I think that's worth considering, however what is missing is the knowledge that has been lost over the decades. Again, a fair test would be a comparison of tests in subjects that haven't changed much over a century. Math and foreign languages would be good starts.