New York City Bans 'dinosaurs' From City Wide Test Questions ...

[AgrilusHunter]

... they also banned topics like birthdays, aliens, junk food, and dancing. Sigh.

http://abcnews.go.co...n-school-tests/

First sentence, fifth paragraph of above article reads 'Dinosaurs ... were banned because they reference evolution, which fundamentalist students might not agree with.'

Edited March 28, 2012 by AgrilusHunter

[Herb]

More of the Dumbing down of America It's really going to be hard writing textbooks that everyone has to agree with. So, I don't agree with differential equations, let's ban them too!!

The average IQ in the US was 100 thirty years ago, I wonder what it is now , 60.

This coming from a state that has a Creationists Museum.

[Herb]

Wait!! They banned ALIENS? What if we get invaded from outer space!!

We have gotten so PC, everyone is afraid to say anything that might offend someone.

Well, suck it up, that's life.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Herb

[ashcraft]

If you ignore things like that, they just go away.

Trying to ignore the obnoxious student in the front row.

Brent Ashcraft

[AgrilusHunter]

Wait!! They banned ALIENS? What if we get invaded from outer space!!

We have gotten so PC, everyone is afraid to say anything that might offend someone.

Well, suck it up, that's life.

I'm guessing they've banned outer space invasions too as these might disturb some students taking tests.

[Herb]

OMG !! Wait can I say that??

[Auspex]

It is about designing tests to achieve results which will not be skewed by the taker's emotional state. This is not a new thing, and it is not about political correctness.

[ashcraft]

It is about designing tests to achieve results which will not be skewed by the taker's emotional state. This is not a new thing, and it is not about political correctness.

I agree with your first point, and disagree with your second. The act of removing something that may be upsetting to somebody is what political correctness is, whatever the guise.

Brent Ashcraft

[THobern]

More of the Dumbing down of America It's really going to be hard writing textbooks that everyone has to agree with. So, I don't agree with differential equations, let's ban them too!!

The average IQ in the US was 100 thirty years ago, I wonder what it is now , 60.

This coming from a state that has a Creationists Museum.

It is by definition 100...

[THobern]

My suspicion is that they are covering themselves against time-consuming appeals as much as anything.

[RickNC]

So, I don't agree with differential equations, let's ban them too!!

Studying those right now and I agree. Ban em!

[Kehbe]

Wow, it's a wonder I lived through my youth! How in the world did I make it with all the distractions and the government not telling me how to live, and my parents before me and their parents too! Geeze, maybe we should just give them the answers to the tests so that they don't have to suffer the shame, humiliation and demoralization of failure! Everybody gets a trophy no matter if you win or not! We are after all a 'somebody owes me something' society! Speaking of taking the evolution out of the curriculum, a fellow i work with proved to me that creationism and evolution can coexist, I showed him a few brachiopod fossils and he asked in amazement, "How did those sea shells get all the way to Missouri? The ocean is so far away!" When I told him that this area was once covered in water, he said with complete conviction, "Oh yeah, that must have been when Noah built the ark!" That pretty much says it all eh?

[AgrilusHunter]

It is about designing tests to achieve results which will not be skewed by the taker's emotional state. This is not a new thing, and it is not about political correctness.

I understand the need for these exams to be well designed. However, I too think that this is about political correctness. Political correctness as I understand it is policies or behaviors that seek to minimize social offense with regard to gender, beliefs, politics, age, etc., etc. I don't take issue with these tests being designed to avoid emotional discomfort, I think that is spot on. What I think is idiotic is the banning of 'dinosaurs' because of a perceived linkage to evolution. Why not go all the way and ban references to living organisms in general. Wouldn't want to offend someone because the parrot in their test question might have evolved from a Therapod ancestor. Trying to design a test that doesn't offend anyone is an impossibility.

Edited March 28, 2012 by AgrilusHunter

[AgrilusHunter]

My suspicion is that they are covering themselves against time-consuming appeals as much as anything.

Probably spot on.

[ashcraft]

. Political correctness as I understand it is policies or behaviors that seek to minimize social offense with regard to gender, beliefs, politics, age, etc., etc.

Isn't this the angsts they are trying to minimize though by modifying these tests?

Brent Ashcraft

[THobern]

I understand the need for these exams to be well designed. I too disagree that this is about political correctness. Political correctness as I understand it is policies or behaviors that seek to minimize social offense with regard to gender, beliefs, politics, age, etc., etc. I don't take issue with these tests being designed to avoid emotional discomfort, I think that is spot on. What I think is idiotic is the banning of 'dinosaurs' because of a perceived linkage to evolution. Why not go all the way and ban references to living organisms in general. Wouldn't want to offend someone because the parrot in their test question might have evolved from a Therapod ancestor. Trying to design a test that doesn't offend anyone is an impossibility.

Yes, but it's a subject that people could more easily point to as a foreseeably offensive topic than extant organisms. Again, I think it just goes to sparing themselves the hassle of arguments down the line.

[AgrilusHunter]

Isn't this the angsts they are trying to minimize though by modifying these tests?

Brent Ashcraft

Sorry, I wasn't clear in the sentence preceding my definition of political correctness. I agree with you that this is an issue of political correctness. I've corrected my previous post to be more clear.

[Herb]

THobern, you are correct about the "average" IQ staying at 100. It is an artifical construct. Without the raw data the 100 is meaningless, you could call it Fred for all its worth. They are taking the "median" raw score and adjusting it to 100.For instance, if the median raw score in 1970 was 120 and the present day median raw score is 80, they would both be represented by an "average" IQ of 100. Where in reality, the 1970 raw score is actually 40 points higher than the 2012 raw score.

Is this not correct?

If anyone has never done any test scoring "median is the average of all the scores"

[THobern]

Median is actually the middle of all the scores, still a type of average, but not the only one.

THobern, you are correct about the "average" IQ staying at 100. It is an artifical construct. Without the raw data the 100 is meaningless, you could call it Fred for all its worth. They are taking the "median" raw score and adjusting it to 100.For instance, if the median raw score in 1970 was 120 and the present day median raw score is 80, they would both be represented by an "average" IQ of 100. Where in reality, the 1970 raw score is actually 40 points higher than the 2012 raw score.

Is this not correct?

If anyone has never done any test scoring "median is the average of all the scores"

It's not correct in any profound way. Firstly, you're conflating ignorance with intelligence. More importantly though, points need to be considered in the context of the scaling. It all depends on how you distribute your data; IQ's are distributed across a bell curve, scaled at 100 (and you need to know the distribution for it to be really meaningful). That's slightly different from simply adjusting the median to 100, as that wouldn't necessarily give you the same type of distribution, but that's another matter. What's important, is that you can't infer a difference of 40 points between two data sets, as you're dealing with standard distributions. The points show what percentile of people are encapsulated by a particular IQ; you can't apply simple addition or subtraction to compare changes; the difference between an iq of 100 and 120, is not the same as the difference between 120 and 140.

What you're really trying to say, though, is that people are becoming less intelligent. This isn't supported by evidence, in fact just the opposite has been found; http://en.wikipedia....ki/Flynn_effect. If you're saying that we're acting less rationally, don't just go off your gut reaction to a legislative measure. Instead of thinking about whether it is politically correct, a very crude way to consider a law, look at what its effects are and what it is trying to achieve (both directly and indirectly). If you don't know what the law is actually trying to solve, how can you assess its merits? There were actually problems before political correctness; for example, a genuine cultural bias existed in past SAT vocabulary sections. Secondly, just looking at this example, NY is probably trying to eliminate tedious appeals on grounds of bias (how would any of us feel if forced to answer questions that dealt with the Biblical flood?). In that light, it seems like a good ruling, as it will have a useful effect.

Edited March 29, 2012 by THobern

[ashcraft]

It all depends on how you distribute your data; IQ's are distributed across a bell curve, scaled at 100 (and you need to know the distribution for it to be really meaningful). That's slightly different from simply adjusting the median to 100, as that wouldn't necessarily give you the same type of distribution,

If you have equivalent bell curves, then you can equate them, even if the median value is difference, because they will overlay, causing a simlar distribution

What's important, is that you can't infer a difference of 40 points between two data sets, as you're dealing with standard distributions. The points show what percentile of people are encapsulated by a particular IQ; you can't apply simple addition or subtraction to compare changes; the difference between an iq of 100 and 120, is not the same as the difference between 120 and 140.

This is only true if you are comparing the two values on the same bell curve. If you compare the different data on their own distribution, and the distribution averages around 100 on one, and around 120 on the other, then one possible explanation is that they are actually scoring equivalent to each other, in terms of their distribution, and it is the measuring device that is causing the difference. An example, you test a group of individuals before a class, and they average 100, and then after they take the class, they score 120. They are no more "intelligent" then they were, they just know more (which isn't a bad thing), and this is reflected by the distribution being the same, even though the scores are actually higher.

What you're really trying to say, though, is that people are becoming less intelligent. This isn't supported by evidence, in fact just the opposite has been found;

In my opinion, people are neither gaining or losing intelligence. How can we as a group? Intelligence is not a selecting factor in how we reproduce. Most parts of the world are under Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (or very nearly so), so the gene frequencies are not changing. Intelligence is a function of genetics, so it is also is not changing. Culturally we know more things. Students leave my class with more genetic information then the top scientists of a hundred years ago knew collectively.

. If you're saying that we're acting less rationally, don't just go off your gut reaction to a legislative measure. Instead of thinking about whether it is politically correct, a very crude way to consider a law, look at what its effects are and what it is trying to achieve (both directly and indirectly).

You are absolutely correct, however we have seen such material come into main-stream before and, in our defense, if it looks like a dog turd, and smells like a dog turd, tasting really isn't necessary.

If you don't know what the law is actually trying to solve, how can you assess its merits? There were actually problems before political correctness; for example, a genuine cultural bias existed in past SAT vocabulary sections.

That is true, but the SAT is a measure of how a student will perform in college. If a potential student scores poorly for cultural reasons, or due to lack of education, or lack of intelligence, is the test incorrect? It is not a reflection of intelligence.

Secondly, just looking at this example, NY is probably trying to eliminate tedious appeals on grounds of bias (how would any of us feel if forced to answer questions that dealt with the Biblical flood?). In that light, it seems like a good ruling, as it will have a useful effect.

They made the mistake when they allowed bias to become a reason. If you heard me speak, with my deep southern accent, most people from the East coast would question my intelligence. It isn't even arguable. I ran a science based company for a number of years, and the first time anybody heard me on the phone, they would begin talking "down" to me. I deal with it, and move on. Bias is everywhere, as long as the test asks the same questions the same way to a large amount of individuals, you can statistically analyze where they are in relation to their peers.

Brent Ashcraft

[MikeD]

It is by definition 100...

Well...... that explains a lot of my observations of modern American culture......

[THobern]

I've tried to reply to your points in order. Apologies if I've missed one.

You can obviously overlay them, because they are the exact same distribution, but you can't compare their numbers through addition and subtraction, or at least not meaningfully so.

That's bizaare; you give a rational as to why you don't imagine that intelligence (not necessarily a purely genetic trait) is rising, completely ignoring the fact that I just provided evidence that it is; you can't ignore something because you can't understand how it happened.

My SAT example wasn't in relation to intelligence tests specifically, just that people didn't get on just fine in the past. It was a proxy for how well people would do in college, but some questions were indicative of an understanding of a certain social strata, not future performance.

'Bias' is a broad term. As best I can tell, you're saying that bias is universal. True, but banal; not all types of bias can easily factored out, and emotional reactions aren't 'foreseeable consequences' of all types of bias.

"as long as the test asks the same questions the same way to a large amount of individuals, you can statistically analyze where they are in relation to their peers"

This is true, but only because that's what a test is. But like the SAT example, it goes to what you're actually testing; are the questions indicative or the candidate's reasoning capacity, or of their reaction to the question? It may even be that NYC aren't cynically protecting themselves from controversy, they may genuinely be interested in testing a candidate's capacity for abstract thought, rather then their reaction to an emotive issue.

[Auspex]

...It may even be that NYC aren't cynically protecting themselves from controversy, they may genuinely be interested in testing a candidate's capacity for abstract thought, rather then their reaction to an emotive issue.

Exactly. Designing a test which yields meaningful results (here not just the measure of the taker's knowledge of the subject, but an assessment of the education system as well) is an art and a science.

[Herb]

THobern and Brent, you two are obviously intelligent individuals and have made some interesting and accurate observations . You are correct in that I was using IQ instead of knowledge. Bad on me. Since I do not know what you do for a living, I can say, that I deal with a goodly number of "average" people and that I have noticed a lack of basic skills in a large number of young adults. If you hand a cashier change after they have already entered a whole dollar amount they can not compute the change to be returned. Many can not fill out a job application without help. Being able to Google something on the internet is not the same as learned knowledge. Others have no idea how to balance a checkbook or do simple math. This is what I mean by the "dumbing down of America." One thing I will still disagree with is that the SAT is a measure of anything other than how well you can take a test. I did terrible on the SAT and was a "C" student in high school. However I graduated magna from college, and 4.0 in grad school. Motivation is more important than memorization. Regards, Herb

[ashcraft]

I think you got'em

You can obviously overlay them, because they are the exact same distribution, but you can't compare their numbers through addition and subtraction, or at least not meaningfully so.

I disagree, the purpose of statistical analysis is to compare groups of numbers. An identical distribution in a different location may not an artifact of the measure, but it very well could be. If I took an intelligence test when I was much younger (I did, sort of,130), I am sure I would get many more of the answers correct now, but I am not more intelligent, just more knowledgabe (some would strongly disagree). But statistically, everybody should improve the same amount, because of similar learning situations, leaving me at the same place in the satistical curve. If you subtract the average amount of change, the curve moves back to its original place.

That's bizaare; you give a rational as to why you don't imagine that intelligence (not necessarily a purely genetic trait) is rising, completely ignoring the fact that I just provided evidence that it is; you can't ignore something because you can't understand how it happened.

Actually you did not provide evidence, you provided heresay. I am sure you have read, or have the evidence however. Are people getting taller within the genomic allowances? Ability to do a task is ultimately a function of your genome, that is not arguable, which is what the definition of intelligence is. I would be interested to hear an explanation of how we (as a species) can be getting more intelligent. I explained why it is not possible, regardless of what study was done. The level of proof that has to be met to justify studies of that sort is around 50% probability as I recall from stats class. I teach school, what passes for research is laughable in education circles.

'Bias' is a broad term. As best I can tell, you're saying that bias is universal. True, but banal; not all types of bias can easily factored out, and emotional reactions aren't 'foreseeable consequences' of all types of bias.

I don't understand what you are saying, I think you were thinking faster tehn you were typing. In my opinion, when you start removing questions because somebodys feelings might get hurt, the overall test becomes skewed, and you can't compare it to other results.

This is true, but only because that's what a test is. But like the SAT example, it goes to what you're actually testing; are the questions indicative or the candidate's reasoning capacity, or of their reaction to the question? It may even be that NYC aren't cynically protecting themselves from controversy, they may genuinely be interested in testing a candidate's capacity for abstract thought, rather then their reaction to an emotive issue.

I understand what you are saying, and don't totally disagree, but in my opinion, which along with a dollar will get you a soda in the teacher's lounge, the powers that be have swung too far in this instance. Removing a question that pertains negatively to religion, race, or other truly emotional issues is not the same as removing dinosaurs from a test. Even so, if a person can truly do abstract thought, wouldn't emotional issues be irrelevant?

I appreciate your reasoned and concise responses. The biggest problem with teaching school, even the advanced classes, is that your mind gets dulled, especially this time of the year. It's good to think and reason for a change.

Brent Ashcraft