Re: Great physicist rejected by anti-semitic M.I.T.

In article <1188834230.911857.109140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
KarenElizabeth <karenelizabeth3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:44 pm, hru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <fb9kjn$f2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

Steve Goldfarb <s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In <1188580603.206408.33...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> KarenElizabeth <karenelizabe...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

....................

If you assume that the only point of education is to sit people down
in a classroom, cram in as much information as possible at as young an
age as possible, keep them moving along so that they can get out of
the classroom as early as possible, and while you're at it, toss aside
those who don't learn as quickly, then there's no point.

Why in a traditional classroom? In fact, it is the
educationists who take this position, claiming that it is
socialization which is more important than what is learned.
They object strongly to home schooling or other means of
learning, no matter what it accomplishes.

Also, one does not learn the concepts, which are important,
by sitting in a classroom and listening. Memorization and
rote learning, without the understanding that is rarely
even attempted, leads to what is easily forgotten, and
hence is of little value.

That's not what I see as the point of education, particularly higher
education.

So higher education should be turning out socialized
ignoramuses? It largely is now, as are all other levels.

The point of diversity is to have a group of people from different
backgrounds and different world views, who can bring different
information and different opinions to the debate ... remembering that
education included philosophy and literature, not just statistics.
How dull college would have been otherwise! How dull my life would
be!

Philosophy and literature are overdone at ALL levels.
Literature is entertainment plus philosophy, and whose
philosophy is presented? The philosophy NOT presented
is that people have different abilities, and attempting
to treat them all as equal is at best stupid.

Very little philosophy starts with the limitations which
the laws of nature impose. If you take the position
that we can do what is impossible, what you espouse will
be actions which do not accomplish the purpose. This
alas is what most political and religious leaders have
been doing through the ages.

It is one thing to use affirmative to admit someone who
has the necessary abilities and is willing to make up
deficiencies in preparation, recognizing that they are
there. It is quite another to say that the proportion of
applicants in that category MUST be the same, or even
comparable.

Quotas are illegal in the US, AFIAK. (I'm not an education or
discrimination attorney.) If you have evidence of one or more schools
using quotas, I'd suggest that you present it to the DOJ or your
friendly neighborhood class action attorney (I'm not one).

It took a long time to get such a ruling that unequal
proportions are legal. There are ways around quotas,
by giving points for belonging to certain races, etc.


Alas, the educationists

People who are specialists in the theory and methods of education.
You'd reject such specialists, presumably.

Very definitely. There have been a few places where
they have been overturned, such as getting rid of that
abomination, the whole word method, which made a large
proportion of the population much less literate than
they would otherwise be. This was only possible because
tools were made available so that uneducated parents
could teach their children to read with phonics.

They claim to use statistical methods, but their methods
are rarely appropriate, and they do not understand them
anyhow. They have learned a few mantras, and plug data
into them, not having any idea of what is going on. It
is something like teaching people to solve differential
equations, and making everything into a differential
equation. I would rather not teach this at all, but
teach the non-mathematicians what is involved in setting
up differential equations.

and leftists are not willing to
admit a major genetic effect, although this is obvious
to anyone who is willing to consider the data.

Racist drivel.

NOT racist. The races differ, and even subgroups which
are selected in some way differ. I do not know what
the differences are, and a genius from one race should
be treated like a genius from any other. It takes
very little in selection processes to make a huge
difference in the proportion of geniuses.

There IS
an environmental effect as well, but when the policy is
to assume that those with comparable formal educational
credentials are comparably educated, only bad results
can occur. I have seen too much to be willing to assume
that it can be otherwise.
--

In other words, you assume that minorites are genetically defective
and simply not as bright. Be sure to keep your white sheets bleached
and pressed. You need them.

Some are, and some are not. If a group has those with
lower intelligence producing large numbers of progeny,
and otherwise mating randomly, in two generations the
proportion of bright children will be way down. This
is a fact of probability, and no philosophy can change
this. The laws of nature are NOT subject to your
philosophy, and never will be.

k




--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.