WSJ: Half of all children are below average intelligence

[Jerk]

Hahhahahhahhahahaahahahaa!!

(oops, jokes on me now!)

Intelligence in the Classroom
Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.

BY CHARLES MURRAY
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Education is becoming the preferred method for diagnosing and attacking a wide range problems in American life. The No Child Left Behind Act is one prominent example. Another is the recent volley of articles that blame rising income inequality on the increasing economic premium for advanced education. Crime, drugs, extramarital births, unemployment--you name the problem, and I will show you a stack of claims that education is to blame, or at least implicated.

One word is missing from these discussions: intelligence. Hardly anyone will admit it, but education's role in causing or solving any problem cannot be evaluated without considering the underlying intellectual ability of the people being educated. Today and over the next two days, I will put the case for three simple truths about the mediating role of intelligence that should bear on the way we think about education and the nation's future.

Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

What a fkn genius!

[Beef]

So I have a 50/50 chance of having above average intelligence? Sweet!

[FaninAma]

Hahhahahhahhahahaahahahaa!!

(oops, jokes on me now!)

Intelligence in the Classroom
Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.

BY CHARLES MURRAY
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Education is becoming the preferred method for diagnosing and attacking a wide range problems in American life. The No Child Left Behind Act is one prominent example. Another is the recent volley of articles that blame rising income inequality on the increasing economic premium for advanced education. Crime, drugs, extramarital births, unemployment--you name the problem, and I will show you a stack of claims that education is to blame, or at least implicated.

One word is missing from these discussions: intelligence. Hardly anyone will admit it, but education's role in causing or solving any problem cannot be evaluated without considering the underlying intellectual ability of the people being educated. Today and over the next two days, I will put the case for three simple truths about the mediating role of intelligence that should bear on the way we think about education and the nation's future.

Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

What a fkn genius!

You don't get it do you. It is society's responsibility to take care of all of the children produced by parents regardless of the ability of said parents to care for and educate these children. Having as many children as you want is a god given right. Taking care of and providing for these children without heavy assistance from the state is optional in our society.

[fadada1]

Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.

Hardly anyone will admit it, but education's role in causing or solving any problem cannot be evaluated without considering the underlying intellectual ability of the people being educated.

i think one thing people fail to realize/accept/understand is that much of the propblem does not lie with the people "being educated", rather it lies with the people "educating" these below average students. while many of the problems can be attributed to parents, teachers are the ones filling children's heads with information about history, english, match, science, etc... if teachers are below average, how can we expect our nation's children to be anything other than "below average"

in my time teaching at Sam Houston, i saw (all too often) students being "pushed through" the system just so professors wouldn't have to deal with them again in the next semester. this was someting i simply DID NOT do. if you EARNED a D in class, then that's what you saw on your transcript. period. so, in essence, we have many D students teaching children at a D level.

i could go on and on, but i just get upset.

oh, and this is just my opinion.

[Vaevictis]

Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence.

That is easily my favorite fallacy about the average. :)

[NYSooner1355]

well, if we're looking at "average" then wouldn't you have to have essentially half BELOW and Half ABOVE...

[Soonrboy]

Yeah, what's the average IQ..100, I think. So half of the people fall below 100 and half fall above. That's an average.

[OklahomaTuba]

Heh, that's pretty funny.

[fadada1]

half of us are morans, and the other half aren't morans.

[sooneron]

I thought that 115-20 was the average IQ

[Soonrboy]

For special ed matters in schools, average is 100

[fadada1]

I thought that 115-20 was the average IQ
115 is one standard deviation above average. 85 is one S.D. below... where most of us southovalers fall.

[Vaevictis]

well, if we're looking at "average" then wouldn't you have to have essentially half BELOW and Half ABOVE...

Take the average of the following series of numbers:

{1,10000,10000,10000,10000}

Do half of the numbers fall below the average?

Again, it's my favorite fallacy about the average :)

[fadada1]

Take the average of the following series of numbers:

{1,10000,10000,10000,10000}

Do half of the numbers fall below the average?

Again, it's my favorite fallacy about the average :)
this arguement is valid, but not sound.... or something like that.

you could put jessica simpson in the room with albert einstein, thomas edison, ben franklin, and leo davinci; only one of the 5 would think someone in the room was george washington.

[picasso]

it's not all of the problem but teachers are not held accountable enough.

[Frozen Sooner]

Take the average of the following series of numbers:

{1,10000,10000,10000,10000}

Do half of the numbers fall below the average?

Again, it's my favorite fallacy about the average :)

Yes and no.

IQ follows a normal distribution, and the population is large enough that roughly half will fall below the mean and half above. You're technically correct, but in this instance the author is correct enough.

[FaninAma]

Is 100 a static or relative value? Does an IQ of 100 today represent the same level of intelligence it did 20 years ago?

IQ score is one of the most worthless pieces of information that can be generated.

[fadada1]

i would think that IQ would be both static and relative. it's static in that 100 will probably always be considered average. but as we become more advanced in science, technology, etc... our intelligence will go up relative to the past.

[Soonrboy]

but IQ tests have little to do with science and technology. If a kid scores 120 when he is 8, will most likely score about the same when he is 25.

[fadada1]

but IQ tests have little to do with science and technology. If a kid scores 120 when he is 8, will most likely score about the same when he is 25.
true. i guess my point is that we have more information going in our brains because it's more available now than it ever has been.

and vince young got a 6 on his wonderlick. doesn't say much for u. of texas education:D my door mat might have scored a 6.

[Frozen Sooner]

but IQ tests have little to do with science and technology. If a kid scores 120 when he is 8, will most likely score about the same when he is 25.

Well, yeah, because your Intelligence Quotient is your brain age divided by your calendar age.

[FaninAma]

but IQ tests have little to do with science and technology. If a kid scores 120 when he is 8, will most likely score about the same when he is 25.

An individual's IQ is static after age 5 or 6 barring occurences that affect your health or mental staus. But as being representative of how intelligent our society is or indicating which direction the average intelligence of our society is heading, the national IQ average is of little value.

Has anybody read The Bell Curve? There are some interesting premises in the book regarding IQ being the most significant factor in regards to determining where an individual or group of individuals will be located in terms of their socio-economic status. The other big factor seemed to be the presence or lack of a father in the home.

[Jerk]

Some of you are making this more complicated than it really is.

If half of all children are below average, then half of all children are above average.

You can't have 'half of all children below average' but it really means more than half!

[Frozen Sooner]

An individual's IQ is static after age 5 or 6 barring occurences that affect your health or mental staus. But as being representative of how intelligent our society is or indicating which direction the average intelligence of our society is heading, the national IQ average is of little value.

Has anybody read The Bell Curve? There are some interesting premises in the book regarding IQ being the most significant factor in regards to determining where an individual or group of individuals will be located in terms of their socio-economic status. The other big factor seemed to be the presence or lack of a father in the home.

I have, but I last read it in like 1995. I don't recall the second conclusion, but it fits with what I remember from the book.

I can't remember-did they discuss whether the correlation between IQ and Socio-economic status was causative or not?

[RacerX]

There are two kinds of people in the world.

The kind that think there are two and the kind that don't.

[BajaOklahoma]

it's not all of the problem but teachers are not held accountable enough.

Climbing on my soapbox. "WOW! Just WOW!" Climbing off my soapbox, shaking my head. :(

[FaninAma]

I have, but I last read it in like 1995. I don't recall the second conclusion, but it fits with what I remember from the book.

I can't remember-did they discuss whether the correlation between IQ and Socio-economic status was causative or not?

The implication was that IQ was a causative factor and not a result of an individual's socioeconomic status. The authors actually strongly implied that genetics was the biggest predicting factor for intelligence and that's why the book was so controversial.

There was a lot of information given concerning families in which factors such as socioeconomic status, race and IQ of the parents was controlled and the variable that had the biggest impact for success of the children was the presence or lack of a father in the family.

[BudSooner]

half of us work for Wal Mart, and the other half aren't morans.

hehehehe.

[Frozen Sooner]

The implication was that IQ was a causative factor and not a result of an individual's socioeconomic status. The authors actually strongly implied that genetics was the biggest predicting factor for intelligence and that's why the book was so controversial.

There was a lot of information given concerning families in which factors such as socioeconomic status, race and IQ of the parents was controlled and the variable that had the biggest impact for success of the children was the presence or lack of a father in the family.

Cool-like I said, it's been more than 10 years since I read it. I may need to dig it out again.

[sooneron]

i would think that IQ would be both static and relative. it's static in that 100 will probably always be considered average. but as we become more advanced in science, technology, etc... our intelligence will go up relative to the past.
but wouldn't it also stand to reason that as we become more advanced, we let puters and such do the thinking for us?