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 my door mat might have scored a 6.