There's no academic difference between working class and middle class children

Mardy Bum

Hotfail.com wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Sounded like they were connected tbh.

Dyslexia certainly doesn't help your ability to spell, I don't think anyone believes it makes you "incapable of spelling" though.

Full stops seperate clauses; basic grammar really. Somebody implied that and I was responding to the implication.

steddyeddy

sup_dude wrote: »

The biggest flaw in your argument here is assuming that IQ is an accurate measurement for intelligence. It's not and whether it can be improved on or not, it does not prove that everyone can have the same level of intelligence because what you are using to measure intelligence is flawed.
Furthermore, the factors that influence intelligence are too many to ever get an unbiased study to whether we have the capacity to be the same. Personally, I don't believe we do. Those factors go start right back to before we are born, and even if you discount outliers like learning difficulties and gifted people, there is still too much of a variance in the data before you even begin to study it.
So what if we get twin sisters with similar upbringing, have them fall pregnant from twin brothers (as to reduce the genetic variance) at the same time. Have them both follow the exact same routine all through the pregnancy and up-bringing so as to have as near a similarity between the two children as possible. Would that mean that the two children will be equally as intelligent? I don't think so, because it doesn't factor in things like personality and individualism.

I don't assume IQ is accurate at all. I think memory, ability to perform calculations and creativity are the key factors in intelligence. All of those can be improved IMO.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Ye, neuroplasticity means that in indivual's brain is more flexible and trainable than previously, believed, and that intelligence can be improved. Nobody disputes that (on this thread, at least).

But, where do those studies say that everybody can have the same intelligence? What conclusions support your argument?

People can improve in intelligence on that we're in agreement. You say there's a limit on this improvement. Have you literature to back it up? Otherwise it's theoretically possible to reach any level of intelligence.

Here's the answer - they don't. you asked for my opinion, so I'll tell you what I think.

That's not the answer that's your opinion.

Nuuroplasticity does not mean that everybody can end up with the same intelligence. It doesn't mean that in any way. One of the papers you've quoted deals with neuroplasticity and subsequent intelligence improvement in older people. This paper makes it clear that, far from becoming stablised as early as we used to believe, the brain is still plastic and trainable even in older people. Therefore, even in older people, their intelligence is not static, but can be improved, with the right stimuli. The implication of this is that people at the age where they enter university possess an intelligence which is not necessarily final or fossilised.

Yes I agree with that.

So, how can you argue that intelligence shouldn't be a factor in entering university because neuroplasticity means everybody can reach the same level of intelligence, if you're using to support this argument a piece of research that tells you that any individual's intelligence is still changeable at least up to an age where they would already have finished university?

I said that interest in subject is most important. That will spark the desire to seek out new information on the subject.

How can you expect, for example, two people with initial intelligence variation (you allowed for this earlier) to have reached the same level of intelligence by the time they reach university age, when the research tells you that each person's intelligence is still malleable well after that age?

There are different forms of intelligence required for each discipline IMO. As I said previously I think that interest in ones chosen subject is paramount to doing well in that subject and undergoing the necessary cortical changes linked to the task at hand. I.E different changes would occur in the brains of someone doing a maths degree VS someone learning cellular signalling pathways.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

People can improve in intelligence on that we're in agreement. You say there's a limit on this improvement. Have you literature to back it up?

I never said that there was a limit to this improvement.

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's not the answer that's your opinion.

Yes, that's my opinion. You said you would provide research saying that neuroplasticity means that everybody can reach the same level of intelligence. In my opinion, none of the research you referenced said that.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I said that interest in subject is most important.

As I said previously I think that interest in ones chosen subject is paramount to doing well in that subject

I've no argument with any of this. My criticism is based on your claim that neuroplasticity means everybody can reach the same level of intelligence.

Hotfail.com

xLisaBx wrote: »

Thank you I think it makes people more ambitious to learn and to pursue 3rd level education. People who come from poverty generally want to change their lives!

There's a difference between wanting to change your life and putting the effort in to actually do so. You're obviously in the latter group.

There were about 100 in my year last year, about half of which were definitely coming from a "lower socio-economic"* background (or whatever you want to call it) - myself included. I'd have considered approximately 30, probably less, from the entire year group to have been academically ambitious.

Out of the 50 from a "lower socio-economic" background only about 5-10 (including myself) actually seemed interested in doing anything beyond the bare minimum study-wise, the majority of them were happy to simply aim for a D3 or to drop down to ordinary/foundation level (if they weren't already at that level) to lessen their workload. I don't know if that was an issue stemming from their upbringing, a lack of self-esteem, lack of parental support, plain laziness, or a lack of maturity, but it was plain to see that in general the students coming from "lower socio-economic" backgrounds were far more apathetic towards their academic performance than those from "better off" families. None of my teachers had the attitude that they shouldn't be aiming for college by the way, I haven't heard many say anything like that about working-class students at all. Anyone aiming for ~600 points was from a higher socio-economic background, take from that what you will.

To be honest I have to disagree with most of the OP. There is an academic difference between students coming from working- and middle-class backgrounds for the most part, in my opinion. Where this difference stems from I'm not so sure, I'd imagine your upbringing plays a part in this but in my opinion once you reach 16/17 it's about time you copped on to yourself and decided whether you want to put the work in or not, don't agree with blaming the parents to be honest, it certainly helps to be given support though. Saying this, I wouldn't be of the opinion at all that students from higher socio-economic backgrounds are inherently more intelligent or more academically gifted than those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, just that it tends to be the case. I do disagree with the assertion that "working class children do not want to go onto further education" (I know the OP disagrees with this too), but, like I said previously, it's easy to say you want to do something, but it's not so easy to actually put the work in to achieve it.

Obviously supports can be, are being, and have been put in place to help people from "lower socio-economic" backgrounds enter third-level education (the HEAR scheme for example), and rightly so, but it's up to themselves, not the rest of us, to ensure that they avail of them. At this stage it's a level playing field in my opinion, I don't see any advantage being given to middle-class students over working-class ones (if anything there are more supports given to working-class students, outside of grinds etc.), yet still they appear to be performing more poorly in exams than those coming from higher socio-economic backgrounds.

We also need to bring up the standards of all schools to match the standards of the better schools in the country.

This is obviously the aim and in an ideal world it would be the case, but in reality it simply isn't possible to have every school in the country at a top-class standard, especially in the financial state the country is currently in. I wouldn't even be of the opinion that the standard of your school would have a massive impact on your academic performance, obviously smaller class sizes and more highly-qualified teachers would have a positive impact but even then I don't think the impact would be that large to show any major improvements.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes indeed based on the inability to afford the same schools.

I don't even think this is a major factor in academic performance at all. The vast, vast, majority of students still attend public schools (about 87%, although I can't find an exact figure for the number of students attending fee-paying schools in Ireland) and I would even hazard a guess that average Leaving Cert points are very similar when you compare both. It may be a contributing factor to better academic performance but I wouldn't once consider it to be the be all and end all.

*I'd consider this to be anyone with parent(s) living off state benefits for whatever reason, with a single parent, or with parent(s) with low-income, generally unskilled jobs. I'm also commenting specifically on students who have just finished their LC, who may or may not be entering third-level, it's all coming from my experience. Don't know much about the mature students and "lower socio-economic class" situation tbh, so I can't comment on that.

Here's some lovely statistics for ye, if you're interested: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/statisticalyearbook/2007/Chapter,7,Education.pdf