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

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 01:40AM

osarusan wrote: »

But the more you heard from others who had similar stories, you started to think that this was a widespread problem?

No not really. I didn't think it was a problem until the country of Finland changed the variable and along with it, the results.

Ave Sodalis · 02-08-2014 01:41AM

Cantremember wrote: »

And once again I am pointing out that to structure a class over a year in such a manner is resource intensive and policies of deflection have difficulties of viability when there are several significant needs to be addressed in such a manner. Inevitably if time is given to individual attention repeatedly (for any reason) it is necessarily limiting on full class teaching.

And I am saying that it's not. It uses very little resources! Time? No because it is done when there is time. There is no time taken from teaching to sort any problems that may arise. It is done when there is spare time.

Davarus Walrus · 02-08-2014 01:43AM

The thread shows how dearly the country misses tuition in ethics, civics, and Latin.

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 01:44AM

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

The thread shows how dearly the country misses tuition in ethics, civics, and Latin.

I agree although I studied the classics as electives.

osarusan · 02-08-2014 02:10AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No not really. I didn't think it was a problem until the country of Finland changed the variable and along with it, the results.

Look, don't get me wrong, i'm all for building a better education system, and there seems to be none better than that in Finland.

But you seem to be very keen to pinpoint this down to one variable, and hold that to account. I don't see why you are so keen to do that, particularly as you agreed with another poster earlier in the thread that parenting was the most important factor in a child's education.

tritium · 02-08-2014 07:34AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't but I know many on boards do. They would describe it as a lower socio economic area.

If you can't define it what exactly is the point of your thread? Two groups you can't differentiate are the same to you in some characteristic. But you can't differentiate therefore they should be. The scientifically minded would see the problem with your arguement

tritium · 02-08-2014 08:03AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No not really. I didn't think it was a problem until the country of Finland changed the variable and along with it, the results.

Was that the only thing Finland changed? They didn't for example change the focus on certain subjects and skills?

tritium · 02-08-2014 08:14AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't believe in intelligence variations.

You would appear to be at odds with the entire scientific field if neuroscience so.

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 11:55AM

tritium wrote: »

You would appear to be at odds with the entire scientific field if neuroscience so.

Jesus would ya get a hobby. You have picked apart (well tried) most of my posts. Have you any opinions of your own on the matter?

Actually brain plasticity is a idea accepted by neuroscience.

osarusan · 02-08-2014 12:35PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually brain plasticity is a idea accepted by neuroscience.

Yes it is.

But neuroplasticity doesn't support your point about there being no such thing as intelligence variations.

Shakespeare's Sister · 02-08-2014 01:01PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The simple fact is many working class students should be there and there are many middle class students who shouldn't be there.

Very true. Really irks me when people view college as just this rite of passage to be taken for granted when there are so many people who can't get an education. Even more annoying is the sneering at arts degrees or anything that "doesn't get you a job" when an education in and of itself is one of the best things a person can have, and even if it won't always directly lead to a job, it obviously improves prospects.

Piliger · 02-08-2014 01:16PM

Magaggie wrote: »

Very true. Really irks me when people view college as just this rite of passage to be taken for granted when there are so many people who can't get an education. Even more annoying is the sneering at arts degrees or anything that "doesn't get you a job" when an education in and of itself is one of the best things a person can have, and even if it won't always directly lead to a job, it obviously improves prospects.

It may be something worth having but that doesn't justify the State paying for it.

osarusan · 02-08-2014 01:17PM

Magaggie wrote: »

an education in and of itself is one of the best things a person can have, and even if it won't always directly lead to a job, it obviously improves prospects.

Then, why would you agree that some middle class students (or any students, for that matter) be excluded?

Shakespeare's Sister · 02-08-2014 01:17PM

Piliger wrote: »

It may be something worth having but that doesn't justify the State paying for it.

I don't see an issue with some state funding of it though, but I agree there should be private funding also. Means testing seems the fairest way.

tritium · 02-08-2014 02:25PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jesus would ya get a hobby. You have picked apart (well tried) most of my posts. Have you any opinions of your own on the matter?

Actually brain plasticity is a idea accepted by neuroscience.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware we were supposed to agree with you even when you're wrong and/ or encourage you to continue in ignorance. If you make a sweeping statement like you have in this OP it's not unreasonable to expect a challenge, especially when you can't even clearly define the parameters of your statement. You seem very content to tell everyone how you're a scientist yet when it comes to your views on social justice you're rather unscientific in how you display the facts.

BTW, I'm stunned that you've taken such an interest in my responses yet completely missed the ones where I give my own view.

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 02:44PM

osarusan wrote: »

Then, why would you agree that some middle class students (or any students, for that matter) be excluded?

If we fix the system we will automatically exclude those who shouldn't be there. I'm in favour of interviews and course specific tasks.

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 02:46PM

osarusan wrote: »

Yes it is.

But neuroplasticity doesn't support your point about there being no such thing as intelligence variations.

Well actually it does. It means that intelligence is plastic and adapts to external stimuli. There might be initial intelligence variations but everyone can achieve the same level of intelligence. There is no such thing as a fixed IQ.

Piliger · 02-08-2014 02:55PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well actually it does. It means that intelligence is plastic and adapts to external stimuli. There might be initial intelligence variations but everyone can achieve the same level of intelligence. There is no such thing as a fixed IQ.

Complete nonsense. I'd like to see the evidence.

Piliger · 02-08-2014 02:57PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

If we fix the system we will automatically exclude those who shouldn't be there. I'm in favour of interviews and course specific tasks.

This would be a most appalling thing. It would favour those with the best communication skills and probably therefore the middle classes. It would be completely subjective because individual assessors would decide. It would also favour those with long term interests in a subject. Such a system would be monumentally biased.

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 03:01PM

Piliger wrote: »

This would be a most appalling thing. It would favour those with the best communication skills and probably therefore the middle classes. It would be completely subjective because individual assessors would decide. It would also favour those with long term interests in a subject. Such a system would be monumentally biased.

You must be joking. It would favour whoever has the most interest in the subject. You have some delusional ideas about the middle class as being superior.

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 03:01PM

Piliger wrote: »

Complete nonsense. I'd like to see the evidence.

Would you understand it?

osarusan · 02-08-2014 03:05PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well actually it does. It means that intelligence is plastic and adapts to external stimuli. There might be initial intelligence variations but everyone can achieve the same level of intelligence. There is no such thing as a fixed IQ.

I'm going to bed.

I hope that when I wake up, you've pointed me in the direction of some scientific studies which argue that neuroplasticity means that everybody can achieve the same level of intelligence.

steddyeddy wrote: »

If we fix the system we will automatically exclude those who shouldn't be there. I'm in favour of interviews and course specific tasks.

But if you believe that neuroplasticity means that everybody can achieve the same intelligence, then how can you argue that anybody 'shouldn't be there'?

I think those two positions completely contradict each other.

Overheal · 02-08-2014 03:09PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You can't describe a child's academic ability accurately by a socio economic class IMHO. You also can't judge a child by his/her parents attendance or non attendance at college. Yet this is something I see on Boards again and again.

Some threads focusing on education display the mantra "working class children do not want to go onto further education". I sometimes have to demonstrate to students and have some teaching responsibility at third level. Many of these students include working class mature students and as you will be aware many sub mature students come from middle class families. The mature students went to crap schools and were told that they shouldn't aspire to college (code for the teachers didn't want to teach them) and some of the less bright middle class students encountered the opposite upbringing and got to college (and later dropped out/failed).

The simple fact is many working class students should be there and there are many middle class students who shouldn't be there. If working class students aren't getting to college it's because of environment and not academic ability and because they hear some idiots (including their teachers sometimes) "working class students don't want to go to college.

We're approaching 2015 we have to stop defining the academic ability of children by the social class they were born into. This thread isn't my way of saying that middle class parents should stop giving their kids the best start in life I'm simply saying that academic ability is down unrelated to the class you are born into . We also need to bring up the standards of all schools to match the standards of the better schools in the country.

"working class" and "middle class"? What about below the poverty level?

Studies have shown poverty does affect performance: http://usm.maine.edu/publicaffairs/new-study-demonstrates-impact-poverty-student-learning

When children don't have a safe place to sleep or 3 meals a day to eat, in addition to other social problems that will likely exist at home, their grades indeed suffer.

steddyeddy · 02-08-2014 03:10PM

osarusan wrote: »

I'm going to bed.

I hope that when I wake up, you've pointed me in the direction of some scientific studies which argue that neuroplasticity means that everybody can achieve the same level of intelligence.

But if you believe that neuroplasticity means that everybody can achieve the same intelligence, then how can you argue that anybody 'shouldn't be there'?

I think those two positions completely contradict each other.

Have you trouble reading? Did I say people who shouldn't be there lack the intelligence or did I say they lack interest?

Annasopra · 02-08-2014 03:43PM

Piliger wrote: »

This would be a most appalling thing. It would favour those with the best communication skills and probably therefore the middle classes. It would be completely subjective because individual assessors would decide. It would also favour those with long term interests in a subject. Such a system would be monumentally biased.

Actually I think is a very fair point. For all its flaws the CAO system is very fair, unbiased and egalitarian

B.A._Baracus · 02-08-2014 03:44PM

On the subject ... I laugh at the whole working, middle and upper class "structures" or what ever you wanna call them. It's all BS. All comes down to what you have in the bank. Not what you label yourself or others.

I have two personal experiences from two lads I met last year. Both mid 20's and unemployed (for the record I am unemployed too)

First lad: "yeah I am middle class" he says one day - He hasn't worked in 3 years and doesnt have a pot to piss in.

Second lad (another day): "I wouldn't work in retail as it's working class" - I know for a fact he hasnt worked in years but gathering from other things he has said it's my belief he has never had a job. He is now 26.

I tell ya the amount of people who blow themselves out is sickening.

Piliger · 02-08-2014 03:46PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually I think is a very fair point. For all its flaws the CAO system is very fair, unbiased and egalitarian

The thing about the CAO is not that it is perfect or even fair. But it is the best we can come up with. My son went through it recently and it is a horrible thing. But I haven't seen a better system proposed.

tritium · 02-08-2014 03:46PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually I think is a very fair point. For all its flaws the CAO system is very fair, unbiased and egalitarian

That is true. Unfortunately however second level education is not in many respects, and doesn't really enable critical thinking or problem solving. There's more to be gained by fixing that than the third level access issue

Piliger · 02-08-2014 03:48PM

Overheal wrote: »

"working class" and "middle class"? What about below the poverty level?

Studies have shown poverty does affect performance: http://usm.maine.edu/publicaffairs/new-study-demonstrates-impact-poverty-student-learning

When children don't have a safe place to sleep or 3 meals a day to eat, in addition to other social problems that will likely exist at home, their grades indeed suffer.

A completely biased and worthless report. In addition, no one on this thread even suggested that poverty doesn't make academic success harder.

tritium · 02-08-2014 03:50PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

On the subject ... I laugh at the whole working, middle and upper class "structures" or what ever you wanna call them. It's all BS. All comes down to what you have in the bank. Not what you label yourself or others.

I have two personal experiences from two lads I met last year. Both mid 20's and unemployed (for the record I am unemployed too)

First lad: "yeah I am middle class" he says one day - He hasn't worked in 3 years and doesnt have a pot to piss in.

Second lad (another day): "I wouldn't work in retail as it's working class" - I know for a fact he hasnt worked in years but gathering from other things he has said it's my belief he has never had a job. He is now 26.

I tell ya the amount of people who blow themselves out is sickening.

So much if this class stuff is pure perception. An awful lot of folks seem to want to be middle class when it suits and switch to working class when the subject of paying the bill comes up.

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

Comments