Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

Steve- just experienced your famous ability to selectively pick the bits of what people say and adjusting it to your viewpoint. I'm not suggesting you penalise academically able kids to put other kids into a system that doesn't work for them. I'm.saying you can't assess the academically able at 11 years of age because some of them are already dropped due to the inequalities of our society. 2 or 3 is young but that's when divisions due to personal circumstance are starting to show.

As an example my family has some very high earners among the extended family. One family had kids who went to very expensive prep schools. Their schools had an express, stated goal of getting a kid at least 2 years more advanced than the average kid by 11. By 13 when they went to higher school they were probably close to gcse level. Those kids are now adults and on for very good careers.

We need to be in a system where any kid who is able to be 2 years advanced at 11 they get there in.state school. Then perhaps a gs might have the brightest and best kids. Nowhere.near there so gs is unfair and selective not.by pure academic ability but more than a little bit by family circumstances.

It's like some kids are competing on the latest TT bikes and.others being given undersized balance bikes. The fact some have a Raleigh chopper and still gets to the podium doesn't make it all.fair.

bobmcstuff

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm not suggesting you penalise academically able kids to put other kids into a system that doesn't work for them. I'm.saying you can't assess the academically able at 11 years of age because some of them are already dropped due to the inequalities of our society.

This is what I've been saying.

tangled_metal

bobmcstuff wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm not suggesting you penalise academically able kids to put other kids into a system that doesn't work for them. I'm.saying you can't assess the academically able at 11 years of age because some of them are already dropped due to the inequalities of our society.

This is what I've been saying.

I know. Meanwhile those fans of gs keep going on about better results with gs (due to unfair selection) or worse results with comprehensive based on anecdote of kids in extended family. Do you think they'll get this simple idea of a fair deal for all kids due to better opportunities being offered earlier not when the damage has been done?

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

Bally - it's great it worked for you as intended and you became socially mobile due the opportunities taken.

Two points on that. Different times back then with more of what I described as a better attitude to education. Working class families often instilled the idea that you encourage and support your kids with an education. It's reminiscent of developing countries in that education is a way out of deprivation. Not saying you were from a deprived family.

The problem isn't the GS then but we have become a nation of people who expect everything handed to them. You have to work for what you want.

The other point is because of this change kids aren't able to get in a gs not because they don't have potential but because by the time they're assessed they're already so far behind due to potentially many factors. Selection is only fair if.everyone is assessed on an even playing field. 11+ isn't that mechanism so gs cannot be fair

Can't accept that we should set the standard low to accommodate everyone. Set the bar high and push kids. Have said earlier that the problem never was GS, it was the standard of the secondary moderns.

One last point. You say it's unfair to penalise those with parents who support their kids, not their fault? Is it the fault of those with unsupporting parents? Not the kid's fault but they're suffering. You post that picture showing a tall flower being cut. That's not the kid with a good home life and able to take advantage of his potential. It's the kid with potential but that was taken away by misadventure that what could easily be called bad parents. That kid lost out at a very young age, well but the 11+. Talk about cut off before his/her prime.

Back to the problem of poor parenting. You say earlier that parents from working class backgrounds used to have a healthier attitude to education, as do people from developing countries. So income should not be the influence on instilling the desire to learn.

So you want your kids to do well with a gs. Great but make no mistake that is at the expense of poorer kids with an unsupported home life. One last question, is it better to get more to a moderate level or fewer to a greater level of success. Evidence shows better off families end up with better families with gs system. It also shows the worst off families do a lot worse with gs system. That's increasing the division between haves and have note.

As I said above, the problem was the standard of secondary moderns. By all means, stream the kids in secondary moderns to help reach their full potential. Depressing the standard of education across the board is no solution. Our docs, engineeers etc should be educated to the highest standards possible.
Does holding back more able kids improve the education standard of the less able? Regardless of why they are less able, the answer is, no.

So if gs creates a lowering of overall standards, IMHO based on what I've read about gs results based on socio-economic data, what else is there? Perhaps rather than going back to old ideas isn't it worth looking at newer ideas? Oh, course not.because that.is the Tory way, keep.power and success to the higher socio-economic groups. Know your place like the famous sketch with John Cleese et all.

You said yourself that the working class used to have a better attitude to education than they seem to have now, so your assertion isn't correct. By your own reasoning, you seem to accept that the fault at least partly lies with the change in attitude of the working classes rather than any political social engineering.

tangled_metal

I never said anything about setting the bar low or not being competitive or any of those sort of comments you and Steve seem to think I'm saying. I'm saying the gs and the secondary modern system isn't able to allow the.most able to get the education best suited to them because not all the most able are able to show capability due to a wide range of reasons. Not because there's anything specifically wrong with the gs education for those bright kids it suits. I'm saying selection has already happened and that selection is effectively hiding the ability of those able kids without the benefits of a good home life, supportive parents and no doubt a range of other factors out of their control. This makes the system inherently unfair and wrong IMHO. I'm asking the question whether it's possible to design a better system and that includes support even selection at a very young age. Then when a gs style education is suitable all the most able get it. BTW what's wrong in streaming within a comprehensive if it's done well and without the skimming off of selective talent or the associated extra money. Perhaps that would allow selective streaming according to talent. Such as good at maths you go to.top stream, poor at history lower stream for that.

The fault is our inequality that had led to low expectations for increasingly larger proportions of the lower levels of society. Parents have low expectations you will too. Once gs system worked better, perhaps it's because good education to 16 was once a start to a decent job and out of the pit or farm or factory. Office work for example with more money and better conditions. Even if uni doesn't result there's a career with gce o levels or a levels. 60s for example a levels were worth more. Degrees now result in jobs where a levels or o levels were sufficient in the 60s. That makes o levels a success where now it's not enough to just have a degree for example.

All these factors may play into the current situation, I don't know what but the system that one worked does not work now. So why go back to it. Evidence is clear it causes greater division based on socio-economic background. Outliers will always exist of course.

Where is the evidence that shows gs system helps all kids or even a significant proportion? Where is the evidence it's not creating inequality? It's significantly harder for kids from poorer backgrounds to.get into university. Gs system won't help that because they're failing before selection.

ballysmate

I never said anything about setting the bar low or not being competitive or any of those sort of comments you and Steve seem to think I'm saying.

I inferred that from

One last question, is it better to get more to a moderate level or fewer to a greater level of success.

Interestingly, your solution to any inequality in education is to reduce the level of the highest achievers. How is that a good thing? How does it make it easier for the less able to learn?

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I never said anything about setting the bar low or not being competitive or any of those sort of comments you and Steve seem to think I'm saying.

I inferred that from

One last question, is it better to get more to a moderate level or fewer to a greater level of success.

Interestingly, your solution to any inequality in education is to reduce the level of the highest achievers. How is that a good thing? How does it make it easier for the less able to learn?

No way Bally, would i want that, high achievers across all fields of ability, need to be pushed - i ve not read anything on here, apart from Steve0s view that only the academic should get a leg up, to contradict this.

Your right, if Secondarys were of a higher standard, GS wouldnt exist.

tangled_metal

GS within comprehensives perhaps? Why not have an elitist form of teaching in a top stream at all state schools? Detect talent at primary and fast stream them through using a more demanding form of teaching.

IIRC my primary streamed to some level. In some classes there were two academic years brightest from a lower year were put in with the older year but still taught to their year. It had a positive effect. Within classes they had 3 levels based around 3 large tables. If you made the top table you were among the brightest and TBH it became an arms race. Each kid was pushing each other on.

That streaming made me the first kid from that school to pass an entry exam to a GS since they got scrapped. It was an independent school and I did pretty good but I'd rather have had that education within a mainstream comprehensive. I firmly believe comprehensives should be capable of teaching all levels. If they're not it's a failure of our educational institutions.

bobmcstuff

Tangled Metal wrote:

GS within comprehensives perhaps? Why not have an elitist form of teaching in a top stream at all state schools? Detect talent at primary and fast stream them through using a more demanding form of teaching.

IIRC my primary streamed to some level. In some classes there were two academic years brightest from a lower year were put in with the older year but still taught to their year. It had a positive effect. Within classes they had 3 levels based around 3 large tables. If you made the top table you were among the brightest and TBH it became an arms race. Each kid was pushing each other on.

That streaming made me the first kid from that school to pass an entry exam to a GS since they got scrapped. It was an independent school and I did pretty good but I'd rather have had that education within a mainstream comprehensive. I firmly believe comprehensives should be capable of teaching all levels. If they're not it's a failure of our educational institutions.

My school was streamed too, I think most are. On top of sets in most subjects we had one GCSE class (~30) which did separate sciences and had after school lessons, the rest of the year (~180) did double science.

On that note when I did my GCSEs Maths was my weakest subject, but I'd made a bet with my dad that if I got straight As he'd buy me a mountain bike... Anyway I got put into the middle set where it wasn't possible for me to get an A because they didn't sit the right exam (the maximum I could have got was a , so my mum had to go into the school and complain until they put me on the higher paper (I did get an A in the end, still one of my top academic achievements...). I was lucky enough to have supportive parents but not everyone does, I'm pretty confident that I'd have got into a GS if we'd had them but without my parents behind me would I have done the same? Possibly not.

My problem with grammar schools isn't necessarily that they're selective per se, just that they select on the wrong thing. I would prefer that comprehensives were properly supported.

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So evidence is out there but you can always choose not to look or to ignore it. IMHO it's common sense really. If your academic path is dictated by events in your earliest learning years selecting at 11 is too late. If you're insistent about having grammar schools let's have selection at say 2 or 3. Then support the families through the education process years so that the poorest have the same chances. That means paying giving kids support, nutrition, a safe environment, a place to study outside schools, etc. such that the poorest have what a good, middle class, aspirational family has. Until all kids have the same chances grammar schools just increase the divide between haves and have nots. I say this despite being a right wing, independent school educated, middle class parent.

Basically agree with this assessment of the facts, although I think trying to segregate at 2 or 3 would go down very badly. The gap between poorest and richest is already apparent when kids enter school and only gets wider, so surely we should be working on a system that addresses this rather than one which waits till the gaps are already entrenched and then dumps the losers out.

It's a nature vs. nurture thing isn't it, it's fair enough to want to segregate kids who want to pursue academics and kids who want to pursue vocational training if that's genuinely where their aptitude lies, but at the moment the biggest determining factor in how well you're going to do is how affluent your parents are (and there are plenty of studies which back this up) - not whether you happen to be academically minded or not.

By way of backing that up: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 5_Text.pdf

In 2013/14 33.5% of pupils entitled to free school meals get 5+ A*-C GCSEs, compared to 60.5% of pupils not entitled to free school meals. I don't think anyone would argue that people entitled to free school meals happen to be born stupider than other people.

That just looks at state schools not grammars.

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

drlodge

Stevo 666 wrote:

It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

Indeed, if intelligence is hereditary then I might argue:
- people are poor as they're not very intelligent, so they can't get higher paying jobs
- their off spring will be less intelligent and will struggle at school
- therefore children that under achieve (below average) will be from poorer backgrounds.

Grammar schools will therefore, on balance, attract (or allow in) children from well off families.

Stands to reason doesn't it?

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

You need to put forward some evidence that people who are born poor are inherently stupider than those born into middle class families.

Been reading Dickens recently have you??? Christ alive.

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

Indeed, if intelligence is hereditary then I might argue:
- people are poor as they're not very intelligent, so they can't get higher paying jobs
- their off spring will be less intelligent and will struggle at school
- therefore children that under achieve (below average) will be from poorer backgrounds.

Grammar schools will therefore, on balance, attract (or allow in) children from well off families.

Stands to reason doesn't it?

Quite a big "IF" at the start there though.

tangled_metal

Big IFs there. Hereditary? Hmmm I don't believe that's been proven. It's potentially similar to the attitudes very common back in the 60s and earlier. Like the US armed forces view in wwii that black people were untrustworthy, inferior and stupid compared to nice white folks. As a result they were given menial tasks or at best cannon fodder. Then they actually formed all black usaf fighter and bomber squadrons which actually had some of the best performance out of all.squadrons during wwii I believe.

There could be many factors playing into poor people being stupid compared to us nice rich folks. Things such as nutrition and other external factors that arise because of poverty or derivation. That's another form of selection going on.

Then how can you be sure poor people are stupid due to genetics over the conditions they and their parents live or lived in.when they were just a foetus? Eugenics anyone? Let's sterilize the poor stupid people. Extreme end of this argument I know but that's how enlightened you rich folks are being.

BTW my family (at least the part of it I heard stories about) came from very hard times. We're talking Liverpool in the 20s/30s with father unable to work due to paralysis and a mother raising IIRC 7 kids and looking after her husband while earning money to keep them out of the poor house. Everything i heard about them made me believe she was probably very intelligent indeed. Very poor going back generations all the way back to south Wales pit country and further. Generation after her there's good jobs and great success including very senior police officers and engineers. Generation after that teachers, graduates, civil servants, etc. Striving family who believed strongly in education as a way out of poverty. Later generations did have grammar schools and the white heat of technology giving funded universities and potential to be socially mobile. Baby boomers had the best of it.

My point is intelligence isn't proven to have a link to socio-economic position. Please show this if you know better. I doubt anyone could prove it anyway because there's so many external factors to rule out which is probably very difficult with statistical confidence.

bompington

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

You need to put forward some evidence that people who are born poor are inherently stupider than those born into middle class families.

Think about it - over a population as a whole, more intelligent people are more likely to do well educationally and economically. They then tend to mix, and breed, with people like themselves, reinforcing the (very large) genetic component of intelligence. There is actually quite a lot of published evidence for this, too. But needless to say, publishing it in this day and age does not make you very popular among the (generally so left-leaning they're in danger of falling out of the passenger door) social sciences set, or help you attract funding, so you'll not see a lot of it on the BBC.

bobmcstuff

bompington wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

You need to put forward some evidence that people who are born poor are inherently stupider than those born into middle class families.

Think about it - over a population as a whole, more intelligent people are more likely to do well educationally and economically. They then tend to mix, and breed, with people like themselves, reinforcing the (very large) genetic component of intelligence. There is actually quite a lot of published evidence for this, too. But needless to say, publishing it in this day and age does not make you very popular among the (generally so left-leaning they're in danger of falling out of the passenger door) social sciences set, or help you attract funding, so you'll not see a lot of it on the BBC.

Heritability of IQ is strongly correlated. But whether that's genetic?

Fairly highly cited journal article I found in 30 seconds: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 8.abstract "Most Reported Genetic Associations With General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives"

Interesting one about how socio economic status affects heritability: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0030320 - turns out correlation is actually less in low-income families (basically being poor reduces the correlation between your intelligence and that of your parents compared to being rich).

kingstongraham

Is there any research on relative achievement of adopted babies and whether that correlates to the biological or adoptive parents?

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

That just looks at state schools not grammars.

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

Common sense? you mean the sort that Eton produced with Camerons disastrous decision to call a referendum ?

cant believe people still hold these views, some of our greatest engineers and businessmen have come from b=very humble beginnings, everyone needs a chance, not just those with money, though having said that, doesnt steve0 bang on about his poor up bring? he might have a point after all lol!

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

That just looks at state schools not grammars.

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

Common sense? you mean the sort that Eton produced with Camerons disastrous decision to call a referendum ?

cant believe people still hold these views, some of our greatest engineers and businessmen have come from b=very humble beginnings, everyone needs a chance, not just those with money, though having said that, doesnt steve0 bang on about his poor up bring? he might have a point after all lol!

Was it? No-one knows yet do they? May well turn out to be disastrous, may have been a master stroke. Time will tell.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

That just looks at state schools not grammars.

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

Common sense? you mean the sort that Eton produced with Camerons disastrous decision to call a referendum ?

cant believe people still hold these views, some of our greatest engineers and businessmen have come from b=very humble beginnings, everyone needs a chance, not just those with money, though having said that, doesnt steve0 bang on about his poor up bring? he might have a point after all lol!

Stick to the point. Not difficult for intelligent people

Lookyhere

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

That just looks at state schools not grammars.

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

Common sense? you mean the sort that Eton produced with Camerons disastrous decision to call a referendum ?

cant believe people still hold these views, some of our greatest engineers and businessmen have come from b=very humble beginnings, everyone needs a chance, not just those with money, though having said that, doesnt steve0 bang on about his poor up bring? he might have a point after all lol!

Was it? No-one knows yet do they? May well turn out to be disastrous, may have been a master stroke. Time will tell.

yes lets hope so, though most of the figures suggest otherwise

i ve answered your ridiculous assertion, steve0

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

You need to put forward some evidence that people who are born poor are inherently stupider than those born into middle class families.

Been reading Dickens recently have you??? Christ alive.

Do I really need to produce evidence for the obvious? :roll:

If you really don't get it, here you go:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/social-class-and-iq-some-facts-and.html
This was a 1 minute job on Google and there will be plenty more.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

That just looks at state schools not grammars.

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

Common sense? you mean the sort that Eton produced with Camerons disastrous decision to call a referendum ?

cant believe people still hold these views, some of our greatest engineers and businessmen have come from b=very humble beginnings, everyone needs a chance, not just those with money, though having said that, doesnt steve0 bang on about his poor up bring? he might have a point after all lol!

Was it? No-one knows yet do they? May well turn out to be disastrous, may have been a master stroke. Time will tell.

yes lets hope so, though most of the figures suggest otherwise

i ve answered your ridiculous assertion, steve0

See evidence in my last post. Easy enough to understand unless you want to ignore the facts.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Big IFs there. Hereditary? Hmmm I don't believe that's been proven. It's potentially similar to the attitudes very common back in the 60s and earlier. Like the US armed forces view in wwii that black people were untrustworthy, inferior and stupid compared to nice white folks. As a result they were given menial tasks or at best cannon fodder. Then they actually formed all black usaf fighter and bomber squadrons which actually had some of the best performance out of all.squadrons during wwii I believe.

There could be many factors playing into poor people being stupid compared to us nice rich folks. Things such as nutrition and other external factors that arise because of poverty or derivation. That's another form of selection going on.

Then how can you be sure poor people are stupid due to genetics over the conditions they and their parents live or lived in.when they were just a foetus? Eugenics anyone? Let's sterilize the poor stupid people. Extreme end of this argument I know but that's how enlightened you rich folks are being.

BTW my family (at least the part of it I heard stories about) came from very hard times. We're talking Liverpool in the 20s/30s with father unable to work due to paralysis and a mother raising IIRC 7 kids and looking after her husband while earning money to keep them out of the poor house. Everything i heard about them made me believe she was probably very intelligent indeed. Very poor going back generations all the way back to south Wales pit country and further. Generation after her there's good jobs and great success including very senior police officers and engineers. Generation after that teachers, graduates, civil servants, etc. Striving family who believed strongly in education as a way out of poverty. Later generations did have grammar schools and the white heat of technology giving funded universities and potential to be socially mobile. Baby boomers had the best of it.

My point is intelligence isn't proven to have a link to socio-economic position. Please show this if you know better. I doubt anyone could prove it anyway because there's so many external factors to rule out which is probably very difficult with statistical confidence.

Of course there is a link. See link above and this one below for staters
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/Attachments/THE/THE/22_May_2008/attachments/Times%2520Higher%2520IQ%2520Social%2520Class.doc&ved=0ahUKEwjokOLBoMjOAhWkLsAKHeeHAO4QFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNFARDDYFWdfpUPyyw4Rnd8D7F_QDw

Do honestly believe that there is no connection?

tangled_metal

I'm not saying there isn't a connection just that it isn't the whole story. Until they find the stupid gene I'll ask the question whether it is truly fully heredity related. Just showing a statistical link between something doesn't prove a mechanism or a cause. Even the blog you quote acknowledges heredity isn't the whole story.

Probably not explaining myself clearly enough for you but keep on quoting some guy's blog if it makes you happy, BTW he seems to link to mensa. My elitist independent school were hugely supportive of pupils joining Mensa. The 2% of population was supposed to be the level we were all at. That is top 2% on intelligence. Never believed that due to coaching of the prep school kids before the entrance exam. Some real duffers got in, including a mate who couldn't even.get 3 GCSE s above a grade U! However he apparently did better than me and got straight in. Off topic.

BTW at what point do things change from stupid to clever? My parents were working class background but professional due to education and work. I was brought up in a middle class, professional family with good education. Does heredity of IQ mean I'm stupid or clever? My parents will have the stupid gene being working class bred surely? Is it one generation, two, or is there an evolution process?

Sorry I find the class idea of genetic selection not completely believable. It fits in with people who have certain ideologies though. Nice theory to support GS perhaps but I doubt it's genetic. The heredity is possibly down to external factors relating to income / social level. If a foetus isn't getting the best it probably won't develop to the best. I don't know but just showing a statistical link is just about the lowest scientific level of evidence. Show the mechanism.

bobmcstuff

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm not saying there isn't a connection just that it isn't the whole story. Until they find the stupid gene I'll ask the question whether it is truly fully heredity related. Just showing a statistical link between something doesn't prove a mechanism or a cause. Even the blog you quote acknowledges heredity isn't the whole story.

This is basically my attitude. Even if there is a lower % of smart people in poorer groups does that justify writing them off?

I think we should be putting our effort into improving schooling in general, not into segregating education and writing off the lower/unlucky/whatever half who weren't smart enough on 1 test taken on 1 day at age 11.

You can say secondary moderns (or would they be secondary post-moderns?) would deliver different teaching, with different aims, but I think we know enough to see that "separate but equal" never seems to work out.

Regarding the genetic link, I wonder what would happen if you took someone from the lowest group, and gave them all the advantages of the highest group during conception, pregnancy and then into their child's early years. Would be interesting to see what happens.

Parent-child IQ correlation does seem quite high, seems to be about .75, and some of that is due to shared environment (though the majority isn't) but it isn't 1.

Frank the tank

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may be confusing correlation and causation. It may not be very PC to say so, but common sense suggests that people who at less intelligent are more likely to be poor. And intelligencd is to some degree herediatary.

You need to put forward some evidence that people who are born poor are inherently stupider than those born into middle class families.

Been reading Dickens recently have you??? Christ alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5ba1OKY7Xc

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

[
Of course there is a link. See link above and this one below for staters
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/Attachments/THE/THE/22_May_2008/attachments/Times%2520Higher%2520IQ%2520Social%2520Class.doc&ved=0ahUKEwjokOLBoMjOAhWkLsAKHeeHAO4QFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNFARDDYFWdfpUPyyw4Rnd8D7F_QDw

Do honestly believe that there is no connection?

This link shows that lower income kids have lower IQ, where is the genetic link? what about environmental factors?

you r just a snob and dont seem to realise that the qualities to make a caring and compassionate care assistance are not those that are needed to be an Accountant but no less valuable.

Seems to me that you very much look down on people from poorer families that have not succeeded in "bettering" themselves, very common in people who have succeeded from these backgrounds.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

[
Of course there is a link. See link above and this one below for staters
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/Attachments/THE/THE/22_May_2008/attachments/Times%2520Higher%2520IQ%2520Social%2520Class.doc&ved=0ahUKEwjokOLBoMjOAhWkLsAKHeeHAO4QFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNFARDDYFWdfpUPyyw4Rnd8D7F_QDw

Do honestly believe that there is no connection?

This link shows that lower income kids have lower IQ, where is the genetic link? what about environmental factors?

you r just a snob and dont seem to realise that the qualities to make a caring and compassionate care assistance are not those that are needed to be an Accountant but no less valuable.

Seems to me that you very much look down on people from poorer families that have not succeeded in "bettering" themselves, very common in people who have succeeded from these backgrounds.

Well done, imagining that I am saying things that I haven't said. And calling me a snob which is a long way from the truth. Where do you get these illusions about non-existent things?

I was simply making a point that there is a clear hereditary element in intelligence. Something we can see around us in the real world. It may be an uncomfortable truth for lefties, some of whom who I think would like to believe that the only thing holding some kids back is a lack of state spending.

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm not saying there isn't a connection just that it isn't the whole story. Until they find the stupid gene I'll ask the question whether it is truly fully heredity related. Just showing a statistical link between something doesn't prove a mechanism or a cause. Even the blog you quote acknowledges heredity isn't the whole story.

This is basically my attitude. Even if there is a lower % of smart people in poorer groups does that justify writing them off?

I think we should be putting our effort into improving schooling in general, not into segregating education and writing off the lower/unlucky/whatever half who weren't smart enough on 1 test taken on 1 day at age 11.

You can say secondary moderns (or would they be secondary post-moderns?) would deliver different teaching, with different aims, but I think we know enough to see that "separate but equal" never seems to work out.

Regarding the genetic link, I wonder what would happen if you took someone from the lowest group, and gave them all the advantages of the highest group during conception, pregnancy and then into their child's early years. Would be interesting to see what happens.

Parent-child IQ correlation does seem quite high, seems to be about .75, and some of that is due to shared environment (though the majority isn't) but it isn't 1.

Who said anything about writing off those who are not in grammars? Many on here have been at pains to claim that comps are not inferior to grammars. If that is right, what's the problem? Can't have it both ways...

TBH if there is one change that should be made it should be to increase vocational training in comps. The same people who defend comps also bemoan out lack of trade type skills. If so, this is a sensible way to fill that gap.