Geraldine et al-
Notice the source of the article: Murray of the Bell Curve and Wall Street
Journal.....
Just in case you did not think there was a tie between members of the
economic elite in the
US and elitism of this type. Book review in psychology/ed from that source
reflect a value
system that Charles Dickens was writing about 150 years ago!
I doubt if there is enough interest, but if anyone asks me personally and I
can find it I can send
a no frills MSWord file of the chapter on schooling, iq, etc from our text
on development of children.
I do not know about a lot of you, but I have a strong feeling that a lot of
students in college classes even
at upper tier institutions are getting a sub-par education that is more a
part of a vicious cycle of a certification
pyramid scheme that may increase their social capital in some sense, but in
terms of deeper learning.
(Which is why a good deal of my energy these days is focused on undergrad
ed)
mike
On 1/17/07, geraldine.mcdonald@clear.net.nz <geraldine.mcdonald@clear.net.nz>
wrote:
>
> Dear Michael and others
> The supposed steady rise in intelligence over generations
> (the Flynn effect), the stability of the 15-point gap and
> the season of birth effect have all been interpreted in line
> with hereditarian and maturational ideas about intellectual
> growth. The psychological establishment has not come up with
> a plausible explanation for any of these phenomena.
> Sternberg's statement that "research by Stephen Ceci and
> others has shown that IQ increases as a function of
> schooling" is too imprecise to convince. For example an
> increase in staying on longer at school could very well
> lower raw score levels as students with a wider range of
> ability to answer the test questions stay on to higher
> levels of education.
> (1) At least three published reports from three different
> countries based on OTIS type test answers from thousands of
> school pupils show that it is grade level and not age which
> is connected to the raw scores. There is no rise for those
> groups at the same grade level and within the age expected
> for the grade. Raw scores rise from grade to grade when the
> tests are administered to successive grades at the same time
> of the year.
> (2) The IQ is derived from a belief in maturation. Test
> developers assume that scores rise by increments of 3 or 4
> months. This can be seen in conversion tables. The result is
> an IQ scale which affects individual children within the
> same grade. Younger children have their raw score rank
> raised while older children in the same grade have theirs
> lowered.
> (3) Over the last century there has been a decrease of age
> at grade level. Not because kids are getting smarter but
> because of changes in population pressure on schools,
> regulations on class size and acceptance of social
> promotion. All system effects.
> Some years ago I recalculated the scores obtained from a
> version of the OTIS which Jim Flynn had claimed showed a
> year of intellectual growth over 32 years. Recalculating the
> scores according to the demographic annual returns from
> schools showed that most if not all of the score change
> could be accounted for by demographic change at grade level.
> Published in the Oxford Review of Education in 1998.
>
> There may be other factors involved in score levels. For
> example, whether a test is timed or untimed or group or
> individual, but whether the issue is the stability of a gap,
> the effect of the seasons, or score rise, demographic
> factors and scoring systems should not be overlooked.
> Geraldine McDonald
> School of Education Studies
> Victoria University of Wellington NZ
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message Follows -----
> > My difficulty with Sternberg's response is that as soon as
> > he posits that there is such a thing as reified
> > intelligence that can be measured through some
> > standardized test (whether it is limited or not) he is
> > arguing on Murray's ground. I.Q is a construct that we
> > developed to prove Murray's thesis, not what Sternberg is
> > trying to say. Too much advantage is given to a eugenics
> > based perspective by accepting I.Q. tests as legitimate
> > ways of measuring some object that we call intelligence.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David
> > Preiss Sent: Wed 1/17/2007 10:45 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] In case you missed it
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > Please see below a letter sent by Robert Sternberg to WSJ
> > as an answer to Murray's piece.
> >
> > David
> >
> > Charles Murray's "Intelligence in the Classroom" is an
> > article by a non-scientist filled with serious
> > distortions and misunderstandings of the current state of
> > scientific theory and research on intelligence.
> >
> > First, Murray is roughly correct in the assertion that
> > "Half of all children are below average in intelligence."
> > This is true in the same sense that half of today's
> > children are below the median (not average) in height, or
> > below the median age of the population. But median
> > heights have risen greatly over the past several
> > generations, as have median age spans. Indeed, research
> > by James Flynn shows conclusively that median IQs have
> > risen as well since 1900. Contrary to the tone of
> > Murray's comments, most of the increase is due to the
> > so-called general factor, not to other factors. So
> > Murray's comments regarding possibilities for educational
> > achievement make no sense. A child of today with an IQ
> > of 100 would have been scored as having a substantially
> > higher IQ 100 years ago. Given that the increase in IQs
> > has been about 9 points per generation, that person would
> > have had an IQ in excess of 127 at that time, which would
> > have led to educational predictions very different from
> > Murray's doom-and-gloom predictions. Similarly, a
> > 6-footer today is not much above average and would not be
> > considered particularly tall, whereas 100 years ago, he or
> > she would have been looked at as exceptionally tall.
> >
> > Second, IQ is NOT a "ceiling," and I don't know of any
> > responsible psychologist who believes it is. IQ gives
> > rough prediction of a child's school performance, as does
> > socioeconomic status, motivation, and any other number of
> > variables. But none of these variables sets a ceiling on
> > children's performance. First, they are all highly
> > imperfect predictors--success is multi-factorial. Second,
> > they are subject to error of
> > measurement. Third, they are not etched in stone.
> > Research by Stephen Ceci and others has shown that IQ
> > increases as a function of schooling, and that it is the
> > schooling that is responsible for the increase, not the
> > other way around.
> >
> > Third, the temporary effects of interventions to increase
> > intelligence are in large part because the interventions
> > themselves are temporary and usually extremely
> > short-lived. If you have a child living in extreme
> > poverty, in a challenging and possibly dangerous
> > environment, and with parents who are not in a position to
> > provide the best possible education for
> > their children, it is not surprising that short
> > interventions--the kinds most easily funded by
> > grants--are difficult to maintain. Consider an oft-made
> > analogy to exercise. You can exercise to improve your
> > muscles. But if you stop exercising, your muscles revert
> > to what they were before. The same is true of your
> > intelligence, and research by Carmi Schooler and others
> > shows precisely that.
> >
> > Fourth, it is fallacious to believe that brain development
> > is etched in stone. Research by William Greenough, Marian
> > Diamond, and others has shown that learning changes the
> > brain--permanently. Experience matters for brain
> > development. Charles Murray had the good fortune to be
> > exposed to experiences that children in many parts of the
> > United States and elsewhere never will have. Indeed,
> > children growing up in war zones often need to devote all
> > their resources just to staying alive. They cannot have
> > the kind of schooling that optimizes their scores on the
> > tests of which Mr. Murray is so fond.
> >
> > Fifth, our own peer-reviewed, published research has shown
> > that broader measures of abilities--based on the
> > "multiple intelligences" that Murray disdains--can
> > substantially improve prediction of academic success at
> > the college level at the same time that they reduce
> > ethnic-group differences. These assessments do not replace
> > traditional measures--they supplement them. They are not
> > "refutations" of the existence of the analytical skills
> > measured by tests of general ability, but rather,
> > demonstrations that such measures are relatively narrow
> > and incomplete in their measurements of abilities. These
> > conventional tests measure important skills, but not the
> > only skills that matter for academic and other forms of
> > success. Indeed, teaching to a broader range of abilities,
> > our research shows, also can significantly improve school
> > achievement over teaching that is more narrowly focused.
> >
> > In sum, Murray's column gives a false and misleading view
> > of the state of research on intelligence. I blieve
> > responsible scientists will not take it seriously.
> > Unfortunately, many laypeople will not be in a position
> > to realize that the statements are seriously misleading
> > and paint a picture of research on intelligence that does
> > not correspond to reality.
> >
> > Robert J. Sternberg
> >
> > (Robert J. Sternberg is Dean of the School of Arts and
> > Sciences and Professor of Psychology at Tufts University.
> > Previously, he was IBM Professor of Psychology and
> > Education and Professor of Management at Yale University
> > and President of the American Psychological Association.)
> >
> > On Jan 16, 2007, at 5:51 PM, J. Mark Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > This article ran in today's WSJ. The link below takes
> > > you directly to the full article without registration.
> > >
> > > Scary, very scary!
> > >
> > > http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25452
> > ,filter.all/pub_detail.asp >
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> >
> > David Preiss, Ph.D.
> > Profesor Auxiliar / Assistant Professor
> >
> > Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
> > Escuela de Psicología
> > Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
> > Macul, Santiago
> > Chile
> >
> > Fono: 3544605
> > Fax: 3544844
> > e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
> > web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
> > web institucional: http://www.uc.cl/psicologia
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > [Attachment: winmail.dat]
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:33 PST