News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by com2kid on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:34PM (#31672027)
Let's take a math story problem.

Give an upper class white kid a problem involving tennis scores, no problem. The kid will be able to easily understand what is being talked about, there isn't anything mentally jarring going on.

Give a poor black kid a problem involving tennis scores, boom, problem. Odds of a poor black kid knowing how tennis scoring works, much less likely.

My, largely well to do, neighborhood has tennis courts. The more diverse, and poorer, neighborhood I grew up in, didn't. I am still not sure how tennis is scored, but I am pretty sure the kids in the house next to me understand it.

Repeat this idea a few times with some of the other tests. Give some word recall lists using words poor/minority kids aren't accustom to. It is harder to recall words that you have never heard before, they are basically nonsense syllables, which is a very different test. If you had thrown "quiche" in the middle of a word list 8 year old me would have had no idea what you were talking about.

Modern day IQ tests have tried to correct for these biases, but school administrators can choose an "older" test to purposefully get biased results.

Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by chongli on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:10PM (#31672478)
school administrators can choose an "older" test to purposefully get biased results

Do you have any evidence of school administrators choosing "older" tests with biased questions about tennis scores or whatever other cultural trivia rich white kids are most likely to know about? I took an IQ test when I was a kid (early 90's) and it was a bunch of abstract questions involving mental rotations of objects, determining the next number in a sequence, determining the missing object from a set of objects, and so on. There were no questions about vocabulary or trivia of any kind.

Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by com2kid on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:23PM (#31672685)
You can look at the history of IQ tests to see that older ones were indeed biased. New tests are designed to counteract those biases.

The point is that it is possible for corrupt administrators to bias test results, and the methods to do such are fairly easy to come across.

I'm not objecting to IQ tests, just pointing out that if a school wanted to create a test that only admitted certain students, that it is very possible to do such.

Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by chongli on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @05:26PM (#31674462)
I know that old IQ tests (and other tests) were biased and used in racist ways. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of school administrators using those old biased tests in recent times. Otherwise this is just speculation.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by tester756 on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:50PM (#31672220)
>Give a poor black kid a problem involving tennis scores, boom, problem. Odds of a poor black kid knowing how tennis scoring works, much less likely.

Over around 18 years of having various maths topics in schools

The only thing that required some "non-math" knowledge were cards related questions and maybe dice

but what is that tennis counting example? do they actually appear on IQ questions?

how about maths exams?

Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by com2kid on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:01PM (#31672356)
I've seen plenty of problems involving scoring in various sports. I've seen stats taught using baseball batting averages and tons of problems involving football scoring.

Oh and poker hands.

I can easily imagine an IQ test 50 years ago involving scoring in bridge games.

Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by dpbriggs on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @04:23PM (#31673479)
How about a poor white kid? My family certainly could not afford rackets so we never had an interest in the game.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu... by com2kid on Thursday June 09, 2022 @12:24AM (#31677535)
Step 1 is divide rich and poor.

Step 2 is divide the poor against each other.

Step 2 is important so people who are poor won't ever band together and demand change.

It is sad that the "left" has forgotten this, while those in power continue to use the same tactics decade after decade, century after century.