231–240 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that poor parents don’t care about their kids’ success enough to want to choose what they perceive to be better schools is belied by the lengthy waiting lists for slots in charter or magnet schools and voucher programs. What we have now is a market-based approach, where the price of admission to a top flight public school system is a $1M mortgage.
So we are in agreement that what you suggest doesn’t work.
I think I say this every time I see a headline like this on HN, but I'll say it again: The past decade of social science research publication has proven that provocative-sounding results should be considered fraudulent until the underlying data has been published, and then (assuming the data passes muster) should be regarded with skepticism until independently replicated with a fresh data set.
I think I say this every time I see a headline like this on HN, but I'll say it again: The past decade of social science research publication has proven that provocative-sounding results should be considered fraudulent until the underlying data has been published, and then (assuming the data passes muster) should be regarded with skepticism until independently replicated with a fresh data set.
Just like epidemiology, right?
The pandemic was a big hit on the development of kids who were supposed to start kindergarten but stayed at home instead. They are on average less social and verbal as a result. I hope they can recover the delay as I am the father of a 3 year old. I bet a similar delaying effect is happening for adolescent kids who would have started being interested in the opposite sex but all they could do was Zoom into virtual lec…
> Overall, we find that measured verbal, non-verbal, and overall cognitive scores are significantly lower since the beginning of the pandemic. Looking further, we find that children born before the pandemic and followed through the initial stages do not show a reduction in skills or performance, but rather that young infants born since the beginning of the pandemic show significantly lower performance than in- fants born before January 2019. Thus, our results seem to suggest that early development is impaired by the environmental conditions brought on by the pandemic.
"In this work, therefore, we specifically sought to explore individual and population-level trends in infant and early child neurodevelopment. Analyses of cognitive development, assessed using Mullen Scales of Early Learning [40], a population normed and clinically administered tool that assesses function across the five primary domains of fine and gross motor control, visual reception, and expressive and respective language via direct observation and performance, provides some of the first direct evidence of the developmental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic."
From https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/mullen-scale...
"The Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) is a standardized assessment that is commonly used in clinical psychology as a developmental measure of cognitive development (Mullen, 1989, 1995). The MSEL is organized into 5 subscales: (a) gross motor, (b) fine motor, (c) visual reception (or non-verbal problem solving), (d) receptive language, and (e) expressive language. An early learning composite score can be derived from fine motor, visual reception, receptive language, and expressive language scales. For young children this early learning composite score is considered equivalent to a more traditional “IQ” score or a developmental standard score."
See Figure 2 of the paper, on page 31.
Apparently, "[t]he outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the associated economic shut-down, school disruptions, and social distancing, stay-at-home, and mask policies" has reduced the intelligence of newborns and young children by ~1.5 standard deviations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Leveraging a large on-going longitudinal study of child neurodevelopment, we examined general childhood cognitive scores in 2020 and 2021 vs. the preceding decade, 2011-2019. We find that children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic. Moreover, we find that males and children in lower socioeconomic families have b…
That's true in the United States, but not in other countries: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/36/e2105709118 There were statistically insignificant increases in Slovenia, Norway, Denmark, South Korea, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland. Going by this, I also think that you may have the correlation wrong. If the study is correct (more generous welfare systems => less decrease in birth rates), that…
“Statistically insignificant” means that you have data from a sample from which, at the desired level of confidence, you cannot be sure of any effect, or that there was not the reverse effect, in the universe from which the sample is drawn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I bet a similar delaying effect is happening for adolescent kids who would have started being interested in the opposite sex but all they could do was Zoom into virtual lectures while being alone. So in your opinion, attending class is about finding a heterosexual romantic partner? I know lots of teenagers had virtual lectures, but I don't know any teenagers who were 100% socially isolated from their peers for very…
The age, not attending classes, is about having the first romantic experiences. And there were months of lock downs and almost two years of remote schooling cutting the opportunities to meet people.
I think I say this every time I see a headline like this on HN, but I'll say it again: The past decade of social science research publication has proven that provocative-sounding results should be considered fraudulent until the underlying data has been published, and then (assuming the data passes muster) should be regarded with skepticism until independently replicated with a fresh data set.
I think I say this every time I see a headline like this on HN, but I'll say it again: The past decade of social science research publication has proven that provocative-sounding results should be considered fraudulent until the underlying data has been published, and then (assuming the data passes muster) should be regarded with skepticism until independently replicated with a fresh data set.
One of the most eye-opening studies I saw was that social science papers with the most citations, had the highest likelihood of not being reproducible. Meaning that Social Sciences are actually pushing out misinformation more than not.
Would love to see the raw data, but from their own plots you can see that 2017, 2018 and 2019 show a trend that would make the 2020 and 2021 data consistent with the trend. As they show data comparing 2020 and 2021 to the previous years, they could have shown a matrix to compare year over year across the data. I will wait for someone to look at the raw data and peer review the paper before jumping to conclusions. I'm…
Edit: was intended as response to a reply to this. Appreciate the caution. We took a different approach. Unlimited screen time. Our daughter’s rate of learning is incredible. She willingly explores IRL play. No battles when we ask her to put down her iPad. Roblox and Minecraft are our shared playtime. I was homeschooled with no TV. My experience of her development is similar to what I experienced with my siblings. A…