[flagged]
This would only matter if the students were unfairly graded, which the paper didn't demonstrate.
Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
351–360 of 535 posts
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#352A "good voice" could become more important. I could see people doing speech and voice training. Also things like lighting, mic and camera setup, and background. Everyone is a streamer now.
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were to guess I imagine the downvotes are due to the use of an upvote being preferred over (albeit it well intentioned) comments of "well done" in HN threads (in order to keep signal to noise ratio high)
Fair, I mostly was thinking it would be nice to give people who want to try it themselves the term that’s most often used. It’s hard - you have to eat around maintenance level calories but you also need to make a high percentage of them protein and also keep enough carbs that you don’t bonk if you’re doing any cardio (I like jump rope myself). Just cutting or bulking gives a little more flexibility.
Makes sense and it's a new term for me so thanks for sharing :)
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
On average more educated? Yes. More intelligent? Nah I see no data. Given the same access to resources I expect the kid from a poor family and a kid from a rich family to perform similarly.
I do not. Where do unintelligent people exist in your society? And at a certain point the argument about equal access is entirely hypothetical. For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.
> Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?
Everywhere? Both in rich and poor households.
> For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.
Ah I thought the argument was more about genes(aka born smart) and not something like nutrition.
I think a good thought experiment is Formula 1. Most top F1 racers come from super rich backgrounds. Does that mean that more money == better driver? Its mostly a accessibility problem.
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#355My first job during and out of college back in 2003, we were entirely remote. We hired exclusively over the phone which resulted in a mix of people that were completely diverse in their backgrounds and at the same time truly qualified to do the work. The company went on to grow quite successfully until it was acquired 6 years later. I feel that zoom and video conferencing allows some of that "appearance" factor back…
The best hiring advice is this: Take half of the resumes you receive and just throw them in the trash. You don't want to hire unlucky people!
Napoleon: "I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?"
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, a lot of ugly people start off by trying to be nice, then gradually become more bitter and cynical the more they have to take shit from other people. At least I feel like that has happened to me, and I'm not even so ugly (imho). The amount of gaslighting I've put up with from everyone over the years has really been infuriating and has led me to a lot of misery in my life, and also turned me away from t…
This. Childhood experiences are formative, and the peer environment from early years through adulthood is usually brutal. My expectation is that confidence and grace is evenly distributed at birth, but is added to the physically attractive and denied to the unattractive almost immediately. I've always found the physically-unattractive-but-socially-attractive especially interesting because they've succeeded, often alo…
>My expectation is that confidence and grace is evenly distributed at birth, but is added to the physically attractive and denied to the unattractive almost immediately.
I don't think it would be evenly distributed, but it goes something like that. You can choose to behave confidently up to a point, but people reject such behavior from an ugly person. Ignoring this social feedback can get you into a lot of trouble.
>I've always found the physically-unattractive-but-socially-attractive especially interesting because they've succeeded, often along with a very cool peer group.
Some of these are brutal too. I've known some real busted dudes who got attractive girls to like or marry them somehow. I assume it's often money, connections, and/or encountering the right person who is a sucker for your particular characteristics. Imagine being the ugly brother or nephew of a solid 10 (guy or girl), or being a multi-millionaire. You'd easily get many times more opportunities in all areas of life.
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. There as difference between unfair and unreal; someone who is malnourished when growing up will forever likely be weaker than someone who received a proper sequence of meals. We should perhaps recognize that and try to compensate for it, and it's not a value judgement on the person so afflicted, but pretending it doesn't exist just confuses matters.
If the difference is real I don’t think the test is the place to compensate as its function is to select people who will succeed in that area.
That's been the entire fight over the last 20+ years, does the test identify anything real and if so, what should be done with it (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity, e.g.).
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem seems to be that intelligence is not entirely heritable; that just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate.
Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation? > just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate. Correct, my statement is about expectation of averages. Not a claim that we should exclude an individual because of who their parents are.
> Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation?
My understanding is that there is some genetic correlation but it's not a certainty; smart/rich parents can have dumbass kids and vice versa.
It's hard to quantify because a direct "IQ" measurement is fraught with issues and trying to measure by "success" has its own issues. If you've not met a lawyer/doctor/PhD that you'd put in the "dumbass" category, you probably haven't met many.
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe that they get an unadulterated perspective of both experiences? That they would be getting the experience of a woman rather than that of a trans woman?
Apparently some make a distinction regarding whether they pass or not to address this. James Barnes is one person whose written about this https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169
Thank you for sharing that, that was a valuable read.
Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wealthy parents tend to be wealthy because they are more intelligent Not "more intelligent", just "unusual in some way". People can be wealthier than average for all sorts of reasons unrelated to intelligence (as defined by IQ). Here's a sampling of them: Being social and good at sales. Most successful real estate agents I've met don't strike me as particularly brilliant. Working a boring job, living modestly, and…
Intelligence correlates highly with not having anti-social behaviors. So a lot of the time, it's not "being smart" that carries you to wealth, its avoiding the "disastrously stupid things" that stops you from being poor.
[dead]