Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 535 posts

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#491

Post by Jensson »

hirvi74 wrote: post #485
WarmWash wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't. Intelligent people can be anti-social too, and usually with terrifying large scale outcomes. But thankfully, most crime in the aggregate is done by unintelligent people.

If a child shows some sort of exceptional proclivity for academics, then I strongly believe there needs to be an examination for empathy and pro-social behaviors prior to being enrolled in some sort of advanced program. > most crime in the aggregate is done by unintelligent people. That is a tough one. For I believe there is more to reality than what data can currently capture. While I do agree that most violent crim…

> If a child shows some sort of exceptional proclivity for academics, then I strongly believe there needs to be an examination for empathy and pro-social behaviors prior to being enrolled in some sort of advanced program.

Luckily that is no longer needed, as in capitalism such a person can provide good value to society just via greed. He shouldn't be a leader, but a greedy engineer isn't an issue.

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#492

Post by Jensson »

tptacek wrote: post #488
Jensson wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any argument as to why what a social scientist says today is more valid than what one said 20 years ago? I'd trust social scientists less today than 20 years ago due to the effect of social media on them. Social media creates much stronger social pressure on people to conform, and that isn't a good thing for science.

Alex Strudwick Young isn't a "social scientist".

Ah ok, yeah genetics science has came a long way 20 years so there it makes more sense to listen to modern stuff, but why the scare quotes? Do you have a problem with social scientists?

Edit: Looked him up and he disagrees with you. "My sense is that heritability of IQ is in the range of 30-70% with very high confidence.", you said "It's likely somewhere between 15%-50%". There is a massive difference between 30-70 and 15-50, 30-70 sounds much more reasonable and matches most studies on the subject I have seen.

https://x.com/AlexTISYoung/status/1889044121433571803

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#493

Post by tptacek »

Jensson wrote: post #492
tptacek wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Strudwick Young isn't a "social scientist".

Ah ok, yeah genetics science has came a long way 20 years so there it makes more sense to listen to modern stuff, but why the scare quotes? Do you have a problem with social scientists? Edit: Looked him up and he disagrees with you. "My sense is that heritability of IQ is in the range of 30-70% with very high confidence.", you said "It's likely somewhere between 15%-50%". There is a massive difference between 30-70 a…

No, I don't. But you've lost track of the thread, because I didn't claim he said 15-50%. There's a reason I cited him where I did: to point out how silly the 0.80 estimate the previous commenter's cite was in current context. His antecedent in this thread is "even hereditarians...".

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#494

Post by Jensson »

tptacek wrote: post #493
Jensson wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah ok, yeah genetics science has came a long way 20 years so there it makes more sense to listen to modern stuff, but why the scare quotes? Do you have a problem with social scientists? Edit: Looked him up and he disagrees with you. "My sense is that heritability of IQ is in the range of 30-70% with very high confidence.", you said "It's likely somewhere between 15%-50%". There is a massive difference between 30-70 a…

No, I don't. But you've lost track of the thread, because I didn't claim he said 15-50%. There's a reason I cited him where I did: to point out how silly the 0.80 estimate the previous commenter's cite was in current context. His antecedent in this thread is "even hereditarians...".

But now we have an authority figure saying 30-70, so I'll trust that over your 15-50. And yes I know why you didn't cite the 30-70, its because you disagree with it. You shouldn't say others use biased examples and then say you believe it could be as low as 15% without anything to back that up.

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#495

Post by tptacek »

Jensson wrote: post #494
tptacek wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't. But you've lost track of the thread, because I didn't claim he said 15-50%. There's a reason I cited him where I did: to point out how silly the 0.80 estimate the previous commenter's cite was in current context. His antecedent in this thread is "even hereditarians...".

But now we have an authority figure saying 30-70, so I'll trust that over your 15-50. And yes I know why you didn't cite the 30-70, its because you disagree with it. You shouldn't say others use biased examples and then say you believe it could be as low as 15% without anything to back that up.

He didn't use a "biased example"; he used a prehistoric example based on premodern methology. The only thing we've established here is that he doesn't understand his own cite.

later

In other words, I deliberately cited someone on his side of the debate.

How much do I love that this person got promoted from woke social scientist to "authority figure" in the space of one Google query, though? Amazing.

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#496

Post by johnnyanmac »

Jensson wrote: post #487
johnnyanmac wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its pretty much all that matters when we reduced dating to a profile pic and a swipe. You don't get to show off confidence or hobbies or way of life 99% of the time. Just a few seconds and a picture. The rest comes later. >getting approached at bars is very different than working with someone in an office setting or having your papers graded in a university setting. I wonder if thats changed, too. School is probably…

> Its pretty much all that matters when we reduced dating to a profile pic and a swipe You can also list your job, that matters a lot more than your profile picture if you are a man, doctors easily get dates etc.

Sadly, listing "game developer" or "programmer" tends to have the opposite effect. We aren't "prestigous" enough to be carried by our jobs (despite making decent money), and we still get a lot of that old school "nerd" persona to boot.

I'd have better luck pretending to be an artist, despite my modeling skills being barely above "Hello World".

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#497

Post by anonymous »

WarmWash wrote: post #156
keiferski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t wealthier families hire tutors to prepare their children? That’s what happens in the US with the SAT/ACT. I think you’d need free, universal SAT tutoring available to everyone in order to be more meritocratic.

The actual problem is that we are not blank slates, and wealthy parents tend to be wealthy because they are more intelligent, and likewise give birth to predisposed-to-be-intelligent babies. I always find it slightly ironic how mother nature gets so much reverence from ostensibly communal types, despite her being the most shamelessly power hungry entity ever conceived.

No post body was provided.

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#498

Post by chii »

genthree wrote: post #449
jimbokun wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as a society do we want to have people performing tasks based on demonstrated aptitude to perform those tasks, or to have people performing tasks based on achieving certain social and political outcomes?

The entire point of any such system is the latter thing anyway, regardless of how you go about it. I mean the higher-level point, like “why do we have any system at all?”

> regardless of how you go about it

i very much beg to differ. A poor but high aptitude student today is able to escape the "caste" they're born into. Under a true nepotistic system, this cannot happen no matter how much aptitude he/she possesses.

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#499

Post by chii »

Geezus_42 wrote: post #96
chii wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

merit doesn't mean equal wealth spending to obtain a result. And it's not black and white. Someone rich spending a lot of money to obtain tutoring doesn't necessarily make their score higher, and there's also diminishing returns. Someone poor who do not afford private tutoring can also receive good score due to their natural talent and/or hard work in self-teaching/practicing. > universal SAT tutoring available to ev…

I think the point is that some start with an advantage when it comes to earning merit because by luck of birth they were born to parents with a lot of wealth. I don't think you can have a truly meritocratic system unless everyone starts on a level playing field with the same access to resources. That is not a system that exists anywhere on this planet.

> a truly meritocratic system

only if you twist what you mean by meritocracy to mean equality.

Why don't you apply that exact same argument but to sports and athletics? People born with superior genes do perform better (ala, tall people in basketball).

Merit doesn't mean everyone starts at the same spot. Merit means your outcome is determined by how good you are at it - no matter how you get to become that good.

Re: Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching

#500

Post by Soumik0123 »

Aurornis wrote: post #111
kxrm wrote: post #61

My 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…

> if I had my way, job interviews would be exclusively audio only. Unfortunately, cheating is becoming rampant in remote interviews, especially for early career roles right now. I think companies are moving toward having final interview rounds in person because it’s such an effective tactic to discourage interview cheating.

[dead]
Post reply on HN