US News - Best High Schools

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:roll: I've read everything you've posted and it's the same old happy hippie hooey that has ruined our public school system.

A school is judged by the products it puts out - not some subjective and I dare say racist measurement.
If a school puts out those who excel and are the top of the state - THOSE are the "best" schools.
Just because a school has more "minorities" and can produce good(not necessarily the top) students does not mean they are the "best". They might be good but it smacks of racism to weigh their results higher due to the color of the student's skin.

I want to know the top performing schools - the ones that have the highest achievement and actual results - those are the "best" schools. Unless you are part of the crowd that thinks certain people are more/less equal than others...

I am part of the crowd that thinks certain people are more/less capable of academic achievement than others. For some reason you want to give schools undeserved credit for the innate abilities of their students.

The best schools are the schools that make the biggest improvements in their students. At least that's the criterion I would use if I were choosing a school for my kids.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

Whoa their junior - I stated no such thing. Nowhere did I say economic situations or family situations didn't affect a child/student's prospects. Try reading.
And no, my assertions do not rely on the fact that all students are fundamentally equal and I stated no such thing. I really think you should try reading what I actually posted for once.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

People are not being measured here, schools are. In a "study" you control for variables. The students are a variable. They have to be factored out in order to accurately compare schools.

People SHOULD be measured by the same yard stick. I am actually in favor of standardized tests. But measuring people is not the topic of this thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:roll: I've read everything you've posted and it's the same old happy hippie hooey that has ruined our public school system.

A school is judged by the products it puts out - not some subjective and I dare say racist measurement.
If a school puts out those who excel and are the top of the state - THOSE are the "best" schools.
Just because a school has more "minorities" and can produce good(not necessarily the top) students does not mean they are the "best". They might be good but it smacks of racism to weigh their results higher due to the color of the student's skin.

I want to know the top performing schools - the ones that have the highest achievement and actual results - those are the "best" schools. Unless you are part of the crowd that thinks certain people are more/less equal than others...

I am part of the crowd that thinks certain people are more/less capable of academic achievement than others. For some reason you want to give schools undeserved credit for the innate abilities of their students.

The best schools are the schools that make the biggest improvements in their students. At least that's the criterion I would use if I were choosing a school for my kids.

No, I want want schools that produce the best RESULTS to be considered the "best" - not schools who are considered "best" based on some subjective and IMO racist measuring stick.

So you'd send your kid to a school that "wins" due to relativity and not end results?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

Whoa their junior - I stated no such thing. Nowhere did I say economic situations or family situations didn't affect a child/student's prospects. Try reading.
And no, my assertions do not rely on the fact that all students are fundamentally equal and I stated no such thing. I really think you should try reading what I actually posted for once.

Deciding to measure the quality all schools solely on their output necessitates an equality of input.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

People are not being measured here, schools are. In a "study" you control for variables. The students are a variable. They have to be factored out in order to accurately compare schools.

People SHOULD be measured by the same yard stick. I am actually in favor of standardized tests. But measuring people is not the topic of this thread.

right - so why are standardized tests(equal measuring stick) for all students which measures END RESULTS ok with you but when it comes to schools you have to want them to use racist "control" "variables" to adjust the stick? Should not the end results be what the stick measures?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

Whoa their junior - I stated no such thing. Nowhere did I say economic situations or family situations didn't affect a child/student's prospects. Try reading.
And no, my assertions do not rely on the fact that all students are fundamentally equal and I stated no such thing. I really think you should try reading what I actually posted for once.

Deciding to measure the quality all schools solely on their output necessitates an equality of input.

So you adjust for race? Sounds pretty racist.... just like AA.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

Whoa their junior - I stated no such thing. Nowhere did I say economic situations or family situations didn't affect a child/student's prospects. Try reading.
And no, my assertions do not rely on the fact that all students are fundamentally equal and I stated no such thing. I really think you should try reading what I actually posted for once.

Deciding to measure the quality all schools solely on their output necessitates an equality of input.

So you adjust for race? Sounds pretty racist.... just like AA.

More like economic status than race.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

Whoa their junior - I stated no such thing. Nowhere did I say economic situations or family situations didn't affect a child/student's prospects. Try reading.
And no, my assertions do not rely on the fact that all students are fundamentally equal and I stated no such thing. I really think you should try reading what I actually posted for once.

Deciding to measure the quality all schools solely on their output necessitates an equality of input.

So you adjust for race? Sounds pretty racist.... just like AA.

More like economic status than race.

For those schools that made it past this first step, the second step determined whether the school's least-advantaged students (black, Hispanic, and low income) were performing better than average for similar students in the state. We compared each school's math and reading proficiency rates for disadvantaged students with the statewide results for these disadvantaged student groups and then selected schools that were performing better than this state average.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

Whoa their junior - I stated no such thing. Nowhere did I say economic situations or family situations didn't affect a child/student's prospects. Try reading.
And no, my assertions do not rely on the fact that all students are fundamentally equal and I stated no such thing. I really think you should try reading what I actually posted for once.

Deciding to measure the quality all schools solely on their output necessitates an equality of input.

So you adjust for race? Sounds pretty racist.... just like AA.

So you agree that measuring all schools by output requires an equality of input? If not, please explain why.

Acknowledging differences in educational attainment between people of different races is not racism, it is the recognition of reality. To note that blacks are less successful educationally than whites is not to state they this is so because they are black.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well you are welcome to think that way, you would just be ignoring a massive amount of research that strongly indicates socioeconomic factors relate to student performance.

I mean in a race the way you determine the best driver is by the person who finishes the quarter mile race the fastest. It doesn't matter if one person is in a Ferrari and the other is driving a Geo, and the Geo only loses by a tiny margin. You hire the driver of the Ferrari for your racing team, because he finished first and is therefore the best.

To do otherwise would just be buying into that hippie 'losers are winners' BS, and in Amurrikah we don't tolerate that shit.

Exactly the BS I'm talking about. It's about lowered expectations and rewarding it. You(and your "studies") EXPECT different results from different races(which this study used - not purely economic) wheras I and others would like everyone measured using the same yard stick. Using a shorter yard stick for certain people doesn't support the idea of equality or standards. In this world - REAL results matter so it's BS to use different measuring sticks for different people. Either we are equal...or we're not. I support the idea that we are equal - do you?

The fact that you refer to scientific studies as "studies" shows exactly why your opinion on this is so ridiculous. If you think that a child growing up with a single parent in the ghetto has the same prospects for educational success as a child in a stable, wealthy home that's your business. To think that would be really really stupid, but it's your business if you want to.

Your assertion relies upon the fact that all students are fundamentally equal regardless of background but I am aware of no credible source that states socioeconomic background does not influence student performance. Can you provide one to back up this assertion?

Whoa their junior - I stated no such thing. Nowhere did I say economic situations or family situations didn't affect a child/student's prospects. Try reading.
And no, my assertions do not rely on the fact that all students are fundamentally equal and I stated no such thing. I really think you should try reading what I actually posted for once.

Deciding to measure the quality all schools solely on their output necessitates an equality of input.

So you adjust for race? Sounds pretty racist.... just like AA.

So you agree that measuring all schools by output requires an equality of input? If not, please explain why.

Acknowledging differences in educational attainment between people of different races is not racism, it is the recognition of reality. To note that blacks are less successful educationally than whites is not to state they this is so because they are black.

Then don't put it in your methodology.... The methodology used race as noted just like AA uses race, not results.

And no - END RESULTS matter. Again, if you have one school that is an A school and another is an A- school - which is the "best"? How do the END RESULTS change just because the A- school has more "black, Hispanic" students? That's right -they don't.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Then don't put it in your methodology.... The methodology used race as noted just like AA uses race, not results.

And no - END RESULTS matter. Again, if you have one school that is an A school and another is an A- school - which is the "best"? How do the END RESULTS change just because the A- school has more "black, Hispanic" students? That's right -they don't.

So you are saying the end result matters for judging the quality of the school, regardless of the quality of student that goes in. Use common sense, that's flat out silly.

As for what they use in their methodology, all studies make compromises between the explanatory value of a variable and its ease of implementation. I haven't read this study specifically, but to make a blanket assertion that such a variable shouldn't be used is again, silly.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
So you adjust for race? Sounds pretty racist.... just like AA.

More like economic status than race.

For those schools that made it past this first step, the second step determined whether the school's least-advantaged students (<black, Hispanic, and low income) were performing better than average for similar students in the state. We compared each school's math and reading proficiency rates for disadvantaged students with the statewide results for these disadvantaged student groups and then selected schools that were performing better than this state average.

[/quote]

Low income

 

[sisq0kidd]

A lot of my friends are from Whitney and some are from Oxford. Weirdest kids I know! I thought Uni High in Irvine would make top 25.

 

[1prophet]

Before you all start patting yourselves on the back.

 

[StageLeft]

Anybody who's lived in the South wouldn't really find its poor showing here to be a surprise.

Before you all start patting yourselves on the back.

It's the South that drags those numbers down

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, I want want schools that produce the best RESULTS to be considered the "best" - not schools who are considered "best" based on some subjective and IMO racist measuring stick.

So you'd send your kid to a school that "wins" due to relativity and not end results?

I've tried to explain it to you 4 or 5 times now. I give up. You're confusing the performance of the students with the performance of the school.

Edit:
I'll give you one more opportunity to figure it out.

Compare two Circuit City stores:
1. Store 1 is in a poor area. For the last ten years it has been the worst performing store in the company. A new store manager is hired, and in the first year he increases sales 20%. Sales at local competitors were stagnant.
2. Store 2 is in a wealthy area. It has been the top performing store in the country for years. A new manager is hired, and in his first year sales decrease by 5%. The store is still the top performing store in the country by a small margin. Sales at local competitors were stagnant.

The store manager is analogous to the school. He starts with a store with a certain potential, and he is judged by his ability to improve over what others have done with that same potential. While Circuit City may decide that that store 1 doesn't sell enough to stay open, they will recognize his abilities of the manager to outperform his predecessor and his local competitors.

I really hate using analogies to explain things, because I know you're going to find one deficiency in the comparison and ignore its validity.

To answer your question about where I'd rather send my kids -
Being in the presence of smart people isn't going to make my kids smarter. Looking at the overall results that a school produces - college admissions, test scores, etc - will tell you more about what the students were capable of than what the school did for them. Putting a stupid kid in a school full of smart people isn't going to make the stupid kid any smarter. I would like my kids to go to the school that does the most with what my kids start with.

Smart people tend to be more wealthy, and they produce smarter kids. Stupid people tend to be poor, and they produce stupid kids. A school can contribute nothing and the smart kids will still excel. The school that can make the stupid kids do better is a better school.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, I want want schools that produce the best RESULTS to be considered the "best" - not schools who are considered "best" based on some subjective and IMO racist measuring stick.

So you'd send your kid to a school that "wins" due to relativity and not end results?

I've tried to explain it to you 4 or 5 times now. I give up. You're confusing the performance of the students with the performance of the school.

No, I am not confusing anything. The product of schools are the students. The END RESULTS are what matters when it comes to schools as that is what they are in place to provide - END RESULTS.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Then don't put it in your methodology.... The methodology used race as noted just like AA uses race, not results.

And no - END RESULTS matter. Again, if you have one school that is an A school and another is an A- school - which is the "best"? How do the END RESULTS change just because the A- school has more "black, Hispanic" students? That's right -they don't.

So you are saying the end result matters for judging the quality of the school, regardless of the quality of student that goes in. Use common sense, that's flat out silly.

As for what they use in their methodology, all studies make compromises between the explanatory value of a variable and its ease of implementation. I haven't read this study specifically, but to make a blanket assertion that such a variable shouldn't be used is again, silly.

Yes, regardless of input - the output is what matters. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of asinine relativism. Yes, some schools do a great job of taking low performing kids and ending up with a good result but that doesn't mean it's the "best" - especially if their results are not not at the very top.

Again, the methodology called out the use of race - which is irrelevant and IMO racist. If they'd have just stuck to economic "status" then I'd drop some of the criticism but it still doesn't change the fact that END RESULTS are what matters.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, I want want schools that produce the best RESULTS to be considered the "best" - not schools who are considered "best" based on some subjective and IMO racist measuring stick.

So you'd send your kid to a school that "wins" due to relativity and not end results?

I've tried to explain it to you 4 or 5 times now. I give up. You're confusing the performance of the students with the performance of the school.

No, I am not confusing anything. The product of schools are the students. The END RESULTS are what matters when it comes to schools as that is what they are in place to provide - END RESULTS.

I edited to explain it one more time.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, I want want schools that produce the best RESULTS to be considered the "best" - not schools who are considered "best" based on some subjective and IMO racist measuring stick.

So you'd send your kid to a school that "wins" due to relativity and not end results?

I've tried to explain it to you 4 or 5 times now. I give up. You're confusing the performance of the students with the performance of the school.

No, I am not confusing anything. The product of schools are the students. The END RESULTS are what matters when it comes to schools as that is what they are in place to provide - END RESULTS.

I edited to explain it one more time.

Your retail store analogy is silly and doesn't even come close to comparing but even if it did, the top performing store is still the "best" performing store - no? Sheesh

Obviously certain classes will help students differently but it still doesn't mean that lower results can be considered "best". Certain schools may be better for your kids to learn in but it doesn't make them the "best" school.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Then don't put it in your methodology.... The methodology used race as noted just like AA uses race, not results.

And no - END RESULTS matter. Again, if you have one school that is an A school and another is an A- school - which is the "best"? How do the END RESULTS change just because the A- school has more "black, Hispanic" students? That's right -they don't.

So you are saying the end result matters for judging the quality of the school, regardless of the quality of student that goes in. Use common sense, that's flat out silly.

As for what they use in their methodology, all studies make compromises between the explanatory value of a variable and its ease of implementation. I haven't read this study specifically, but to make a blanket assertion that such a variable shouldn't be used is again, silly.

Yes, regardless of input - the output is what matters. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of asinine relativism. Yes, some schools do a great job of taking low performing kids and ending up with a good result but that doesn't mean it's the "best" - especially if their results are not not at the very top.

Again, the methodology called out the use of race - which is irrelevant and IMO racist. If they'd have just stuck to economic "status" then I'd drop some of the criticism but it still doesn't change the fact that END RESULTS are what matters.

That's fine. Now we've cleared up that you are using a method to determine the effectiveness of an organization that no sane school, and no sane business would ever use. If a business were to use your standard of evaluation for their personnel, they would go bankrupt.

Funny thing is, I said as much in my first post. I guess I could have saved us all some time by calling your standard of evaluation crazy then and just moving on.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


Your retail store analogy is silly and doesn't even come close to comparing but even if it did, the top performing store is still the "best" performing store - no? Sheesh

Obviously certain classes will help students differently but it still doesn't mean that lower results can be considered "best". Certain schools may be better for your kids to learn in but it doesn't make them the "best" school.

You can put a kid on the short bus, but you can't make him learn. Sorry, apparently it is beyond my abilities to explain this to you adequately.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Then don't put it in your methodology.... The methodology used race as noted just like AA uses race, not results.

And no - END RESULTS matter. Again, if you have one school that is an A school and another is an A- school - which is the "best"? How do the END RESULTS change just because the A- school has more "black, Hispanic" students? That's right -they don't.

So you are saying the end result matters for judging the quality of the school, regardless of the quality of student that goes in. Use common sense, that's flat out silly.

As for what they use in their methodology, all studies make compromises between the explanatory value of a variable and its ease of implementation. I haven't read this study specifically, but to make a blanket assertion that such a variable shouldn't be used is again, silly.

Yes, regardless of input - the output is what matters. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of asinine relativism. Yes, some schools do a great job of taking low performing kids and ending up with a good result but that doesn't mean it's the "best" - especially if their results are not not at the very top.

Again, the methodology called out the use of race - which is irrelevant and IMO racist. If they'd have just stuck to economic "status" then I'd drop some of the criticism but it still doesn't change the fact that END RESULTS are what matters.

That's fine. Now we've cleared up that you are using a method to determine the effectiveness of an organization that no sane school, and no sane business would ever use. If a business were to use your standard of evaluation for their personnel, they would go bankrupt.

Funny thing is, I said as much in my first post. I guess I could have saved us all some time by calling your standard of evaluation crazy then and just moving on.

:roll: so please do tell me what business adjusts their "best" due to race...or for that matter starting point?

I swear you people are being purposely obtuse... likely to protect the same happy hippie hooey that keeps things like AA around and protect a way of thinking that has absolutely ruined our public school system...