March 2, 2012 at 9:33 am
I'm basing my disagreement with you based on scientific studies I've read that control for poverty and poorly funded schools. When that's controlled for, our students are just as good as any in the world. Even if we're paying "the most per student-hour", those dollars are not apportioned equally with the majority of the money going to students in well-off districts. Our results aren't "very, very low" on standardized tests and standardized tests aren't a very good way of determining student results anyway.
If you want to improve school scores, fund poor schools better. If you really want to improve school scores, get rid of poverty.
Other than the impossible "get rid of poverty" item (since poverty is measured as a percentage of average income, rather than as a meaningful value), which we've already argued about and aren't going to resolve any better than we did last time, that set of statements mostly makes sense.
Got a link to those studies? Do they exclude private/charter schools (basically, anything other than public schools)? How do they baseline their data? Do they have an alternative measure from standardized tests?
Agreed that standardized tests are pretty much junk. I aced my SATs, and routinely score in the nosebleed and busted eardrums levels on IQ tests, and scored post-graduate on my 9th grade ASVAB tests, and I'm nowhere NEAR that smart. Smart? Yes (at least I like to think so). That smart? No way! But what standard do think we could use that would be better? (I've got some, but they're not anything that would be publically acceptable and violate "accepted scientific norms" [which are pretty much junk, too, IMO, when it comes to measuring human behavior].)
Outside of what I would consider the best measure, I think a reasonable measure would be how effective a school is at raising the standard of living of the community it services. Not the best measure, possibly not even a really good one, but at least it's theoretically quantifiable and most would consider it desireable. Simplest way to do that would be average income of graduates. Not sure that data is kept anywhere, though. Would be a mistake to assume graduates = local community. Thoughts?
Possible refinement: average income of graduates, average income of community serviced, percentage of community who graduated. 3D measure. Good/bad/indifferent?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 2, 2012 at 9:44 am
GSquared (3/2/2012)
I'm basing my disagreement with you based on scientific studies I've read that control for poverty and poorly funded schools. When that's controlled for, our students are just as good as any in the world. Even if we're paying "the most per student-hour", those dollars are not apportioned equally with the majority of the money going to students in well-off districts. Our results aren't "very, very low" on standardized tests and standardized tests aren't a very good way of determining student results anyway.
If you want to improve school scores, fund poor schools better. If you really want to improve school scores, get rid of poverty.
Other than the impossible "get rid of poverty" item (since poverty is measured as a percentage of average income, rather than as a meaningful value), which we've already argued about and aren't going to resolve any better than we did last time, that set of statements mostly makes sense.
Got a link to those studies? Do they exclude private/charter schools (basically, anything other than public schools)? How do they baseline their data? Do they have an alternative measure from standardized tests?
Agreed that standardized tests are pretty much junk. I aced my SATs, and routinely score in the nosebleed and busted eardrums levels on IQ tests, and scored post-graduate on my 9th grade ASVAB tests, and I'm nowhere NEAR that smart. Smart? Yes (at least I like to think so). That smart? No way! But what standard do think we could use that would be better? (I've got some, but they're not anything that would be publically acceptable and violate "accepted scientific norms" [which are pretty much junk, too, IMO, when it comes to measuring human behavior].)
Outside of what I would consider the best measure, I think a reasonable measure would be how effective a school is at raising the standard of living of the community it services. Not the best measure, possibly not even a really good one, but at least it's theoretically quantifiable and most would consider it desireable. Simplest way to do that would be average income of graduates. Not sure that data is kept anywhere, though. Would be a mistake to assume graduates = local community. Thoughts?
Possible refinement: average income of graduates, average income of community serviced, percentage of community who graduated. 3D measure. Good/bad/indifferent?
Links to many of the studies can be found through the "Links" posts on this person's blog
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/
Charter schools perform no better than public schools. Links to studies about that at the same site listed above.
There are a lot of problems with the "raising the standard of living" test. For schools already at or near the top standard of living, they'll all be rated poorly when in reality they're currently amoung our best. For minority and poor (sadly often equatable in our society) schools, the resources they have to work with are part of the problem. Plus, discrimination against the graduates that is still prevalent in our society is something the schools have no control over. In addition, there is a real trend for people to leave poor communities when they succeed, especially to communities with better schools.
An aside about the nitpick, poverty is considered as a percentage of the average income. You can certainly work the numbers so you don't have anyone under 20% of an average without everyone having to have "the same income". And that's just one measure of poverty.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 2, 2012 at 9:50 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (3/2/2012)
GSquared (3/2/2012)
a) There are a lot of people looking for work, many of whom have valid credentials/qualifications for the field they work in, and many of whom have been a very long time without work or working below their skill and ambitionb) There are a lot of jobs going begging for qualified people
c) There are a lot of employers with exaggerated ideas of what "qualified" means (this doesn't negate (c), it modifies it)
d) There are a lot potential employees with exaggerated ideas of how qualified they are (undereducated, underskilled, undermotivated, inadequate work-ethic, whatever)
The other item I think you're missing is that there's a lot of friction as well. People don't hear about jobs (want ads have become too fragmented now that they're not in the paper), or they aren't near a job they can take. Those two things cause a lot of problems. Not easy to sell your house, uproot a family, etc., especially when you have no idea if they new job works out better. ...
I'm taking that a corollary of a and b, or a subset of a and b, whichever way you want to look at it.
I'd say a large part of b is poor communication on the part of the companies that are having trouble filling jobs. Poorly worded help wanted ads ("must have 10 years experience in SQL 2012", et al), want ads in the wrong medium, and so on. Poor communication probably also covers a fair amount of a, in terms of resumes that don't clearly speak to skillsets matching jobs, applications for jobs that don't match skillsets, et al.
There's also going to be a percentage of b that are based on rare specializations, like SQL Server DBA. IT unemployment, per the best figures I have, is closer to 3% than the general numbers (8%-21%), and specializations within that are even lower in some cases. But those are limited cases, and don't really fit in the "there are a lot of jobs going begging for qualified people" category. Converse for a, with people with specialized skills that don't have a lot of demand, like a degree in "Homosexual Latina Studies" (it exists).
But those are subsets of the broader items, so far as I can see.
As for lack of willingness to relocation (as opposed to lack of ability to relocate), that's a choice people have to make. A person who could relocate to get a job, but doesn't, is making a decision based on risk/reward calculations. That's their choice. A person who can't voluntarily relocate without assistance from the potential employer, is a different situation, of course. Moving is expensive (I've moved for job-availability 3 times in the last 15 years, and believe me, it's not cheap), and not everyone has the cash reserves or available credit to be able to do so, and there can be other things preventing a move beyond just costs. But unwillingness because of emotional attachments to a house, community, school, whatever, is different than inability. Both of those need to be taken into account, of course.
Add to that unwillingness of the part of potential employers to allow remote-work, even when it would be possible. You can't telecommute to most manual-labor jobs, of course. That comes under the heading of "can't employ without without relocation". But there are a lot of jobs that could easily be done remotely these days, but employers are unwilling to do so for emotional reasons. Have to account for both of those in a-d as well.
Location and ability/willingness for that to matter, are part of the differences between a and d, and b and c. That's how I see it, anyway.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 2, 2012 at 10:07 am
An aside about the nitpick, poverty is considered as a percentage of the average income. You can certainly work the numbers so you don't have anyone under 20% of an average without everyone having to have "the same income". And that's just one measure of poverty.
I could be wrong, but I think the US Census and HHS use percentiles, not absolute measures. I.e. Bottom 20%, Top 1%, not 20% below, 20% above. If I'm correct about that, and is it percentiles, there will ALWAYS be a "bottom 20%", unless all values are completely equal.
One of the key measures of poverty used at the federal level in the US is Gini ratios, and those will always put a percentage of the population in "poverty" unless all incomes are absolutely equal (Gini ratio 0).
If that's wrong, and Census and HHS are now using deviations from median (which none of the reports seem to support), then yes, it would be possible to officially eliminate poverty. Would even be possible to "officially eliminate" it by lowering the median to a point where it was impossible to be 20% below, even if that meant the median was a level where severe absolute poverty (as per UN and World Bank definitions) was almost universal.
(By the way, I use the UN and World Bank definitions of absolute poverty in all discussions of poverty as the default. You seem to be using the relative definitions. Hence my clarifications on that point. Correct me if that impression is incorrect.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 2, 2012 at 10:36 am
Isn't poverty based on an absolute income level? http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf
No idea how they calculate that level, but this level/dollar amount defines whether you can receive government benefits such as Medicaid (e.g. if you're less than 150% FPL, you get benefits, etc)
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
March 2, 2012 at 10:38 am
I know this is not what you said, but the idea that poor people aren't "smart" (which is what it sounded like) really, really bothers me. As someone who came from a borderline-poor family, I can tell you that the biggest hurdle for someone in that position to getting the skills for a DBA position is having the money to invest in training materials. Used computers, cert books, and opportunities to meet mentors. SQL Saturday being free doesn't help someone who doesn't own a car and lacks access to public transportation to get to the event.
I got lucky. I had a sponsor of sorts, who really helped me get started. There are lots of smarter, self-educated people who are a lot poorer than I was who could do this work, if they could get the training. But they can't afford the training, they don't have access to the materials they need, and they don't have the assistance from someone who believes in them.
And now, since this is one of my hot button issues, I'm going to retire from this particular conversation.
March 2, 2012 at 10:48 am
Brandie Tarvin (3/2/2012)
I know this is not what you said, but the idea that poor people aren't "smart" (which is what it sounded like) really, really bothers me. As someone who came from a borderline-poor family, I can tell you that the biggest hurdle for someone in that position to getting the skills for a DBA position is having the money to invest in training materials. Used computers, cert books, and opportunities to meet mentors. SQL Saturday being free doesn't help someone who doesn't own a car and lacks access to public transportation to get to the event.I got lucky. I had a sponsor of sorts, who really helped me get started. There are lots of smarter, self-educated people who are a lot poorer than I was who could do this work, if they could get the training. But they can't afford the training, they don't have access to the materials they need, and they don't have the assistance from someone who believes in them.
And now, since this is one of my hot button issues, I'm going to retire from this particular conversation.
I don't know who you're responding to here. Please be assured that at no time did I mean to say or sound like I was saying "poor people aren't smart". Poor people do not have the resources that the non-poor do to help in their education. This extends from school resources to having the time to help your kids to having easy access to outside school resources and much more. When given a level "playing field", people perform similarly regardless of socio-economic or ethnic background. The problem is leveling that playing field, especially given the problems inherant in the multi-generational nature of education.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 2, 2012 at 11:10 am
Brandie Tarvin (3/2/2012)
I know this is not what you said, but the idea that poor people aren't "smart" (which is what it sounded like) really, really bothers me. As someone who came from a borderline-poor family, I can tell you that the biggest hurdle for someone in that position to getting the skills for a DBA position is having the money to invest in training materials. Used computers, cert books, and opportunities to meet mentors. SQL Saturday being free doesn't help someone who doesn't own a car and lacks access to public transportation to get to the event.I got lucky. I had a sponsor of sorts, who really helped me get started. There are lots of smarter, self-educated people who are a lot poorer than I was who could do this work, if they could get the training. But they can't afford the training, they don't have access to the materials they need, and they don't have the assistance from someone who believes in them.
And now, since this is one of my hot button issues, I'm going to retire from this particular conversation.
Who is "you" in this case? I don't think either Stefan or I said that poor people aren't smart. Often deprived of a decent education, yes, but lacking intelligence, no. Or do you mean someone else and I missed it?
I grew up definitely in US-standards "poverty" level. Rich by the standards of most of the world (as measured by UN and World Bank definitions mentioned above), but poor enough to qualify for things like "free" school lunches, donated schoolbooks, et al. The high school I went to was very sub-standard (underfunded, half my graduating class couldn't read past a 6th grade level, etc.), and I only got to go to college because of scholarships based on my SAT scores (parents couldn't afford tuition by any means, but I had 100% scholarships at the state university; had the opportunity for a degree, just didn't take it).
So if I implied or stated that poverty = stupidity, or anything like that, it would merely be self-insulting, and definitely wasn't intended.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 2, 2012 at 11:11 am
jcrawf02 (3/2/2012)
Isn't poverty based on an absolute income level? http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdfNo idea how they calculate that level, but this level/dollar amount defines whether you can receive government benefits such as Medicaid (e.g. if you're less than 150% FPL, you get benefits, etc)
The levels are absolute, as used by HHS and other federal departments, but are calculated based on percentiles provided by Census.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 2, 2012 at 1:38 pm
GSquared (3/2/2012)
jcrawf02 (3/2/2012)
Isn't poverty based on an absolute income level? http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdfNo idea how they calculate that level, but this level/dollar amount defines whether you can receive government benefits such as Medicaid (e.g. if you're less than 150% FPL, you get benefits, etc)
The levels are absolute, as used by HHS and other federal departments, but are calculated based on percentiles provided by Census.
There are two very different things here.
1) The official US government definition of poverty, which uses an absolute measure fixed in real value and determined by adjusting the value for inflation each year. The adjustment has used CPI since 1969; from 1965 to 1969 it was adjusted based on the price of a particular set of food suggested some time before 1964 by the Dept of Agriculture. In 1964 Orshanski had defined various thresholds based on the cheapest of Agriculture's four suggested survival level baskets, with the lowest threshold for a family of 4 set at three times the cost of the basket and this (lowest) threshold was adopted by the Office of Economic Opportunity in 1965. Since then (or maybe since 1969 - maybe OEO did the adjustment before that) the Census bureau has issued an inflation-adjusted set of figures each year. A family is said to be in poverty if it has less than twice the appropiate threshold as income (and in severe poverty if it has less than the threshold, I think).
2) The administrative guildelines issued by HHS, which uses Census information to determine the guidelines. These are nothing to do with poverty, they are to do only with eligibility for various federal benefits. Of course it might be nice is benefits aimed at reducing poverty were administered having regard to the poverty or otherwise of the intended recipients, but that would depend on how HHS decides on what guidelines to promulgate (administering benefits in a way that boosts the local economy might be a good idea too, but I don't know if HHS makes any attempt at that).
The interesting thing about all this is that benefits - unless dished out as cash, not as housing subsidies or food stamps or anything else that isn't cash - have no effect on poverty since the official threshold is specifically in terms of cash income, nothing else. This means that HHS and others can't claim that they are eliminating poverty unless a side effect of the benefits they dish out is that the families concerned become able to gain more cash income. In my view that's a good thing, but others differ.
Tom
March 5, 2012 at 11:22 am
'Accidentally started eating what turned out to be chicken feet at a Chinese restaurant this weekend. Good times! Anybody else run into that?
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
March 5, 2012 at 11:27 am
mtillman-921105 (3/5/2012)
'Accidentally started eating what turned out to be chicken feet at a Chinese restaurant this weekend. Good times! Anybody else run into that?
Were they good?
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 5, 2012 at 11:34 am
Stefan Krzywicki (3/5/2012)
mtillman-921105 (3/5/2012)
'Accidentally started eating what turned out to be chicken feet at a Chinese restaurant this weekend. Good times! Anybody else run into that?Were they good?
Actually, the flavor they used on them was fine - like a sweet and sour sauce. But otherwise, yuck. :sick:
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
March 5, 2012 at 11:34 am
Stefan Krzywicki (3/5/2012)
mtillman-921105 (3/5/2012)
'Accidentally started eating what turned out to be chicken feet at a Chinese restaurant this weekend. Good times! Anybody else run into that?Were they good?
I have had some pretty good chicken feet. Not a big fan of pig feet though.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
mtillman-921105 (3/5/2012)
'Accidentally started eating what turned out to be chicken feet at a Chinese restaurant this weekend. Good times! Anybody else run into that?
Chicken (foot) soup. My spouse's relatives from Cleveland.
She was a bit startled when she went to get a second helping for herself. 😛
She thought she was seeing things.
No, really was chicken feet.
Viewing 15 posts - 34,561 through 34,575 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply