Paul cites a number of derogatory remarks taken from reviews of 'The Bell Curve'. What he does not do is provide any sort of summary of the arguments putatively supporting those comments. This is unfortunate as anyone who has experience of academe will know that this is a frequently-encountered syndrome of the so-called soft sciences.
What occurs is the following (and I'll take applied linguistics as applied to second language teaching as an example). Some theory of SLA is proposed normally in reaction to some traditional approach. This captures the imagination of applied linguists and serves to create a mindset in spite of the fact that nowhere is sufficient empirical evidence provided to support that mindset.
At the same time, the acceptance of the mindset results in the denigration of the previously- mentioned traditional approach as in traditional grammar teaching (TGT).
Now, in defence of the new mindset I could do a 'Paul' and cite derogatory remarks about TGT such as, for example, characterising it as 'Neanderthal' as Michael Long has done. However, were I to demonstrate reliable scholarship I would have to demonstrate (as I have done in several articles) that the available empirical evidence provided by comparative research demonstrates unequivocally that the application of contemporary TGT has enabled students to perform significantly better than those exposed to approaches based on the mindset.
The lesson to be learned here is the following:
Beware of academics repeating derogatory remarks about some idea or other if they have failed to do the necessary legwork in order to provide sufficient empirical evidence to support those remarks.
Ron Sheen
From: Paul E. Doniger
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Predictors
I mentioned in an earlier posting that I thought that we have gotten awfully far from discussing grammar here. Consequently, I promise that this will be my last comment on this issue in this forum. I would have kept silent, but I feel very strongly that the following needs to be said. After I say this, I will say no more. So here goes:
As usual, Herb makes the point eloquently: Not everything worth measuring is measurable. I still think my school's mission "to educate each student to become a productive, responsible, enlightened citizen and a creative life-long learner" is, though perhaps un-testable (how does one test lifelong learning?), is a meaningful and useful mission. One "measurement" that we use in the English department at my school is the student portfolio, which is put together from a year's worth of student work at the end of each school year. It's hardly a one-shot test, but it's a dynamic assessment tool. And I know there are other schools that do this, too.
Regarding DD Farms' repeated recommendations of "The Bell Curve," I stand by my initial criticism. No, I cannot cite examples from the book any longer because I do not own a copy (nor would I buy one). However, I have read it and found it wanting. In defense of my opinion, I suggest that others read the criticisms that were published in the mid-1990s, when the book was new.
Stephen Jay Gould, who has been mentioned in this thread before, reviewed it in 1994 ("Mismeasure by Any Measure." _The New Yorker_, Nov. 28, 1994). He refers to the the book's claims as "anachronistic social Darwinism," "disingenuous," and "extraordinarily one-dimensional." Regarding the analytical process used in the book, he says it "is also suspect in its use of statistics." He denigrates the author's so-called use of scientific methods, but suggests that the benefit of it being published is "that its errors could be exposed." He concludes that "we must fight the doctrine of _The Bell Curve_ both because it is wrong and because it will, if activated, cut off all possibility of proper nurturance of everyone's intelligence." Everyone's intelligence! That, to me, is a powerful indictment.
Princeton University professor Alan Ryan also reviewed the book in _The New York Review of Books_ (Nov. 17, 1994. "Apocalypse Now?"), saying that its authors, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray are "two practical-minded men in the grip of irrational passion." He points out numerous contradictions in the 800 page work, and ends by saying, "In short, _The Bell Curve_ is not only sleazy; it is, intellectually, a mess."
Finally, Howard Gardner (author of _Multiple Intelligence_ among other groundbreaking books), in the winter 1994 issue of _The American Prospect_, wrote a negative review of the book ("Cracking Open the IQ Box."). He says that "the science in the book was questionable when it was proposed a century ago." Although he credits that the authors make some sensible observations, he refers to their thinking as "scholarly brinkmanship." He criticizes the authors' racial, social, and political biases, suggesting that these biases interfere with their ability to be fair and reasonable.
Frankly, IQ doesn't impress me ... in fact, it doesn't even interest me. I don't know my students' IQs and don't want to. Hell, I don't even know my own IQ! It probably isn't very high -- I didn't usually take tests very well in my younger days. However, it certainly didn't stop me from achieving a 3.97 GPA in my Masters Degree program (one lousy A-!). Humans are amazing creatures and can surprise us by their abilities to change and grow. Is biology really destiny? I think the truth is much more complex and interesting.
Paul E. Doniger
----- Original Message ----
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:44:22 PM
Subject: Re: Predictors
There is the risk of a reductionist argument in this discussion of whether the goals of a mission statement must be measurable ("quantitatively" becomes redundant). We've just been through the unit assessment part of the process in our university, a four-year effort driven by state mandates for teacher education programs that then became a university-wide mandate. What happens all too easily, and what happened too often in our case, is that the questions of what's meaningful are reduced questions of what's measurable, often a different domain entirely. And so we ended up with artifacts in each course for which we could construct explicit rubrics. A student would be shown to have met a goal when an artifact had met the rubrics at an acceptable level. Unfortunately, the goals of gaining scholarly rigor, curiosity, and perceptiveness are simply not in the same universe of discourse. Nor are the goals of tolerance, valuing diversity, etc.
Not all that is worth judging or attaining is objectively measurable, an analog to Stahlke's Law of Language: Anything in language that you can count doesn't.
Herb
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of DD Farms
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 9:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Predictors
At 10:16 PM 9/18/2007, Paul E. Doniger wrote: . . .
>DD responded:"So true. But the schools seem to have no clearly
>assigned missions.
>I'm not sure what DD means, but every school I've worked in has had
>a mission statement, and mostly good ones.
DD: I meant an operationally definition. Not to improve the student
in something not defined, but to improve the students' score on the
ACT, or their results in some other test. Not feel good, achieve
excellence, if that is not operationally defined. I don't mind a
definition that strives for more students passing the National Latin
Test, nor achieve a lower drop out rate.
>My present school's mission (and I hope to stay here for the rest of
>my career) is as follows: "The mission of Pomperaug Regional High
>School, a caring community committed to excellence, is to educate
>each student to become a productive, responsible, enlightened
>citizen and a creative life-long learner through high quality,
>dynamic, innovative learning experiences in collaboration with the
>Region 15 community."
DD: And how is one supposed to measure that?
>It seems a pretty "clearly assigned mission" to me, and one that
>drives our curriculum; it's well worth supporting. We are constantly
>asked to hold our students accountable to a high standard.
DD: What standard?
>We also try to keep the community involved (it's easy for me,
>running a theatre program that depends on parents and local
>businesses being involved).
>I often wonder where people get their ideas about public schools and
>what goes on inside them Certainly, having taught both in the inner
>cities and in a blue collar town, I have seen some of the failings
>that have been mentioned in this thread, but mostly, I've seen good
>teaching and very little "dumbing down." . . .
DD: I have also taught in the public school system. I did my utmost
to achieve what I thought was desirable, but no clear mission statement had I.
> What really causes problems for education are often those things
> that are out of our control: Budget cuts, large classes (usually a
> result of budget restraints), unfunded government mandates (like
> Craig, I am "not a fan" of NCLB -- actually, I hate the thing),
> standardized testing interrupting the process, consumerism,
> materialism, technological distractions (TV was just the
> beginning), and the drive to focus on the goal of creating a work
> force rather than creating "good citizens" in a Jeffersonian sense.
DD: I note you specify "education." Undefined. No clear mission statement.
>Add to this that since the 1940s, 12 years of public education has
>become the minimal requirement for every American; there is a
>greater percentage of people who are expected to graduate from high
>school than ever in history -- and the stigma of not graduating is
>immense, both socially and economically.
DD: So the standards for so doing have been reduced to see it that they do.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/