This seems like a clear selection bias. One of the reasons, and probably the main one, that public schools are awful is because a very small number of highly disruptive kids can completely ruin the education of an entire class of other kids. Public schools generally have no way to get rid of these children and their parents also generally don't care. These are also of course the kids that are going to score abysmally on any sort of standardized score.
By contrast at these schools for military kids, behavioral or academic problems can have direct and serious consequences on the parents and end up having the bump into issues with their command. There's going to be an overall greater degree of focus on discipline in the school, as well as the households, and so on. In many ways the most surprising thing is that the overall difference is only about 10%.
EDIT: As mentioned elsewhere, you also know that the parent(s) in these households are going to have minimum of IQ that's higher than the normal minimum since that's a prerequisite for enlistment. So you're getting a rather overt selection bias there.
I’m not sure this “thinking” on public education holds up if you look outside the U.S. where countries with emphasis on public education so consistently outperform the Americans.
I guess at best it might be that there’s problems unique to American culture that makes public education not work. But that feels unlikely to hold up. I think the premise is simply wrong.
It's not really about "emphasis". For instance the US is one of the highest spenders in the world, even PPP adjusted, per student on education. I think it's largely about educational culture and goals. For instance in many/most places in Asia there tends to be far less tolerance for disruptive students. Many places even have varying forms of corporal punishment, even when there are technically regulations or laws against it. There are also generally parallel education systems where people can, from relatively young ages, pursue vocational school instead of normal schooling.
Basically the US education system is more focused on a sort of one-size-fits-all education with the only real differentiation being a 'normal' or 'accelerated' track (with some places like California even gradually moving against that remaining differentiation). This is in spite of having a far more diverse population in every possible way than other countries which focus on more of having educational systems which work to the strengths of each student.
An apples to apples comparison adjusted for things like Americans who have English as a second language or other countries removing people from school roles significantly shrinks the differences.
A surprising number of the absolute best schools in the world by those same criteria are US public schools due to the population and resources going to those schools. So the issues are not quite so simple as they might first appear. The US education system isn’t efficient, but it’s also not as bad as generally perceived.
> An apples to apples comparison adjusted for things like Americans who have English as a second language or other countries removing people from school roles significantly shrinks the differences.
"If I remove all the data that hurts my case, the data clearly supports my case!".
Those people that you want to exclude aren't transients - they're either current or future Americans which are called immigrants. So if you want a well-functioning democracy, economy, society, etc you have to educate them effectively too, not just the people that were born here.
The point isn’t excluding buckets, the point is to have multiple points of comparison.
If we want to know which system you should copy, you want understand the factors that make that system more challenging. America doesn’t need to deal with severe malnutrition, but we may want to copy elements from countries dealing with such issues.
Unless of course the goal is a hit piece for whatever emotionally agenda you you’re pushing.
I'm pointing out that "an apples to apples" comparison is all of the people in the seats at the schools because all of those people live, work, and (eventually) vote in your country.
I edited for clarity, but an apples to apples comparison means to compare like to like not to compare everything.
I can weigh a bag of groceries, that’s a metric I can collect on everything you’re buying but it doesn’t tell me if you’re making healthy choices at the grocery store.
Similarly I can look at the test grades of everyone in Ukraine right now, but that tells me more about society in general than the countries school system.
> Similarly I can look at the test grades of everyone in Ukraine right now, but that tells me more about society in general than the countries school system.
I'll repeat for the third and final time: excluding people that speak English as a second language in a country's school system that has been taking immigrants for all time (and vaguely plans to continue) is not the same thing as excluding people affected by a brutal but eventually ending war.
You're being unnecessarily condescending and combative.
The point that the person that you're arguing in bad faith with is making is not that we jettison immigrants and ESL students. It's that you accept that they will have struggles that the students in Japan do not (because there are much fewer immigrant students). So if you compare the students who are _like_ the ones in Japan and you come out ahead, then you go, great, we don't need to adjust for those students.
It does _not_ mean that you don't adjust for the students who have unique challenges and try to bring them up.
But if you compare two different cohorts, you might incorrectly get the signal that you should also change what you're doing for the students who don't have those challenges.
If a concept has been made as simple as possible and it's still not simple enough for you to understand, then I'm sorry but I think this conversation is not for you.
the “problem” unique to America is that we like to take in the poor and huddled masses (who don’t test well), while the EU likes to watch them sink and die in the Mediterranean.
If anything, the opposite is true. Europe receives less educated individuals who will be a burden on their welfare, while the USA has cheap labor from South America and attract top talent globally.
name me a single EU nation with a higher per-capita rate of immigrants from developing countries. it is simply not true that Europe has more immigrants without strong education background than the US, there is no way of cutting the data
i’m not changing anything - you are the one who brought up welfare. my point is and always has been that the US has a multi-decades long run of relative immigration permissiveness towards people from poorer countries - and that will impact education outcomes.
Well, my country has public schools, but children are segregated by educational prowess. The smartest kids go to schools which are completely separate from the less intelligent ones. If you fail, you might get sent to a lower school system.
So this would explain why these disruptions would not appear in my country (or to a far lower degree)but would in the US school system.
There is special guidance, so usually you can just do the level you “ought” to be in.
If it’s really severe there is special education as a last resort.
More commonly modified lesson plans, or teachers will be instructed to let you out of the classroom for a bit, or give you tasks like “fetch this item from the front desk” in between.
It’s certainly not perfect, but there is quite some guidance and individual measures possible.
I'm a former military brat, and went to DOD schools from 1990 to 1998. My school had a mix of Air Force, Navy, Army and NATO kids. Here's what I remember.
* Almost every parent had college education.
* Classrooms generally were small, with around 20ish kids per class.
* Facilities were very well maintained and funded. Nothing was ever really broken, or stayed broken for long. Nothing looked worn, equipment was generally kept up to date. We had our own bowling alley, swimming pool, theater, lecture halls, music building, indoor basketball courts and two soccer fields, one baseball diamond.
* There weren't really any kids with parents struggling financially.
Parents were involved with the school on open days.
* There were some problem kids, but everyone moved so often, it didn't matter.
* If a kid ever did something bad enough the parent would get in trouble. One family I knew had to move back the US after the kid said a racial slur.
* You didn't make any lasting friends, because again, everyone moves frequently.
Basically, short answer, you went to the same school as the officer's kids, so the schools were nice for everyone. Moral of the story, send your kids to schools in affluent neighborhoods.
I think the election bias is as simple as: at least one of the parents has a job.
The public schools run by the military are fairly normal public schools. They aren’t “military schools.” They aren’t more discipline-focused.
They do have the advantage of offering federal salary and benefits to teachers. That means they can be pretty picky about who they accept, resulting in higher quality teachers.
"This creates a “bit” of challenge. We can observe that the military implements systematically and produces superior results, but we cannot cleanly separate method effects from selection effects without experiments that will never happen."
> in these households are going to have minimum of IQ that's higher than the normal minimum since that's a prerequisite for enlistment.
Is it? I know they’re a lot more selective than historically, but I was under the impression that a low 30-something asvab score qualifies you for at least infantryman. Is that really above average IQ?
There also seems to be a misconception about what failing an audit means. If you have an organisation spending an ungodly amount of money in ways it can't track ... you would expect all the services for its own members to be gold plated.
Organisations with bad budget discipline aren't usually short on benefits. What disadvantages are there for them to provide the best conceivable services? Nobody expects them to be able to justify the spend.
I agree it is likely selection bias but I don't think it is likely for the same reasons.
These kinds of results often correlate strongly with parental income levels, which put another way "zip code". Yeah, the military isn't known for great salaries and you'd be right to point at plenty of rich counties, but how many rich counties are there to poor ones? We don't have the distributions and that's what makes this hard to read.
Despite that, we do have some distributional information. Lucky for us, they included the demographics! Taking what we know above, we can actually back investigate to at least provide a "sniff test". Looking at the DoDEA scales, they are pretty low variance in comparison. Unless you think Asians are genetically smarter than whites, blacks, or hispanics then it needs to come down to other factors, which includes culture. The culture will probably be suppressed a bit in the military data, as military naturally creates a more homogeneous setting, but some variance will still exist for this part as well as some likely imbalances in incomes and other things.
An important part of this rich correlation is that it ties very much into stable household. Certainly having active deployment will disrupt the household a bit, but some of that normalizes and well... let's be honest, there is a stable income and stable food situation at home. That's a major factor in a lot of households.
So the real question would be "How do DoDEA schools compare to national schools when you exclude national schools that have a significant number of families that do not have a stable income?" I believe that would be a more fair comparison, though that would really just bring us to "apples and oranges" instead of "oranges and tomatoes". The claim is that the difference is due to some organizational influence, i.e. one that is actionable (like the way teachers teach or students are disciplined, etc), but frankly we just have so little data we can't rule out a million other things.
It's about the minimum not the average. The minimum in the military is around 90 IQ while public schools could have students with 70-90 IQ who are disruptive but technically not disabled.
> If DoDEA demonstrates sustained K-12 excellence, the military’s technical training programs showcase something even more striking: the ability to take 18-year-old high school graduates and transform them into operators of extraordinarily complex systems, safely and at scale.
What I found most striking is that last word: scale. Most people employed to write software cannot write original applications of any size. They certainly cannot thus scale solutions forward if they cannot author solutions in the first place. This is supremely costly for these profit oriented companies. The military on the other hand must scale because while they do not have profits or revenue margins to chase they do have budget constraints. The result is an organization that can do more with less.
The military training programs have exactly one goal and that is to train. They have the ability to set their standards and enforce them ruthlessly. Public schools have many goals besides education, have to keep their students (and more importantly the parents of those students) happy, and have no ability to select their students and very little ability to fail them out and remove them, and can be sued for anything at any time. It's pretty clear why military training is superior.
As for software, I have never heard the military or government accused of being good at building it, so I don't really see your point there.
Do military K-12 schools not face similar dynamics? It's not like the kids are who are in the military, right?
Obviously there are still different dynamics between an arbitrary public school and a school on a military base in Kanagawa for many reasons, but I have to imagine that there are similar diversity of goals and lack of "throwing out" the kids in these schools.
Just seems like the flavor of challenges that public schools face and k-12 mil schools face are a bit similar, except for a huge one: the kids in the mil schools are much more likely to have three square meals a day(etc etc).
The Army software developer is 170D and supposedly they are vastly superior at training developers. There are only two factors to this: better selection of students/candidates and excellent training formulation.
My experience in corporate software is the opposite where it’s all about hiring/firing for the lowest common denominator. It’s not about being good. It’s about speed and not training.
> supposedly they are vastly superior at training developers
Based on what sources and using what metrics? And vastly superior to what alternative? If you're saying better than schools, I wouldn't be surprised. But I would be surprised if it's better than the experience you would get as a junior at a major tech company, and shocked if it was better than experience at a small startup.
Everyone has budge constraints. I think this is a bit unfair to SWE. Of course sometimes you ship bad performance code quick and pay extra cloud bills to chase extra revenue sooner.
I don't think you're looking at this the right way.
I would say that the training programs illustrate that the military generally treats its workforce as the result of external factors. Someone else decides who will be in the military, and the military has to figure out what to do with them.
Companies usually see things very differently. They feel free to say that they won't train because they want to hire someone who's already trained. If that approach doesn't work well, they can put even more effort into searching for The Ideal Employee and taking advantage of the fact that, if you ignore the time you spent searching for him, his time-to-become-productive is so low.
I went to a DoD school from fourth grade until my second semester of 11th grade. After that, we moved to the U.S.
We moved to a good school district in the U.S, so the quality of the education remained the same. The most startling difference in a U.S public school was in how we were viewed by admin.
Compared to DoD schools, administrators in U.S public school system weren't too different from middle management at $corp. We were numbers on a spreadsheet.
A good analogy - U.S school admin acted like the kind of "manager" who judges you by the lines of code you produce and the number of commits you make. DOD school admin were the kind of people who judge you by the impact you made.
DoD schools respected our autonomy - we were treated like humans. Non-DoD schools treated us like cattle.
> This same institution operates America’s highest-performing school system. DoDEA students scored 234 in fourth-grade reading on the 2024 NAEP, outperforming the national average of 214. That’s roughly two grade levels ahead. In eighth-grade math, DoDEA scored 291 versus 272 nationally. When 2024 NAEP results showed national reading scores declining, DoDEA was the only jurisdiction where scores increased.
How again do we know this isn’t entirely due to selection effects?
Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems don't mean that intelligence is inherited in the genetic sense. If you're seriously arguing this, you're very close to flirting with eugenics and the like.
> If you're seriously arguing this, you're very close to flirting with eugenics and the like.
Please don't be so eager to reject eugenics that you end up being anti-science. The idea that some percent of intelligence is genetic is entirely reasonable, not something to refuse to consider.
What do you think "the heritability of IQ" means? It seems from the thread that you believe it's genetic causation of intelligence. Is that what you're claiming?
I think that's how zevon interpreted it, so that's what I responded to.
Personally I would include other methods. And for the argument about schools method doesn't really matter.
Edit: And I don't know if genetics are the biggest factor in single generation inheritance, especially at a younger age, but I do think they're a reasonably significant factor after looking at various estimates.
Right, just so we're clear that heritability isn't genetic determinism; it's a correlation statistic. All sorts of things are heritable that are absolutely not fixed by genetics. And there are things fixed by genes that aren't meaningfully heritable!
Of course it's not determinism but it is statistically causal. The point is the distribution of the student body is going to be different in a pretty significant way.
I did not say nor mean to imply that genetics do not have anything to do with IQ or intelligence. Also, context matters - this is a thread about how to structure educational environments and about certain specifics of the military. Genetics are a factor that is going to be of limited practical use in this domain, at least as far as I can fantasize OTOH.
> I did not say nor mean to imply that genetics do not have anything to do with IQ or intelligence.
Please explain what "Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems don't mean that intelligence is inherited in the genetic sense." means because it sure looks like an argument that the genetic component isn't real.
Especially because you posted that in response to someone talking about heritability in very general terms, so your comment can't be interpreted as a nitpick about which evidence goes where. And I can't think of any third interpretation.
> this is a thread about how to structure educational environments and about certain specifics of the military
The idea being presented is that it's easier to run good schools when you have smarter students with smarter parents.
So the inheritability of intelligence over a single generation is critical to the argument.
Maybe what I actually meant to express becomes more clear if I re-phrase and expand the the sentence a bit:
Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems does not mean that you can determine genetics as a relevant factor when thinking about how to structure education and if one is interested in the relationship between success (on whatever metric) in education and family trees.
I'm neither a geneticist nor is English my first language but I've always understood "heritability" to be a term that very much has to do with genetics and the Wikipedia link you provided implies the same. If we are talking about other factors/mechanisms that impact success in educational systems and that express themselves over generations and in family structures - sure, that's basically what I'm saying.
---
(Long) edit after a cup of tea and a sandwich spent over the Wikipedia-Link you provided:
I must say, I think that's pretty readable even for me as a non-geneticist. In the context of this thread, there is a lot of interesting info about "Heritability and caveats", "Influences" and "Environmental effects". I've highlighted these quotes for myself while reading:
"Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis."
"Heritability measures the proportion of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait caused by genes."
"Contrary to popular belief, two parents of higher IQ will not necessarily produce offspring of equal or higher intelligence. Polygenic traits often appear less heritable at the extremes."
The whole section on "Implications":
"Some researchers, especially those that work in fields like developmental systems theory, have criticized the concept of heritability as misleading or meaningless. Douglas Wahlsten and Gilbert Gottlieb argue that the prevailing models of behavioral genetics are too simplistic by not accounting for gene-environment interactions. Stephen Ceci also highlights the issues with this assumption, noting that they were raised by Jane Loevinger in 1943. They assert that the idea of partitioning variance makes no sense when environments and genes interact and argue that such interaction is ubiquitous in human development. They highlight their belief that heritability analysis requires a hidden assumption they call the "separation of causes", which isn't borne out by biological reality or experimental research. Such researchers argue that the notion of heritability gives the false impression that "genes have some direct and isolated influence on traits", rather than another developmental resource that a complex system uses over the course of ontogeny."
Since this is a US-centered forum, this also seems relevant:
"In the US, individuals identifying themselves as Asian generally tend to score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians, who tend to score higher than Hispanics, who tend to score higher than African Americans. Yet, although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that between-group differences in average IQ have a genetic basis. In fact, greater variation in IQ scores exists within each ethnic group than between them. The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups. Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap."
> Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis.
This is just about race & IQ and already cedes the genetic argument that you were refusing to believe - because the evidence is so overwhelming.
> Contrary to popular belief, two parents of higher IQ will not necessarily produce offspring of equal or higher intelligence.
Not necessarily is load-bearing here in an extremely misleading way. Two parents of higher IQ are much more likely to produce an offspring of higher IQ than median.
You’re basically just cherrypicking arguments that support your incorrect supposition when compared to a mountain of evidence on the other side.
Why do you insist on saying that I "don't believe" in genetic components when I've literally said the opposite? The people who wrote the stuff on the Wikipedia site I was provided with and their (researcher-)sources seem to try to tell you and me both "hey, this is an interesting field of study but it's very complicated, many genes are involved, we are far from understanding them or being able to model them, be very careful with interpreting correlations and for (m)any practical purposes (such as thinking about how to structure educational environments), you really should consider quite a lot of things not directly related to genetics." What's so controversial about that and what overwhelming evidence does that go against?
edit: Sorry, to clarify, you are saying that "Two parents of higher IQ are much more likely to produce an offspring of higher IQ than median" because of genetics as the main determining factor?
> "hey, this is an interesting field of study but it's very complicated, many genes are involved, we are far from understanding them or being able to model them, be very careful with interpreting correlations and for (m)any practical purposes (such as thinking about how to structure educational environments), you really should consider quite a lot of things not directly related to genetics."
I'll say the same thing as you: context matters. Someone trying to say that smarter parents lead to a smarter student body doesn't need to model any genes and they don't need to care about the difference between things that are transferred genetically and things that are transferred socially.
> because of genetics as the main determining factor?
Does that matter? While the word "heritability" was used, and that term "very much has to do with genetics" as you say, that person didn't directly mention genes and didn't attribute any particular percent to genes. The original argument is the same whether genes are 80% or 20%.
Again, the person I was originally replying to called intelligence "highly heritable". That does mean a genetic argument and I replied to that and not a generic assertion that there are mechanisms in play that have influence on the expression over generations.
Absolutely agreed. I got bogged down in the genetics portion, but it is not actually a necessary component of the argument I'm trying to make - merely that kids are like parents.
you’re not arguing in good faith and now you’re motte-baileying. you said:
> Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems don't mean that intelligence is inherited in the genetic sense. If you're seriously arguing this, you're very close to flirting with eugenics and the like.
the obvious reading is that you do not believe in a genetic component to intelligence - and in fact say that a belief in “this” is arguing for eugenics.
> Sorry, to clarify, you are saying that "Two parents of higher IQ are much more likely to produce an offspring of higher IQ than median" because of genetics as the main determining factor?
Even if you remove all environmental factors, two smart parents are more likely to have a smart kid than the counterfactual.
My original answer was a condensed and far from comprehensive one-sentence reply to another condensed one-sentence-reply (that included the phrase "highly heritable" which is how the whole genetics argument started). Why is what you apparently perceive this original one-liner to mean so important to you? I've expanded on the points I was trying to make quite a bit. And again: The researchers who look at those things seem to be the ones telling us that the relationship between intelligence and genetics is complicated and many, many non-genetic factors are in play, no? Did I miss some big new movement on deterministic genetics in education or some such since I've sat my basic biology, psychology and sociology courses? Do you know stuff that's not on Wikipedia? Help me out here, please - and I'd politely ask you to refrain from insulting my good faith.
I'd also be - again, genuinely - interested in how you come up with that clear of a statement about smart parents and their non-externally-influenced child, how one would approach that as a research question/design and how - practically - useful this piece of data in and of itself would be when most of us are not Kaspar Hauser or any other conceptual model of a human being that exists without external interdependences.
> Why is what you apparently perceive this original one-liner to mean so important to you?
Well because you basically accused most people of being eugenicists simply for believing something that is most likely true and clearly implied a strong position that you are now retreating from. It's clearly an incendiary one-liner where previously the conversation was not so.
> The researchers who look at those things seem to be the ones telling us that the relationship between intelligence and genetics is complicated and many, many non-genetic factors are in play, no
There are massive biases in academia that encourage researchers to hedge results like this. When you ask anonymously, the answers & beliefs are clear.
> Snyderman & Rothman (1987/1988) — mailed survey to ~1,020 academics; 661 replies. Experts overwhelmingly agreed that IQ has substantial within-group heritability, and among those willing to give a number, the average estimate was ~60% for U.S. populations.
Also https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4804158/ which is going to be a lower bound because it focuses on international differences.
Adoption studies pretty clearly upper bound the amount that these complicated non-genetic/non-prenatal factors can be causing differences in tested adult intelligence among Americans.
> I'd politely ask you to refrain from insulting my good faith.
Again, you started your entry into this conversation by leveling accusations of eugenics. The responses you get are going to be tinged by that.
> how you come up with that clear of a statement about smart parents and their non-externally-influenced child, how one would approach that as a research question/design
Adoption studies can provide an upper bound (excluding pre-natal environment). Also GWASs paired with mendelian randomization can provide a lower bound.
No, I said one is "close to flirting with Eugenics" wich is rather not the same than accusing anybody of being an Eugenicist and I stand by that point. However, you and the other person insisting on (mis-)interpreting my original one-liner now seem to do the "retreating" and to say that the post I was replying to somehow "clearly" was about the generalized notion of kids being like their parents instead of being very specifically about genetics.
The study you linked is interesting but its results are far from "clear" (see its discussion section but that's probably also just bias and hedging or whatever) and it does have fuck all to do with your proposed thought experiment of a Kaspar-Hauser-like child. Even less so with your confident prediction of how a Kasper-Hauser-like child would turn out. I think you probably know this yourself but these kinds of predictions are something scientists would very, very rarely do - because they know the limitations of their work.
I'm kind of weirded out by this exchange, people here rather confidently express quite a bit of stuff that goes against years and decades of training I received when I became a scientist and I think I'll stop replying now. That was the recommendation of a colleague - who actually is a geneticist - I showed this thread to over coffee as well.
> your proposed thought experiment of a Kaspar-Hauser-like child
Oh my god this is the most malicious possible reading of "remove all environmental factors".
They're talking about making the environments match, for fuck's sake.
The bulk of your comments are arguing that heritability is very complex, which is completely compatible with the words "highly heritable". And you still haven't explained why the term "eugenics" was relevant to anything anyone else said. If it's something about race, a superficial similarity across millions of people in shifting groups has very little to do with the correlations between child and parent that share 50% of their genes, but even if those were the same the comment still didn't say anything that got anywhere near eugenics!!
> the post I was replying to somehow "clearly" was about the generalized notion of kids being like their parents instead of being very specifically about genetics
I didn't use the word "clearly". You're misquoting now too?
And I still believe they meant the entire complex mess you're talking about, yeah. I think you have zero justification to barge in and say it's a complex issue, and the person making a single sentence comment must have meant the most simple possible version, there's no way they were referring to the entire complex issue already without your help, in a context where the distinction doesn't even matter.
Even if you're done replying I hope you see this: If you were actually talking in good faith you're doing a very bad job at giving anyone the benefit of the doubt for how they word things.
seems like a disbelief in heritable intelligence (absurd) is drawing some to use the US military as a shining star of schooling innovation without strong evidence. so seems clearly relevant and useful in this domain to identify which interventions actually work and which are just composition fx
you seem to have taught yourself explicitly incorrect intuitions about how the world works, why? the vast majority of people know that kids resemble parents, it seems extreme to believe otherwise.
They gave up on the traditional IQ test questions for the most part. The ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) is mostly a knowledge test now. You can find sample questions online.
There is still a section on spatial reasoning, which is trying to get at a general mental ability.
You qualify based on the AFQT, which is a composite of four ASVAB subtests.
Specifically, the Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Arithmetic Reasoning, and Mathematics Knowledge subtests.
Sample questions:
(identify the best synonym for the underlined word)
His record provides no reason for _apprehension_.
[ ] anxiety
[ ] change
[ ] enjoyment
[ ] endorsement
According to the passage, some artists work with titanium because it
[ ] is transparent.
[ ] does not corrode.
[ ] generates its own heat.
[ ] can assume a variety of colors.
One in every 9 people in a town votes for party A. All others vote
for party B. How many people vote for party B in a town of 810?
[ ] 90
[ ] 720
[ ] 801
[ ] 819
The ratio 36 : 12 is the same as
[ ] 2 : 1
[ ] 3 : 1
[ ] 4 : 1
[ ] 5 : 1
You might notice that this is obviously an IQ test. What were you thinking?
(Source of all questions, and the definition of the AFQT: www.officialasvab.com )
>The Army Corps of Engineers successfully operated small nuclear reactors for remote sites from 1954 through 1979. The Shippingport commercial reactor (America’s first civil nuclear power station) grew directly from the naval nuclear program.
Hope author goes further into analyzing the diff between army and navy engineering culture, because it is clear that naval engineers built the foundations here :)
Post is titled Pentagon but how does the cross-service learning work exactly in the Schools
The article addresses selection bias, but it doesn't do justice to just how strong that bias is. The military tests all enlistees, and the cutoff is an IQ of around 92 (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37491/is-it-truly-il...). If a public school could immediately exclude its dumbest 30%, things would look quite a bit different.
My experience at poorly run public schools is that leadership and admin change out VERY quickly because of burnout. The article talks about how military has long term continuity (8 year terms) but civilian have 2-4 year terms. I’ve seen schools where the principal doesn’t even stay the full year. In the end of the day, the civilian world is full of choices and people come and go at will.
ADM Rickover was no small part of the success of the nuclear program if I recall it right. Rigorous standards and a culture of safety.
I also wonder if culturally DODEA is cut from a similar cloth and had a similarly strong founding impetus / strategy. The pentagon / DoD contains multitudes, and the culture of each branch, agency, etc are all different in different ways. Some for the better… some worse.
One way you can pattern-match this dichotomy between different parts of the Pentagon might be to look at how many private contracts are involved with the project, and how large they are. Certainly seems to be a correlation there.
I went to a DOD school for most (around 90%) of my life before High School, I'm happy to answer any questions as a student that actually attended elementary school on base in a foreign country.
In general I would disagree with the posts that say they are not more discipline focused. It was a normal school, however if you were consistently a problem in class the squadron commander would be notified of a subordinates unruly child, and that would immediately solve the issues in class. I remember getting into a fight with a bully, and my military parent drilling into my head that this had career consequences if it kept happening. I believe the bully also had a similar talk because the next day at school we were no longer speaking or in contact in any way, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome in my opinion.
One difficult part that many people do not seem to understand is that as a kid you become very good at forming surface level friendships, but not many deeper friendships. This is a result of your class changing every month as parents are sent to different bases during a permanent change of station (PCS). One moment you might be best friends with someone who sits next to you in class, the next week their seat is empty, and the week after that it could be filled with someone from around the world who grew up in completely different circumstances than yourself.
One aspect that was completely different was that the DOD school was more egalitarian. No one cared who your parents were, as everyone's family was from the military. In the public schools and private schools I attended in the United States, other students focused a lot on what their parents did or what (economic) class they belonged to.
When I returned to the United States and was enrolled into the local public school, it was a nightmare. I was years ahead of the other students in all subjects. As a young child, I didn't understand why everyone was so undisciplined, and when there were problems in class the teacher seemed more than happy to do literally nothing. Students could be bullying classmates during a lecture, and the teacher would just continue the lecture as if nothing is going on. Where bullying was completely stomped out in the DOD school by the faculty, it was actively aided and grown by the public school faculty. Students who were more of the "political activist" type also actively harassed me for my parent's chosen career, and more than one public school faculty member made distasteful comments about my intelligence due to my families military background.
The faculty of the school also didn't like me (I think?), I was held back from joining the gifted program because my Spanish language grades were terrible. There was no consideration that I had never had Spanish as a class before moving back to the states, and was joining a class in the 7th grade that had studied Spanish for years at that point. Because my reading scores were so much higher than the rest of the class, I was blocked from checking out specific books I wanted to read in the library. The teachers deemed them "below my reading level" and so I was limited to a selection of about a dozen books I found extremely boring, with no option to read what interested me. I simply didn't read at school, luckily my parents took me to the county library instead. Being ahead of the other students was also disastrous to my study habits, I unfortunately turned into one of those students who could get A's without any studying, so the change to a much more difficult high school curriculum required a lot of adjustment.
As an aside, the field trips were also significantly better. In the DOD school once a year we got to go somewhere very interesting, like a real medieval castle, the white cliffs of dover to see old WW2 equipment, and even Normandy beach. In the US I had a single field trip the whole time I was in the US, and we just walked around the state capitol for an hour.
In general I found that any learning that happened at a public school to simply be a happy accident. While at the DOD schools it seemed to be the focus every day. In my opinion, public school faculty are actively the worst elements of the school system, with the student body being a close second. I don't think you can solve this issue with more funding, smaller classes, or any of the other often repeated "one simple solutions" you see posted around online. It seems to me that Americans actively despise education, and place no value on it, and that the people we let teach at public schools are the complete opposite of who you would want teaching in the first place.
"No one cared who your parents were." Did it never matter if my dad was a pfc and yours was the base commander? Ideally it shouldn't matter,but in practice?
Let me guess... There are no parasitic MBAs in the military, and increasing shareholder value isn't the mission. No wonder they can be mission driven, which is to be the best that a military can be.
This seems like a clear selection bias. One of the reasons, and probably the main one, that public schools are awful is because a very small number of highly disruptive kids can completely ruin the education of an entire class of other kids. Public schools generally have no way to get rid of these children and their parents also generally don't care. These are also of course the kids that are going to score abysmally on any sort of standardized score.
By contrast at these schools for military kids, behavioral or academic problems can have direct and serious consequences on the parents and end up having the bump into issues with their command. There's going to be an overall greater degree of focus on discipline in the school, as well as the households, and so on. In many ways the most surprising thing is that the overall difference is only about 10%.
EDIT: As mentioned elsewhere, you also know that the parent(s) in these households are going to have minimum of IQ that's higher than the normal minimum since that's a prerequisite for enlistment. So you're getting a rather overt selection bias there.
I’m not sure this “thinking” on public education holds up if you look outside the U.S. where countries with emphasis on public education so consistently outperform the Americans.
I guess at best it might be that there’s problems unique to American culture that makes public education not work. But that feels unlikely to hold up. I think the premise is simply wrong.
It's not really about "emphasis". For instance the US is one of the highest spenders in the world, even PPP adjusted, per student on education. I think it's largely about educational culture and goals. For instance in many/most places in Asia there tends to be far less tolerance for disruptive students. Many places even have varying forms of corporal punishment, even when there are technically regulations or laws against it. There are also generally parallel education systems where people can, from relatively young ages, pursue vocational school instead of normal schooling.
Basically the US education system is more focused on a sort of one-size-fits-all education with the only real differentiation being a 'normal' or 'accelerated' track (with some places like California even gradually moving against that remaining differentiation). This is in spite of having a far more diverse population in every possible way than other countries which focus on more of having educational systems which work to the strengths of each student.
An apples to apples comparison adjusted for things like Americans who have English as a second language or other countries removing people from school roles significantly shrinks the differences.
A surprising number of the absolute best schools in the world by those same criteria are US public schools due to the population and resources going to those schools. So the issues are not quite so simple as they might first appear. The US education system isn’t efficient, but it’s also not as bad as generally perceived.
> An apples to apples comparison adjusted for things like Americans who have English as a second language or other countries removing people from school roles significantly shrinks the differences.
"If I remove all the data that hurts my case, the data clearly supports my case!".
Those people that you want to exclude aren't transients - they're either current or future Americans which are called immigrants. So if you want a well-functioning democracy, economy, society, etc you have to educate them effectively too, not just the people that were born here.
The point isn’t excluding buckets, the point is to have multiple points of comparison.
If we want to know which system you should copy, you want understand the factors that make that system more challenging. America doesn’t need to deal with severe malnutrition, but we may want to copy elements from countries dealing with such issues.
Unless of course the goal is a hit piece for whatever emotionally agenda you you’re pushing.
I have no idea what this comment means.
I'm pointing out that "an apples to apples" comparison is all of the people in the seats at the schools because all of those people live, work, and (eventually) vote in your country.
I edited for clarity, but an apples to apples comparison means to compare like to like not to compare everything.
I can weigh a bag of groceries, that’s a metric I can collect on everything you’re buying but it doesn’t tell me if you’re making healthy choices at the grocery store.
Similarly I can look at the test grades of everyone in Ukraine right now, but that tells me more about society in general than the countries school system.
> Similarly I can look at the test grades of everyone in Ukraine right now, but that tells me more about society in general than the countries school system.
I'll repeat for the third and final time: excluding people that speak English as a second language in a country's school system that has been taking immigrants for all time (and vaguely plans to continue) is not the same thing as excluding people affected by a brutal but eventually ending war.
I can't make it any simpler for you.
You're being unnecessarily condescending and combative.
The point that the person that you're arguing in bad faith with is making is not that we jettison immigrants and ESL students. It's that you accept that they will have struggles that the students in Japan do not (because there are much fewer immigrant students). So if you compare the students who are _like_ the ones in Japan and you come out ahead, then you go, great, we don't need to adjust for those students.
It does _not_ mean that you don't adjust for the students who have unique challenges and try to bring them up.
But if you compare two different cohorts, you might incorrectly get the signal that you should also change what you're doing for the students who don't have those challenges.
> excluding people affected by a brutal but eventually ending war.
You just excluded people from these comparisons based on some goal.
If a concept has been made as simple as possible and it's still not simple enough for you to understand, then I'm sorry but I think this conversation is not for you.
Simplicity isn’t the issue here, your lack of argument is.
the “problem” unique to America is that we like to take in the poor and huddled masses (who don’t test well), while the EU likes to watch them sink and die in the Mediterranean.
This is objectively not true.
If anything, the opposite is true. Europe receives less educated individuals who will be a burden on their welfare, while the USA has cheap labor from South America and attract top talent globally.
name me a single EU nation with a higher per-capita rate of immigrants from developing countries. it is simply not true that Europe has more immigrants without strong education background than the US, there is no way of cutting the data
You are changing the goal posts. The USA doesn’t have a welfare state the same way Sweden has.
i’m not changing anything - you are the one who brought up welfare. my point is and always has been that the US has a multi-decades long run of relative immigration permissiveness towards people from poorer countries - and that will impact education outcomes.
Well, my country has public schools, but children are segregated by educational prowess. The smartest kids go to schools which are completely separate from the less intelligent ones. If you fail, you might get sent to a lower school system.
So this would explain why these disruptions would not appear in my country (or to a far lower degree)but would in the US school system.
How would your country school system deal with kids like me, ADHD with spots of brilliance and spots of, "how do you remember to breathe?"
There is special guidance, so usually you can just do the level you “ought” to be in.
If it’s really severe there is special education as a last resort.
More commonly modified lesson plans, or teachers will be instructed to let you out of the classroom for a bit, or give you tasks like “fetch this item from the front desk” in between.
It’s certainly not perfect, but there is quite some guidance and individual measures possible.
I'm a former military brat, and went to DOD schools from 1990 to 1998. My school had a mix of Air Force, Navy, Army and NATO kids. Here's what I remember.
* Almost every parent had college education.
* Classrooms generally were small, with around 20ish kids per class.
* Facilities were very well maintained and funded. Nothing was ever really broken, or stayed broken for long. Nothing looked worn, equipment was generally kept up to date. We had our own bowling alley, swimming pool, theater, lecture halls, music building, indoor basketball courts and two soccer fields, one baseball diamond.
* There weren't really any kids with parents struggling financially. Parents were involved with the school on open days.
* There were some problem kids, but everyone moved so often, it didn't matter.
* If a kid ever did something bad enough the parent would get in trouble. One family I knew had to move back the US after the kid said a racial slur.
* You didn't make any lasting friends, because again, everyone moves frequently.
Basically, short answer, you went to the same school as the officer's kids, so the schools were nice for everyone. Moral of the story, send your kids to schools in affluent neighborhoods.
I think the election bias is as simple as: at least one of the parents has a job.
The public schools run by the military are fairly normal public schools. They aren’t “military schools.” They aren’t more discipline-focused.
They do have the advantage of offering federal salary and benefits to teachers. That means they can be pretty picky about who they accept, resulting in higher quality teachers.
"This creates a “bit” of challenge. We can observe that the military implements systematically and produces superior results, but we cannot cleanly separate method effects from selection effects without experiments that will never happen."
The article keeps bring up selection effects
> in these households are going to have minimum of IQ that's higher than the normal minimum since that's a prerequisite for enlistment.
Is it? I know they’re a lot more selective than historically, but I was under the impression that a low 30-something asvab score qualifies you for at least infantryman. Is that really above average IQ?
If you take any distribution and cut off the bottom X percent, the new average will be higher. I think this is the point they are making.
Simply excluding the mentally handicapped or dysfunctional drug addict parents would have an effect
There also seems to be a misconception about what failing an audit means. If you have an organisation spending an ungodly amount of money in ways it can't track ... you would expect all the services for its own members to be gold plated.
Organisations with bad budget discipline aren't usually short on benefits. What disadvantages are there for them to provide the best conceivable services? Nobody expects them to be able to justify the spend.
I agree it is likely selection bias but I don't think it is likely for the same reasons.
These kinds of results often correlate strongly with parental income levels, which put another way "zip code". Yeah, the military isn't known for great salaries and you'd be right to point at plenty of rich counties, but how many rich counties are there to poor ones? We don't have the distributions and that's what makes this hard to read.
Despite that, we do have some distributional information. Lucky for us, they included the demographics! Taking what we know above, we can actually back investigate to at least provide a "sniff test". Looking at the DoDEA scales, they are pretty low variance in comparison. Unless you think Asians are genetically smarter than whites, blacks, or hispanics then it needs to come down to other factors, which includes culture. The culture will probably be suppressed a bit in the military data, as military naturally creates a more homogeneous setting, but some variance will still exist for this part as well as some likely imbalances in incomes and other things.
An important part of this rich correlation is that it ties very much into stable household. Certainly having active deployment will disrupt the household a bit, but some of that normalizes and well... let's be honest, there is a stable income and stable food situation at home. That's a major factor in a lot of households.
So the real question would be "How do DoDEA schools compare to national schools when you exclude national schools that have a significant number of families that do not have a stable income?" I believe that would be a more fair comparison, though that would really just bring us to "apples and oranges" instead of "oranges and tomatoes". The claim is that the difference is due to some organizational influence, i.e. one that is actionable (like the way teachers teach or students are disciplined, etc), but frankly we just have so little data we can't rule out a million other things.
In what world is the US military suddenly known for having higher IQ than average in the enlisted ranks?
It's about the minimum not the average. The minimum in the military is around 90 IQ while public schools could have students with 70-90 IQ who are disruptive but technically not disabled.
> If DoDEA demonstrates sustained K-12 excellence, the military’s technical training programs showcase something even more striking: the ability to take 18-year-old high school graduates and transform them into operators of extraordinarily complex systems, safely and at scale.
What I found most striking is that last word: scale. Most people employed to write software cannot write original applications of any size. They certainly cannot thus scale solutions forward if they cannot author solutions in the first place. This is supremely costly for these profit oriented companies. The military on the other hand must scale because while they do not have profits or revenue margins to chase they do have budget constraints. The result is an organization that can do more with less.
The military training programs have exactly one goal and that is to train. They have the ability to set their standards and enforce them ruthlessly. Public schools have many goals besides education, have to keep their students (and more importantly the parents of those students) happy, and have no ability to select their students and very little ability to fail them out and remove them, and can be sued for anything at any time. It's pretty clear why military training is superior.
As for software, I have never heard the military or government accused of being good at building it, so I don't really see your point there.
Do military K-12 schools not face similar dynamics? It's not like the kids are who are in the military, right?
Obviously there are still different dynamics between an arbitrary public school and a school on a military base in Kanagawa for many reasons, but I have to imagine that there are similar diversity of goals and lack of "throwing out" the kids in these schools.
Just seems like the flavor of challenges that public schools face and k-12 mil schools face are a bit similar, except for a huge one: the kids in the mil schools are much more likely to have three square meals a day(etc etc).
The Army software developer is 170D and supposedly they are vastly superior at training developers. There are only two factors to this: better selection of students/candidates and excellent training formulation.
My experience in corporate software is the opposite where it’s all about hiring/firing for the lowest common denominator. It’s not about being good. It’s about speed and not training.
> supposedly they are vastly superior at training developers
Based on what sources and using what metrics? And vastly superior to what alternative? If you're saying better than schools, I wouldn't be surprised. But I would be surprised if it's better than the experience you would get as a junior at a major tech company, and shocked if it was better than experience at a small startup.
Everyone has budge constraints. I think this is a bit unfair to SWE. Of course sometimes you ship bad performance code quick and pay extra cloud bills to chase extra revenue sooner.
I don't think you're looking at this the right way.
I would say that the training programs illustrate that the military generally treats its workforce as the result of external factors. Someone else decides who will be in the military, and the military has to figure out what to do with them.
Companies usually see things very differently. They feel free to say that they won't train because they want to hire someone who's already trained. If that approach doesn't work well, they can put even more effort into searching for The Ideal Employee and taking advantage of the fact that, if you ignore the time you spent searching for him, his time-to-become-productive is so low.
I went to a DoD school from fourth grade until my second semester of 11th grade. After that, we moved to the U.S.
We moved to a good school district in the U.S, so the quality of the education remained the same. The most startling difference in a U.S public school was in how we were viewed by admin.
Compared to DoD schools, administrators in U.S public school system weren't too different from middle management at $corp. We were numbers on a spreadsheet.
A good analogy - U.S school admin acted like the kind of "manager" who judges you by the lines of code you produce and the number of commits you make. DOD school admin were the kind of people who judge you by the impact you made.
DoD schools respected our autonomy - we were treated like humans. Non-DoD schools treated us like cattle.
For K-12, it's not complicated: every student and parent knows that a student f-up will have consequences for the service member.
Good thing all "military brats" are 100% on-board with helping their parent's career goals. /s
> This same institution operates America’s highest-performing school system. DoDEA students scored 234 in fourth-grade reading on the 2024 NAEP, outperforming the national average of 214. That’s roughly two grade levels ahead. In eighth-grade math, DoDEA scored 291 versus 272 nationally. When 2024 NAEP results showed national reading scores declining, DoDEA was the only jurisdiction where scores increased.
How again do we know this isn’t entirely due to selection effects?
The military imposes strict IQ thresholds on those seeking to join.
That's the point of the Armed Forces Qualifying Test.
DoDEA teaches the children of military families, not the enlisted themselves.
While it's fashionable to pretend otherwise, the best available evidence is that inheritance is highly heritable.
Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems don't mean that intelligence is inherited in the genetic sense. If you're seriously arguing this, you're very close to flirting with eugenics and the like.
> If you're seriously arguing this, you're very close to flirting with eugenics and the like.
Please don't be so eager to reject eugenics that you end up being anti-science. The idea that some percent of intelligence is genetic is entirely reasonable, not something to refuse to consider.
And there's good evidence too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
What do you think "the heritability of IQ" means? It seems from the thread that you believe it's genetic causation of intelligence. Is that what you're claiming?
I think that's how zevon interpreted it, so that's what I responded to.
Personally I would include other methods. And for the argument about schools method doesn't really matter.
Edit: And I don't know if genetics are the biggest factor in single generation inheritance, especially at a younger age, but I do think they're a reasonably significant factor after looking at various estimates.
Right, just so we're clear that heritability isn't genetic determinism; it's a correlation statistic. All sorts of things are heritable that are absolutely not fixed by genetics. And there are things fixed by genes that aren't meaningfully heritable!
Of course it's not determinism but it is statistically causal. The point is the distribution of the student body is going to be different in a pretty significant way.
I did not say nor mean to imply that genetics do not have anything to do with IQ or intelligence. Also, context matters - this is a thread about how to structure educational environments and about certain specifics of the military. Genetics are a factor that is going to be of limited practical use in this domain, at least as far as I can fantasize OTOH.
> I did not say nor mean to imply that genetics do not have anything to do with IQ or intelligence.
Please explain what "Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems don't mean that intelligence is inherited in the genetic sense." means because it sure looks like an argument that the genetic component isn't real.
Especially because you posted that in response to someone talking about heritability in very general terms, so your comment can't be interpreted as a nitpick about which evidence goes where. And I can't think of any third interpretation.
> this is a thread about how to structure educational environments and about certain specifics of the military
The idea being presented is that it's easier to run good schools when you have smarter students with smarter parents.
So the inheritability of intelligence over a single generation is critical to the argument.
Maybe what I actually meant to express becomes more clear if I re-phrase and expand the the sentence a bit:
Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems does not mean that you can determine genetics as a relevant factor when thinking about how to structure education and if one is interested in the relationship between success (on whatever metric) in education and family trees.
I'm neither a geneticist nor is English my first language but I've always understood "heritability" to be a term that very much has to do with genetics and the Wikipedia link you provided implies the same. If we are talking about other factors/mechanisms that impact success in educational systems and that express themselves over generations and in family structures - sure, that's basically what I'm saying.
---
(Long) edit after a cup of tea and a sandwich spent over the Wikipedia-Link you provided:
I must say, I think that's pretty readable even for me as a non-geneticist. In the context of this thread, there is a lot of interesting info about "Heritability and caveats", "Influences" and "Environmental effects". I've highlighted these quotes for myself while reading:
"Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis."
"Heritability measures the proportion of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait caused by genes."
"Contrary to popular belief, two parents of higher IQ will not necessarily produce offspring of equal or higher intelligence. Polygenic traits often appear less heritable at the extremes."
The whole section on "Implications":
"Some researchers, especially those that work in fields like developmental systems theory, have criticized the concept of heritability as misleading or meaningless. Douglas Wahlsten and Gilbert Gottlieb argue that the prevailing models of behavioral genetics are too simplistic by not accounting for gene-environment interactions. Stephen Ceci also highlights the issues with this assumption, noting that they were raised by Jane Loevinger in 1943. They assert that the idea of partitioning variance makes no sense when environments and genes interact and argue that such interaction is ubiquitous in human development. They highlight their belief that heritability analysis requires a hidden assumption they call the "separation of causes", which isn't borne out by biological reality or experimental research. Such researchers argue that the notion of heritability gives the false impression that "genes have some direct and isolated influence on traits", rather than another developmental resource that a complex system uses over the course of ontogeny."
Since this is a US-centered forum, this also seems relevant:
"In the US, individuals identifying themselves as Asian generally tend to score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians, who tend to score higher than Hispanics, who tend to score higher than African Americans. Yet, although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that between-group differences in average IQ have a genetic basis. In fact, greater variation in IQ scores exists within each ethnic group than between them. The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups. Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap."
> Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis.
This is just about race & IQ and already cedes the genetic argument that you were refusing to believe - because the evidence is so overwhelming.
> Contrary to popular belief, two parents of higher IQ will not necessarily produce offspring of equal or higher intelligence.
Not necessarily is load-bearing here in an extremely misleading way. Two parents of higher IQ are much more likely to produce an offspring of higher IQ than median.
You’re basically just cherrypicking arguments that support your incorrect supposition when compared to a mountain of evidence on the other side.
Nobody here brought up race but you/wikipedia.
Why do you insist on saying that I "don't believe" in genetic components when I've literally said the opposite? The people who wrote the stuff on the Wikipedia site I was provided with and their (researcher-)sources seem to try to tell you and me both "hey, this is an interesting field of study but it's very complicated, many genes are involved, we are far from understanding them or being able to model them, be very careful with interpreting correlations and for (m)any practical purposes (such as thinking about how to structure educational environments), you really should consider quite a lot of things not directly related to genetics." What's so controversial about that and what overwhelming evidence does that go against?
edit: Sorry, to clarify, you are saying that "Two parents of higher IQ are much more likely to produce an offspring of higher IQ than median" because of genetics as the main determining factor?
> "hey, this is an interesting field of study but it's very complicated, many genes are involved, we are far from understanding them or being able to model them, be very careful with interpreting correlations and for (m)any practical purposes (such as thinking about how to structure educational environments), you really should consider quite a lot of things not directly related to genetics."
I'll say the same thing as you: context matters. Someone trying to say that smarter parents lead to a smarter student body doesn't need to model any genes and they don't need to care about the difference between things that are transferred genetically and things that are transferred socially.
> because of genetics as the main determining factor?
Does that matter? While the word "heritability" was used, and that term "very much has to do with genetics" as you say, that person didn't directly mention genes and didn't attribute any particular percent to genes. The original argument is the same whether genes are 80% or 20%.
Again, the person I was originally replying to called intelligence "highly heritable". That does mean a genetic argument and I replied to that and not a generic assertion that there are mechanisms in play that have influence on the expression over generations.
Absolutely agreed. I got bogged down in the genetics portion, but it is not actually a necessary component of the argument I'm trying to make - merely that kids are like parents.
you’re not arguing in good faith and now you’re motte-baileying. you said:
> Correlations between socioeconomic status and success of one's offspring in educational systems don't mean that intelligence is inherited in the genetic sense. If you're seriously arguing this, you're very close to flirting with eugenics and the like.
the obvious reading is that you do not believe in a genetic component to intelligence - and in fact say that a belief in “this” is arguing for eugenics.
> Sorry, to clarify, you are saying that "Two parents of higher IQ are much more likely to produce an offspring of higher IQ than median" because of genetics as the main determining factor?
Even if you remove all environmental factors, two smart parents are more likely to have a smart kid than the counterfactual.
My original answer was a condensed and far from comprehensive one-sentence reply to another condensed one-sentence-reply (that included the phrase "highly heritable" which is how the whole genetics argument started). Why is what you apparently perceive this original one-liner to mean so important to you? I've expanded on the points I was trying to make quite a bit. And again: The researchers who look at those things seem to be the ones telling us that the relationship between intelligence and genetics is complicated and many, many non-genetic factors are in play, no? Did I miss some big new movement on deterministic genetics in education or some such since I've sat my basic biology, psychology and sociology courses? Do you know stuff that's not on Wikipedia? Help me out here, please - and I'd politely ask you to refrain from insulting my good faith.
I'd also be - again, genuinely - interested in how you come up with that clear of a statement about smart parents and their non-externally-influenced child, how one would approach that as a research question/design and how - practically - useful this piece of data in and of itself would be when most of us are not Kaspar Hauser or any other conceptual model of a human being that exists without external interdependences.
> Why is what you apparently perceive this original one-liner to mean so important to you?
Well because you basically accused most people of being eugenicists simply for believing something that is most likely true and clearly implied a strong position that you are now retreating from. It's clearly an incendiary one-liner where previously the conversation was not so.
> The researchers who look at those things seem to be the ones telling us that the relationship between intelligence and genetics is complicated and many, many non-genetic factors are in play, no
There are massive biases in academia that encourage researchers to hedge results like this. When you ask anonymously, the answers & beliefs are clear.
> Snyderman & Rothman (1987/1988) — mailed survey to ~1,020 academics; 661 replies. Experts overwhelmingly agreed that IQ has substantial within-group heritability, and among those willing to give a number, the average estimate was ~60% for U.S. populations. Also https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4804158/ which is going to be a lower bound because it focuses on international differences.
Adoption studies pretty clearly upper bound the amount that these complicated non-genetic/non-prenatal factors can be causing differences in tested adult intelligence among Americans.
> I'd politely ask you to refrain from insulting my good faith.
Again, you started your entry into this conversation by leveling accusations of eugenics. The responses you get are going to be tinged by that.
> how you come up with that clear of a statement about smart parents and their non-externally-influenced child, how one would approach that as a research question/design
Adoption studies can provide an upper bound (excluding pre-natal environment). Also GWASs paired with mendelian randomization can provide a lower bound.
No, I said one is "close to flirting with Eugenics" wich is rather not the same than accusing anybody of being an Eugenicist and I stand by that point. However, you and the other person insisting on (mis-)interpreting my original one-liner now seem to do the "retreating" and to say that the post I was replying to somehow "clearly" was about the generalized notion of kids being like their parents instead of being very specifically about genetics.
The study you linked is interesting but its results are far from "clear" (see its discussion section but that's probably also just bias and hedging or whatever) and it does have fuck all to do with your proposed thought experiment of a Kaspar-Hauser-like child. Even less so with your confident prediction of how a Kasper-Hauser-like child would turn out. I think you probably know this yourself but these kinds of predictions are something scientists would very, very rarely do - because they know the limitations of their work.
I'm kind of weirded out by this exchange, people here rather confidently express quite a bit of stuff that goes against years and decades of training I received when I became a scientist and I think I'll stop replying now. That was the recommendation of a colleague - who actually is a geneticist - I showed this thread to over coffee as well.
> your proposed thought experiment of a Kaspar-Hauser-like child
Oh my god this is the most malicious possible reading of "remove all environmental factors".
They're talking about making the environments match, for fuck's sake.
The bulk of your comments are arguing that heritability is very complex, which is completely compatible with the words "highly heritable". And you still haven't explained why the term "eugenics" was relevant to anything anyone else said. If it's something about race, a superficial similarity across millions of people in shifting groups has very little to do with the correlations between child and parent that share 50% of their genes, but even if those were the same the comment still didn't say anything that got anywhere near eugenics!!
> the post I was replying to somehow "clearly" was about the generalized notion of kids being like their parents instead of being very specifically about genetics
I didn't use the word "clearly". You're misquoting now too?
And I still believe they meant the entire complex mess you're talking about, yeah. I think you have zero justification to barge in and say it's a complex issue, and the person making a single sentence comment must have meant the most simple possible version, there's no way they were referring to the entire complex issue already without your help, in a context where the distinction doesn't even matter.
Even if you're done replying I hope you see this: If you were actually talking in good faith you're doing a very bad job at giving anyone the benefit of the doubt for how they word things.
seems like a disbelief in heritable intelligence (absurd) is drawing some to use the US military as a shining star of schooling innovation without strong evidence. so seems clearly relevant and useful in this domain to identify which interventions actually work and which are just composition fx
you seem to have taught yourself explicitly incorrect intuitions about how the world works, why? the vast majority of people know that kids resemble parents, it seems extreme to believe otherwise.
They gave up on the traditional IQ test questions for the most part. The ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) is mostly a knowledge test now. You can find sample questions online.
There is still a section on spatial reasoning, which is trying to get at a general mental ability.
You qualify based on the AFQT, which is a composite of four ASVAB subtests.
Specifically, the Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Arithmetic Reasoning, and Mathematics Knowledge subtests.
Sample questions:
You might notice that this is obviously an IQ test. What were you thinking?(Source of all questions, and the definition of the AFQT: www.officialasvab.com )
You'll notice, that is basically your ability to read and do math, which is rather different than the content of a typical IQ test.
People have apparently done research on adding more IQ test sections in: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22113...
> that is basically your ability to read and do math, which is rather different than the content of a typical IQ test.
No, it isn't different. Do you know what an IQ test looks like?
>The Army Corps of Engineers successfully operated small nuclear reactors for remote sites from 1954 through 1979. The Shippingport commercial reactor (America’s first civil nuclear power station) grew directly from the naval nuclear program.
Hope author goes further into analyzing the diff between army and navy engineering culture, because it is clear that naval engineers built the foundations here :)
Post is titled Pentagon but how does the cross-service learning work exactly in the Schools
The article addresses selection bias, but it doesn't do justice to just how strong that bias is. The military tests all enlistees, and the cutoff is an IQ of around 92 (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37491/is-it-truly-il...). If a public school could immediately exclude its dumbest 30%, things would look quite a bit different.
My experience at poorly run public schools is that leadership and admin change out VERY quickly because of burnout. The article talks about how military has long term continuity (8 year terms) but civilian have 2-4 year terms. I’ve seen schools where the principal doesn’t even stay the full year. In the end of the day, the civilian world is full of choices and people come and go at will.
ADM Rickover was no small part of the success of the nuclear program if I recall it right. Rigorous standards and a culture of safety.
I also wonder if culturally DODEA is cut from a similar cloth and had a similarly strong founding impetus / strategy. The pentagon / DoD contains multitudes, and the culture of each branch, agency, etc are all different in different ways. Some for the better… some worse.
And why it does not have any PR department, only honest modest truthtellers.
One way you can pattern-match this dichotomy between different parts of the Pentagon might be to look at how many private contracts are involved with the project, and how large they are. Certainly seems to be a correlation there.
Maybe they should rename it the Department of Education and expand the program of providing excellent education to all kids.
I went to a DOD school for most (around 90%) of my life before High School, I'm happy to answer any questions as a student that actually attended elementary school on base in a foreign country.
In general I would disagree with the posts that say they are not more discipline focused. It was a normal school, however if you were consistently a problem in class the squadron commander would be notified of a subordinates unruly child, and that would immediately solve the issues in class. I remember getting into a fight with a bully, and my military parent drilling into my head that this had career consequences if it kept happening. I believe the bully also had a similar talk because the next day at school we were no longer speaking or in contact in any way, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome in my opinion.
One difficult part that many people do not seem to understand is that as a kid you become very good at forming surface level friendships, but not many deeper friendships. This is a result of your class changing every month as parents are sent to different bases during a permanent change of station (PCS). One moment you might be best friends with someone who sits next to you in class, the next week their seat is empty, and the week after that it could be filled with someone from around the world who grew up in completely different circumstances than yourself.
One aspect that was completely different was that the DOD school was more egalitarian. No one cared who your parents were, as everyone's family was from the military. In the public schools and private schools I attended in the United States, other students focused a lot on what their parents did or what (economic) class they belonged to.
When I returned to the United States and was enrolled into the local public school, it was a nightmare. I was years ahead of the other students in all subjects. As a young child, I didn't understand why everyone was so undisciplined, and when there were problems in class the teacher seemed more than happy to do literally nothing. Students could be bullying classmates during a lecture, and the teacher would just continue the lecture as if nothing is going on. Where bullying was completely stomped out in the DOD school by the faculty, it was actively aided and grown by the public school faculty. Students who were more of the "political activist" type also actively harassed me for my parent's chosen career, and more than one public school faculty member made distasteful comments about my intelligence due to my families military background.
The faculty of the school also didn't like me (I think?), I was held back from joining the gifted program because my Spanish language grades were terrible. There was no consideration that I had never had Spanish as a class before moving back to the states, and was joining a class in the 7th grade that had studied Spanish for years at that point. Because my reading scores were so much higher than the rest of the class, I was blocked from checking out specific books I wanted to read in the library. The teachers deemed them "below my reading level" and so I was limited to a selection of about a dozen books I found extremely boring, with no option to read what interested me. I simply didn't read at school, luckily my parents took me to the county library instead. Being ahead of the other students was also disastrous to my study habits, I unfortunately turned into one of those students who could get A's without any studying, so the change to a much more difficult high school curriculum required a lot of adjustment.
As an aside, the field trips were also significantly better. In the DOD school once a year we got to go somewhere very interesting, like a real medieval castle, the white cliffs of dover to see old WW2 equipment, and even Normandy beach. In the US I had a single field trip the whole time I was in the US, and we just walked around the state capitol for an hour.
In general I found that any learning that happened at a public school to simply be a happy accident. While at the DOD schools it seemed to be the focus every day. In my opinion, public school faculty are actively the worst elements of the school system, with the student body being a close second. I don't think you can solve this issue with more funding, smaller classes, or any of the other often repeated "one simple solutions" you see posted around online. It seems to me that Americans actively despise education, and place no value on it, and that the people we let teach at public schools are the complete opposite of who you would want teaching in the first place.
"No one cared who your parents were." Did it never matter if my dad was a pfc and yours was the base commander? Ideally it shouldn't matter,but in practice?
Genuinely curious.
[dead]
[dead]
Let me guess... There are no parasitic MBAs in the military, and increasing shareholder value isn't the mission. No wonder they can be mission driven, which is to be the best that a military can be.