Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And even if we took all you just claimed is true, the Republicans still have Trump, Palin and a long line of prominent representatives of the party behaving like nobheads. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin anyone?

How is he any different from Bernie "cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms" Sanders?

Sanders isn't blaming someone for something that was out of their control? You can do better than that.

 whembly wrote:
wut?

Got a source for all that?

He hasn't produced a source for any of the claims he has made in this thread, and when somebody else finds a source it says the opposite of what he claimed it said.

To get us a little back on track;
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The boilerplate about its news operations provided to customers by the company suggests that much of its news gathering is determined by machines: “The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you’ve liked and your location,” says a page devoted to the question “How does Facebook determine what topics are trending?”


But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its “trending module” headlines – the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook’s desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds.

The guidelines show human intervention – and therefore editorial decisions – at almost every stage of Facebook’s trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
To get us a little back on track;
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The boilerplate about its news operations provided to customers by the company suggests that much of its news gathering is determined by machines: “The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you’ve liked and your location,” says a page devoted to the question “How does Facebook determine what topics are trending?”


But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its “trending module” headlines – the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook’s desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds.

The guidelines show human intervention – and therefore editorial decisions – at almost every stage of Facebook’s trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people:

So basically... the complaint was that there wasn't enough coverage of a particular event .. so they fix the problem, and people are still not happy??

color me shocked.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
To get us a little back on track;
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The boilerplate about its news operations provided to customers by the company suggests that much of its news gathering is determined by machines: “The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you’ve liked and your location,” says a page devoted to the question “How does Facebook determine what topics are trending?”


But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its “trending module” headlines – the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook’s desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds.

The guidelines show human intervention – and therefore editorial decisions – at almost every stage of Facebook’s trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people:

So basically... the complaint was that there wasn't enough coverage of a particular event .. so they fix the problem, and people are still not happy??

color me shocked.

There is a difference between responding to complaints that civil unrest in a city is not being adequately covered, and the alleged suppression of views from one side of the political spectrum.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm going to go ahead an throw ALL journalist under the bus here.


Studies have shown that of all the people that are able to get into college, the people that have the lowest IQ's, the people shown to be the least aware of current events, the people that do the worst on standardized tests, and those that had the lowest SAT/ACT scores are:

1. Teachers
2. Journalism Majors.

While there are a handful of outliers here, this is astounding. The undeclared students are better. The drunk Frat Boy majoring in business is better.

Then it hit me, some of the dumbest people out there are in charge of educating and informing the youth of tomorrow.

Feel free to share the studies with us.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And even if we took all you just claimed is true, the Republicans still have Trump, Palin and a long line of prominent representatives of the party behaving like nobheads. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin anyone?

How is he any different from Bernie "cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms" Sanders?

Sanders isn't blaming someone for something that was out of their control? You can do better than that.

They're both insane quack 'science,' and part of a pattern.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Having been involved in some news stories the sad fact is that journalists get great exercise jumping to conclusions. You have to take anything you read with a huge helping of salt. Some reporters don't even have a clue what happened and just make things up. One of the incidents in the military I was involved in made it to CNN. It was reported as "a training exercise." We had a good laugh at that one.

My second deployment, we had an incident within the unit that the BDE commander demanded the PAO for the unit tell garrison, and by extension the local/national news that the incident was a "training accident".... It most definitely was not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm going to go ahead an throw ALL journalist under the bus here.


Studies have shown that of all the people that are able to get into college, the people that have the lowest IQ's, the people shown to be the least aware of current events, the people that do the worst on standardized tests, and those that had the lowest SAT/ACT scores are:

1. Teachers
2. Journalism Majors.

While there are a handful of outliers here, this is astounding. The undeclared students are better. The drunk Frat Boy majoring in business is better.

Then it hit me, some of the dumbest people out there are in charge of educating and informing the youth of tomorrow.

I'm gonna have to call BS on that one as well... If you've seen what some states require of it's educators there's no fething way that they are essentially the bottom of the barrel college applicants.

I've been asked for sources, here they are:

http://qz.com/334926/your-college-major-is-a-pretty-good-indication-of-how-smart-you-are/

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/10-college-subjects-with-the-lowest-average-iqs/

I will admit I am partially wrong. While I was looking for the two studies I remember reading about a few years ago I came across some newer studies. Apparently Teacher have risen up the ranks a tad, but still pretty low.

 cuda1179 wrote:

http://qz.com/334926/your-college-major-is-a-pretty-good-indication-of-how-smart-you-are/

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/10-college-subjects-with-the-lowest-average-iqs/

I will admit I am partially wrong. While I was looking for the two studies I remember reading about a few years ago I came across some newer studies. Apparently Teacher have risen up the ranks a tad, but still pretty low.

That second link is a ridiculously hard to use website....

But, I will say that you were correct on being partially wrong ... I was gonna take offense because I'm in school to become a teacher, but the state requirements for the level of teaching I'm aiming for (maybe I'm a masochist) requires that I have a subject matter Bachelors' with basically a masters in ed. But where you are wrong is on the type of degree... those in education are pretty unanimously going to be elementary level educators... ya know, teaching kids the absolute basics like not peeing themselves at recess, that it isn't ok to put boogers on other people's paper and the like.

I do have to wonder, with these studies, are they done at the time of acceptance into school, or after graduating? Because I can see Elementary educators getting "dumber" because of being surrounded by all those snot buckets for years on end. To use a southern expression: bless their hearts

@cuda: Your beef seemed to have been with college educators, nearly none of which have education degrees. You do not need an education degree to teach in college. As a Prof. myself, I know of only a handful of other educators on campus who actually have teaching degrees (mostly in the Edu. Degree program itself). Everybody has degrees in the subjects they actually teach.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
wut?

Got a source for all that?

He hasn't produced a source for any of the claims he has made in this thread, and when somebody else finds a source it says the opposite of what he claimed it said.

I've produced articles backing what I claim. You simply either gloss over them or missed them. I've provided more evidence than you have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@cuda: Your beef seemed to have been with college educators, nearly none of which have education degrees. You do not need an education degree to teach in college. As a Prof. myself, I know of only a handful of other educators on campus who actually have teaching degrees (mostly in the Edu. Degree program itself). Everybody has degrees in the subjects they actually teach.

My beef with education goes all the way from kindergarten to college. From both my own personal experiences (both as a student and father) and from general news I can tell that the educational system is slightly Left-biased, and continues to bend ever so slightly more to the left. This is coming from a guy that lives in Rural Midwest Iowa. This is basically conservative nirvana (not that that is really my thing) and still I see the bias working its way in.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
wut?

Got a source for all that?

He hasn't produced a source for any of the claims he has made in this thread, and when somebody else finds a source it says the opposite of what he claimed it said.

I've produced articles backing what I claim. You simply either gloss over them or missed them.

You have yet to produce a source for your claim regarding a study on ideological leanings of news sources. Somebody else provided a source for your claim, and it turned out your claim was incorrect.

When I made my post you had yet to produce a source for your claim regarding college majors and IQs.

I usually only ask for sources when people make claims about stuff that studies/surveys/research/etc supposedly shows, so that's what I focus on.

I've provided more evidence than you have.

Good, because unlike you I haven't made any weird and sweeping claims regarding stuff that random studies found.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've produced articles backing what I claim. You simply either gloss over them or missed them. I've provided more evidence than you have.

No, you've provided articles for part of what you claimed. Discarding the garbage clickbait website your second article comes from (for obvious reasons) we're left with the first, which demonstrates that education majors do worse on standardized tests. You haven't done anything to support the claim that they have the lowest IQs* or the least awareness of current events. And even your own source acknowledges its own limits, such as variation between schools being more significant than variation between different majors at the same school.

*Not that this would mean much, since IQ is a deeply flawed measurement of intelligence and really only useful for people who want to brag about how high their score is.

My beef with education goes all the way from kindergarten to college. From both my own personal experiences (both as a student and father) and from general news I can tell that the educational system is slightly Left-biased, and continues to bend ever so slightly more to the left. This is coming from a guy that lives in Rural Midwest Iowa. This is basically conservative nirvana (not that that is really my thing) and still I see the bias working its way in.

Alternatively, US conservativism has gone so far off the deep end that everything seems left-leaning in comparison, and it continues to do so with no end in sight.

In the second article, every profession listed is still well above the average American IQ. It also makes the very accurate point that for all of those fields, raw IQ isn't the most important factor on whether or not someone would be good at their job.

You don't have to be a Mensa member to be an effective elementary school teacher.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

You don't have to be a Mensa member to be an effective elementary school teacher.

Also, the likes of Einstein and Turing would be absolutely gak elementary teachers

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

You don't have to be a Mensa member to be an effective elementary school teacher.

I joined for the cool pin .

@cuda: I teach at a univ. in SD. Possibly a bit like the school you went to, and I would guess the faculty is likely a good deal more liberal than the surrounding population, I have to wonder the root of it all. Numerous studies have determined that the more education one has, the more liberal they tend to be. Now that could be dismissed as indoctrination, or it could be a matter of like minded people self segregating to similar interests. Or it could be the idea that as one becomes more educated, one begins to question the wisdom of the pervaililing mindset as they ask more questions and look for more answers. That final possibility is the basic idea behind liberalism. Yes, it has been attempted to be corrupted and coopted by various special interest groups who don't really want to learn or listen in the past and present, but that doesn't change what it is and will be at its heart. That is the very idea of a liberal arts college and why those bad folks had you read and write things beyond how to run a lathe or CAD or Matlab.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


Alternatively, US conservativism has gone so far off the deep end that everything seems left-leaning in comparison, and it continues to do so with no end in sight.

So, you're stating that education standards haven't shifted to a more leftist ideology in the last 20 years?

Elementary school teachers probably don't need to be geniuses, I'll give you that. At least schools aren't like some police departments that place maximum IQ caps on potential cadets. There were a couple articles last year about men being denied jobs for being too smart. The target IQ's for cadets was 85 to 110. Personally I'd prefer the guys trusted with guns to protect us to be too smart as apposed to being just above functionally slowed.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

You don't have to be a Mensa member to be an effective elementary school teacher.

Also, the likes of Einstein and Turing would be absolutely gak elementary teachers

But how fun would it have been to be a student in Einsteins middle school physics class? I wouldn't have understood a word he said, but man, it would have been entertaining and perhaps a bit enlightening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


Alternatively, US conservativism has gone so far off the deep end that everything seems left-leaning in comparison, and it continues to do so with no end in sight.

So, you're stating that education standards haven't shifted to a more leftist ideology in the last 20 years?

Elementary school teachers probably don't need to be geniuses, I'll give you that. At least schools aren't like some police departments that place maximum IQ caps on potential cadets. There were a couple articles last year about men being denied jobs for being too smart. The target IQ's for cadets was 85 to 110. Personally I'd prefer the guys trusted with guns to protect us to be too smart as apposed to being just above functionally slowed.

It hasn't shifted more in the past twenty years than the past forty-fifty. In the 1950s colleges started going away from rote tautolilogical methodology and more towards application based learning (in other words from a conservative framework of simply memorizing the past to a more liberal viewpoint of applying the past to new considerations). Considering Moore's law seems to still be in effect, I'd say we didn't screw up too much by that shift.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@cuda: I teach at a univ. in SD. Possibly a bit like the school you went to, and I would guess the faculty is likely a good deal more liberal than the surrounding population, I have to wonder the root of it all. Numerous studies have determined that the more education one has, the more liberal they tend to be. Now that could be dismissed as indoctrination, or it could be a matter of like minded people self segregating to similar interests. Or it could be the idea that as one becomes more educated, one begins to question the wisdom of the pervaililing mindset as they ask more questions and look for more answers. That final possibility is the basic idea behind liberalism. Yes, it has been attempted to be corrupted and coopted by various special interest groups who don't really want to learn or listen in the past and present, but that doesn't change what it is and will be at its heart. That is the very idea of a liberal arts college and why those bad folks had you read and write things beyond how to run a lathe or CAD or Matlab.

I find that in today's word there are True Liberals, and Modern Liberal. The True Liberals, like the ones you described, are pretty much okay in my book. It's the Modern Liberals that get face time, and they are the ones that shape policy.

There are also problems with the "more education, More liberal" philosophy. Other studies have shown it to be more of a curve, with liberals dominating the extreme high and low education levels. Still others point out that previous studies only count traditional education as "education". College degrees count, while technical schools do not. Also, according to info from the Corinthian college lawsuit, people from more liberal populations are ever so slightly more likely to have diplomas from online diploma mills. In other words they the do have a degree (worthless as it may be), but I doubt they actually have any additional knowledge.

Then we have to remember that correlation does not equal causation. One could just as easily come to the conclusion that those with higher college degrees have less "real world" experience, and that has kept them from developing conservative ideals.



I think one of the largest gripes I have is the "war on boys" in education. In the early 1990's there started a movement to make education, particularly early childhood education, more female centric in order to motivate women into the workforce. The problem is, that at that time men and women were about equal in educational achievement.

Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.

Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students. The worst offending teachers are early education (kindergarten through 5th grades) teachers that are female, while the least offending are male high school teachers. It disheartens me that young boys get his with disappointment early in life and have it built into them by the time higher learning is needed.

I keep hearing about this "real world" you speak of, and can't quite comprehend I guess. Does it mean taxes? Cause I pay those. Does it mean doctor bills? I pay those too. Parking fines? Pay em.standing in line at the DMV? Yup. Stubbing my toe? Done that too. Gluing my fingers to my models while trying to get them to set? Yes, ouch. What is this mysterious "real world" that people evidently don't think other people have an experience with? I didn't start out as a college professor. For ten years I stocked milk in the dairy aisle in Sunshine in Yankton. For five I slung beers at a townie. What is the real world I am missing out on?

Do liberal schools teach people how to provide sources?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I keep hearing about this "real world" you speak of, and can't quite comprehend I guess. Does it mean taxes? Cause I pay those. Does it mean doctor bills? I pay those too. Parking fines? Pay em.standing in line at the DMV? Yup. Stubbing my toe? Done that too. Gluing my fingers to my models while trying to get them to set? Yes, ouch. What is this mysterious "real world" that people evidently don't think other people have an experience with? I didn't start out as a college professor. For ten years I stocked milk in the dairy aisle in Sunshine in Yankton. For five I slung beers at a townie. What is the real world I am missing out on?

I didn't call you out specifically. I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I'm just saying that there are many "professional students" out there. If you are spending time in class you obviously have less time to do other things. This can include working, exploring, building, etc. Perhaps those that have more self reliance simply shun an education that would serve no purpose in their life roles. Roles that they chose that put emphasis on values that come into conflict with often left-leaning values. An industrial trade school for example would more than likely have a "conservative" feel to its political atmosphere.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.

Are you serious? All of your claims here are wrong, to the point that I have to wonder if you know anything about education.

Language and verbal skills are not "female" things, and math and science are not "male" things. And, as much as I like math and science as an engineer, there's a pretty compelling argument that language and verbal skills should be emphasized more. Those are skills that everyone can expect to use, while math and science beyond a certain point will only be used by people continuing on into those fields later in life.

Open-book tests benefit everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you usually have your "book" available and can look something up if you forget a minor detail. This puts the emphasis on knowing how to solve a problem, not successful memorization of specific facts or equations.

Group work similarly benefits everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you will have to work in groups, and if you can't then you're going to struggle to get a job above minimum-wage toilet scrubber.

Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.

Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

Are True Liberals like True Scotsmen?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@cuda: I teach at a univ. in SD. Possibly a bit like the school you went to, and I would guess the faculty is likely a good deal more liberal than the surrounding population, I have to wonder the root of it all. Numerous studies have determined that the more education one has, the more liberal they tend to be. Now that could be dismissed as indoctrination, or it could be a matter of like minded people self segregating to similar interests. Or it could be the idea that as one becomes more educated, one begins to question the wisdom of the pervaililing mindset as they ask more questions and look for more answers. That final possibility is the basic idea behind liberalism. Yes, it has been attempted to be corrupted and coopted by various special interest groups who don't really want to learn or listen in the past and present, but that doesn't change what it is and will be at its heart. That is the very idea of a liberal arts college and why those bad folks had you read and write things beyond how to run a lathe or CAD or Matlab.

I find that in today's word there are True Liberals, and Modern Liberal. The True Liberals, like the ones you described, are pretty much okay in my book. It's the Modern Liberals that get face time, and they are the ones that shape policy.

There are also problems with the "more education, More liberal" philosophy. Other studies have shown it to be more of a curve, with liberals dominating the extreme high and low education levels. Still others point out that previous studies only count traditional education as "education". College degrees count, while technical schools do not. Also, according to info from the Corinthian college lawsuit, people from more liberal populations are ever so slightly more likely to have diplomas from online diploma mills. In other words they the do have a degree (worthless as it may be), but I doubt they actually have any additional knowledge.

Then we have to remember that correlation does not equal causation. One could just as easily come to the conclusion that those with higher college degrees have less "real world" experience, and that has kept them from developing conservative ideals.



I think one of the largest gripes I have is the "war on boys" in education. In the early 1990's there started a movement to make education, particularly early childhood education, more female centric in order to motivate women into the workforce. The problem is, that at that time men and women were about equal in educational achievement.

Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.

Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students. The worst offending teachers are early education (kindergarten through 5th grades) teachers that are female, while the least offending are male high school teachers. It disheartens me that young boys get his with disappointment early in life and have it built into them by the time higher learning is needed.

To say verbal skills are inherently female students purview and math and science is male is sort of living in the past.. To my knowledge, no such inherent predilection exists, it's cultural. My students (I teach literature and film) basically break down the same grade wise. (I say basically because I have not qualified it, but I haven't been able to tell a difference). In my family I'm the english prof and my wife (soon to be) is the boilogy prof. You may not like the cultural shift, and that's fine, my mom thinks it's weird too, but really the cultural norms belong where they grew up, way back in the past.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
boilogy prof.

It makes sense that someone would study boils but I didn't know they had their own field of study with teachers and everything.

 cuda1179 wrote:

There are also problems with the "more education, More liberal" philosophy. Other studies have shown it to be more of a curve, with liberals dominating the extreme high and low education levels.
Group work is more common.

2 things.... one... liberals most definitely do not "dominate" the extreme low end of education levels. As examples, I would ask you to look at the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky. Mississippi is ranked 49th or 50th every single year in education, and yet, it is one of the reddest states in the union. Louisiana is oftentimes down near Ms, yet is also one of the reddest states there are, as well as being one of the top recipients of welfare program funds. Kentucky happens to have only a moderately bad education system, while also having the county that is known for having the highest rate of welfare receivership of any individual county in the entire country..... Now, I point out this one county (the name of which escapes me right now), because it has a few interesting things going on with it.... 1) it is around 95% white in population. 2) of that white population, the rate of welfare recipients is near total. 3) that dirt poor population has a strong correlation between poor education and it's economic status (as well as a few gakky business practices in the 1960s and 1970s that left the county high and dry afterwards)

If you had said "liberals with low education levels among urban population groups" then I'd have believed you, because there is strong evidence to show that urban poor tend to vote democrat, while rural poor very strongly vote republican.


2.... The reason group work is more common isn't actually anything to do with trying to screw over boys, or elevate girls... It's because that is more accurately reflected in real world job environments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Do liberal schools teach people how to provide sources?

It's probably the worst thing about the indoctrination I'm receiving

 d-usa wrote:
Do liberal schools teach people how to provide sources?

Are you going to actually add anything to this discussion? One of my sources, Myself. I grew up in an era with PSA's urging the teaching in a more female friendly way. Ask other 30-40 year olds and they will tell you the same thing. My sister-in-law is a teacher and has been instructed in this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sKBMcLzRHY

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
boilogy prof.

It makes sense that someone would study boils but I didn't know they had their own field of study with teachers and everything.

Good thing it's summer and I'm off the clock. But thanks for providing constructive feedback