I had a classmate who thought he was the illegitimate son of Arnold Palmer, who belonged to the same golf club as his parents. I can't say from personal observation whether he shared his putative father's endowment.
After a decades-long decline, crime rates have fluctuated in a narrow band around a new, much lower normal. A lot of people have trouble believing this, even if their own lives reflect the new normal. I leave the reasons as an exercise for the reader.
It's not enough to give a crap, you have to know what to do and have the wherewithal to do it. It's far from magical that certain districts don't have such people. But you probably know that.
Hard? Hell, it's impossible. And you can say similar things about how you can't qualify for certain other occupations if you don't like or aren't good at certain other subjects. But can we make all but the very worst students functionally literate and numerate enough to get by in common life? And how far away are we now from that?
Maybe instead of figuring out how much trigonometry to teach, we get them up to where the question of how much trigonometry to teach makes sense, then teach it all and the different students learn what they learn? Most of us can live a fulfilling life having forgotten almost everything we once knew -- however much or little that was -- about trigonometry, so not learning as much as some classmates shouldn't be much of a setback or source of shame.
Freddie makes a great deal of sense here. Most of our public education is OK, some of it is superb. We have significant problems in low-performing schools, which probably have little to do with whatever the reform of the week can address. But back in the day, we weren't even trying. The low performers simply dropped out of the system or weren't measured. I'd be surprised, though, if out and out illiteracy and innumeracy is noticeably more prevalent than it used to be. I'd be very interested in comparative information about how functional our current low performers are compared to the low performers from my or my parents' generation.
Given the unfortunately large number of hacks, incompetents, and petty tyrants on the bench, it is heartening to see some judge no one has ever heard of do such a good job.
I'm meh about school choice, largely for the reasons you mention. But school choice means choosing from among existing schools. The individual kids who get to a different school might -- might -- be better off, and good for them, but unless there is some alchemy by which school choice results in more "good" schools to choose from, you're rearranging the deck chairs.
Stephen Jay Gould reports o what would need to be true for DiMaggio's streak to be possible:
There is one major exception, and absolutely only one—one sequence so many standard deviations above the expected distribution that it should not have occurred at all. Joe DiMaggio’s fifty-six–game hitting streak in 1941. The intuition of baseball aficionados has been vindicated. Purcell calculated that to make it likely (probability greater than 50 percent) that a run of even fifty games will occur once in the history of baseball up to now (and fifty-six is a lot more than fifty in this kind of league), baseball’s rosters would have to include either four lifetime .400 batters or fifty-two lifetime .350 batters over careers of one thousand games. In actuality, only three men have lifetime batting averages in excess of .350, and no one is anywhere near .400 (Ty Cobb at .367, Rogers Hornsby at .358, and Shoeless Joe Jackson at .356). DiMaggio’s streak is the most extraordinary thing that ever happened in American sports.
I have long advocated a wing in the Hall of Fame where athletically-deserving but morally questionable people should have black-bordered plaques: Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, the known steroid users. (I remain morally certain that there are steroid users now in the Hall, based on the shape of their careers, though I make no accusations against specific persons without better evidence.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Lone Star Rising”
I had a classmate who thought he was the illegitimate son of Arnold Palmer, who belonged to the same golf club as his parents. I can't say from personal observation whether he shared his putative father's endowment.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/14/2024”
That was my question: who is this "we?"
"
Will the necessary parties take yes for an answer?
"
Chris, are you assuming that they want to deal with those issues, other than, perhaps, shouting STFU?
"
The contrast between slow on the uptake and out-and-out nuts does seem a little clearer than it was then.
"
After a decades-long decline, crime rates have fluctuated in a narrow band around a new, much lower normal. A lot of people have trouble believing this, even if their own lives reflect the new normal. I leave the reasons as an exercise for the reader.
"
Lots of insiders have run as outsiders. If Harris can swing it, or even go both ways, more power to her.
On “Lone Star Rising”
How hard is it just to grab them by the p***y?
On “From Freddie: The Basics: School Reform”
It's not enough to give a crap, you have to know what to do and have the wherewithal to do it. It's far from magical that certain districts don't have such people. But you probably know that.
"
I’m now rehashing the whole issue of how a 15% proficiency rate is notable but a 0% proficiency rate is not.
Why would anyone want to waste pixels on an "issue" like that? Or whether bad schools are a problem?
"
The "because" doesn't work here. You're perfectly free to offer solutions whether Chip explicitly says bad schools are a problem or simply assumes it.
"
Good genes.
"
Hard? Hell, it's impossible. And you can say similar things about how you can't qualify for certain other occupations if you don't like or aren't good at certain other subjects. But can we make all but the very worst students functionally literate and numerate enough to get by in common life? And how far away are we now from that?
"
Maybe instead of figuring out how much trigonometry to teach, we get them up to where the question of how much trigonometry to teach makes sense, then teach it all and the different students learn what they learn? Most of us can live a fulfilling life having forgotten almost everything we once knew -- however much or little that was -- about trigonometry, so not learning as much as some classmates shouldn't be much of a setback or source of shame.
"
Freddie makes a great deal of sense here. Most of our public education is OK, some of it is superb. We have significant problems in low-performing schools, which probably have little to do with whatever the reform of the week can address. But back in the day, we weren't even trying. The low performers simply dropped out of the system or weren't measured. I'd be surprised, though, if out and out illiteracy and innumeracy is noticeably more prevalent than it used to be. I'd be very interested in comparative information about how functional our current low performers are compared to the low performers from my or my parents' generation.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/7/2024”
A President's pardon power extends only to federal crimes. Peters was convicted in state court of state crimes.
Doesn't mean he wouldn't try.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/30/2024”
Given the unfortunately large number of hacks, incompetents, and petty tyrants on the bench, it is heartening to see some judge no one has ever heard of do such a good job.
"
The article is quite clear. It's you, and whatever your point is, that's obscure.
"
Probably. And your point is?
"
I'm meh about school choice, largely for the reasons you mention. But school choice means choosing from among existing schools. The individual kids who get to a different school might -- might -- be better off, and good for them, but unless there is some alchemy by which school choice results in more "good" schools to choose from, you're rearranging the deck chairs.
"
Glass house. Stone.
On “Vice Presidential Candidate Debate: Sen JD Vance vs Gov Tim Walz”
What would be useful to know is how independents broke before the debate. Then we could see if it moved the needle.
On “Pete Rose and the Limitations of Hustle”
Stephen Jay Gould reports o what would need to be true for DiMaggio's streak to be possible:
There is one major exception, and absolutely only one—one sequence so many standard deviations above the expected distribution that it should not have occurred at all. Joe DiMaggio’s fifty-six–game hitting streak in 1941. The intuition of baseball aficionados has been vindicated. Purcell calculated that to make it likely (probability greater than 50 percent) that a run of even fifty games will occur once in the history of baseball up to now (and fifty-six is a lot more than fifty in this kind of league), baseball’s rosters would have to include either four lifetime .400 batters or fifty-two lifetime .350 batters over careers of one thousand games. In actuality, only three men have lifetime batting averages in excess of .350, and no one is anywhere near .400 (Ty Cobb at .367, Rogers Hornsby at .358, and Shoeless Joe Jackson at .356). DiMaggio’s streak is the most extraordinary thing that ever happened in American sports.
"
I'm flexible on the details.
"
I have long advocated a wing in the Hall of Fame where athletically-deserving but morally questionable people should have black-bordered plaques: Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, the known steroid users. (I remain morally certain that there are steroid users now in the Hall, based on the shape of their careers, though I make no accusations against specific persons without better evidence.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.