Ingroup biases (race, class, religion) don't really become a factor until the outgroup is assertive. I saw this firsthand as a foreigner in Korea. The first few years I kept my head down and was treated well. "He's just like a Korean." As I became more confident at work, my coworkers started playing politics to hold me back. (One of them used race explicitly to form a coalition.) Nowdays I don't play politics, and my performance is good, but I still get a lot of comments about my "attitude" from my boss. Nevermind that people I don't report to directly love working with me.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be Asia. As a white dude working in Australia I found myself on the wrong side of arguments and perceptions cuz I had a different accent.
Current research shows a 20~30 point SAT1 improvement from specialized coaching [1]:
> From 1981 to 1990, three separate analyses of all the prior studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. They found a coaching effect of 9 to 25 points on the SAT Verbal and of 15 to 25 points on the SAT Math. In 2004, Derek Briggs, using the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, found effects of 3 to 20 points for the SAT Verbal and 10 to 28 points for the SAT Math. Donald Powers and Donald Rock, using a nationally representative sample of students who took the SAT after its revisions in the mid-1990s, found an average coaching effect of 6 to 12 points on the SAT Verbal and 13 to 18 points on the SAT Math.
I have not seen any studies on
the effect of accomodations, though.
I think the amount parents will pay for those relatively meagre extra points, and the fact that the parents in this case had to resort open bribery, speaks relatively well for the meritocraticness of the current system.
Open the books, show us that nothing is being swept under the rug, and just let the undeserving children of millionaires go to third tier schools.
To fix the problem of capitalism, you would have to fix the problem of pricing (=efficient allocation of) goods into supply chains, which problem grows as the fourth power of the number of goods available.
It's probably better to keep making our current system more transparent and work for prices to better reflect society's values than to "exit capitalism".
Afaik, for nonimmigrant visas they don't care about skills, but they do care about any ideological background (preventing terrorism) and they care a lot about the probability of overstaying the visa: they want to see evdence of connections and plans to return from the US.
> Afaik, for nonimmigrant visas they don't care about skills,
I am afraid they actually do. I know someone’s visitor visa was rejected because the consular officer thought he works on AI. I have no idea why working on AI is grounds for rejection.
Could you quantify the number of poor Americans who do not have access to clean water in the US, and provide some support to the idea that it is due to racism?
My understanding is that the Flint situation is due to mismanagement, which was done after a certain political party created laws to remove elected leadership from indebted municipalities (most of the indebted municipalities were controlled by the opposing party).
Which is to say that the Flint situation got a lot of press because it was rare, and that the motivations were likely political rather than racial. As such, in isolation it is not good evidence for your arguement. It would be appreciated if you could provide some statistcs.
That is a useful system for middle readers with limited volcabulary to jump into high school / professional reading, but not so good for very early readers. Note how all the grecoroman stems are defined in terms of germanic words, which are phonetic.
The article is concerned with students who find words like "rabbit" challenging, not with students figuring out "neologism".
The previous thread was very critical of this article's statistics.
Reposting my comment:
When I see a headline like this my instinct is to jump to "overfitting".
In a study like this they use P=0.05 as their cut off for significance. One in 20 such studies would be expected to give meaningless results. But they had the choice of cohort (all kids or boys and girls separately), so 1 in 10. They measured urine concentrations of fluorine at three time points during pregnancy, which makes for 7 different potential combinations of input variables, for a total of 14 different potential analyses, where 1 in 20 is expected to be significant. Of course, they didn't preregister, so who knows whether their analysis changed on the fly..
Those multiple comparisons are quite obvious from the text, so a rigorous reviewer may have asked them to do a Bonferroni correction. Not sure if this was the case though.
You're right, and one would hope that happened. But not knowing the field or journal norms, all I could do was search the text for "Bonferroni" and "regist". In my lab if additional analysis was requested by the reviewer and we did it, we would have added a sentence to the manuscript.
But not having published in this field or journal, I have no idea what their norms are.
When I see a headline like this my instinct is to jump to "overfitting".
In a study like this they use P=0.05 as their cut off for significance. One in 20 such studies would be expected to give meaningless results. But they had the choice of cohort (all kids or boys and girls separately), so 1 in 10. They measured urine concentrations of fluorine at three time points during pregnancy, which makes for 7 different potential combinations of input variables, for a total of 14 different potential analyses, where 1 in 20 is expected to be significant. Of course, they didn't preregister, so who knows whether their analysis changed on the fly..
Good points. It's even more than 1 in 20 when you realize that studies does no get published with p > 0.05, so in the "published studies" sample this effect should be even larger.
Presumably a lot of domestic Chinese goods require materials from abroad to produce. Remember that until a few years ago China had to import the tips for ballpoint pens.
