NationStates Jolt Archive

Just as I would expect, the "Simple Life" is better than the urban life. The latest (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rural_students) from the DoE shows that students in rural schools perform better on national tests and that the teachers are more satisfied with their work.

_At all grade levels, rural students did better on national science tests than children in cities and performed about the same as suburban students.

_In math, rural kids did better than urban students at every grade level.

_Rural fourth- and eighth-graders read better than their urban peers. In high school, rural kids read about as well as kids in cities.

Among teachers, rural educators were more likely to report being satisfied with teaching conditions in their schools, according to the report. However, salaries are lower in rural schools than elsewhere, the report found.


Now why do you suppose that is?

Being a farm boy, I've got a few ideas, but I'll give y'all the first crack at explaining it.

The overall ratio of students to teachers. There are likely fewer students so the teachers can devote more time to each student on a one-to-one basis. Struggling students would get more attention since there would be fewer students requiring the teacher's attention.

My bet is that kids that grow up in the country have a greater sense of accountability. They have always had chores and know the consequences of not doing them. They are more likely to understand what 'no' means. What's more, they aren't exposed to the anti-achievement attitude that seems pervasive in urban and suburban areas.

The smaller student to teacher ratios have to be good, but I'd bet that any average performer at a rural school would thrive in a city school.

I've got a few ideas myself that I bet have nothing to do with yours.

My bet is that kids that grow up in the country have a greater sense of accountability. They have always had chores and know the consequences of not doing them. They are more likely to understand what 'no' means. What's more, they aren't exposed to the anti-achievement attitude that seems pervasive in urban and suburban areas.
And that proves it.
Asinine bunk. I think Myrmidonisia has confused the rural-urban gap with the age gap. He has confused time and space itself!

This research also sheds some light on why cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas; the poorer education that city dwellers receive may negatively impact their political consciousness.

Hmm... smaller class sizes, maybe?

IMHO it shows at least one thing: Noise = bad! REally. I was at a urban school and it is horrible in terms of noise. And whenever any form of construction work was done, it was done when having classes. *screams*

Another issue might be that less pupils means less enticement to give bad marks and more 'centrality bias'

This research also sheds some light on why cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas; the poorer education that city dwellers receive may negatively impact their political consciousness.

Doesn't really. Look across Europe and it's high level of education alongside its perceived 'liberal' leanings.

Sorry to pop that fucking bubble.

Doesn't really. Look across Europe and it's high level of education alongside its perceived 'liberal' leanings.

I was referring to the US. Rural areas in Europe tend to be more conservative than their urban counterparts; however, the difference is only relative to the political center in the given country. I would hypothesize that given a country with a political center of x on a linear political model, the better-educated rural areas have a stance that is to the right of x while the opposite is true of the more ignorant urban areas.

Nevermind that suburban kids do so much better than both their retarded counterparts.

My bet is that kids that grow up in the country have a greater sense of accountability. They have always had chores and know the consequences of not doing them. They are more likely to understand what 'no' means. What's more, they aren't exposed to the anti-achievement attitude that seems pervasive in urban and suburban areas.

The smaller student to teacher ratios have to be good, but I'd bet that any average performer at a rural school would thrive in a city school.

No, if it were that, then scores across the boards would be higher instead of the disparity in just science and math. It seems more likely that rural students apply their education from those areas more than urban students do outside of the classroom.

I didn't go to school in rural areas, but in the suburbs. I have a relative who works in the public school system in a city. I hear lots of horror stories about what goes on in those schools, including a complete lack of respect for authority and the inability of teachers to do anything to really punish the pupils. Granted, its only one school I'm hearing about, but I've always thought the difference comes from the culture difference and parenting more than the school itself.

Fewer distractions from studying and fewer bad influences.

And being closer to nature helps drive curiosity in the sciences and provides more room and freedom for experimentation.

I grew up in a small town (pop. 6,000) in the middle of corn fields, so I'm an expert of sorts on the subject.:D:rolleyes:

This research also sheds some light on why cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas; the poorer education that city dwellers receive may negatively impact their political consciousness.

Well, considering that you are an idiot, I'm going to have to say no.

I grew up in a rural area, and by the gods, the area was Liberal!

As well, here in Minnesota at least, the Democratic Party is called the "Democrat Farmer-Laborer Party". Note the Farmer(Not saying that Republicans don't garner to the farmers-they do as well, but by and large Farmers support the Democrats in my area far more than the Republicans).

As well, I can call Conservatives to have negative political consciousness. Doesn't make it true.

And to do so would be idiotic. As you have demonstrated.

So, you have failed at debate, failed at logic, and dare I say it failed at life. You may now end your life. Doing so will only benefit the world as needed resources shall no longer be wasted. Have a great day.

So, you have failed at debate, failed at logic, and dare I say it failed at life. You may now end your life. Doing so will only benefit the world as needed resources shall no longer be wasted. Have a great day.

I urge you to retract that ill-thought-out comment.

Psychotic Mongooses: I will respond to your now-deleted statement.

Ceteris paribus, less education in a given area increases liberal sentiment, whereas more education increases conservative sentiment. This is true both in Europe and the US, even though the "normal" sentiment (ie, the political center) differs from country to country.

fixed.

When feeding the troll, remember to keep all fingers outside of the cage.

I urge you to retract that ill-thought-out comment.

I urge you to stop calling liberals idiots, as you pretty much did.

You can urge all you want.

My post stands until you change your trolling post. Once you do that, I shall remove said phrase from mine.

LULZ LIBETRALZ R TEH STUPID.

PAY ATTENTION TO ME.

WAHHHHH I WANT ATTENTION.

GIMME GIMEMGIMEIGMIEMGIME!

fixed.

When feeding the troll, remember to keep all fingers outside of the cage.

Do we have Billy Goat around? Could save an awful lot of fingers if we keep the troll busy with one.

Psychotic Mongooses: I will respond to your now-deleted statement.

Ceteris paribus, less education in a given area increases liberal sentiment, whereas more education increases conservative sentiment. This is true both in Europe and the US, even though the "normal" sentiment (ie, the political center) differs from country to country.

Fuck this. I will waste the energy.

Less education traditionally equates to conservatism amadán.

Doesn't most of America now live neither rural or urban, but rather sub-urban? Your stat doesn't address that.

"Among teachers, rural educators were more likely to report being satisfied with teaching conditions in their schools, according to the report. However, salaries are lower in rural schools than elsewhere, the report found."

"Rural schools tend to be smaller and have lower student-teacher ratios than other schools, which might explain why teachers say conditions are good there, said Strange."

"Not all rural schools are alike. The report found, for example, students were more likely to attend high-poverty schools in remote areas, compared to rural schools that are closer to urban communities."

I'm guessing it has less to do with being rural, and more to do with having smaller schools.

Fuck this. I will waste the energy.

Less education traditionally equates to conservatism amadán.

Just look at the schools in the Deep South 100 years ago compared to the schools in the northern urban centers at the same time.

Basically, F.A.G is talking out of his ass, we all know he is talking out of his ass, he has no basic knowledge of anything at all that has anything remotely to do with reality, trolled in a thread that was not in any way about liberal vs. conservative, instead being about urban vs. rural, is being an troll, a waste of bandwidth, a waste of server space, a waste of energy used to power his computer, with his asinine, idiotic, trolling posts.

And he has still yet to answer me why the rural areas of Minnesota are liberal.

But hey. I don't expect him to. That would actually show intelligence, not trolling.

First of all, let's just establish that there are amazing urban, suburban, and rural schools. There are also horrible urban, suburban, and rural schools.

One of the first factors in a school that "works" is having a strong ethos: a unified goal that the students, teachers, parents, and administrators all share. This is difficult in larger schools.

Teacher turnover is an issue. On average, most teachers will burn out after five years in an inner-city school. This ranges from issues such as student mobility (to be discussed in a second), dealing with beaurocracy including higher rates of superintendent turnover (average super stays for only three years, during which time, many policies are changed just so the new guy can make a mark), bigger class sizes, etc.

student mobility: students easily move from one school to another within a massive system like Boston Public or LA Unified. Additionally, cities have huge immigrant populations which are very likely to move out of the city. With differing curricula, this is an issue

Immigrant populations: these populations often lack the social capital, cultural capital, or both of those compared to their small town counterparts. These can be built over time, but generally, at that point, the family has become mobile and creates the problem above

Teacher pay: while in nominal terms teachers in big cities make more, often in real terms rural teachers are more successful. This adds to teacher burn out.

Those are just a few explinations I can come up with off the top of my head.

I was referring to the US. Rural areas in Europe tend to be more conservative than their urban counterparts; however, the difference is only relative to the political center in the given country. I would hypothesize that given a country with a political center of x on a linear political model, the better-educated rural areas have a stance that is to the right of x while the opposite is true of the more ignorant urban areas.

This study only looked at the US, not Europe. We have no evidence that this trend in the US is a rule across other nations.

Additionally, New England regularly out-performs the rest of the nation on tests such as the NAEP, yet is arguably the most liberal region of the nation. By an enormous margin.
Here are the stats for the best and worst states according to the NAEP from 2005 (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006451):
Mass: 22% below basic, 34% at basic, 32% proficient, 12% advanced

Mississippi: 52% below basic, 30% at basic, 15% proficient, 3% advanced

This is how the states ranked (best to worst, ranked by % below basic with % advanced as a tie breaker)
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Delaware
Vermont
Virginia
North Dakota
Connecticut
Minnesota
Maine
Montana
Wyoming
Washington
South Dakota
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Ohio
New York
Idaho
New Jersey
Utah
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Kentucky
Florida
Missouri
Indiana
Texas
Michigan
Arkansas
Oregon
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Illinois
-NATIONAL AVERAGE-
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Alaska
South Carolina
Louisiana
Hawai'i
Alabama
Arizona
Nevada
New Mexico
California
Mississippi

Nevermind that suburban kids do so much better than both their retarded counterparts.

amazing what can be done with smaller class sizes and higher funding, no?

amazing what can be done with smaller class sizes and higher funding, no?
Surprise, surprise!

Oh, and folks, it shouldn't have to be said, but: don't feed the troll.

Ceteris paribus, less education in a given area increases liberal sentiment, whereas more education increases conservative sentiment. This is true both in Europe and the US, even though the "normal" sentiment (ie, the political center) differs from country to country.

...


"In 1992 and 1996, Clinton fared best among whites who had not graduated from high school, whereas George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole both fared best among whites who were college graduates (but without advanced degrees). In 1992, Clinton won over half the major-party vote among whites with advanced degrees, and in 1996 he won almost half the major-party vote. In 2000 there was a weaker relationship between education and voting preferences. Gore did best among whites who had not graduated from high school, while Bush did best among whites with some college education. In 2004, we find that Kerry did best among whites in the highest and lowest education categories. The [Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International exit] poll reveals the same pattern among the total electorate, with Kerry winning half the vote among those who were not high school graduates and 55 percent among those with some postgraduate education. And the LA Times poll shows that among whites with a college education or more, 50 percent voted for Kerry, while among those without a college degree 45 percent did.

"Some scholars of American politics, such as Walter Dean Burnham and Everett Carll Ladd Jr., argue that the Democrats now tend to fare better among the upper and lower socioeconomic groups. The pattern for education seems to support that thesis. The Democrats may be appealing to disadvantaged Americans because of their party's economic politics and to better-educated Americans--especially better-educated women--who may reject the intrepretation of traditional values that the Republicans have emphasized in recent elections."

Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. (2006). Change and continuity in the 2004 elections. Washington D.C: CQ Press. Pg. 114-115.

EDIT - And if that wasn't enough: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W04
Carefully note how the largest shares of money given to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaigns from the education sector are going to the two leading Democratic candidates. Note also that the education sector tends to be filled up with all sorts of highly educated people.

<snip>

Yay, actually evidence! Not just fabricated opinion-facts!
:D

It's been known for a long time that the smaller the school the better education. The size has to be offset by economics though. Studies have shown the the lines cross at a high school with 200 students. Any smaller and it becomes less economical and can't provide programs and services. Any larger and learning suffers. In some cities they have actually taken their massive schools and divided the building into small schools. ie. Each floor of a large building is made into a separate school district.

Nevermind that suburban kids do so much better than both their retarded counterparts.

Follow the money. It's that simple.

My suburban school of over 2500 students is one of the best in the county. We were ranked an A school by whatever the state uses to judge that (FCAT scores, I think) the year that my class's scores affected it, and last year we were a B school along with the other suburban high school that opened up to relieve some of the overcrowding at my school. I'm guessing that this overcrowding was more in the lower level classes, because one of my classes only had 8 students and another had 16. There was only one class that I had where we didn't have enough desks for everyone, and basically the person without a desk just had to sit on a stool.

I feel that I'm getting a very good education at my school. But then again, I'm the top ranked student out of a class of nearly 500 rising seniors and all of the classes I take are advanced. It could be very different for students who take the regular or even the slower paced classes. Apparently this past year only 37% of 10th graders passed the reading FCAT at my school, and 69% of 10th graders passed the math part. That test is required for graduation, so those kids will have to retake it (not many kids drop out here compared to other places). And that's what's considered a B school, apparently, which I think is weird.

Are there seriously high schools that have less than 200 students?! How do they offer all the clubs and AP classes and stuff like that?

So I think a lot of it would be affected by class sizes and other things like that...

Want a better education? Pass the eleven plus, and spend 7 years at the best state school in the country!:D

Psychotic Mongooses: I will respond to your now-deleted statement.

Ceteris paribus, less education in a given area increases liberal sentiment, whereas more education increases conservative sentiment. This is true both in Europe and the US, even though the "normal" sentiment (ie, the political center) differs from country to country.

Funny. I live in one of the world's 100 largest cities, and I can beat (have beaten, several times) you in an argument with ease. Unless you're claiming to live in Tokyo (and, thus, be "less educated" in the fantasy world you call a point of view), you have - as per usual - no point.

I imagine it's because rural kids get more exercise.

Money, parental involvement, and smaller class sizes. That was easy. None of that "accountability" bullshit. That's just old Conservative bunk. I'm not accountable for anything, except what I choose to be, but I score in the 99th Percentile on everything on standardized nonsense tests, and the same can be said of most of the Honors students I've known in my life.

This research also sheds some light on why cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas; the poorer education that city dwellers receive may negatively impact their political consciousness.

My bullshit detector just went off! I got an excellent education, thankyouverymuch, at the closest thing southwest Michigan has to an inner city school, and I turned out liberal. I'll admit that having a biologist who owns a patent or two for a father probably helped...

PS - If you're interested, 3.0 GPA, 27 ACT and 99th percentile on the ASVAB. And I took the most advanced classes in history, algebra, French, and sciences the school offered, tho only history was AP. And I was in a graduating class of something like 300-350.

Funny. I live in one of the world's 100 largest cities, and I can beat (have beaten, several times) you in an argument with ease. Unless you're claiming to live in Tokyo (and, thus, be "less educated" in the fantasy world you call a point of view), you have - as per usual - no point.

I've always wanted to go to Tokyo. How expensive is it to stay there?

I've always wanted to go to Tokyo. How expensive is it to stay there?

I will send you an e-mail about it as soon as I set foot there. ;)

Brazilian here, I said Tokyo because it's the biggest city in the world.

I think it's interesting to look at studies done by state as well. Morgan Quitno puts out a ranking based upon a multitude of different factors including test scores, expenditures, student teacher ratio, advanced placement courses offered, SAT scores, etc. With a large basis for their ranking the information is an interesting read.

www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

their methodology is all there for you to read and interpret. Is it a perfect system? No, but it's a pretty damn good indicator of things on the macro scale of states.

Follow the money. It's that simple.

Pretty much. Look at the background of the students at Yale and Harvard. Most of them aren't even that intellegent, they just knew a lot from an expensive and privileged education.

That's funny 'cause I remember hearing that it was the opposite here. In the country it's harder to get spcecialized teachers (so you'll end up with gym teachers teaching math or physics for instance) and kids in the city will do better.

It probably has to do with poverty in american cities. If you took the schools in the ghettos out of the equation, you might find a different trend.

This research also sheds some light on why cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas; the poorer education that city dwellers receive may negatively impact their political consciousness.
Actually people with more education tend to be more liberal.

Are there seriously high schools that have less than 200 students?! How do they offer all the clubs and AP classes and stuff like that?


I graduated in 1970 in a class of 35. We didn't have AP classes back then. Everyone belonged to every club, we didn't have but a few. More than half of the class graduated university and nearly all the others received tech school degrees.

I never met a person that couldn't read and write until I ran into kids from Kansas City a few years ago. They could hit a basket from anywhere on the court but could barely write their own name. But every one had a high school diploma. That's American education.

Outside of the major metropolitan areas most schools have less than 200.

I've always wanted to go to Tokyo. How expensive is it to stay there?
Depends, how comfortable do you want to be?

Rural schools tend to see smaller classes sizes (Which is helpful) but they also tend to see far more community involvement with the school. Schools become the center the community, which also has a very large effect on student performance.

So, if had to hazard a guess the ruals have:

Smaller class sizes
More involved parents/communities
Less transant student population (Ruals tend to stay planted)
Less issues with ESL students
Less special education students

All of which equal better test scores, sorry but the "simple" life doesn't equal accountability and better scores because suburban schools out perform urban and rual because they also have all of the above but I'm fairly sure the students there ain't milking cows next to the SUV in the three car garage.

Blue States are Smarter! (http://www.gulbransen.net/images/blog/2004ElectionIQ.png)
:D

Actually people with more education tend to be more liberal.

Then why is it that rural areas, which offer a higher standard of education, are more conservative than cities?

Then why is it that rural areas, which offer a higher standard of education, are more conservative than cities?

*sigh*

You act as if the suburbs, largely liberal, don't exist.

Also take a glance at the average I.Q. of all the red states.

Also take a glance at the average I.Q. of all the red states.

That data is purely fabricated. I demand to see a source. I have searched for the book mentioned in the fine print, and encountered the following data table.

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

Note that individual states are not mentioned.

I'm still not persuaded that smaller classes and student bodies lead to better education.

At my high school, all but the most high level classes easily had at least 30 students in it. The few that didn't were high-level French and German, and Computer Science. Though the last one was due in part to the lack of computers.

Some AP classes were absolutely packed, especially the science classes (AP Chem, Biology, and Physics B & C). To a lesser extent the high-level mathematics classes, with the exception of differential equations. AP English was the least packed of the APs, but I still had 25 other kids in my Senior AP English class.

I did attend a private school, but it was by no means glamorous. It was the budget private school, which some of you might not care about, but the fact remains that we needed more funding. Even the sports teams were sponsored by local businesses for a majority of their funding.

The difference between us and other schools was the authority of the authority, and actual pride in our school.

Then why is it that rural areas, which offer a higher standard of education, are more conservative than cities?

(Kaibôo wo shite yaru...)

1- Because of smaller classes, and all the .

2- Because school doesn't include politics.

3- You'll be glad to know that in Brazil, the more urban and educated someone is, the more liberal they become - and we're liberal by your standards. Also, Europe is the cradle of modern civilization, and is very liberal. In Africa, most underdeveloped countries have conservative leaderships and uneducated people.

...Europe is the cradle of civilization

Really? And I thought Mesopotamia was. Perhaps you're not as well-educated as you'd like to think.

Really? And I thought Mesopotamia was. Perhaps you're not as well-educated as you'd like to think.

Actually I'm fairly certain Africa had the first civilizations. You may want to start sliding your tail between your legs.

Really? And I thought Mesopotamia was. Perhaps you're not as well-educated as you'd like to think.

Fixed.

Do you - for that matter - have anything remotely resembling a counterpoint to what I said, or should I leave your arguments as the dissected corpses I made them into?

That data is purely fabricated. I demand to see a source. I have searched for the book mentioned in the fine print, and encountered the following data table.

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

Note that individual states are not mentioned.

Despite all your whiny "explanations" you are MTAE. After a poster is banned their posts are sent to the abyss. Your claim of having "researched" him are pure crap. But I'll let it go as Kat has closed that thread and I have deep respect for her. As for you, keyboard commando I offer evidence to support the individual state theory. As to the smartest states I provided a link to Morgan Quitno press earlier which support the other posters claim of educational superiority of certain states over others. Here it is again. (http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm)

Actually I'm fairly certain Africa had the first civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization

As you can see, the title "cradle of civilization" generally refers to the Middle East (although India and China get a mention). There were various uncivilized African tribes in existence prior to Mesopotamian civilization, but they lacked a structured society and permanent settlements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization

As you can see, the title "cradle of civilization" generally refers to the Middle East (although India and China get a mention). There were various uncivilized African tribes in existence prior to Mesopotamian civilization, but they lacked a structured society and permanent settlements.

Alas, I must agree MTFAG here. The first recorded civilization was in Mesopotamia while there were loosely linked people in other African areas.

Despite all your whiny "explanations" you are MTAE. After a poster is banned their posts are sent to the abyss. Your claim of having "researched" him are pure crap. But I'll let it go as Kat has closed that thread and I have deep respect for her. As for you, keyboard commando I offer evidence to support the individual state theory. As to the smartest states I provided a link to Morgan Quitno press earlier which support the other posters claim of educational superiority of certain states over others. Here it is again. (http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm)

Zing and a win.

Alas, I must agree MTFAG here. The first recorded civilization was in Mesopotamia while there were loosely linked people in other African areas.

Why I added "modern" to my post. Regardless, did you see how poorly F&G tried to dodge my points?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization

As you can see, the title "cradle of civilization" generally refers to the Middle East (although India and China get a mention). There were various uncivilized African tribes in existence prior to Mesopotamian civilization, but they lacked a structured society and permanent settlements.

Well, technically speaking, "Cradle of Civilization" would infer that the civilazation sprang from said area and spread across the world. However, evidence seems to support a different notions of various "hearths of civilization", which would mean that Civilizations sprang up in various locations across the world, independently of one another, and spread from these locations.

After a poster is banned their posts are sent to the abyss.

You're completely wrong. All you have to do is search for the user name and you can access their post history. Here, I'll even provide the link for you (no need to admit you were wrong -- I already know).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=808031

Here it is again. (http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm)

No, that is something completely different: a ranking based on educational achievement throughout various states rather than data compiled from IQ tests administered throughout those states. As you'll note, Vermont comes in first, not Massachusetts.

Alas, I must agree MTFAG here. The first recorded civilization was in Mesopotamia while there were loosely linked people in other African areas.

Meh a simple misunderstanding of my interpretation of the word "cradle". Even lacking structure you see the basic human society in its most infantile stages.

If Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization, then Africa is the womb.

Zing and a win.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=808031

You can still see MTaE's topics there -- they haven't been deleted.

No, that is something completely different: a ranking based on educational achievement throughout various states rather than data compiled from IQ tests administered throughout those states. As you'll note, Vermont comes in first, not Massachusetts.

So you've already abandoned your "Conservatives are smarter than Liberals." arguement?

What's the sperm of civilization? o_O

Apes, clearly.

If Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization, then Africa is the womb.

What's the sperm of civilization? o_O

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=808031

You can still see MTaE's topics there -- they haven't been deleted.

I was referring to the second part of the post, in particular the chart.

So you've already abandoned your "Conservatives are smarter than Liberals." arguement?

That was never my argument. I said that better-educated tend to be more conservative, not the other way around. The table, while casting a shadow of doubt on this thesis, does not disprove it. Incidentally, I never stated that dumb people could not be conservatives.

No, that is something completely different: a ranking based on educational achievement throughout various states rather than data compiled from IQ tests administered throughout those states. As you'll note, Vermont comes in first, not Massachusetts.

As posted before:

http://www.gulbransen.net/images/blog/2004ElectionIQ.png

Now then, with that said, IQ tests are a poor way to judge actual intelligence. Largely due to the fact that IQ tests are culturally bias, and that due to this, people whom are not from a region that said test is created specifically for will perform worse than those from said region.

As such, it is not a good idea to go by "IQ tests" to determine how intelligent a population is, as there is no possible way to create a culturally neutral IQ test. This is common knowledge.

Academic achievemnt, however, is a bit more neutral, as it shows how well schools and students from various regions perform, rather than how "intelligent" a population is, which can easily be skewed depending, as I stated, on exactly for what region the IQ test was created for.

What's the sperm of civilization? o_O

God's hand.

As posted before:

http://www.gulbransen.net/images/blog/2004ElectionIQ.png

That is completely fabricated. It's a hoax. It's not fact. Stop posting it.

Now then, with that said, IQ tests are a poor way to judge actual intelligence. Largely due to the fact that IQ tests are culturally bias

IQ tests are culturally neutral; they rely on universally-accepted standards. For example, check this one out (if you decide to take it, I got a 135).

http://nicologic.free.fr/Intrus.htm

God's hand.

So humanity was conceived by fisting?

IQ tests are culturally neutral; they rely on universally-accepted standards. For example, check this one out (if you decide to take it, I got a 135).

http://nicologic.free.fr/Intrus.htm

129. And I'm a liberal. I must be the exception, eh?

Seriously, though, that test is not very good. For instance, many of those could be taken in more ways than one in terms of the "correct" answer. Basically, you have to try and think of what the creator of said test would think is "correct" instead of what you think is correct.

Honestly, now. You can find any number of reasons why something might be different than the rest, which is why culture plays a large role: Different cultures view different things differently.

For instance, a question could read:

"Which one is different from the rest?:

A)Car
B)Motorcycle
C)Bicycle
D)Four Wheeler


Now then, some would say that the Bicycle is the obvious choice. It is, after all, the only non motorized vehicle on the list. HOWEVER, it is also possible to say, for instance, that the car is different than the rest, as it is the only one with a closed cabin.

Both answer are in fact right. But the creator of said test chooses which is right. Thus is the problem with tests that are "Find the difference". You can find any difference you want. Doesn't mean it's what the creator of the test wants, but you are still in actuality correct in what you view as the difference.

As well, depending on how a given culture views the world will greatly change the outcome of such tests, as no two cultures view the world the same.

I will send you an e-mail about it as soon as I set foot there. ;)

Brazilian here, I said Tokyo because it's the biggest city in the world.

*Slaps face* Well that shows you what 20hrs with no sleep does to reading comprehension...

Depends, how comfortable do you want to be?

My finances would probably allow 'bed to sleep in, somewhere to wash class' comfort, lol.

My finances would probably allow 'bed to sleep in, somewhere to wash class' comfort, lol.
Ah... Well, if you don't mind a tube to sleep in, you can stay in Tokyo for about 3,000 to 4,000 yen a night, not including food and trasportation.