re: California school science project that connected race and IQ is pulled after complaints

His conclusion:



While there isn't enough information to definitely make any determination, I do have enough to suggest that it does fail crude "rule of thumb" tests. 30 points of difference would be a mark of statistical difference (two deviations on the IQ bell curve) by this crude test.


That doesn't mean it is wrong, you need the full data set to say that. But it does tell us there is a significant chance that there is no difference, and the differences from the averages is sampling bias.

Also, the lack of any language involving p-values or the like indicates he did not do the further testing.

But hey, at least he kept the theme of crooked lines.

It IS Sacramento, maybe it is a "deconstructed science fair project."

quote:

---

The ONLY reason they banned this one is subject matter.

---

And this is our only point of contention.

Especially how you want to use it as a basis of further accusations.

If it was ONLY banned on subject matter, it would have been banned the first day.

It lasted 3.

Ergo, other considerations emerged.

Ergo, you are wrong.

Ergo, everything you say based on that is wrong.

Now, what those other factors are, and how much of a role they played is anyone's guess.

But here is your shocker of the week: The world ain't black and white.

Do you think the complaints were about the aesthetics and methods of the project or the subject?

quote:

---

Who are you arguing with?

---

Oh, I'm sorry.

It wasn't an argument of anything. Nor a response to anyone. Hence the reply to my own post.

It was a presentation of facts associated with my opinion of it.

But it might have value to the people in the room who haven't decided they know everything about the thoughts of people whom they don't even know the names of to know about what was actually presented.


You can't tell me that the actual poster that was removed is also irrelevant to a discussion about a poster being removed.

Jumping in late, but I’ve reviewed prior post.

So far only original link allows any information of the actual high school science project.
Available information.
Science project was censored after complaints were made. (Title of article)
Project title was Race and IQ (2nd paragraph of article)
Project hypothesis: If the average IQs of blacks, Southeast Asians, and Hispanics are lower than the average IQs of non-Hispanic whites and Northeast Asians, then the racial disproportionality in (HISP) is justified. (4th paragraph and 2nd photo)
Independent variables: race, determined by project overseer. (2nd photo)
Dependent variables: IQ: measured by online IQ approximator. (2nd photo)
Control: Age: all participants will be aged 15-16. (2nd photo)
Question: Why are there more non-Hispanic whites and Northeast Asians in HISP than blacks, Southeast Asians, and Hispanics? (2nd photo).

Demographics of program from 6th paragraph: ~500 total students, 12 black(math 12/~500 x100%= ~2.4%), 80 Latino (math ~16%), ~100 Asian (math ~20%), (math ~308 white ~61.6%).

Note only a tiny fragment of the project is shown. And only the hypothesis is given in the article. Very little factual information is presented to base an informed conclusion on.

quote:

---

Premise is incredibly flawed.

---

Premise was fair enough for high school. It won’t be published in Nature, but it does use the scientific method to explore a high school issue. Apparently, the “elite” academic program was being attacked for lack of racial diversity. His premise apparently was intelligence was the prime determination of elite academic performance and acceptance.

quote:

---

Judging entire races for admission into a magnet school. That’s retarded.

---

I agree that the practice is retarded. Unfortunately, race is an admission standard from Harvard down to court based kindergarten.

quote:

---

Poor sample

---

How do you know? Data was probably included on the project, but it wasn’t in the article. You are making a conclusion based upon facts not in evidence!

quote:

---

Methods are shite.

---

Once again facts not in evidence. This is your opinion based strictly on your bias.

quote:

---

Do you think the complaints were about the aesthetics and methods of the project or the subject?

---

Of course not. I've never argued otherwise.

But as a concluded the point with earlier:

quote:

---

Put succinctly, WHY THE frick DO YOU WANT THE PRINCIPAL TO TAKE HEAT OVER SOMETHING THE STUDENT DOESNT GIVE A shite ABOUT.

---

You don't deserve a say just because you feel entitled to. If it was an honest discussion, I would be pissed it was pulled.

Its not.

its more likely to be a troll job than an honest discussion.

So why defend it? He didn't conduct science. He started with a conclusion, did a half assed followed up, and surrounded it with cliched words.

I might have forgiven screwed up methods, because hey, hes a kid. Maybe he doesn't know better.

But seriously dude: take a look at that poster, know that the author is among the top percentages of high school students in the US, and tell me that he really gave a shite.

EDIT:

Annnnnnnnd ShortyRob grasps at straws again! Where one person asks a question, he runs to the conclusion contrary to all evidence! But its the other guy who is laughable!

quote:

---

Volvagia

---

Go ahead.

Read the Sac Bee article.

Find me the quotes that support ANYTHING other than "you can't study that" reasons for pulling it.

Then, get back to me.

quote:

---

Find me the quotes that support ANYTHING other than "you can't study that" reasons for pulling it.

---

Because it isn't studying anything. It no more deals in science than me concluding that you are short and that your name is Rob because on the internet you chose shortyrob as your fake name.

quote:

---

Go ahead.

Read my posts in this thread.

Find me the quotes that support ANYTHING about me saying there wasn't a PC backlash.

Then, get back to me.

---

Dancing on the pin.

PC backlash was the SOLE reason it was pulled. PERIOD. There isn't ANY quote evidence to the contrary and 100% of the quote evidence supports my assertion.

Nice try though. Not slick enough.

quote:

---

I've judged many science fair projects and we grade in content and the child's ability to describe their project. The actual appearance of the presentation board isn't a huge factor in grading.

---

That's fair.

But I would submit that is due to the messiness of subjectivity on the grounds of judges. Most people can agree on command of content. Everyone has their own opinions on formatting.

Bringing it up in this thread isn't from the perspective of a fair judge though. Its from the perspective of people removed from the situation.


His content sucks, as does his presentation.

So as an individual removed from the fair, the perspective changes. And as that third party, was where I asked the question of why defend it if he doesn't care


Don't overplay the "child" element, this is someone probably going to a big name university in a few years. Here is what his peers put up (not at same school/event, just age/intelligence group):







And then there is this:



The first three are awesome. You don't have to be stiff and formal on the presentation. But I'd find it hard to believe you wouldn't find someway to take points away on presentation if the latter was grouped with the former.

Heck, posting it again let me see something else:

1) His Control Group

2) I find it comical every race gets capitalized qualifiers. Southeast Asians, Hispanics, non-Hispanic whites, Northeast Asians.....and then blacks. As opposed to African Americans.

Reinforces my opinion that it is a troll job.