fordy said:
Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
Kasz216 said:
It's not... I feel like now you don't know what a derivative is now.
Look at the chart i just showed you.
I feel like you walked into this thread with zero understanding of the thread, looked at the graph and read nothing else.
You are just... wrong and now argueing for argueings sake....
coming up with claims without an actual shred of data to back it up.
Could students be getting dumber? Sure. They also could be getting smarter... making things look worse then that chart.
My money would be on smarter... considering generally IQ tests have to be revised to be made harder generation after generation.
|
The difference between the chart above and the one you showed me was that this chart does indeed work with displacements. As you can see, initial figures START with their initial value, not a value based in the CHANGE of a previous value. I ask the question back to you: do YOU know what a derivative is? I thought you used to work with statistics.
Coming up with claims without an actual shred of data to back it up? Once again, it was YOU displaying the graph, which I have mentioned before, makes a TON of assumptions, and not taking other factors into account. You're preaching the graph like it's some kind of actual gospel fact, and when somebody questions the figures DUE TO EXTERNAL FACTORS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON THIS GRAPH, you decide to start acting like this guy:
|
I did, that's how I know your wrong.
A derivative value has to stay that way the whole way through.
If you look at the two charts, you'll notice, they are exactly the same. The only difference is the labeling. You could eaisly transpose the numbers on the second chart, and replace the percentages on the first chart, and the data would remain exactly the same.
It's not a derivative value. The best arguement you can make is that it's labeled confusingly. It doesn't change how the graph looks in general.
I said you didn't read, because well... you haven't read. External factors have been my point in this entire thread... and I know a lot more about said factors then you do.
If you want to actually come up with an external factor you don't think is covered. Do so. With evidence and facts that actually mentions it. (Like I have... in this thread no less.)
If you can't... what are you trying to argue? May as well argue kids tests scores are stupider because of a magic dumb fairy going house to house making people dumb.
Again, you are just wrong, and argueing just to argue.
|
So if you're not new to this, why is your logic completely out the window? You're trying to argue your points from an Ethos standpont. I can see I'm going to have to dumb it down a bit, because you're obviously not getting it.
Firstly, the DERIVATIVE value of benefit (x-1970) differs from the DISPLACED value of cost (y - '0') not only in terms of initial value, but also in terms of skew. since we're working on a % difference from a set value, any sharp, notable rises are represented on a far shallower incline than what they actually represent.
Secondly, you're placing two axes with no correlation towards the other whatsoever on the same axis. Do we know that $150k should warrant exaclty twice the performance of $50k? Who is making this assumption of scale?
Thridly, you mentioned yourself that NAEP tests do not change. If that's the case, then hwo are the kids who achieved the ceiling mark in 1970 supposed to be outdone on performance? And back to my 1970 argument. If the kids did incredibly poorly in the 1970s, we'd be seeing an incredible climb in the statistics, but the fact that the the hurdle of the majority of score had already been cleared by 1970, you have a much smaller window to achieve the same performance boost, especially with a ceiling involved. Students COULD be performing better, but the ones "saturated" at the ceiling are throwing off the true figures.
I've mentioned a few factors already, such as the rising cost in classroom needs, the rising QUANTITY in classroom needs and the association of a cost and benefit on the same axis. I see those never got mentioned again. You're arguing that spending more doesn't make a difference, I'm arguing that it could work differently than a linear scale. This graph assumes linearity between both.
|
