My point in reporting what others have reported, which are the scores of certain subsets of the US student population on TIMSS, is to show that it is a lie to say that US teachers are not teaching in a way sufficient to have their students perform at world-class levels. There exists a sub-population - not the top 51% of the population, but a demographic subset that happens to be a majority of the population - that is turning in world-class levels of performance. That's a fact. There are 196 countries, and a score that would have 5th or 6th highest or so if all the countries would have had their entire populations participating is world-class. This proves that all US students have to do is take full advantage of the teaching offered to them to turn in this performance. And so this BS propaganda of yours and others dumping on US teachers and the US school system as completely inferior is a lie - one can't have the teachers and system be completely inferior yet have a sub-population - not the top 51% of the population, but a demographic subset that happens to be a majority of the population - be turning in world-class performance. It does not matter what this demographic is - it's not about white or black or any other demographic one could come up with; the only thing that matters to prove the lie to be a lie is that there exists such a demographic.
As for "minimum requirements' - if say an auto shop wants to hire a certified master mechanic, then the minimum requirements to be hireable as one is to be one.
In general: Places hire or promote people who are other than "most qualified" all the time (relatives, friends of friends, acquaintances - we've all heard the phase "it's who you know"). Even in impersonal corporations the "most qualified" get passed over for promotions all the time for all kinds of reasons. But usually those hired or promoted still can be said to meet minimum qualifications.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Paul, just cut to the chase. You forced me to remove ALL of the minority > scores in the TIMSS assessment. Explain to all of us here why you did that > and what that means in terms of "minimum requirements"? I am really not > following your stance on this. You seem to be saying that if a protected > class makes up 20% of the population then "perhaps" 20% of all doctors, and > 20% of all physicists and 20% of all NBA players, etc. should be members of > the protected class. And yet you stripped the TIMSS assessment of ALL > minority scores. It's just not adding up. Take a step back and try to put it > all together in a way that makes sense. What do you mean by "minimum > requirements". What do you mean by "perhaps". What do you mean by removing > all the minority scores from the TIMSS assessment. > > Bob Hansen > > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Paul Tanner wrote: > > The proper, non-racist interpretation is based on the first one you > gave below, this non-racist interpretation being that enough of the > protected class can meet the minimum requirements to become qualified > so that a continuing pattern of the protected class being > underrepresented raises a red flag that perhaps there is some > discrimination against the protected class causing that continuing > pattern of the protected class being underrepresented. > >