Saturday, May 23, 2009

Is Our Education System Being Dumbed Down (Part II): A Statistical Analysis


Recently I provided you with a brief analysis of our Primary and Secondary schooling system. Please read and interpret the findings, with the help of the IQ table I provided in a later posting. If the results weren't alarming, to say the least, then perhaps this new article will give you a nudge. This time I will analyse South Africa's tertiary system

You will recall that I mentioned that 85,454 learners passed matric with university exemption in 2007. It is intuitive to assume that not everybody goes to university, so we should see a smaller enrolment figure. Well only total enrolments are provided by the DOE, so I adjusted for failure rates and using a 4 year average degree. I arrived at a first year enrolment figure of 120,095. Where do all these extra enrolments come from? Let's look closer and see.


Have a look closely. The first set of bar graphs are the maximum potential enrolments, based on IQ for the various race groups (as determined in the first analysis). The second set of bar graphs are the actual enrolments supplied by the DOE, but adjusted to an annual first year figure. As was highlighted earlier, it is intuitive not to expect all HG matriculants to attend university, and this is apparent when we analyse the white, coloured and asian numbers. The glaring anomaly is the black column. It is massively disproportionate to the hypothetical maximum, what is even more disturbing is that the theoretical maximum was approximately 35,000 learners too high. My God, something is afoot. Clearly we are allowing woefully ill prepared and cognitively deficient blacks into university, wasting tax payer money, when there is a zero probability of getting a return.

An interesting byproduct was the pass rates, supplied by the DOE. A pass rate is the rate at which enrolled students pass, and move to the next year. Note how these are correlated with IQ, namely white, asian, coloured and black. This provides some validation for the use of IQ.

Using the pass rates, and applying them each year (to a 4 year program) yielded an ultimate theoretical graduation rate of 54,500, which matched the actual graduation rate of 52,388 quite well. Shockingly, about 58% of the graduates, or 30,000 students, came from a pool that was clearly admitted despite IQ levels that places them in the 85 and lower category. Moreover, note that 79,185 black students start out (62.60% of the total) but only 30,346 graduate (57.93% of the total). So why let the idiots in in the first place? Come on Blade Nzimande, you can spend the money more wisely.

Another titbit, you will recall that UCT Medical School has an AA policy of screening potential students based on their results, with whites requiring 91%, asians 88%, coloureds 78% and blacks 74%. Using South Africa's grading scale, the DOE's statistics, IQ data and a Monte Carlo simulator we can approximately derive the numbers of potential students at the various admission levels.


The higher admission requirement for whites and asians means they will be selected from the 138 IQ category, which is seriously gifted.

There will be at least 188 white students to choose from per annum.

The lower admission requirements for coloureds and blacks means they will be selected from the 125 IQ category, which is borderline.

There will be at least 62 coloureds to choose from, and virtually no blacks per annum.


Maybe UCT should lower the benchmark to 65% for blacks.

Back to the tertiary statistics. So from Grade 12 enrolment to university graduation, a mere 5.26% get through, or approximately 1 in 20. Finally, in the ANC's quest to impose egalitarianism, blindly believing we are all equally endowed, you will see them tinker with enrolments until they correspond with demographics. The only group that will suffer will be the whites, who will be woefully under-represented relative to their IQ levels.

In summary, does it mean that a South African degree is worthless? Not necessarily, but only if you are black given that there is an over-representation relative to their IQ levels and anticipated graduation rates, which suggests behind the scenes manipulation.

Update: Anybody got the balls to replicate this study for an MBA?

25 Opinion(s):

Loggi said...

There have been many arguments about race and IQ levels.

So the UCT now officially agree that black students are not on par and should be held to lower satndards. And this from a liberal instutution.

Joe King said...

Veiled racism - how does UCT justify this way of thinking? I would love to have a copy of the minutes of the meeting where the decision was made. Surely as a learning institution they did a full and proper study to reach this conclusion. How can black people allow this discrimination against themselves. UCT is clearly calling them stupid. Where is that black pride when you need it most. Oh yeah, I forget "it is the evil white mans fault"

Vanilla Ice said...

@JK. The idiocy of the whole thing is that the policy is premised on a belief that the "disadvantage" is temporary. Just read the responses from some of the Professors. This type of thinking from a learning institution defies logic. Moreover, the statistics show clearly that blacks are being favoured university admission when they are barely capable of menial tasks. This results in wasted taxpayer money, a high failure and dropout rate and does nothing to build esteem amongst the blacks. Finally, those that do graduate, albeit on a dumbed down system, know that they are qualified on paper only, and never build the confidence to excel. So in summary, we are doing the blacks no favours through apply strict AA quotas.

Vanilla Ice said...

There is another attack that I didn't mention. The racial composition of faculty staff are measured and reported by the DOE. These obviously are correlated with IQ scores, with high white and Jewish representation. The ANC is out to correct this "imbalance". You can then be assured that the quality of teaching is doomed. We already have a precipitous decline in research output.

Anonymous said...

Stats, so what! As you had a privileged white education during apartheid, and didn't attend deprived non-white schools, what's YOUR SOLUTION VI for deprived non-white schooling over many years before, during and after apartheid?

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 9:21. You comments are premised on a few assumptions. Let's look at them. You presume that white South Africans were privileged. Relative to who? Secondly, do you assume that we are all equally endowed, so that if the quality of education was equal, that it would have made a difference? Thirdly, do you think that revealing my findings places an onus on me to find a solution? Finally, why do you find it expediant to ignore the evidence? Answers to these, with proof (not anecdotal or fringe fanatical), may help us to make progress on this debate, if we can call it that. But to live in ignorance isn't going to fix the situation.

Joe King said...

Anon 9:21 - Nelson Mandella was a product of bantu education. Before, during and after apartheid. And your well informed and educated point is............?

Anonymous said...

@ VI. I taught in white & black schools during apartheid in 3 provinces. My comment was based on years of classroom teaching experience, standard 2 - matric, not stats, nor assumptions.

Your query about privileged white education didn't say where you were schooled / educated. My apartheid education in govt white schools was privileged, & apartheid black, coloured & Indian education was crap.

Your findings / platitudes may be interesting to undergrads, but as a teacher I found them a no -brainer.

I rarely thought about IQs when teaching, as there were too many other things to think about & deal with in classrooms. What's important in teaching is academic performance of the child, not IQ. After exams, I looked at pupils' results & compared them with their IQs (if IQs were available, sometimes they weren't) to see whether their performances were above or below their IQ level, & whether remediation & / or positive reinforcement was needed.

IQ is a guide for teachers, to be used prudently, as IQ test results don't always show the intelligence of the testee, for many reasons. Read up on types of IQ tests & multiple intelligences, most of which aren't tested in one or 2 tests at certain times in a child's schooling.

As a teacher, I resolved poor academic performances in many unique individuals, & that is the challenge of teaching. Your stats generalizing about IQs without trying to find solutions for poor academic performances, make your posts pointless.

From Model C introduction in govt schools in 1991, for 4 more years before I stopped teaching, when I taught boys' high school classes (mixed blacks, coloureds, whites, Indians) I found racial differences in academic performances negligible. In fact some blacks & Indians knocked spots off slack whiteys. There were thick whiteys & blacks too. IQ was irrelevant. Teacher expectation was vital for high performance.

What was noticeable was that blacks who'd arrived from deprived black apartheid schools had lots of catching up to do in model C former privileged white schooling. Most succeeded admirably, with the added challenge of being schooled in a second language, English, not their native language.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 03:01. As I thought, your "evidence" is anecdotal, and your prevaricate response poorly conceived. I suggest you read the literature before making obviously ignorant comments. To suggest that there is no link between IQ and academic performance is just plain stupid. I propose you get your money back, your "privileged" education obviously wasn't very good when benchmarked against first world standards. Moreover, your response suggests that my findings were a no-brainer. Which findings, because there were many? A no-brainer observation cannot be deemed to be a working hypothesis until confirmed in a rigorous manner, something teachers know nothing about. But when it comes to implementing social engineering programs, well maybe you are an expert at that.

Anonymous said...

@ VI. I taught sciences for years. Teachers deal with stats daily. Stats you tout originated in educational institutions. You manipulated stats to fit your hypothesis. You can armchair-read IQ papers ad nauseum, but reading wont resolve classroom teaching & learning problems.

"Evidence" of a pupil's intelligence is in a pupil's daily behaviour, classwork, class test results, & extra curricular activities.

"Link: "Did you ask whether standardised IQ tests you looked at were obtained from testees writing in their home language or not? If not, testing was questionable & findings (your word) moot. I saw many SA black high school boys expected to write IQ tests in a non-native language, so linking their intelligence & IQ results was mad.

2 Daily teaching "rigour:" How would you improve the academic performance of a high IQ pupil who is under-achieving, & a low IQ pupil who is under-achieving?

3. How would you teach without class IQ results? It was done for a long time before IQs were concocted for you to waffle gobbledegook.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon. You either have a low IQ, which will explain your hopelessly inadequate answers, or you are black, and have taken offense. My Ho was that there was no discernible difference. Pray tell, how did I manipulate the results? "Evidence of a pupil's behaviour is in a pupil's daily behaviour", indeed but you still suggest that there is a divergence. Past teaching methods have failed, and you were a part of that system. Finally, your claim that the tests were/are biased has long been an old myth, and shows me that you are not familiar with the literature, and have a personal bias. I suggest a) read the literature on this aspect and b) familiarise yourself with the meaning of scientific discovery. Teaching science does not qualify you.

Anonymous said...

VI: So tell me what qualifies me to comment about IQs which I worked with for years as a teacher, & was an accredited IQ tester at one stage in my career?

Use your own advice & Google IQ bias, as you show little insight into school teaching & learning.

You avoid my main point: e.g. If you were expected to sit your own IQ test in Chinese second language, or Afrikaans second language, or whatever, then you'd do badly & your IQ score would be low.

I taught many Xhosa boys who were expected to to do IQ tests in English, their second language, which compromised their IQ scores.

If you based your post findings on figures derived from blacks coloured & Indians who wrote their IQ tests in a second or third language, then their IQ scores would be compromised & your "findings" humbug.

Your statement - "Past teaching methods have failed..." another no brainer... There's more... Read your guff again & you'll see how moronic it is.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon. Your argument is tautological. There is no point repeating ad infinitum, that the tests are biased. Repeating a lie over and over again will not eventually make it truth. Only scientific endeavour uncovers truth, so as long as you choose to ignore the literature, you remain ignorant. As long as you remain ignorant, your opinion on the issue is irrelevant. It is a myth that the tests are biased, and I have attempted on three occasions to get you to overcome your ignorance by understanding this. You refuse. Unless you are capable of understanding what scientific endeavour means, regardless of the findings, there is no point wasting my time. You mention that you were an accredited IQ tester. Is that meant to be a joke? What has that got to do with anything, other than you were allowed to administer tests? I see you still do not answer my questions?

Black Coffee said...

VI - if I may say so, when an experienced teacher is trying to tell you something and to point out problems with so-called "IQ tests" perhaps you should not be so quick to dismiss his/her arguments as redundant just because these arguments do not seem to fit a pre-determined notion - namely the old idea that "blacks just are not good enough."
Joe - just because Mandela and, for that matter, Tambo rose through the ranks and became lawyers does not change the fact that Bantu Education was a dumbed-down education for the masses. Moreover, Mandela and Tambo received their education before Bantu Education became law of the land. Mandela and Tambo came through the system of various missionary schools for blacks.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon. According to your flawed assumptions, IQ tests are biased against those that do not have english as their home language. Therefore it is interesting you mentioned the Chinese. They have an average IQ of 106, higher than whites at 100, using allegedly biased tests (according to you). So why is it then, that this alleged bias only affects blacks? If you want to mention colonialism (as I suspect you are black), then I suggest you research Singaporeans, who also have higher IQs than whites.

Vanilla Ice said...

@BC. Hello Johnny come lately. Where have you been of late? Your comments are, as usual, off the mark. BC, you are studying towards a PhD (apparently), therefore you of all people should know that science is the pursuit of truth, no matter where it may lead you. So where do you get the "predetermined notion" from? Is this because the findings are inconvenient? It doesn't matter what my "predetermined notion" was, what matters are the findings. So don't put words in my mouth. Nobody, other than you, is saying that "blacks are just not good enough". You will need to define what you mean by this line, because they may well be "not good enough". Finally, your rhetorical line on Tambo and Mandela suggests that you are of the belief that education leads to higher IQs, which means you are of the opinion that IQ is an environmental construct as opposed to heritable. Is this true? If so, BC, you of all people should know that you should read the literature first, and then arrive at an informed decision based on the preponderance of evidence. This debate is not about supremacy, so don't allow it to degenrate into that. It is about awakening to reality, then debating solutions. As long as people remain in denial, no progress can be made. As for teaching, it is integral to getting students to reach their potential within the confines of their IQ, but has nothing to do with IQ per se.

Doberman said...

This thread is interesting. Methinks some people are beginning to talk out of their arses. IQ tests are not just language based, indeed the culture-fair intelligence IQ test [CFIT] developed by Raymond Cattell in the 1920s is a NON-VERBAL test relying on analytical and reasoning abilities using ABSTRACT and novel situations, that SEPARATES environmental and genetic factors. It matters not that an IQ test is in Chinese or Xhosa, the CFIT excludes language as a factor in the assessment. I await...

Vanilla Ice said...

@Dobes. Why is it so difficult to get people to read? Thanks Dobes, you are correct. One of the novel tests is reaction times. Language only affects about 7 points anyway, but tests designed around g remove this bias.

Anonymous said...

@VI - Very interesting article. I am currently enrolled at Unisa (trying to open a new career path) and I have definitely noticed that Unisa dumbs everything down to the point that it is almost impossible to fail your subjects. And still I now have to stress about exams because the Communist Youth League has decided that Unisa has had no transformation since apartheid and therefore they will disrupt exams. Hello! I paid my own money for the right to write exams and some no-good hotheads want to disrupt me?!
And all because more than 50% of black students enrolled were not allowed to sit exams - because they had not yet paid their study fees in full - how does that relate to transformation?
I swear they must catch a wake-up and start living in reality where not everything is gratis!

Anonymous said...

@VI: As several of your assumptions are false, continuing Dobes's allusion, you're welcome to your dung ball. Hamba kahle.

@BC: Thanks for the support. Your critics obviously haven't travelled your road.

@Dobes: Keep up the excellent blog. I'm off to savour some G spots, more interesting & productive than G effects.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 06:43. The dumbing down of UNISA, an article on its own. I wrote exams through UNISA in the 80s and recently. There is no comparison. You are correct, the new system sucks. For those that don't know, you need to submit one assignment to sit an exam BUT you don't have to pass the assignment, just submit it. Contrast that with the old system where you had to earn a certain amount of points to sit an exam. What is frighteningly interesting is that UNISA is the largest university of them all. It has 240,000 students, of which only 5% eventually graduate. For the moment, exploit the system. Get a UNISA degree, because it is easy, then emigrate. What works for the goose, works for the gander.

Joe King said...

VI: My sentiments exactly - Time to get a degree. Any suggestions?

Vanilla Ice said...

@JK. Yes, a BBA. It is a recognised credential but it will still take you about 4 years.

Anonymous said...

To the Anon arguing with VI:

Two points

1. on the teaching in first language issue, you should remember that it was the Apartheid Gov. (and ONLY that Gov.) which recommended teaching in one's own language... something which they tried to institute all over SA but gave the leaders of the different nations the choice as to whether or not they chose to use the funds from the Republic on teaching their own children in their own language or not! Both the ANC and their first world puppet masters insist on ALL being taught in English. I don't know about you but as an ex-teacher of twelve years' experience, I will ALWAYS favour own-language medium education, just as Verwoerd did!

2. on the "quality" of education in Bantu Schools, look no further than the responsibility of the Bantu Teachers, for only they could be responsible for the poorer quality, given that the schools, classrooms etc provided were identical... I know as I visited a number of schools built during the 60's and 70's which were identical in size and design to those in the Republic, and became overcrowded within two decades ONLY because the average Bantu woman was having 8 children while the average South African woman was having 3!
If, however, you believe that it is the duty of one Nation (eg. Boers) to send indivduals of their own Nation to teach the children of another Nation, then my pointing out obvious FACTS to you will help little!

Regards
Common Sense

Anonymous said...

@Anon 6:44 am. Another obvious fact: Teaching professionals are impartial whatever their pupils' physical, intellectual, emotional, social, racial, political development and background.