For Those Whose Names Were Never Called When Choosing Sides For Basketball

[spyguy]

Learn to do this mentally (no paper, no computer):

Calculate the day of the week like in Rainman

Then learn to play chess so you can beat the top computer programs.

Then tell me what you know about freaks.

Oh, and there is no scientific support available yet for your own assertion:

But then somebody with your views is hardly likely to worry about a 'little' thing like that, right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18959642

[Sledgehead]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18959642

That is a news article, full of opinions, many of which contradict your assertion.

The two main physiological differences between an elite endurance athlete like Wiggins and the average person are a bigger heart - which allows more oxygen-rich blood to be pumped to the muscles - and the muscles' capability to use that oxygen, said Loughborough University's Dr Keith Tolfrey.

Both heart size and oxygen utilisation by muscles can be improved with training.

... One of the signs of a highly trained heart is a person's resting heart rate...

The cyclist Miguel Indurain was reported to have a resting heart rate of just 28 beats per minute.

Former British cyclist Chris Boardman said he had a resting heart rate of 38 at his peak.

...

"If you want it enough and apply yourself the right way, I think you can get to podium level on just sheer tenacity and desire," Boardman said.

but it's not what he thinks, it's what he did IN ACTUAL FACT. He then talks genetics, but he's no scientist or researcher, so let's just stick to the facts: determination (training) and tenacity got him to the top. Let's just review that:

So you can get to the top just on desire and aptitude

See that: THE TOP. By definition you can go no higher. Let's move on through this piece of journalism:

Being able to actually use the oxygen when it reaches the muscle is mainly down to the amount of mitochondria in the cells.

..

"All of us can actually improve that side of our body, and we can improve the functioning of the heart as well," Dr Tolfrey said. "It's just that most of us mere mortals can't improve it to the extent that Bradley Wiggins has."

"Most of us" by defintion, means 50.000000000000000000000000000000000001%. ie all you can conclude from this statement is Wiggins is better than average. Hardly a statement of definitive freakery. Let's move on:

A typical male of Wiggins's age who does not do much training ...

Again, support that training is important.

Moving on :

Not only are elite athletes able to use more oxygen, they can also do it for longer periods of time.

Prof Jose Gonzalez-Alonso of Brunel University said there was evidence the adaptations associated with endurance training also affected the brain and nervous system.

Again, nurture, not nature. As this prof says:

"So it's possible that when you are very well trained that in a way you delay impairment of oxygen delivery to the brain."

ie training produces mental stammina.

It is interesting that you believe intelligence is something easily acquired. One aspect of intelligence is so called 'critical thinking'. Maybe you need to train harder on that.

[stormymonday_2011]

Lots of interesting points on here.

As a product of Grammar school education I think there is some truth in the argument that it potentially cuts kids from poorer backgrounds off from their roots. In that respect it can be socially divisive.

With regards to the quality of teaching I would rate my Grammar school as excellent despite its rather irritating social pretensions. In fact I would rank my school masters in that respect as better than some of the academics I encountered at my English University.

As to life opportunities all I would say is that I have had a career broadly comparable to brother who was educated at a secondary modern and then a sixth form college before starting work at 18. In that respect I would suggest family background trumped school on outcomes. The children of Lord and Lady Posh doubtless benefit from going to the likes of Eton but one doubts they would end up in the gutter if their parents sent them to Bash Street school instead

[Sledgehead]

Hard to say whether this will be an improvement.

A one size fits all or selection by ability won't suit all - or remedy poor health, poor nutrition, poor parenting, lack of expectation in local area/by parents/peers, reaching development stages at a different point to the average etc.

...

...

...

It'll likely be run by robots with teachers acting as facilitators/providing pastoral care.

I refer again to our greatest ever female Olympian, Laura Trott, born premature (just look up the disadvantages this implies) but inspired by a meeting with Bradley Wiggins, who put a gold medal around her neck. He made her believe that cycling was important and valued (which is only 50% true).

Robots will NEVER be able to inspire children to do anything.

[Sledgehead]

Lots of interesting points on here.

As a product of Grammar school education I think there is some truth in the argument that it potentially cuts kids from poorer backgrounds off from their roots. In that respect it can be socially divisive.

With regards to the quality of teaching I would rate my Grammar school as excellent despite its rather irritating social pretensions. In fact I would rank my school masters in that respect as better than some of the academics I encountered at my English University.

As to life opportunities all I would say is that I have had a career broadly comparable to brother who was educated at a secondary modern and then a sixth form college before starting work at 18. In that respect I would suggest family background trumped school on outcomes. The children of Lord and Lady Posh doubtless benefit from going to the likes of Eton but one doubts they would end up in the gutter if their parents sent them to Bash Street school instead

Can't disagree with any of that.

As to outcomes, sure, many more factors are more important. But what is it we are trying to achieve here? How much do athletes earn who never get on the podium? Yet we still keep selecting. We keep selecting because we know that is the only wayto drive up standards. We keep striving to drive up standards because in that way, we improve our chances of a podium position. OUR CHANCES, not an individuals. And we keep striving for podium positions because it raises the profile of the country and gives us soft power, and all that, just like pop music etc, allows us to sell our brands at over-inflated prices.

My question is, why don't we think the world would be even more impressed if we had a clutch of Steven Hawkings? And even if it does not lead to that, surely as a country we will benefit from the increased number of non-podium / bronze medal intellects.

[Sledgehead]

^ and to add...motivation is a major factor with young kids. I would suggest the ones that don't try at primary school are often hoping to be 'selected' in other ways...Liverpool FC Academy...X Factor...local drug gang etc. Others are just a bit Fvcked I suppose but most kids have "a" motivation. The trick is to leverage it.

P

that's basically what I'm saying. It's the Billy Eliot thing. If your dad is a coal miner, and everyone else thinks Nureyev is "a poof", you will struggle to make it to the Bolshoi, even if, in your own head, you think ballet represents physical perfection, and "boy, the girls have all got hot dancer bodies". Same with intellect. You need to feel others think excellence is important. That means selection.

[MrPin]

Interesting point. Look at the SAS etc.

I entered an eliteish Graduate Programme when I finished Uni. Some of my colleagues were complete doofuses tbh but went on to be very successful later in life.

Being selected makes you step up...feel like you have a standard to uphold which I'm sure has an effect on effort and performance.

Christ, not another armchair warrior! I thought you were better than that Jesus!

[Sledgehead]

Christ, not another armchair warrior! I thought you were better than that Jesus!

struggling to understand this. is this a quote from a comedy movie and i just don't get the joke?

[Sledgehead]

Thought this might be a thread on "relative age effect"

Late June myself, so empathize, but FYI, title plucked from the Janis Ian song, At Seventeen, which is a quiet anthem for all those who are not prom-queens and jocks. I chose that title because I feel we are in danger of making academic kids feel just like the young Janis (and who do we look to for our next tech or to even the score when we face our next Enigma?):

[BorrowToLeech]

The difference between grammar schools and comprehensive schools with streaming is that the former ban anyone from progressing from the lower streams to the higher streams.

I've yet to hear any rationalisation, yet alone a good one, for banning self-improvement.

[stormymonday_2011]

Personally I believe most people innately possess some abilities be they academic ability, musical gifts, manual dexterity etc. The aim of education should be enable each individual to make the best and most productive use of whatever talents they have. Unfortunately,I don't think our current school system necessarily meets these goals. Moreover, the increasing fetishism I am seeing amongst some institutions about things such as school uniforms suggest that the main aim is simply to crush all individuality out of kids and to turn out the next generation of conformists. And there lies a conundrum. How do you create an innovative and competitive economy out of people who have simply been brainwashed to obey school rules ? It is a difficult balance because an education system needs to have structure and order but also the means to allow people to question it.

[spyguy]

There is another option - self study.

A lot of kids in my Gcse year effectively did that when the school fluffed a resourcing a few subjects.

As one of the my more competant teachers admitted to - 80% of teaching could be replaced by a video player.

Now there khan academy and digital study books, theres a chance for a Darwinian selection of the fittest.

I found the biggedt boost to my maths was z couple of bokks. As soon as grasped sitting down with a book and self study i flew.

These days im ok with a eyes front introduction. I prefer books for any deoth and detail.

[Sledgehead]

There is also a belief that streaming affects the self esteem of the "losers" impacting their motivation to learn.

And yet those same idiots that espouse such rubbish seem to think that watching elite athletes win golds will inspire us to get off our backsides and solve the obesity crisis, when we've previously been told not to bother trying for the school whatever team.

If one can't be logical at least be pragmatic: most kids of below average academic achievement will not use 1/100th of what they learnt at school, and be no worse off for it. Tet we as a nation would benefit hugely if sport was more inclusive. Think of the diabetes savings for starters!

[Sledgehead]

There is another option - self study.

A lot of kids in my Gcse year effectively did that when the school fluffed a resourcing a few subjects.

As one of the my more competant teachers admitted to - 80% of teaching could be replaced by a video player.

Now there khan academy and digital study books, theres a chance for a Darwinian selection of the fittest.

I found the biggedt boost to my maths was z couple of bokks. As soon as grasped sitting down with a book and self study i flew.

These days im ok with a eyes front introduction. I prefer books for any deoth and detail.

Again you are ignoring the most important aspect of mastering any discipline : a sense that it matters. Children need to know that others care about their progress. A video just won't cut it. Why on earth do you believe that cycling needs to be coached but academic disciplines can be delivered by video?

[Sledgehead]

The difference between grammar schools and comprehensive schools with streaming is that the former ban anyone from progressing from the lower streams to the higher streams.

I've yet to hear any rationalisation, yet alone a good one, for banning self-improvement.

Selection is what I am interested in. If a certain crop of grammar schools are doing it wrong, change it.

[Sledgehead]

Incidentally, I find it unbelievale that anyone at HPC would not favour selection. Without it you are by default back to catchment area and the ingrained belief that investing in property is the answer to life the universe and everything.

[spyguy]

Again you are ignoring the most important aspect of mastering any discipline : a sense that it matters. Children need to know that others care about their progress. A video just won't cut it. Why on earth do you believe that cycling needs to be coached but academic disciplines can be delivered by video?

Im more of a learn the neccessary person. I have side interests in odds and sods - japanese history, odd roman stuff etc. But most of the stuff i plough thru is technical stuff for work.

There needs to be a framework for learning and there needs to be an end goal. Academia has exams as an end.

Whether that framework needs to involve some academic - dont know.

As far as coaching, care and all that, Im not sure it applies to everyone. I had people tracking my progress during education. But the whole 'Someone who cares' thing is a bit strange.

Youve got to drive yourself. Theres too many people in education who insert themsldves into the learning pricess and fck it up.

[Hail the Tripod]

There is also a belief that streaming affects the self esteem of the "losers" impacting their motivation to learn.

You develop self esteem by overcoming challenges. If you take away any challenges because you think failure may hurt their self esteem, what you are really doing is preventing them from ever really developing any.

[stormymonday_2011]

The difference between grammar schools and comprehensive schools with streaming is that the former ban anyone from progressing from the lower streams to the higher streams.

I've yet to hear any rationalisation, yet alone a good one, for banning self-improvement.

.

Is it any easier to transfer from a failing Comprehensive to an outstanding one now than it was to go from a Secondary Modern to a Grammar school in the era of selection ? I don't think so.

The 11 plus did create an arbitrary cut off point that was rarely reversed at 13 plus but that was a failure in the selection process rather than the Grammar schools themselves.

The truth is that educational attainment in England now is largely decided by how much money you have. Rich kids get private education. For the rest it is decided by geography and house prices. If you are reasonably well off and can afford to buy a house in a suitable area you can more or less guarantee your kids will attend a decent Comprehensive while the poor end up largely shunted in the failing schools. I don't see that this system is in anyway fairer than the old Grammar school system which gave some underprivileged children at least a sniff of a chance academically. Quite why so many Labour MPs seem prepared to fight tooth and nail to defend the current set up is rather beyond me. One suspects that they have electoral reasons for wishing that the poor stay that way both economically and in terms of educational attainment. Given that many either went to private schools (Harman) or sent their kids to them (Abbott) it is clear they are simply hypocrites. Socialists who are cool about the existence of bastions of privilege such as Eton, Harrow and Rugby but get an attack of the vapours of the thought that the working classes might attend Grammar schools quite simply make me want to vomit.

[Sledgehead]

Im more of a learn the neccessary person. I have side interests in odds and sods - japanese history, odd roman stuff etc. But most of the stuff i plough thru is technical stuff for work.

There needs to be a framework for learning and there needs to be an end goal. Academia has exams as an end.

Whether that framework needs to involve some academic - dont know.

As far as coaching, care and all that, Im not sure it applies to everyone. I had people tracking my progress during education. But the whole 'Someone who cares' thing is a bit strange.

Youve got to drive yourself. Theres too many people in education who insert themsldves into the learning pricess and fck it up.

I'm unconvinced you are engaging thoroughly with this topic.

You say you learn what is necessary. Clearly, this is an admission that you are not an innately curious person. You have to be born as such, so it is not your fault. Nevertheless, you must realise that curiosity is one of those innate qualities that is inextricably tangelled up with what we call intelligence. Though difficult to define, most people would associate intelligence with problem solving. Being curious allows individuals to learn about subjects they have no immediate use for: learning for learnings sake. This learning not only reinforces previous knowledge by neural cross-connection, but more tangiably allows an individula to apply a cross-disciplinary approach to problem solving. The formulation of solutions may well be the manifestation of intelligence that we are most familiar with, but the innate curiosity is the esence. Innate. Geddit.

Just as with athletes, that innate gift will not be enough to cause a blossoming of talent into something the world recognises (eg Turing's electromechanical machine that cracked the Enigma settings) . That requires a sense that what one is doing matters.

You say that such a sense of mattering is unimportant to you. And yet you admit that the majority of the stuff you learn is for work : ie knowledge that matters so much to someone that they are willing to pay you for it.

[LiveinHope]

The difference between grammar schools and comprehensive schools with streaming is that the former ban anyone from progressing from the lower streams to the higher streams.

I've yet to hear any rationalisation, yet alone a good one, for banning self-improvement.

Is that the case?

I went to a grammar after taking the 12 plus and because I joined late I had to enter in the second stream; there were 4 streams.

Each year the top 3 in each class rose up a stream the next year, and the bottom 3 went down a stream, consequently, there was intense competition to be in the top 3 in each class, those p1ssing around at the back ended up in the bottom three. I spent most of my first year making sure I came top in everything in order to get into the top stream the next year - I came second, which was good enough.

[BorrowToLeech]

So I think my comment has been misinterpreted.

My point is not that grammar schools don't have streaming, or don't allow movement within streams.

My point is that selection is possible within a comprehensive school through streaming.

If selection operates within a school, then the decision can easily be revised. If it operates between schools, then that becomes more difficult.

So the purpose of grammar schools is not selection. The only possible purpose of grammar schools is to ensure that selective decisions are irreversible, and therefore that children cannot aspire to achieve more once the decision has been made.

What is the purpose of that?

[Sledgehead]

So the purpose of grammar schools is not selection. The only possible purpose of grammar schools is to ensure that selective decisions are irreversible, and therefore that children cannot aspire to achieve more once the decision has been made.

What is the purpose of that?

Selection has to mean something for it to matter. If the same teachers teach all streams, where is the sense that one is valued? Moreover, one would expect better facilities for brighter kids, just as one expects better sporting facilities for more talented sporty kids.

This is the CRL at Oxford.

Impressive eh? Can you see every comp in the country stretching to this?

And isn't that half the point?

[BorrowToLeech]

Selection has to mean something for it to matter. If the same teachers teach all streams, where is the sense that one is valued? Moreover, one would expect better facilities for brighter kids, just as one expects better sporting facilities for more talented sporty kids.

All of which is possible within a comprehensive system, with the added benefit that resources can be shared where that is more efficient. Have specialised teachers, have different subjects, give more resources to the top streams if you want.

A grammar school is nothing but the top streams from a comprehensive, except you ban any movement into or out of those top streams. That's what you need to justify, anything else is just noise.

Edit: obviously whatever resources are available for the most academic pupils (which doesn't mean the best pupils) are available whether you treat streams 1-3 as a separate school or if you treat streams 1-6 as a single school. Same resources, same pupils, all the same except no-one is ever allowed to move beyond the results of a test they took at age 11.

[Bossybabe]

Maybe it's bad Haiku?

Heaven's wintry dew

Leaves thoroughfares icier

Forcing school closings.