This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Quite a few, actually. In the form of revealed preferences. And I have certainly had lengthy discussions with school policy makers and accreditors, and that is precisely why policy makers pushed to enhance AP offerings, and why accreditors pushed them to do so.
So you've guessed what they think?
Well, suppose you, like I did, taught an AP history class which emphasizes acquiring the skills needed for success in college rather than test prep. Suppose also you explicitly told students that that is the goal and that they will have to do a lot of outside work if they want to pass the AP test. Suppose also that very few students pass the test each year. Suppose also that the course demands a great deal of student time, and students in the class get Bs and Cs for the first time ever. Supoose also that, despite all that, each year the younger siblings and friends of those students sign up for two periods of the class in numbers that exceed the contractual class maximum. Would you infer from that that the students are motivated by a desire for college credit? Assume also that the students are not morons.
By this logic, people who enter a lottery don't actually want to win.
And even then, we're supposed to base our opinion off of your one little heterodox experiment? I know many people who took AP classes including myself. The test/college credit was the main focus.
Incidentally, you don't think it might have been a little dishonest to not have disclosed that you are/were a teacher of AP courses in this discussion sooner?
Whether they hope to win is not the issue. The issue is whether they get benefits even if they don't win. People go to Vegas, and to the track, even though they know that they probably won't win, because the experience is fun. People attend football games for awful teams with no hope of winning, and the players on the team play the game, because there are additional benefits other than winning. Winning is a nice bonus, but it is not necessarily the be all and end all.
And I know literally hundreds of people who have taken AP classes.
I don't know what would be "dishonest" about it, but in my initial post, I did say: "I have attended several AP trainings in my day,'
And yet with all of these examples the winning/competition still dictates of most of the incentives of the whole endeavor, hence my point. People may get ancillary benefits from football or betting on horse racing other than winning but the whole activity is still designed around winning and this dictates most of its structure. People may have fun betting on horses even if they still lose, but for the most part they pick horses they think are going to win and hope they do. People may support their local team even if they don't win, but they still want them to and get pissed if they blatantly don't try or play like shit.
And yet some of the most enjoyable games of football and baseball that I have personally played have been ones in which I lost. Yes, winning is more fun than losing, and taking an AP class and then getting college credit is better than taking that same class and not getting credit. But I never said otherwise. I merely challenged the claim that "the whole point" of the course is the test. It simply is not the whole point. It is not the only reason students take it, and it most certainly is not the only reason, or even a major reason, that schools offer it.
And yet, again, even those games were fully structured around winning, with the concept and pursuit of winning dictating almost all of their organization, structure, and procedure, even if it didn't happen for you that time (though it did happen for the other team, same as in any AP class almost certainly at least one kid will take the test and pass).
I think you're confused. For me to say that AP tests (and the resultant college credit) are "the whole point" (as colloquial language meaning "the vast majority of the point") of AP classes in this context, it is not necessary that they even be the primary reason (in terms of conscious reckoning/explanation anyway, which as rat-adjacents we should all know often lies to us about our real motivations) why students take them or schools offer them (though I definitely think you're understating both of those cases anyway and especially ignoring that students have an obvious motive to flatter you by saying "Oh no Mr. X, we don't care about the test or the college credit; we just find the subject and your brilliant teaching of it fascinating!"). It is only necessary that they be the primary explicit incentive the system is structured around, and that's easy, because they're the only explicit incentive on offer.
Behavioral patterns are always in the statistical aggregate primarily dictated by incentives, especially explicit/highly legible ones, even when people don't particularly like or enjoy them. Incentives are always in the statistical aggregate primarily dictated by tangible punishments and rewards, even when people would prefer to punished or rewarded differently. These are simple and essentially universal sociological/psychological truths that only a fool would disregard on the (lack of) strength of your anecdotes.
Of course even this is all irrelevant to the question of whether these courses can be taught objectively or not; both a course taught to the test and one taught independently can be the subject of severe bias. So you wouldn't be making any headway in advancing your central argument even if you weren't obviously wrong about this tangential, inconsequential point.
If that is what you meant by "the whole point", then I don't understand why it was germane to the comment to which you were originally responding.
All of this stuff about why students take the course is irrelevant to what the "whole point" of the course is, because I was referring to why AP courses are offered and why teachers teach them, given the extra work load. Which, after all, is the entire point of this thread, which is about why Florida does not want to **offer **the course. After all, if the only germane issue is whether offering the course might allow students to get college credit early, presumably FL would offer every AP class it can.
Getting college credit is not the primary explicit incentive. It might be the primary concrete incentive, but that is not the same thing. For example, the College Board explicitly tells students: "Research consistently shows that AP students are better prepared for college than students who don’t take AP, regardless of their exam score." It also claims that AP courses allow students to develop college skills and "discover your passion." Moreover, remember above when I noted that students kept signing up for my class despite knowing that they were very unlikely to pass the test? And when I say very unlikely, I mean very, very unlikely. Apparently, there was some other incentive. Why, for example, did a student who did not pass the test (despite being, according to her younger siblings the smartest one in the family) drag her younger brother into my AP class by the ear at the beginning of the next year and insist that he transfer in? It wasn't because she thought he would pass the test.
As for this:
Where did I, even once, say that a student ever claimed that they were fascinated by world history, or that I was a brilliant, or even competent teacher? I never claimed that, or anything close to it. Students gave me lots of reasons for taking the class, but I don't recall a single one offering those reasons.
But I can tell you that many students who took my AP World History class as 10th graders worked hard to get in my Economics/Govt class as seniors. But, why??? It wasn't an AP class. So, what was the point? Well, I can tell you that on ratemyteachers.com, a student (anonymously) said: "Take Mr. X if you want to learn, but have lots of homework. Take Mr. Danning if you want to learn, but have less homework."
I can also tell you that an ex-student emailed me out of the blue after I left the school (so, no reason for flattery) and said:
And another student emailed me after he graduated from UC Berkeley:
And another:
Notice the common theme of learning, and preparation for success in college? So, yes, while of course students value passing the AP test, they also value those things as well. Which goes back to my initial point, which was: "As I discuss elsewhere, [passing the test] is not the whole point of AP courses. The point of AP courses is to enhance student learning."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link