In article <769g18$mo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  manifesto@christianparty.net wrote:
> In article <760b0p$nid$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   thorain@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <75v7q4$u92$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >   manifesto@christianparty.net wrote:
> >
> > Care to back this up?  A correlation of nonlinear data is meaningless.
> >
>
> "Nonlinear data" can be a graph with 2,000 points which correlate exactly, and
> one point which is off by 1%.  Do you really believe such data would then be
> "meaningless"?
>

Sorry, try again. Said point would be an 'outlier' and could be ignored if
properly explained. The data is still linear.

From another post:

Well, now we know that your education in math did not progress to the college
level. Let's see how you do at the high school level.

"In elementary algebra, for instance, the reader should already have dealt
with equations like: 3x=5  x-2y=-8  -x+3y-2z=14 These are classed as FIRST
DEGREE EQUATIONS - ALSO CALLED LINEAR EQUATIONS - BECAUSE THEIR UNKNOWN
QUANTITIES APPEAR NO MORE THAN ONCE IN EACH TERM AND ONLY WITH THE UNDERSTOOD
EXPONENT, 1."

REFERENCE ALERT: 'Intermediate Algebra and Analytic Geometry Made Simple' by
William R. Gondin and Bernard Sohmer.

Do you see how your data fits into one of these equations? If not, I'll dig up
a JUNIOR high math book and we'll start from square one. I am only presenting
the references because you demanded it. The least you can do is back up your
claim the same way.

A nonlinear equation is one that contains an exponent other than one (a
parabola), etc.

> I didn't think so.  For your own credibility, we will strike this comment from
> the record.
>

My credibility is intact, yours has disappeared.

> > "Simple regression analysis showed us HOW variables are LINEARLY related;
> > correlation analysis  will only show the DEGREE to which variables are
> > LINEARLY related. ... Although correlation is a LESS POWERFUL technique than
> > regression, the two are so closely related that correlation often becomes a
> > useful AID IN INTERPRETING REGRESSION. In fact, THIS IS THE MAJOR REASON FOR
> > STUDYING IT."
> >
> > "A zero value for r therefore does not necessarily imply "no relation;"
> > rather, it means "no LINEAR relation." Thus, simple correlation is a measure
> > of LINEAR RELATION ONLY; it is of NO USE IN DESCRIBING NONLINEAR
> > RELATIONSHIPS."
> >
> > If you really want to prove your point, do a REGRESSION ANALYSIS of your
data.
> >
>
> You are confusing yourself again, James.  FOCUS.  Think about why ONE data
> point is out of synch with your perception of the world.  Think about why the
> Japanese with 72% male teachers manage to score 105 TIMSS points (the
> equivalent of 210 SAT points
> [ crosslinktimss.htm]) than a country like us
> which has only 25% male teachers.  You can confuse yourself with regression
> analysis by claiming that Russia scores higher than us and has fewer male
> teachers--but then you won't ever figure out what it is about Japan that they
> manage to do such a better job of educating their students at one third the
> cost of the US.
>

I am not confused. Why are you? Why do you continue to act like you KNOW
statistics? I have been very patiently trying to point out your
misconceptions. I have asked you to look at a particular website
(http://home.sol.no/~hmelberg/papers/960415.htm), read an elementary text,
and even talk to a statistician. Instead you cling to your misconceptions and
act like you are an expert. Trust me, you are not.

Do you understand the relationship between correlation and regression? Have
you TRIED to perform a simple regression on your data? (I can't because you
do not give the data set and won't because I will not do your work for you).



> Or maybe that is what you intend to do?  You really don't want to resolve our
> "education crisis", because that would lead to testing our teachers to confirm
> the 211 TIMSS point disadvantage our teachers suffer from, which would leave
> you without a job?
>

Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be a proponent of a National teacher
testing program.  Once again, you are wrong. My job is not threatened by any
testing that you could come up with.

> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > James--Japan does not have affirmative action.	The only reason females
> > in
> > > the US teach math is because we DO have affirmative action.  Affirmative
> > > action requires you to hire somebody BECAUSE they are unqualified.  If US
> > <SNIP of stuff that is off topic>
> >
> > Only two responses:
> >
> > 1) Check your sources - women will be given equal protection in Japanese
> > business as of 1999.
>
> I guarantee you that this will not happen in Japan, no matter what sources you
> provide (also, noting that you did not provide a single cite for this
> assertion).  If you want to know what the Japanese are doing, DO NOT rely on
> the misleading feminist media in the US.  It is wrong!  I grew up in Japan, do
> business in Japan, and travel there frequently--what the US media says about
> Japan is 180 degrees out of synch with reality at least half the time.  Focus
> on the DATA, James, not the touchy feely sound bytes which now drive US
> consciousness.
>

You are such an 'expert' on Japan, I assumed you knew this. My information
did not come from the 'feminist media' (who are they? I thought it was the
'liberal media')

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 09:05:49 CDTFrom: rich@pencil.gwu.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Japan Bans Discrimination Against Women/** labr.global: 454.0 **/**
Topic: Japan Bans Discrimination Against Women **** Written 11:19 PM Jun 17,
1997 by labornews in cdp:labr.global **From: Institute for Global
Communications <labornews@igc.apc.org> Subject:Japan Bans Discrimination
Against Women

Tokyo - Japan has taken a further step to bring its traditional corporate
culture in line with international standards with the passage through
parliament of the country's first law to ban job discrimination against women
in the workplace. (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/015.html)

Also try:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/025.html
http://www.detnews.com/1996/menu/stories/70125.htm
http://www.askasia.org/frclasrm/readings/r000074.htm


> >
> > 2) Affirmative Action does not demand the hiring of unqualified workers. If
> > you think so, then you think that all of the moinorities hired under AA must
> > be fired.  Do you think so?
> >
> > 3) Women have been teaching math in the US LONG before Affirmative Action
was
> > ever thought up.
> >
> > James Powell
>
> Are you suggesting that the US has always had a bad education system?  Are you
> saying that you do not believe that the 98 point drop in SAT scores is
> significant at all?  Are you saying that the decrease in the percent of male
> teachers from 34% to 25% in the last 2-3 decades in the US did not happen, is
> irrelevant, or is in no way connected to the 98 point drop in SAT scores?
> [ teachersexms61_96.htm ]
>

No. But for your claim that it is all the fault of women teachers to be true,
you are.

No. I am saying that there is no '98 point drop' in the SAT scores. From the
data at the College Board site (1967-1998):

Males/Verbal: Max - 541, Min - 501, Most recent - 509
Males/Math: Max - 535, Min - 516, Most recent - 531
Fem/Verbal: Max - 545, Min - 495, Most recent - 502
Females/Math: Max - 498, Min - 473, Most recent - 496
All/Verbal: Max - 543, Min - 499, Most recent - 505
All/Math: Max - 517, Min - 492, Most recent - 512

Sorry, but the maximum difference is 50 points. Where does the extra 48 points
come from? Furthermore, that is max difference in 31 years, not the difference
between the max and current scores.


It is YOUR claim that the 5.7% total decrease in male teachers between 1961
and 1996 is responsible for these changes. That is a mighty small percent
change for such large declines! Have you graphed the yearly SAT scores
against the yearly sex breakdown to see if the two correlate? Do the SAT
scores show the same pattern (increase from '61-'71, decrease '71-'96) as the
teacher percentages?

> Are you saying that women have not been teaching math in the US long enough
> for us to know that they can't teach math?  Are you saying that we need to
> stay on our current course for another century or so to really understand
> that women (who constitute only 1.5% of the top fiftieth percentile of the
> GRE  gredistribution.htm ) can't teach math?  Are
> you saying that scoring at the BOTTOM of the world in timss geometry is no
> cause for alarm [http://nces.ed.gov/timss/twelfth/fig12.html ]?
>

If women can not teach math, then how did America become so great?  Women have
been teaching math since we started formal public education in this country.
Why is the 'decline' only seen recently? When were YOU taught math (and was it
by women)?

Stop trying to use that stupid GRE graph. It says nothing until you can back
it up with corroborating evidence. It just shows your ignorance of the
subject at hand.

Depends on how important Geometry is in the modern world, doesn't it? It does
show that the US needs to rethink the way it is conducting math education.

> Are you saying that you know the magic by which women--who constitute 75% of
> the teachers in the US, who constitute less than 2% of the top half of the
> scorers on the GRE, who may be the entire reason that education majors score
> 161 points lower than math majors, who have proven in the last 30 years that
> they may have the potential and the will to drive SAT scores down another 98
> points over the next 30 years, who somehow manage to REDUCE the math skills
> of their students by 76 points from 8th to 12th grade, who absolutely,
> positively will never, ever take personal responsibility for even 1% of this
> collossal failure in American education--can somehow teach something which
> every standardized test in the world proves that they do not and can never
> understand?
>
> How much further do we need to drive SAT scores into the ground to finally
> wake you up?
>
> John Knight

Your entire last paragraph above is ludicrous. Please reread it. You have just
stated that the women in this country have CONSPIRED to INTENTIONALLY destroy
mathematics education in this country. If this is truly your position, then
this conversation is at an end! There is not ONE fact in that paragraph and I
will not waste my time explaining every fallacy in it (they have been refuted
in earlier posts).

If this is not your position, then rewrite said paragraph.

James Powell