return2ozma@lemmy.world to A Boring Dystopia@lemmy.world · 3 days agoCollege Students Are Testing at the Level of 10-Year-Oldsfuturism.comexternal-linkmessage-square90linkfedilinkarrow-up1286arrow-down17cross-posted to: fuck_ai@lemmy.worldworldnews@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1279arrow-down1external-linkCollege Students Are Testing at the Level of 10-Year-Oldsfuturism.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to A Boring Dystopia@lemmy.world · 3 days agomessage-square90linkfedilinkcross-posted to: fuck_ai@lemmy.worldworldnews@lemmy.ml
minus-squarebrucethemoose@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·2 days agoInteresting how the “age gap” in the US for numeracy and literacy is conspicuously small. But relatively large for problem solving. In others, you can see recent history in really humongous gaps. Also, I can’t help but wonder how much of that is a “normal” trend? I was stupider, and would have tested worse, at 16. Maybe at 20.
minus-squareExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up7·2 days agoI was thinking the same thing. We would have to look at results from 2015 for example. And I found this: This is from 2012. 16-24 had lower results than 25-34 so maybe it is a normal situation?
minus-squarebrucethemoose@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 days agoInteresting. Yes that was my suspicion. I think this would be a more solid trend if the 16-24 bracket ages, and ends up less intelligent when they’re 25-34.
minus-squaretamal3@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·24 hours agoSo would you say that the article OP posted is misleading, and that the 16 to 24 bracket had also previously done worse on the test?
minus-squarebrucethemoose@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·23 hours agoThat’s the suspicion. To be more accurate, I’d argue the data isn’t yet strong enough to support the headline.
Interesting how the “age gap” in the US for numeracy and literacy is conspicuously small. But relatively large for problem solving.
In others, you can see recent history in really humongous gaps.
Also, I can’t help but wonder how much of that is a “normal” trend? I was stupider, and would have tested worse, at 16. Maybe at 20.
I was thinking the same thing. We would have to look at results from 2015 for example.
And I found this:
This is from 2012. 16-24 had lower results than 25-34 so maybe it is a normal situation?
Interesting.
Yes that was my suspicion.
I think this would be a more solid trend if the 16-24 bracket ages, and ends up less intelligent when they’re 25-34.
So would you say that the article OP posted is misleading, and that the 16 to 24 bracket had also previously done worse on the test?
That’s the suspicion.
To be more accurate, I’d argue the data isn’t yet strong enough to support the headline.