Arjun Panickssery Profile picture
Apr 7 5 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Mississippi has the best demographic-adjusted NAEP (4th & 8th grade) scores now

The "Mississippi Miracle" started in 2012 when the Republican governor/legislature introduced phonics-based instruction and began to hold back ~10% of 3rd graders per year who fail a reading test Image
In contrast, Oregon, with the lowest demographic-adjusted scores, has a Board of Education that has indefinitely "paused" since 2020 the use of any standardized test as a graduation requirement

Most of this stuff isn't rocket science

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Arjun Panickssery

Arjun Panickssery Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @panickssery

Mar 31
The narrative in which college admissions is inherently a rat race even without DEI/legacy-admissions/etc doesn't pass napkin math

1) 3.8m students graduate hs each year
2) Top-20 colleges admit ~40k total

So they could just admit a large majority if not all 1550+ SAT scorers?
In 2023, of the 2.13m students who took the SAT, only 38k scored above a 1500 and only 8k scored above 1550

So they're not a dime a dozen; it's just that every single university chooses the majority of their class from students who score below 1560

Caltech (score-oriented by reputation) still has a median score under 1560

About 1% of high school graduates attend a top-20 university (Ivies, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Duke, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Cal, UCLA, Georgetown, whatever)

So it doesn't have to be 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 competitive
Read 7 tweets
Sep 11, 2022
I often hear people say they increase their efficiency/impact by trading time for money, e.g. valuing their time at $35/hr and booking an Uber for $15 to save 30 minutes of walking as a result

But is this compatible with your marginal time value in most models of productivity?
Extreme example: suppose that you can only work productively for 6 hours a day, then your time is worth $0 afterward and you should just walk

I guess under other simple models, non-Uber examples like administrative tasks exhaust some kind of motivational resource ineffectively
Maybe a simple model involves an "energy level" that goes up at "rest"

Then "tasks" all have "utility" and "energy cost"

This justifies spending money specifically on tasks which exhaust energy inefficiently when that energy would have been better used otherwise

Or something
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(