In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote: But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
On August 15 2015 03:36 Plansix wrote:
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote: But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
Whoever has the highest numbers is clearly the best and deserves the most. Therefore, everyone needs numbers so we can determine who needs more help and who isn’t doing their job. This is the best way to objectively improve everyone’s numbers, which is better.
So are you now engaging in an attack on meritocracy inside the highly controlled system of education?
We are engaging is an attack on the folks who overvalue standardized testing and scores as the only practical way to determine quality. Or say “it’s the only way that wouldn’t involve lots of work and subjectivity” like either of those things are bad.
Perhaps your sentiment is fine in theory, but in practice you are just saying "no accountability".
Only if you believe a score is the only way to hold someone accountable. But people who believe meritocracy is possible or even exists often believe that.
I believe the argument is far more pragmatic. When people are ready for their first job, employers tend to want to know which one of the dozens, or sometimes hundreds, of applications will be the best employee. While I agree with the sentiment that high grades are not a guarantee for a good employee (assuming everybody comes straight out of school), without some solid work experience, high grades, along with a good cover letter are pretty much the ONLY thing an employer has to go on when deciding who to interview.
The same can be said for university admissions. When there are more people wanting to be admitted to a course than there are spots, people have to be selected in some way (or competing for scholarships if you prefer).
Now, given that this is simply a fact of life, the question becomes whether it is the school's job to perform this "rating" of students, or there should be some seperate something that does that. Universities often have separate entrance exams, but in general I see nothing wrong with schools performing this secondary task. Thus their job becomes: educating students, and providing a (certified) ranking of how educated they are when they leave. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Now, in order to ensure that all schools provide a comparable ranking, we introduce standardized testing. Of course, imho, standardized testing has gone way overboard, and in addition to doing the above, is used for all kinds of stuff it was never meant to do (such as having funding dependent on it). But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I've only had about two employers ever ask for grades. In all honesty, outside of school grades are largely ignored. It's not a big surprise either, as grades don't translate well into working ability.
Also obligatory "employers are morons and don't know how to properly interview anyway", post. Though maybe not looking at grades and not knowing how to interview are related.
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote: But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal.
I didn't say anything about equality, in fact I thought it was clear that I valued the individuality of human beings. But if you think grading meat is more important than education then you are halfway on the road to the delusions that clutz is enshrouded by. He's prime sirloin and delights in it.
So what exactly is your beef with grading? What do you see that goes wrong with grading? It feels like you're saying it negatively impacts learning, but I'm not seeing how.
Because it focuses on rating a human beings ability to learn things and assumes that we have tools to precisely gauge that. Which we don't. And more people weight the grades as important, the less accurate the results. There are colleges and universities that don't use grades and they produce some very smart people. But there are people who think they are the be all end all for public education.
And of course, the classic argument of "Teachers just don't want to be held accountable!"
Do you not think it is important to rate people's ability to learn things? There are a lot of jobs where someone's raw intelligence and ability to learn stuff and apply it quickly is extremely valuable. If I hire someone to work in either R&D or engineering, it is a really huge bummer when someone is just not that bright. There are huge disadvantages to hiring people who learn slowly. It sounds like you are saying people who learn slowly should be considered regarded the same as people who learn quickly.
You seem to be really upset that the labels on the meat cans might not be very meaningful. Maybe you are invested in the label you got when you came fresh out of the factory?
I am honestly confused at this anti-grades bent. Some people are going so far as to deny they are even a necessary evil (I think they are mostly a positive good). Also, in America, many other the other things employers could try to do to weed out employees are more or less illegal, such as testing applicants (disparate impact is basically guaranteed, and the bar for rebuttal is too high, plus requires litigation).
On August 15 2015 07:48 killa_robot wrote: I've only had about two employers ever ask for grades. In all honesty, outside of school grades are largely ignored. It's not a big surprise either, as grades don't translate well into working ability.
Also obligatory "employers are morons and don't know how to properly interview anyway", post. Though maybe not looking at grades and not knowing how to interview are related.
About this, employers don't know how to interview, because most jobs don't require skills that are interview related. I'm sure in sales its probably a highly correlated skill, but for a lot of professions, the skills you need to have are hard to demonstrate in a 10, 30, even the 3+hour interviews I have seen.
Also your first 2-3 jobs out of school have a disproportionate impact on the career arc you are going to follow, so its no surprise that after that employers care more about what came more recently than that.
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote: But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal.
I didn't say anything about equality, in fact I thought it was clear that I valued the individuality of human beings. But if you think grading meat is more important than education then you are halfway on the road to the delusions that clutz is enshrouded by. He's prime sirloin and delights in it.
So what exactly is your beef with grading? What do you see that goes wrong with grading? It feels like you're saying it negatively impacts learning, but I'm not seeing how.
Because it focuses on rating a human beings ability to learn things and assumes that we have tools to precisely gauge that. Which we don't. And more people weight the grades as important, the less accurate the results. There are colleges and universities that don't use grades and they produce some very smart people. But there are people who think they are the be all end all for public education.
And of course, the classic argument of "Teachers just don't want to be held accountable!"
Do you not think it is important to rate people's ability to learn things? There are a lot of jobs where someone's raw intelligence and ability to learn stuff and apply it quickly is extremely valuable. If I hire someone to work in either R&D or engineering, it is a really huge bummer when someone is just not that bright. There are huge disadvantages to hiring people who learn slowly. It sounds like you are saying people who learn slowly should be considered regarded the same as people who learn quickly.
You seem to be really upset that the labels on the meat cans might not be very meaningful. Maybe you are invested in the label you got when you came fresh out of the factory?
This is not a very meaningful reply. I was trying to have a conversation and you are just giving a snarky reply -_- I am talking from a management position where I have had people who work below me who are either very good to work with or very bad. When people have been poor at learning or adapting, it is a big deal and makes projects take much longer than they need to. It feels to me like you are not acknowledging the benefit to being a better learner, but it really does exist.
1) grades don't designate "learning speed" like you insist 2) it is possible to find out whether someone is competent or a good fit for a job without reference to grades as hard as that is to believe
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote: But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal.
I didn't say anything about equality, in fact I thought it was clear that I valued the individuality of human beings. But if you think grading meat is more important than education then you are halfway on the road to the delusions that clutz is enshrouded by. He's prime sirloin and delights in it.
So what exactly is your beef with grading? What do you see that goes wrong with grading? It feels like you're saying it negatively impacts learning, but I'm not seeing how.
Because it focuses on rating a human beings ability to learn things and assumes that we have tools to precisely gauge that. Which we don't. And more people weight the grades as important, the less accurate the results. There are colleges and universities that don't use grades and they produce some very smart people. But there are people who think they are the be all end all for public education.
And of course, the classic argument of "Teachers just don't want to be held accountable!"
Do you not think it is important to rate people's ability to learn things? There are a lot of jobs where someone's raw intelligence and ability to learn stuff and apply it quickly is extremely valuable. If I hire someone to work in either R&D or engineering, it is a really huge bummer when someone is just not that bright. There are huge disadvantages to hiring people who learn slowly. It sounds like you are saying people who learn slowly should be considered regarded the same as people who learn quickly.
I didn't say that. I questioned the accuracy of the system amlnd it's merit. You then assumed I did not think assessment of one's abilities is important.
Sen. Sherrod Brown announced Friday he is going to block the confirmation of a high-level White House nominee, because of the Obama administration's refusal to relax its secrecy protocols that make it difficult for members of Congress and their staffs to review the language in a Pacific Rim trade deal.
Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, told NPR it was "outrageous" that congressional staff members with the proper security clearances can view the Trans-Pacific Partnership draft only when a member of Congress accompanies them. As NPR's Ailsa Chang reported in May, the document is stored in a highly secure room in the basement of the Capitol.
A notice was sent from Brown last week to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative demanding credentialed policy advisers full access (minus the chaperone) to the TPP draft language. Brown set the deadline for noon EST Friday.
And when that deadline came and went, Brown announced he was placing a hold on the president's deputy U.S. trade nominee, Marisa Lago.
Anyway, to delve a little more into the problematic aspects of grades; For one, grades are inherently based around performance. But as some of you have correctly pointed out, not everyone has the same potential. For many students, top grades are unavailable regardless of how much effort they give. I don't even have that much teaching experience, but I still remember this one girl who really tried her hardest, who seemed really motivated to learn, but who still ended up getting a C on a big history test, and I could just really see the instant 'whats even the fucking point in fucking trying when this is the best I can fucking do' reaction in her face when I handed her the paper. It was sad as fuck. I'm sure teachers with more experience will have countless similar experiences. It also goes the other way (did for me in some subjects when I was a pupil, especially in English), where I would get top grades without exerting any effort, also leaving me with the impression that there was no real point in trying. .
That is a problem with non differentiated instruction.
If you are truly putting forth your best effort* and can't manage a C in a class... OR you are putting forth no effort and getting an A in the class...
You probably shouldn't be taking that class student 1 should take an easier class to prepare them (or work at learning something different)
student 2 should have some way to show that they know the information already and move on to a higher level (or a different subject that they want to learn more in)
This is more often an issue with high school and elementary school or the first classes students take in college.
*working hard=/= best effort, it just = Most effort, often times students need to learn how to study, instead of spending 50 hr/week reading the book... of course that partially fits into other things the students needs to learn before taking the class.
Megyn Kelly has decided to go on an unplanned vacation.
]The Fox News correspondent, who faced criticism and controversy following her moderation of the GOP debate earlier this month, is going on vacation for the next 10 days.
Kelly announced the news on Wednesday’s The Kelly File, and Fox News later posted a message from the anchor on their website on Thursday explaining the reason for her temporary absence.
"It's been an interesting week. A long six months, without a vacation for yours truly, do you know that? It's been six months since I've had a vacation. Just ask my assistant," Kelly explained. "So I'll be taking the next week and a half off, spending some time with my husband and my kids, trying to relax."
The newscaster, who's been with Fox News full-time since 2010, said the hardest part of going on vacation is bound to be "is trying to put down the Electronica and unplug it."
"When you go on vacation, I am going to try to look at my little one's faces and go for bike rides and play at the beach and not look at you," Kelly added. "And when I see you back here on the 24th, we'll pick it all up again. Have a great week. See you soon."
Kelly has been facing a slew of aggressive hatred from Donald Trump supporters in the wake of the GOP debate due to what some felt were pointed and aggressive questions. Trump himself has also been railing against the anchor.
During the GOP primary debate, Kelly grilled Trump over past sexist comments towards women.
“You’ve called women you don’t like pigs, dogs, fat slobs and disgusting animals,” Kelly asked the presidential hopeful during the Aug. 6 telecast. “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump responded, before Kelly listed several of Trump’s past targets, including a former Celebrity Apprentice contestant.
“Honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably not be based on the way you’ve treated me,” Trump fired back.
The bad blood between the two doesn’t seem to be letting up anytime soon.
Days after the debate, Trump told CNN that he doesn’t “have a lot of respect for Megyn Kelly – she’s a lightweight,” he said. “She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions and you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of wherever.”
Hah. She deserves the shit that she's getting for the cheap shot questions that she asked. Like I said before, all you have to do to torpedo Trump is to ask him real policy questions. He'll probably sink himself with his answers (or lack thereof).
Trump has no incentive to give direct answers. He is way ahead in polls and only has something to lose. Clinton is laying low because she only has something to lose by being 4x ahead of Sanders. This has always been the case. When you're ahead, you just keep on being ahead. Trump has no incentive to open himself up for attack by giving silly bullshit answers (Like Huckabee's 6% nonsense). The promises/platform or whatever you want to call it of a candidate this early in the race is purely for the sake of building hype and distinguishing themselves. But it always comes at a cost. Trump being Trump is good enough. Describing a bunch of policy changes would be detrimental to his campaign. You are criticizing him for being safe.
Or being a terrible candidate and having literally no idea how to run the country or do anything beyond stroke his own ego. People are criticizing him because his is human garbage and only appeals to the far right wing nutjobs the Republican injected into the primary season the last two congressional elections. The ongoing legacy of the tea-party.
I don't think it's fair to categorize Trump as a "tea-party" creation when he is not necessarily supported by "tea-party conservatives" any more than by other groups. 538 did a piece on this a while ago:
Among self-identified conservatives (this includes “somewhat conservative” and “very conservative” Republicans), Trump earns 13 percent, the same level of support he’s garnering overall. In the two polls that broke down the responses among moderate and liberal Republicans, The Donald clocks in at 15 percent. Again, that’s the same percentage he had overall in an average of the two polls that included a moderate and liberal crosstab.
But what about the most conservative voters — the voters who you would have thought would be cheering the loudest as Trump rode down that escalator with the grace and poise of a modern-day Humphrey Bogart? In the two polls with a “tea party” and “very conservative” crosstab, Trump has averaged 13 percent and 19 percent, respectively. In the same polls with these crosstabs available, Trump took 12 percent and 15 percent of the overall vote, respectively. Those differences are not statistically significant
His support seems to be mainly anti-Establishment fervor that cuts across the whole spectrum of the GOP, not really any one specific ideological group.
CHICAGO — With his blessing, confidants to Vice President Joe Biden have begun strategizing about travel to early primary states and identified potential donors who could bankroll a campaign even as he remains undecided about whether to pull the trigger on a late-entry 2016 run for president.
The moves are a sign that after months of speculation, Biden is taking a few significant if small steps toward a presidential campaign, according to sources familiar with the discussions. Biden’s strategy, the sources say, would be to focus on South Carolina while almost writing off New Hampshire, where both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have considerable footholds.
Biden proxies have also homed in on rich supporters who could help finance a run through a super PAC — in particular, Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, a past top donor to both Joe and Beau Biden, whom Democratic operatives noted has not yet given to the Hillary Clinton-backing Priorities USA Action despite previous support for the former secretary of state. Biden allies also have set their sights on Geocities founder and tech investor David Bohnett, a longtime Democratic donor. Angelos didn’t return a call for comment.
News reports in recent days have focused on a handful of more casual conversations Biden had while on vacation earlier this week on Kiawah Island in South Carolina. Meanwhile, there is significant operational planning going on around him. He still has not set a time frame for a final decision — though it could come within weeks, or he may yet stretch the “end of summer” deadline he talked about earlier this year.
On August 15 2015 11:34 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump Refrained from attacking Carly Fiorina because it isnt ok to make fun of women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8uoUFePbNI Its nice to see the Don becoming more PC.
More PC? He just blatantly announced a list of things he promised he wouldn't announce, which is exactly the opposite of PC. (If you're being sarcastic, I apologize as it's late and I'm tired and missed it!)
EPT
