|
On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own?
Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test.
Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-.
I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them.
|
On May 19 2015 06:45 killerdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:36 Dandel Ion wrote:
it's just typical usa
decided that standardized testing was what they wanted to do and to one-up the dirty communist countries they had to have at least 10 times the test amount anybody else has for no fucking reason except MURRICA
real talk tho i blame scandinavia with their PISA bullshit Exams you take in denmark Afgangsproeve, when you finish grade nine. This is basically unfailable, and has zero influence one which highschool you go to, let alone anything after that. It's just a piece of paper to prove you're done with mandatory schooling and can get a job etc. Highschool exams. Your grade from each of these gets averaged out into a number, and university applications are judged almost solely on which person has the highest number. That's it, why on earth would you ever need more exams then those two?
fuck if i know, i think you only need one of those even
|
On May 19 2015 06:45 killerdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:36 Dandel Ion wrote:
it's just typical usa
decided that standardized testing was what they wanted to do and to one-up the dirty communist countries they had to have at least 10 times the test amount anybody else has for no fucking reason except MURRICA
real talk tho i blame scandinavia with their PISA bullshit Exams you take in denmark Afgangsproeve, when you finish grade nine. This is basically unfailable, and has zero influence one which highschool you go to, let alone anything after that. It's just a piece of paper to prove you're done with mandatory schooling and can get a job etc. Highschool exams. Your grade from each of these gets averaged out into a number, and university applications are judged almost solely on which person has the highest number. That's it, why on earth would you ever need more exams then those two?
Yeah, there's no real reason to need national standardized test other than maybe high school exit exam. at least for america our high exit exam is a joke.
|
On May 19 2015 06:52 Sonnington wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own? Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test. Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-. I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them.
You actually think that tests are the only way to see understanding and problem solving? I am pretty fucking sure that if that where the case we would have standardized testing in the workplace.
|
On May 19 2015 06:52 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:45 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:36 Dandel Ion wrote:
it's just typical usa
decided that standardized testing was what they wanted to do and to one-up the dirty communist countries they had to have at least 10 times the test amount anybody else has for no fucking reason except MURRICA
real talk tho i blame scandinavia with their PISA bullshit Exams you take in denmark Afgangsproeve, when you finish grade nine. This is basically unfailable, and has zero influence one which highschool you go to, let alone anything after that. It's just a piece of paper to prove you're done with mandatory schooling and can get a job etc. Highschool exams. Your grade from each of these gets averaged out into a number, and university applications are judged almost solely on which person has the highest number. That's it, why on earth would you ever need more exams then those two? Yeah, there's no real reason to need national standardized test other than maybe high school exit exam. at least for america our high exit exam is a joke.
We have one? I "took" finals for classes that I didn't even show up for and still passed. In Texas, there's a state exam every year from 3rd grade until your junior year. You "can" be held back for failing but I never saw it happen. The only one that matters is the junior year one, where if you fail any of the 4 sections on that one you have to retake it again your senior year, if you fail then gg retard go try for your GED.
Edit: failing any of those regardless of actual grade made it so the state wouldn't give you your diploma. It was basically taken from you until you reached the bench mark that is basic reading comprehension.
|
On May 19 2015 06:52 Sonnington wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own? Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test. Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-. I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them.
If the teacher isn't aware of how various students in the class are doing, then honestly, they're not a teacher. You could replace them with a television playing khanacademy videos and likely have better results. The job of the teacher is to TEACH, that's a two way interaction between student and teacher.
Besides, if a teacher has large classes, or wants a more detailed picture, they can just mock up a 20 question test and use 10 minutes of class time on it. easy, simple, doesn't stress the students and it can be tailored to what they're doing.
But no, lets spend a huge amount of class time and money, completely undermine our teachers abilities to actually tailor their teaching to the students, and massively stress out thousands of young children, potentially turning many of them off some subjects for life, because to not do so would be "mind boggling..."
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On May 19 2015 06:56 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:52 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own? Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test. Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-. I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them. You actually think that tests are the only way to see understanding and problem solving? I am pretty fucking sure that if that where the case we would have standardized testing in the workplace.
We do. Many professions have licensing/certification exams.
|
On May 19 2015 06:58 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:56 Eppa! wrote:On May 19 2015 06:52 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own? Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test. Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-. I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them. You actually think that tests are the only way to see understanding and problem solving? I am pretty fucking sure that if that where the case we would have standardized testing in the workplace. We do. Many professions have licensing/certification exams.
That is different and you should know that.
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 19 2015 06:04 Prog wrote:
There are other means to see how much information one retains and how one is able to apply that information. Those are not always viable (based on time constraints mostly), but sometimes work quite well. For instance for academic work letters of recommendation and samples are way better indicators than test results.
Standardized testing is used alongside these measures because letters of recommendation can be subjective and the actual "value" of your transcript can be highly variable depending on the quality of institution you attended previously. Again, standardized testing is important as a normalizing factor to account for differences in experiences that are hard to accurately account for in a systematic way otherwise. Two different applicants with otherwise similar coursework and grades can have vastly different levels of aptitude due to the difference in the actual quality of their instruction, and standardized testing, while not perfect, is a way to broadly identify those differences when they're particularly extreme, even though it's resolution is quite poor when assessing less extreme cases.
|
Meanwhile I'm sitting here only having taken the SAT and had yearly evaluations which were a fucking joke, just talking and the evaluator asking questions/looking over all the work I had done/how many books I had read.
*I was homeschooled as well, so my education was more logic/English/history focused instead of math/science.
|
On May 19 2015 07:01 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:04 Prog wrote:
There are other means to see how much information one retains and how one is able to apply that information. Those are not always viable (based on time constraints mostly), but sometimes work quite well. For instance for academic work letters of recommendation and samples are way better indicators than test results. Standardized testing is used alongside these measures because letters of recommendation can be subjective and the actual "value" of your transcript can be highly variable depending on the quality of institution you attended previously. Again, standardized testing is important as a normalizing factor to account for differences in experiences that are hard to accurately account for in a systematic way otherwise. Two different applicants with otherwise similar coursework and grades can have vastly different levels of aptitude due to the difference in the actual quality of their instruction, and standardized testing, while not perfect, is a way to broadly identify those differences when they're particularly extreme.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea of having a (properly written and graded) standard test that people take after highschool/university. That test is designed to compare every student in the country objectively, so universities/jobs have a way of comparing people's ability in various subjects.
The problem comes with all the other tests.
|
On May 19 2015 06:58 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:56 Eppa! wrote:On May 19 2015 06:52 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own? Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test. Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-. I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them. You actually think that tests are the only way to see understanding and problem solving? I am pretty fucking sure that if that where the case we would have standardized testing in the workplace. We do. Many professions have licensing/certification exams.
Which are also 90% bullshit. I've seen people buy books, lose sleep and get sick from stress about worrying over whether or not they're going to pass a certification exam. And then they get there and it's a fucking like 5 hour exam or some shit with a single break and answers that are subjective yet have a "correct" response. And then those people fail it despite being really fucking good at their jobs because nothing about that is indicative of whether or not you can do what you're being paid to do.
Fuck, I know someone who took a Management exam 3 times and eventually quit trying despite being in the field for like 15+ years, because he wasn't good at taking tests like that. Yeah, that's a great system you have in place.
|
Btw, for highschool exams, do they literally take the highest number? Over here you have different scores for different subjects, so that universities know what the person is actually good at.
|
On May 19 2015 06:59 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:58 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 19 2015 06:56 Eppa! wrote:On May 19 2015 06:52 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own? Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test. Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-. I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them. You actually think that tests are the only way to see understanding and problem solving? I am pretty fucking sure that if that where the case we would have standardized testing in the workplace. We do. Many professions have licensing/certification exams. That is different and you should know that.
How is that different? All my CS friends had to take a test during their interview phase of their application.
On May 19 2015 07:04 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:58 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 19 2015 06:56 Eppa! wrote:On May 19 2015 06:52 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:33 killerdog wrote:On May 19 2015 06:18 Sonnington wrote:On May 19 2015 06:08 Requizen wrote:On May 19 2015 06:01 Sonnington wrote:
So there's an antitesting movement going on. That's pretty scary to imagine people don't think it's important to test. Is it not important to see how much information one retains and how they're able to apply that information? This is actually rather distressing. Not all testing has to be standardized. But that would likely require educators to actually be respected by and compensated similarly to other professionals which they unfortunately aren't I strongly disagree and don't understand where you're coming from or what logic you're using. Testing has to be standardized so you can compare apples to apples. It's more like, wtf is the point of testing people every single year. You take exams after highschool to grade your ability, so universities know who to accept, and so you can compare students to see which is "better" at what. That I get. What on earth is the point of testing students every single year so some weird standardised rubric? What does that possibly accomplish that teachers shouldn't be capable of on their own? Like this statement is mind boggling. Lets take math for instance. You shouldn't test your ability to do math regularly? How is the teacher supposed to know you're paying attention and learning if they don't test. Insofar testing is only testing how good you are at memorizing things. No fucking shit. Even if you forget it in a few weeks you're much smarter than someone -who's not willing or capable of doing that at all-. I feel this movement has less to do with testing as a concept and more to do with teachers and schools being graded on test scores. Considering teachers unions are behind this antitesting movement. I can only assume this antitesting bullshit is tied to policies like No Child Left Behind. With No Child Left Behind, schools would lose funding if their students didn't score high enough on their tests. Which was kind of a weird concept. If your students are stupid we'll give you less money to educate them. You actually think that tests are the only way to see understanding and problem solving? I am pretty fucking sure that if that where the case we would have standardized testing in the workplace. We do. Many professions have licensing/certification exams. Which are also 90% bullshit. I've seen people buy books, lose sleep and get sick from stress about worrying over whether or not they're going to pass a certification exam. And then they get there and it's a fucking like 5 hour exam or some shit with a single break and answers that are subjective yet have a "correct" response. And then those people fail it despite being really fucking good at their jobs because nothing about that is indicative of whether or not you can do what you're being paid to do. Fuck, I know someone who took a Management exam 3 times and eventually quit trying despite being in the field for like 15+ years, because he wasn't good at taking tests like that. Yeah, that's a great system you have in place.
On May 19 2015 03:38 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't think testing is ideal, but considering real world restrictions (time required for assessment, etc etc) it does a good enough job that anyone who's competent can get past the testing phase. The argument that "testing limits people" only applies to borderline cases where the person is barely competent enough to be in that field and thus "testing aptitude" actually plays a role in whether or not they "pass".
Essentially, the better you are the less "testing" matters.
|
Over here you just have to pass and universities take you
popular fields of studies (medicine etc.) will have an entrance test and then they pick the best out of those, but studies where number of students is not a problem just take anybody
people that are too stupid get weeded out the first ~2 semesters or so anyway
|
On May 19 2015 07:04 Fildun wrote:
Btw, for highschool exams, do they literally take the highest number? Over here you have different scores for different subjects, so that universities know what the person is actually good at.
SAT and ACT are divided into multiple categories. there's the combined number then the individual numbers for each subject.
It's a lot better to have a certification then the expect every employer to be able to fully evaluate how good someone is at something.
also it helps the company know that you should at least now the legalities of everything and are not going to do something highly illegal because of incompetence. (I mean it can still happen but it's less likely)
|
On May 19 2015 07:04 Fildun wrote:
Btw, for highschool exams, do they literally take the highest number? Over here you have different scores for different subjects, so that universities know what the person is actually good at.
You just give the average.
Different courses then have different requirements for which courses you chose in high school. For example physics requires that you took mathematics, physics, english and danish at A level (the highest.) Whereas medicine requires chemistry and danish at A, english and mathematics at B etc etc
The idea is they want to make sure you have a grounding in the relevant subjects, but they recognise that the actual knowledge you have in those specific subjects from highschool is basically irrelevant in terms of what you will learn during even the first semester at uni, so they'd rather have people who know how to study (it's pretty hard to do badly in highschool if you have even decent study habits :p) then someone who has zero discipline/study habits, but got lucky on a test.
The way selection works is they have X places, then they just sort all the applicants for that course at that university by their average, and take the top X.
For most courses you can get in with even really low passes. It's only super competitive things like medicine or business at top uni's where it starts to matter, and for those you pretty much need straight A+'s
|
On May 19 2015 07:04 Fildun wrote:
Btw, for highschool exams, do they literally take the highest number? Over here you have different scores for different subjects, so that universities know what the person is actually good at.
They have separate stuff for each categories for SAT and ACT.
also most of the top universities will look at AP subject testing, and SAT subject testing as well.
|
On May 19 2015 07:09 killerdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:04 Fildun wrote:
Btw, for highschool exams, do they literally take the highest number? Over here you have different scores for different subjects, so that universities know what the person is actually good at. You just give the average. Different courses then have different requirements for which courses you chose in high school. For example physics requires that you took mathematics, physics, english and danish at A level (the highest.) Whereas medicine requires chemistry and danish at A, english and mathematics at B etc etc The idea is they want to make sure you have a grounding in the relevant subjects, but they recognise that the actual knowledge you have in those specific subjects from highschool is basically irrelevant in terms of what you will learn during even the first semester at uni, so they'd rather have people who know how to study (it's pretty hard to do badly in highschool if you have even decent study habits :p) then someone who has zero discipline/study habits, but got lucky on a test.
I didn't know we had to have study habits in highschool...
But yeah, that makes sense, although wouldn't that method result in a lot of small classes? (cost efficiency)
|
United States47024 Posts
TBH, a bigger quip I have with modern education systems than standardized testing is the expectation of commitment to a field of study more or less upon University entry. Mostly because I feel like a High School level understanding of many subjects is grossly insufficient for one to actually make the judgment about whether one would like to pursue a career or long term study in that field. I feel like generalized education should actually proceed quite a bit further before that commitment needs to be made.
Physics and Mathematics are especially guilty of this, though it's not really a problem of those fields so much as the level of aptitude most high schoolers can reach--for the most part a high school student of Physics or Math cannot reach a level of aptitude where they can get an accurate picture of how a career in the field is to make a reasonable decision about whether to pursue higher-level study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
