|
On May 19 2015 07:12 Fildun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:09 killerdog wrote: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)
You mean in highschool?
They offer basically every subject at three levels, C B and A. And you need a certain number of subjects at each level.
I think it varies from course to course/gymnasium to gymnasium but for smaller groups you just have A/B/C share two classes a week, then the A/B classes have another two classes that week on top. Or the class is joined for the first year, then splits when they reach more advanced stuff. At the place my cousin goes, They have A/B/C math groups together for year one, then the C group is finished and A/B are together for year 2, then only A for year 3.
And if you do fx maths at B level, but want to do a uni course which needs it at A, there are tons of summer courses you can take which are several weeks of full work days of only that subject, with a test at the end, which can "raise" your level from a C to a B, or from a B to an A so you can apply for the relevant uni.
|
On May 19 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:59 Eppa! wrote: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. Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:04 Requizen wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
It isn't standardized.
|
Same complaint as Yango, except more towards vocational schooling and less so higher education. Generally anyone who's going into STEM and have the testing scores for tend to do well in that field anyways, and if they don't like it they always of the option of switching to something else without much of an issue.
|
On May 19 2015 07:16 TheYango wrote:
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.
Every university basically spends some of the first semester reteaching highschool maths/physics over the course of about 10 lecture anyway :p
|
liberal arts school masterschool
no need to declare a major for your first two years, encouraged to try all subjects, still receive a good education
or do a lot of drugs and drop out but I mean what's life without risks
|
eating some food then I'll stream some Brawlhalla
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 19 2015 07:18 wei2coolman wrote:
Same complaint as Yango, except more towards vocational schooling and less so higher education. Generally anyone who's going into STEM and have the testing scores for tend to do well in that field anyways, and if they don't like it they always of the option of switching to something else without much of an issue.
I mean, I'm in the process of changing careers, and it's still not exactly something I'd wish on other people.
Plus the field I'm switching from is one where I at least didn't really have a problem finding a job out of college--but that's not the case for all fields.
|
Someone needs to remind me to search for a mock electrician exam....
|
On May 19 2015 07:25 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:18 wei2coolman wrote:
Same complaint as Yango, except more towards vocational schooling and less so higher education. Generally anyone who's going into STEM and have the testing scores for tend to do well in that field anyways, and if they don't like it they always of the option of switching to something else without much of an issue. I mean, I'm in the process of changing careers, and it's still not exactly something I'd wish on other people. Plus the field I'm switching from is one where I at least didn't really have a problem finding a job out of college--but that's not the case for all fields.
Well, that would be more a problem in college then, right? the lack of real world experience? I guess there could be a lot stronger push towards internship for the regular graduates I suppose.
Also there are plenty of jobs that employers "require" a Bachelors degree that could easily be do able with vocational style training.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On May 19 2015 07:18 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 06:59 Eppa! wrote: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: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. It isn't standardized.
I was more referring to standardized professional exams and accreditations, like the CFA for example.
|
|
|
On May 19 2015 07:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:18 Eppa! wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 06:59 Eppa! wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. It isn't standardized. I was more referring to standardized professional exams and accreditations, like the CFA for example.
I was responding to wei2 but yeah. Professional exams are different because they focus on passing much like universities which makes them inherently different.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
cmon guys, I'm kinda rekking everyone in Touhou now, isn¨t anyone gonna step to compete with me?
On May 19 2015 06:30 killerdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 04:48 Alaric wrote:Fucking killerdoge. If you get trashed again let me play against you or Scip so I can give some input about you styles.  (If you wanna be a dick Patchouli es numero uno for spamming though.) I like how when faced with complaints about spamming, Scip goes from Reisen to the character with the worst bullet coverage but the best corner pressure in the game. Well, she has a bullet-deflecting move by default, but killerdoge never uses projectiles so whatever. She's got a melee counter as an alternate though, much better vs Remilia. I'd like to point out that alaric just got his chance to play vs scip. His "input about my style" is going 1-14 in rounds to scip, where i was going about 4-10
Yeah, Alaric's style of blocking in the corner against the highest chip damage character wasn't working out exactly the best. But maybe he'll do better next time! :3
|
Edit: Scip I think I won more than half of the Sakuya rounds though, killerdoge hasn't practiced and I barely played Remilia even against the AI. Give him time to train and it'll change.
So...
One big part is obviously Scip having learned 2 basic blockstrings, so he gets a lot of pressure, and spirit (meter) advantage from the mix-up while neither killerdoge nor I bothered to check what hits high or low, nor how to border escape (Scip stops once he's out of meter anyway but by then #chipdamage).
Looks like it's mostly a Remilia issue though. I can barely punish some of Scip's mix-ups and her usual reversals don't work because they whiff (RIP Gungnir), while most of the trades are lost because she either loses in range or mobility.
Given how close the health totals were there are a lot of these matches that I'd have won if I knew combos or basic juggling, but it feels like Remilia's mobility without her specials isn't that good (wiki says otherwise but wtf I kept losing in priority, normals vs Reisen's normals and even bullets, even when he was the one forced to block).
I spent a full two rounds trying to see if her dragon punch somehow had priority on anything in Scip's strings, nope, nothing at all, free losses. She's invincible while in the air but the start-up looked like fodder to the blockstring.
I was certainly dependant on momentum because as soon as I ran out of spirit (because idiotic spam or getting stuck in the corner till Scip ran out himself) getting some coverage back was horrible.
Tons of execution mistakes anyway (like high jump cancels out of 214 B/C so he can't punish the startup frames), and inability to combo, but even without that there's much more to add to be able to do reliably well.
That fixed distance dash (which doesn't graze at the start nor the end) is a pain to position, and her short range on all her decent normals doesn't help. Wiki says "good range and fast normals" but I lost almost all of the neutral trades either because a normal whiffed or was too slow, so I don't get exactly what they mean.
TL;DR killerdoge gotta learn at least a blockstring and a combo just to be on par with Scip ('cause meter advantage is huge, it can convert iinto free orb crushes -> blockstrings become free damage), and how to use the other normals, especially 2A (which has a pretty good hitbox and is good antiair) and 3A.
I really don't get the wiki because despite their claims on Remilia's normals I found maybe 2 potential punishes (depending entirely on Scip getting greedy or fucking up) while with Sakuya in 3 rounds I found a normal with better priority to break the blockstring reliably, and I don't think Sakuya's supposed to have fast normals.
|
Hmm.
South African wine isn't the worst.
|
|
|
Req the all bikes army might happen because it seems silly.
|
My pirate stream of GoT fubar'd at the wedding scene and I didn't get to see the subsequent shock and horror scene after.
I feel like I'm really missing out.
|
On May 19 2015 10:23 Cixah wrote:
Req the all bikes army might happen because it seems silly.
Bikes are good, bikes with Scout and Hit & Run are awesome, and there's a lot of ways to build them.
Black Knights and Command Squads are expensive, but the amount of rules they get are great. Skilled Rider means you never kill yourself running through cover and have a nice 3+ Jink. Command Squads have Apothecaries, who give you Feel No Pain, which is great.
Jink is a thing though. Here's the think about Jink: it gives you a cover save but forces you to snap shoot the next turn. Which means that you trade your shooting potential for survivability. If they shoot AP3 or better guns at you, you usually end up jinking to make sure you survive. But then, you're no longer crushing things in shooting. A lot of people take this as an excuse to make them Assault-focused, because then it doesn't matter if they Jink or not, they can still tear things up and get to where they need to go really quickly.
You can, of course, load them for bear with guns. Twin linked plasma, meltas, or just Bolters with the Banner of Shoot Everything - all very good options. But yeah, once you Jink, it's kinda lessened. But you can do awesome things like give a Techmarine a Bike and a Power Field Generator, so he can tank shots on his 2+ and give the whole unit a 4++ (++ indicates invuln save, btw). Or, put a Librarian with a Power Field with them and buff them with powers. Sammael does much of the same, a massive beatstick that protects the unit and also gives it Skilled Rider.
Bikes are awesome!
|
Banner of Shoot Everything is the sort of thing that makes GW stuff fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
