Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Students Struggle With Reasoning Skills

sciencehabit writes "The first-ever use of interactive computer tasks on a national science assessment suggests that most U.S. students struggle with the reasoning skills needed to investigate multiple variables, make strategic decisions, and explain experimental results. The results (PDF) are part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress that was given in 2009 to a representative sample of students in grades four, eight, and 12. What the vast majority of students can do, the data show, is make straightforward analyses. More than three-quarters of fourth grade students, for example, could determine which plants were sun-loving and which preferred the shade when using a simulated greenhouse to determine the ideal amount of sunlight for the growth of mystery plants. When asked about the ideal fertilizer levels for plant growth, however, only one-third of the students were able to perform the required experiment, which featured nine possible fertilizer levels and only six trays. Fewer than half the students were able to use supporting evidence to write an accurate explanation of the results. Similar patterns emerged for students in grades 8 and 12."

488 comments

  1. No suprise there by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US adults struggle with reasoning skills too.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to be particularly prevalent in the US House of Representatives and the Catholic Church.

    2. Re:No suprise there by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Blatantly false. Since US kids have a problem with reasoning and I am not a kid I must not have reasoning problems.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:No suprise there by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I ain't paid to reason, I paid to go to meetin's.

    4. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure it's limited to the US, either.

    5. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Broader than that: Humans struggle with reasoning skills.

    6. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Americans are dumb, nothing new...

    7. Re:No suprise there by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Awsome!

    8. Re:No suprise there by game+kid · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a corollary, because these reasoning-challenged kids' brains are obviously made of wood, they are witches and must be burned.

      My goodness, I think your logic has saved America!

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    9. Re:No suprise there by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      The Congress is a great example of pure classic conditioning, except the reward isn't cheese, it's money.

      You reward even the mindless and they will do what you want. They also see their buddies getting revolving door jobs and that acts as a delayed gratification. This is why you get nothing but the money hungry in Congress now. If your gratification is helping your constituents you don't survive very long.

    10. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, all I know is that global warming is a myth because Al Gore is fat and David Suzuki flies on a jet plane. My logic's air tight, you can't refute that.

    11. Re:No suprise there by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      What's your reasoning on this?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    12. Re:No suprise there by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

      :"Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy," 1787

      "Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects."
      Benjamin Franklin

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    13. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Americans are dumb, nothing new...

      Interesting. I have traveled the world and GASP! there are dumb people everywhere. So it takes a truly breathtaking leap of brilliance to identify a single group, such as Americans, and label them all dumb. You must be the star of your country. You must win all the spelling bees and math competitions. Women get moist when you walk into a room.

      Fucking moron.

    14. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is true more often than it really ought to be.

    15. Re:No suprise there by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      no wonder science keeps getting shittier. these banal "studies" they keep coming up with are about as useful as reality tv.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    16. Re:No suprise there by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Fucking moron." - i bet he wishes he was, i doubt anyone would have sex with a moron

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re:No suprise there by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok Lets blame the Right, they are anti-science.
      Or lets blame the Left, they make kids think if they don't have million dollar facilities they cannot learn anything, they don't try to learn.
      Both sides are well over generalizing.

      The problem isn't Left Politics, Right Politics, or Religion. It is a culture that is seems to allow people to progress with poor reasoning. Tests are not about reasoning, but knowing the information. Today we can get facts very fast. Much faster then any time in history... Unfortunately that means we are spending less time rebuilding the wheel to find things that facts already have told us.

      This is more then just Science, but normal real life things... Imagine buying a TV from a store without Internet based reviews. You had to go with past experience to realize if that brand is considered a good brand or a bad one. So that Sony Walk Man was really good quality you would most likely get the Sony TV. You knew a person with an RCA and the picture quality was bad, you wouldn't get an RCA, or you see all his neighbors with different TVs all had bad pictures so it was the area, so you may choose the RCA...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    18. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the Catholic Church is bad, you need to visit a few fundamentalist churches here. At least the Catholics are Evolution denying YECs.

    19. Re:No suprise there by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Just because X is worse than Y doesn't mean Y isn't unacceptable.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    20. Re:No suprise there by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tests are not about reasoning, but knowing the information.

      I believe you have it, a lot of the youths I talk to rely on facts and do not try to "figure" it out on their own.

      I think it's the biggest danger for youth today, this prevents them from going into the sciences or engineering.

    21. Re:No suprise there by jd · · Score: 1

      But do they weigh the same as a duck?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    22. Re:No suprise there by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's fascinating to see this poor reasoning played out on this very forum right now, right before our very eyes.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    23. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, theres an app for that.

    24. Re:No suprise there by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Idiocracy shows us that isn't quite true...

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    25. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait... why so serious?

    26. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We dont have sex in my country you insensitive clog...

    27. Re:No suprise there by Bigby · · Score: 2

      I assume you mean "aren't Evolution denying YECs". Catholics are completely on board with Evolution.

    28. Re:No suprise there by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Broader than that: Humans struggle with reasoning skills.

      I would suggest that your comment indirectly implies an important root of the problem. Many in the social sciences attempt to study human society as if it were an ant colony, from a distance, as if the observer is separate from the observed. As we look at human beings and their foibles and faults, we seem to be led to the conclusion that humans are nothing like what we would wish. We don't seem to be rational. We often don't seem to be moral. We in fact seem to be rather despicable creatures. Leaving it at that, we are tempted to throw up our arms and say "to hell with humans, we are beyond help". All our idealism, our attempts to be rational, to be good seem hopeless and futile.

      However I would like to take this further. Humans tend to be irrational. Humans tend to be selfish evil creatures. Our natural tendencies imply that we must try harder to overcome them. Because we tend to fall into irrationality, we must fight to be rational. Because we tend to be selfish and shallow means that we must try our best to nurture "the better angels in our nature". We will never "win" this battle. We will never vanquish evil and selfishness. But if we try, maybe, just maybe we can make our civilisation into a system that gives most of us a better and more fulfilling life.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    29. Re:No suprise there by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Funny

      Americans are dumb.

      Really? From what I've seen Americans are great at talking. It's getting them to shut up that's the problem. Now, are Americans stupid? I can see that being argued successfully.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:No suprise there by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Rick Scott got elected once.

      Every person that voted for that guy should be forced to write the rest of the country an apology letter.

    31. Re:No suprise there by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      That's absurd. If that was the case, then wouldn't cupcakes be free?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    32. Re:No suprise there by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      It is a culture that is seems to allow people to progress with poor reasoning. Tests are not about reasoning, but knowing the information.

      Well you're up shit creek.

      Just for starters, you are blissfully ignorant of the difference between "than" and "then"[1], "Walk Man" (should be one word), "Right", "Left", "Science", "Politics" (none are proper nouns and therefore don't merit an uppercase letter).

      [1] Twice. They don't even sound the fucking same, you drooling monger.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:No suprise there by sirlark · · Score: 2

      Nonsense! They do not rely on facts! That are able to make facts. And that's all they need. Fact! Just prepend the word "fact" to any statment, preferably with an exclamation mark and it makes it so.

    34. Re:No suprise there by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      At least the Catholics are Evolution denying YECs.

      I'm an atheist and I know that's baloney.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:No suprise there by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Nope. Sorry, you fail it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re:No suprise there by internerdj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interestingly enough, the study separates Catholic schools from other private schools. I didn't see a reference to grade 12, but at grades 4 and 8 Catholic schooled children outperform publicly schooled children and are on par with privately schooled children. I don't know the statistics about how many Catholic schooled children grow up to be active Catholics; it seems like you have a better shot of being good at reason if you are trained by them.

    37. Re:No suprise there by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Come on, all the good stuff like gravity and planets and electric's already been done.

      We've arrived at the remnant bin of discovering shit. $2,99 a theory, three for 6 bucks. VWP, YMMV.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:No suprise there by formfeed · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's fascinating to see this poor reasoning played out on this very forum right now, right before our very eyes.

      I don't get it.

    39. Re:No suprise there by JustOK · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't echo, it does

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    40. Re:No suprise there by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Easy enough to 'get elected' when one of your Party supporters owns the machines the public gets to vote with and guarantees your Party will win in the upcoming election. Failing that, get leverage on the local election boards and get troublesome votes tossed out. Especially easy when your brother is governor of the state involved.

      I'm beginning to believe the line I once heard in 'Land of the Blind': 'If elections had the power to change anything, they'dve been made illegal long ago.'

      The US is supposedly a 2-party system. Look closer and you'll see it's a 1-party system with minor hotbutton 'issues' to give you the illusion of choice, though the far right branch of the Party is getting a helluva lot more blatant about its contempt for the public lately...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    41. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that make it a mute point?

    42. Re:No suprise there by feepness · · Score: 1

      Humans tend to be selfish evil creatures ..... But if we try, maybe, just maybe we can make our civilisation into a system that gives most of us a better and more fulfilling life.

      And why do we want to give these selfish evil creatures a better and more fulfilling life?

    43. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok Lets blame the Right, they are anti-science. Or lets blame the Left, they make kids think if they don't have million dollar facilities they cannot learn anything, they don't try to learn. Both sides are well over generalizing.

      The problem isn't Left Politics, Right Politics, or Religion.

      Hey now--don't try and stop us from having our age-old heated arguments on Slashdot. What we need is more arguing. On that note, it's totally religion's fault. Hitler was a Christian. So therefore, slashlogically, Christianity is evil, wrong, and must be destroyed. Right? Hello? *tap* *tap* Is this thing on?

    44. Re:No suprise there by springbox · · Score: 1

      You forgot the QED

    45. Re:No suprise there by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      A quote from Aristotle:

      At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    46. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The American Slashdot readers are up there too.

    47. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, Americans are a little stupid.

    48. Re:No suprise there by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      However I would like to take this further. Humans tend to be irrational. Humans tend to be selfish evil creatures. Our natural tendencies imply that we must try harder to overcome them. Because we tend to fall into irrationality, we must fight to be rational. Because we tend to be selfish and shallow means that we must try our best to nurture "the better angels in our nature". We will never "win" this battle.

      You just fell into a nasty logic trap. It has nothing to do with human nature per se, and everything to do with selective evolutionary pressures. I can fix the problem -- Just stop allowing women to have sex with men who display anti-social qualities and the problem will sort itself out within a couple generations. The reason we have all those issues is because 'society' (ie, women) reward men who engage in antisocial behaviors with reproductive success. See also: "The Bad Boy appeal".

      (Not that I would support this position from a moral standpoint, I'm merely pointing out that the cause cannot be won because of a moral, rather than natural, barrier)

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    49. Re:No suprise there by GarfieldsHairball · · Score: 1
      Moreover, this is hardly something new.

      "Most boys or youths who have had much knowledge drilled into them, have their mental capacities not strengthened, but over-laid by it. They are crammed with mere facts, and with the opinions or phrases of other people, and these are accepted as a substitute for the power to form opinions of their own: and thus the sons of eminent fathers, who have spared no pains in their education, so often grow up mere parroters of what they have learnt, incapable of using their minds except in the furrows traced for them. "

      John Stuart Mill, 1874

    50. Re:No suprise there by ZorroXXX · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, the study separates Catholic schools from other private schools. ... it seems like you have a better shot of being good at reason if you are trained by them.

      Correlation does not imply causation. It might for instance be caused by children going to catholic schools are more likely to live in a family with two parents, and that that is a factor that will stimulate developing reasoning. Or maybe they have more siblings. Or it might be something else. Of course it could be that going to a catholic school is better for developing reasoning, but I do not think it is possible to conclude that without analysing the data set with that hypothesis as specifically in mind and eliminating the possible differences in the reference group and the test group (e.g. comparing groups with equal distribution of siblings, etc).

      --
      When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
    51. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We often don't seem to be moral. We in fact seem to be rather despicable creatures.

      to hell with humans

      Humans tend to be selfish evil creatures.

      Can you please keep your repressive Christian morality for your self? Thanks.

      But if we try [to fight ourselves], maybe, just maybe we can make our civilisation into a system that gives most of us a better and more fulfilling life.

      You mean a more miserable life? How can one have a fulfilling life when one is constantly fighting oneself?

    52. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] As we look at human beings and their foibles and faults, we seem to be led to the conclusion that humans are nothing like what we would wish. We don't seem to be rational. We often don't seem to be moral. We in fact seem to be rather despicable creatures. [...]

      [...] Humans tend to be irrational. Humans tend to be selfish evil creatures. Our natural tendencies imply that we must try harder to overcome them. Because we tend to fall into irrationality, we must fight to be rational. Because we tend to be selfish and shallow means that we must try our best to nurture "the better angels [angles?] in our nature". We will never "win" this battle. We will never vanquish evil and selfishness. But if we try, maybe, just maybe we can make our civilisation into a system that gives most of us a better and more fulfilling life.

      I mostly agree with all of the above. However, I am afraid there might be a catch.

      Acting selfish and choosing the path that grants a short term reward (being shallow) may be quite the rational choice.

      Maybe what we call "morality" (or "humanity") is not entirely rational. Maybe we need some small amount of "healthy irrationality" (whatever that might mean) to counter evil and selfishness.

      Then, again, I was proven wrong before (TM)

    53. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Catholic and some/most private schools still teach reasoning skills and philosophy where as government schools simply force students to regurgitate facts.

      Faith and reason have always been deeply interwoven, but our modernist culture and certain loudmouth fundamentalists try to separate them.

    54. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "....and do not try to "figure" it out on their own. "

      As someone who has had the opportunity (many times) to teach college freshman, I can tell you in my experience you are on the money. I have actually had students get downright offended if put in a position where they need to use even a minimal amount of independent thought.

    55. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The individual is smart and well reasoned. People are stupid.

      We are not smarter as a group but rather dumbed down when viewed as a group.

    56. Re:No suprise there by Bengie · · Score: 1

      So we need to make a law that does not allow people with money to have professional relations with those in power.

    57. Re:No suprise there by kon23uk · · Score: 1

      So, you reckon that the researchers may have come to erroneous conclusions, due to their inability to interpolate and extrapolate from the facts, so they just said something that'd support their next follow-on project proposal...

      Fair call ;-)

      --
      He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters
    58. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "law" = something "those in power" are in charge of
      "professional relations" = something "people with money" have ... your once sentence delightfully points out the truth of the OP ...

    59. Re:No suprise there by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      My kids recently moved from public school to Catholic school, and without even bothering to address all the "tolerant" anti-Catholic bigots posting here (they'll get theirs), I'll say straight up that the Catholic school curriculum and (especially) academic and behavioral standards completely leave the public school system in the dust. My kids were both near the top of their grades in public school, but have found this transition year very challenging. They had to work much harder than the year before in public school, and still both ended up in the bottom half of their classes.

      Jesuit schools are even tougher; this one is just a regular parish school.

      You can get a secular private school education that is academically (if not ethically) as good as a Catholic education, but you'll pay far, far more to get it.

    60. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duh!
      Apple computers are better and easier to use.
      Why? Where is the evidence?
      They just are accept it.

      Women earn 75 cents to a man's dollar.
      Where is the evidence?
      It does not exist just accept it.

      Blacks are better athletes.
      Where is the evidence?
      It does not exist just accept it.

      Slavery is bad and slave owners bad people.
      So blacks who owned slaves were bad?
      SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP AND HAND REVEREND AL SHARPTON AND JESSE JACKSON MONEY!

    61. Re:No suprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had to give three things that describe myself, I'd say "not good at mathematical reasoning"

    62. Re:No suprise there by samjam · · Score: 1

      I'm wasting my mods to endorse your point with experience.

      The local catholic school to me stands out for NOT teaching children to pass tests and meet standards, but teaching learning and understanding.
      The local public school teaches to pass tests and meet standards.

      Why the difference? The catholic school has plenty of demand for it's services from catholics and so will not "run out of students" or "fall into poor reputation" and so it can teach for learning and knowledge without any risks to the school itself.

      The public school is subject to mass-migration of children whose parents* will not send their children to a school that is "doing poorly". Therefore if it does not meet standards as measured by test results it would close down within years. Thus it teaches to "test results" first and for learning as a second.

      (*Parents who look at test results rather than teaching quality are exhibiting poor reasoning skills)

  2. Do not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do too!

  3. Misleading headline? by djlemma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The headline implies that US students have more difficulty with reasoning skills than other students as a whole, or that this difficulty is unique to students from the US. I could easily imagine that these skills are lacking for students around the globe...

    1. Re:Misleading headline? by thepike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, I'd like to see the scores from other countries.

      Also, I'd like to see this with adults in different professions. For instance, are scientists better at this than artists? And what about creativity scores?

      My gut says that a) all children will probably not be great at this and b) adults probably aren't either. And sadly it probably doesn't match up as well with profession as we might like. I'm a molecular biologist and plenty of my colleagues would probably struggle with these tasks. I wish I could take the test to see how I do (but I'm also afraid I would fail miserably).

    2. Re:Misleading headline? by ClioCJS · · Score: 0, Troll

      You could imagine it, but baseless speculation with no evidence is as useless as the bible (or your comment). Back it up with some evidence, because every survey I've seen has shown america's students to perform poorly compared to the average of other industrialized nations. So for my own personal prior evidence, you're wrong. This, too, is useless speculation, but at least it comes from a baseline of actual data.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    3. Re:Misleading headline? by gmack · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I'm in europe right now and I can tell you that reasoning and critical thinking skills are not exactly top notch here either.

    4. Re:Misleading headline? by hackula · · Score: 1

      For instance, are scientists better at this than artists?

      Yes. Reasoning is required to be a scientist. Artists can be good at reasoning, but it is not a requirement

    5. Re:Misleading headline? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Maybe these 4th graders would perform better if someone simply SHOWED them how to determine which of 6 fertilizers is better. Maybe a class called "Lab" would be appropriate to fix this deficiency.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Misleading headline? by Korin43 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reasoning is required to be a scientist.

      It may be required to be a good scientist, but not to get a job as one.

    7. Re:Misleading headline? by djlemma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never presented any evidence, my point was that the study never collected any data about other countries in the first place. Thus, I don't approve of using a wording that singles out the US as being inferior somehow, when there's really not data (in this study) that implies any such thing. The article also mentions that they hadn't collected this particular data before, so they can't even compare to how US students did 10 years ago, or 5 years ago, or any such thing.

      Also, judging by the article, the announcement seemed to boil down to "Students have an easy time with easy questions, but a harder time with hard questions."

    8. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just assumed they only tested US students, so they can not really claim anything one way or the other about non-US students, hence the "US" in the headline. Or you can somehow feel hurt if you want to, i suppose

    9. Re:Misleading headline? by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      How much of that "baseline of actual data" is actually about reasoning skills? This isn't a test of knowledge or aptitude.

    10. Re:Misleading headline? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      So for my own personal prior evidence, you're wrong.

      how do i cite your anecdotal evidence? the chicago manual doesn't show how to attribute you saying "every survey I've seen" from a forum post. i really want people to believe me when i repeat what you told me over the internet.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    11. Re:Misleading headline? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Heuristically, you will find a strong overlap. Intelligence of one kind *tends* to come with intelligence of another kind.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    12. Re:Misleading headline? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe these 4th graders would perform better if someone simply SHOWED them how to determine which of 6 fertilizers is better. Maybe a class called "Lab" would be appropriate to fix this deficiency.

      Yes... because after that, they would know exactly how to determine which of those 6 fertilizers is better in each of those lighting situations.

      Really... I was frustrated with this back when I was in grade 4; teachers encouraged learning specific processes to solve specific problems, and most kids couldn't figure out what to do when stuck in an unfamiliar situation. This wasn't all that surprising, considering grade 4 is about the age where this kind of reasoning ability starts to develop, given a favourable development environment. I remember struggling with basic maths in grade 4, but having no difficulties (other than mathematical errors) completing the problem solving steps. I went socratic on my classmates who didn't have a clue where to begin.

      Maybe these 4th graders would perform better if someone simply SHOWED them how to question the steps of the process, and ask about parts they didn't understand, instead of pretending they already knew everything about it that was worth their time understanding and focus instead on getting the "winning answer". And yes, s/4th graders/humanity/.

    13. Re:Misleading headline? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      There's a bibliography, but it's on a brain cell. Still no transport protocol for that payload yet.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    14. Re:Misleading headline? by thepike · · Score: 1

      Reasoning is required to be a scientist.

      It may be required to be a good scientist, but not to get a job as one.

      Exactly. And, really, there's nothing that says you can't be good at reasoning but decide to become an artist. I just think it would be interesting to look at it.

    15. Re:Misleading headline? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      No, it implies that they are bad at reasoning; Probably too bad to productively live in the real world. It does not matter where they stand on an international scale when they are this bad at reasoning.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    16. Re:Misleading headline? by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      "I could easily imagine..." ...and then you proceed to attempt to reason based on that.

      Thanks for proving the article correct.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    17. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then the reasoning isn't being done by the students then, is it? Studying rules is (quite frankly) dumb. I see business people doing it all the time. Make a rule for... make a rule for... every single instance of anything they see, they either refer to a previously made rule, or they defer to someone who has critical thinking skills. Whenever someone comes along which has critical thinking skills, and comes up with a new unique solution which appears like its going to solve a problem much better, they cry out and say 'that'll never work'. They will oppose it till they see the new results, then re-assess and add a new rule and quizzically make queries 'how did that work again?' Such is the nature of people without critical thinking or reasoning skills. Its a great strategy if you don't mind always being three steps behind, nice and safe. Companies with these people 'at the top' wither on the vine.

    18. Re:Misleading headline? by forand · · Score: 1

      As a scientist who has been integrally involved with both creating new and hiring existing scientists I find your blanket assertion to be rather insulting. Are you implying that the rate of bad scientists who get jobs is higher than say the rate of bad doctors who get jobs, or lawyers? Or are you just stating something that is so obviously true it lacks any substantial content? i.e. that you can point to a few bad apples in a large sample? Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

    19. Re:Misleading headline? by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      This is how I'm supplementing my daughter's public school education; lots of questions and them tips on how to approach problems. It's really just a different mode of thinking.

      I see this same problem in techs coming in to our help desk. I provide documentation and training materials and it's pretty obvious who are problem solvers and who are script followers. For some people, they literally do not think in a decent problem solving way. Reminds me of Black Adder trying to teach Baldric how to do maths;

      If I take 2 beans and add 2 more beans, what do I have?

      A very small dinner.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    20. Re:Misleading headline? by subject_name_here · · Score: 1

      Indeed, no verdict without norm or reference. Ergo: this research is done by US students :-)

    21. Re:Misleading headline? by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2

      Reasoning is required to be a scientist.

      It may be required to be a good scientist, but not to get a job as one.

      Case in point: scientists mentioned above believe that not being able to test 9 discrete choices with only the capacity to test 6 discrete choices is somehow a failure. Sure, you could test a few choices and extrapolate what the results of the missing choices might be, but you can't conclusively determine something you haven't tested.

    22. Re:Misleading headline? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      They aren't teaching science- they are teaching kids about the kind of things scientists think about and do. Only a vanishingly small number of kids are capable of doing 'real' science. Hopefully our society will give them incentives to become scientists.....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    23. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe these 4th graders would perform better if someone simply SHOWED them how to determine which of 6 fertilizers is better.

      I don't exactly know what that specific question was from the summary, but my read was that 4th graders can do a fine experimental design if they are allowed to test each of the possible choices, but that they had trouble if they were asked to choose among 9 fertilizers by only testing 6 of them. That requires at least interpolation (if the only variable is concentration) and maybe a degenerate multifactorial design if the composition of fertilizers vary. Honestly, I'd say that's pretty good for 10 year old kids. A 10 year old ought to be able to interpolate, but I wouldn't expect him to be able to interpolate in two dimensions simultaneously, nor to be able to optimize among redundant combinations of those two dimensions.

    24. Re:Misleading headline? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yes there is, it's called FKP, or Fingers to Keyboard Protocol.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    25. Re:Misleading headline? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The headline implies that US students have more difficulty with reasoning skills than other students as a whole, or that this difficulty is unique to students from the US.

      Does it? I don't see the word "only" in there, you fat cunt.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe these 4th graders would perform better if someone simply SHOWED them how to determine which of 6 fertilizers is better. Maybe a class called "Lab" would be appropriate to fix this deficiency.

      I thought the purpose of the exercise was to identify students who had sufficient reasoning skills to figure out how to create the experiment themselves. Showing them how to do it would be perfect for a lab assignment, but it would defeat the entire purpose of the study. Or at least that was my understanding.

    27. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, due to the methodologies being implemented for the "no student left behind" - schools and educators are forgoing critical thinking and troubleshooting skills for rote memorization of answers so that they can improve their salaries and retention.

      Get rid of no student left behind and let students who want to fail, fail. Watch the remainder improve and our educational competitiveness will come back.

      Otherwise, Idiocracy may very well be a prophetic movie.

    28. Re:Misleading headline? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I think I'm going to have to tweet that one.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    29. Re:Misleading headline? by snoop.daub · · Score: 1

      Moreso than the actual test score, it is precisely your willingness to admit the possibility that you would do poorly on the test that makes you a reliable scientist.

    30. Re:Misleading headline? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I hereby release the GP post into the public domain. Have a field day.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    31. Re:Misleading headline? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Hopefully that allows for modifications.. AND typos. Protocololololol: https://twitter.com/ClintJCL/status/215171446115278848

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    32. Re:Misleading headline? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Informative

      my point was that the study never collected any data about other countries in the first place.

      If I did a study on pigs, and discovered that pigs are quite fat, what noun should I put in the headline? Mammals? Animals? The study is about pigs, the conclusions are only relevant to pigs (and have nothing to say one way or the other about elephants or crocodiles) ergo generalizing the findings to anything other than porkers would have been totally bogus.

      You're presumably an American since you're unable to cope with anything that says you're not "number one". Defing the inherent irony in this situation is left as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:Misleading headline? by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Case in point: scientists mentioned above believe that not being able to test 9 discrete choices with only the capacity to test 6 discrete choices is somehow a failure. Sure, you could test a few choices and extrapolate what the results of the missing choices might be, but you can't conclusively determine something you haven't tested.

      It's not obvious from the interface they give, but you can do it given a few (true) assumptions. The key thing is to note that you can do multiple experiments as long as the total is only 6 trays. The assumptions are that
      1) There is only one optimum fertilizer value, and it's one of the testable values
      2) If you're off by one, plants will grow better than if you're off by more than one.

      Given this, you just test 2,4,6, and 8. If one seems best, test the values on either side of it and pick the best of the three. If two seem equally good, you know the answer is between the two (but test it anyway).

    34. Re:Misleading headline? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And even for a good scientist, it does not require applying reasoning 24/7 - but only for those matters which pertain to science. A lot of people do just that, then shut their brain off in everyday life.

    35. Re:Misleading headline? by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2

      Case in point: scientists mentioned above believe that not being able to test 9 discrete choices with only the capacity to test 6 discrete choices is somehow a failure. Sure, you could test a few choices and extrapolate what the results of the missing choices might be, but you can't conclusively determine something you haven't tested.

      It's not obvious from the interface they give, but you can do it given a few (true) assumptions. The key thing is to note that you can do multiple experiments as long as the total is only 6 trays. The assumptions are that 1) There is only one optimum fertilizer value, and it's one of the testable values 2) If you're off by one, plants will grow better than if you're off by more than one.

      Given this, you just test 2,4,6, and 8. If one seems best, test the values on either side of it and pick the best of the three. If two seem equally good, you know the answer is between the two (but test it anyway).

      But unless you've shown that the growth to fertilizer function is continuous with a single maximum, you cannot make that assumption. You might guess that it's the case, and you'd probably be right, but you're also counting the right answer ("there is no way to conclusively show the optimum fertilization level given the constraints of the experiment") as a wrong answer. In essence, you're telling the kids that they were wrong for trying to apply rigor to their experiment.

    36. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is a misnomer to say that an assumptions is "true" or "false". In this case, you can only say that your assumptions are coherent with the assumptions made by the people who wrote the test. That doesn't mean that your assumptions are true. It means that your assumptions agree with someone else's assumptions.

      And, it is not obvious from the interface that you can do multiple experiments. You can only discover that through trial and error, and trial and error is not generally advisable on a standardized test.

      And, it goes almost without saying, but performing multiple experiments like you describe would be completely invalid in the real world. Can you imagine? Take two seedlings. Plant one seedling in June with five cups of fertilizer, and measure the results at the end of July. Plant the other seedling in August with six cups of fertilizer, and measure the results at the end of September. Now decide which amount of fertilizer is better! What the heck did you do with that other seedling for two months? Put it in the fridge? And, unless these are "special" plants grown under grow lights in your closet, different amounts of light, humidity, and temperatures at different times of year are going to invalidate your results.

    37. Re:Misleading headline? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Any example citing Rowan Atkinson is a good one in my book :D

    38. Re:Misleading headline? by Korin43 · · Score: 2

      I think you're reading too much into my statement. I didn't mean to imply that there are no good scientists, or even that a large proportion of them are, I just disagree with the assumption that because reasoning skills are required for science, that all professional scientists have good reasoning skills. Scientists are also in an interesting position, because political pressure means that being extremely bad at science can help you get certain jobs (like say, studying climate change for The Heartland Institute, or studying geology for the Institute for Creation Research).

      And you should note that I'm thinking in terms of "people who claim to be scientists" or "people who work professionally as scientists", because this thread was about measuring reasoning skills. If you define scientists as "people with good reasoning skills", then the test is kind of pointless.

    39. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is required to be a good scientist -- meaning, one who climbs the academic ladder, increases personal income, and builds status amongst his or her peers -- is the ability to obtain grants. Then pay grad students to do the actual research.

    40. Re:Misleading headline? by djlemma · · Score: 1

      The headline implies that US students have more difficulty with reasoning skills than other students as a whole, or that this difficulty is unique to students from the US.

      Does it? I don't see the word "only" in there, you fat cunt.

      Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the words "imply" and "state."

    41. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you have proven grandparent's point very well. You picked out the inferiority point all on your own. Not everyone assumes such, as it is a very large gulf to leap to get to that conclusion. I thought it quite succinctly stated the result. Only US kids were tested, so the results only apply to US kids. That you perceived an implied inferiority before you allowed any reason to affect your thoughts is quite telling.

    42. Re:Misleading headline? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The headline implies that US students have more difficulty with reasoning skills than other students as a whole, or that this difficulty is unique to students from the US.

      It may be valid to infer poor performance in comparison to some standard from the headline (which, by its express terms, is not comparative), but it would not be justified to infer that the standard must be the performance of students outside the US (which both your suggested options -- which are both really the same comparison phrased differently -- assume.)

      Funny that this error in reasoning both appears and is modded +5 insightful on a thread about problems with reasoning skills...

    43. Re:Misleading headline? by russotto · · Score: 1

      It is a misnomer to say that an assumptions is "true" or "false". In this case, you can only say that your assumptions are coherent with the assumptions made by the people who wrote the test. That doesn't mean that your assumptions are true. It means that your assumptions agree with someone else's assumptions.

      My assumptions agree with the way they programmed the test. That's good enough for me to call them "true".

      And if I was writing one to give back to the test-designers, there'd be a Ballmer peak just to throw them off.
      1 - Fair
      2 - Good
      3 - Fair
      4 - poor
      5 - poor
      6 - poor
      7 - GREAT
      8 - poor
      9 - poor

    44. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am european, adult, engineer, and I struggle to understand the issues in the original post.

    45. Re:Misleading headline? by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      I do work professionally as a scientist and in my experience reasoning skills are not a prerequisite to a successful career. The downside of peer review is that, when implemented poorly, it reinforces group-think. In order to get money for research, you have to convince a group of peers that your proposal is worth funding, which means that they have to be able to follow your reasoning. If the gap between the authors ability to reason and that of the (entire) committee cannot be overcome by the writing skills of the author, the research does not get funded. If, however, the author proposes to water plants with Brondo because "it has what plants crave," then it has a good chance of being funded because we all know that Brondo has electrolytes. These scientists can procure funding but are generally marginalized by the scientific community because they don't contribute a lot of interesting, new science. Fortunately writing skills often scale with the ability to reason--though not always in someone's second language.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    46. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can take the interactive portion at http://nationsreportcard.gov/science2009ict/mysteryplants/mysteryplants.aspx. I was curious about the same thing and found it in the article (I know, I know, we're not supposed to RTFA.)

    47. Re:Misleading headline? by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 1

      The headline implies that US students have more difficulty with reasoning skills than other students as a whole, or that this difficulty is unique to students from the US.

      No, the headline does no such thing. It's just a demographic description of the cohort that was studied. That's how scientists are supposed to write, so you know how widely applicable their findings are.

      As others have already pointed out, you're doing a good job of illustrating poor logic skills by inferring an emotion-laden conclusion that isn't there.

    48. Re:Misleading headline? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I'm speculating (then again, this is Slashdot, we're all speculating), but I suspect the problem may be related to the US focus on standardized tests. Comparatively speaking, it's easy to write test questions for memorization - multiple choice, fill in the blank, etc... it's also easy to generate course material for them, though it's difficult to convince children - or adults, for that matter - to be interested in memorizing large sets of data.

      Generating good standardized tests for reasoning and good teaching material for reasoning is more challenging. The No Child Left Behind education law needs to be replaced or amended to account for this. Because if you can read, research, and reason, everything else in academics will fall into place and you can fill in gaps in your knowledge on your own.

      I also do buy into the argument that reason is de-emphasized in a lot of classroom settings because focus on reason encourages students to question authority. That's a wonderful thing, we should want our kids not to take at face value anything they receive from advertising, news media, politicians, evangelists, and even their teachers and parents. But as a practical matter teaching reason makes teaching and parenting more difficult because the kids use their new ability to find logical flaws in our assertions. Then they start to challenge our instruction and our rules. So you get an unintentional and decentralized but nevertheless national sustained push-back against a focus on logic at school because everyone finds it easier to control students that are simply taught to shut up and follow directions.

    49. Re:Misleading headline? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      To be clear, in the third paragraph second sentence I meant that questioning authority is a wonderful thing.

    50. Re:Misleading headline? by gmyuriy · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you just teach students the steps to reason about how to reason, that will fix everything

    51. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming there are no synergistic or destructive interference (would be given in the problem) effects and only one choice is best, then you just double up:

      Bin 1 - F 1 and 2
      Bin 2 - F 2 and 3
      Bin 3 - F 4 and 5
      Bin 4 - F 5 and 6
      Bin 5 - F 7 and 8 (optional)
      Bin 6 - F 8

      Results (Best growing bin(s) - best fertilizer):
      Bin 1 - F1
      Bins 1 and 2 - F2
      Bin 2 - F3
      Bin 3 - F4
      Bins 3 and 4 - F5
      Bin 4 - F6
      Bin 5 - F7
      Bin 6 (or 5 and 6) - F8

      I suppose if I thought about it I could figure out how to eliminate synergistic effects with the same amount of bins. There is intentionally more bins than you need to do it my way.

      Pretty much any A or B high school student *should* be capable of that. I learned that type of reasoning in high school - 25 years ago. But now, with NCLB, teachers teach students how to score high on tests instead of teaching them what they can use in life.

    52. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After many years of observation I have come to conclusion the major purpose of education is to teach what to think.
      This process in turn produces the non thinking middle managers needed run corporate america and its state, federal and local institutions.
      This then assures the people at the top of the food chain remain intrenched and protected by this barrier of non thinkers.
      My other observation is a an old barnyard is the best place to plant a garden. I learned that before I was a teenager.

    53. Re:Misleading headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to teach science.

  4. Obviously by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    game developers are to blame for making games too easy and mentally unchallenging.

    1. Re:Obviously by DarKnyht · · Score: 1

      I counter that it was the impossible games of the past that are to blame since it sent everyone to find a walk-through for it. Taught young gamers that they could beat a game without puzzle solving, just the latest guide.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    2. Re:Obviously by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Never played Myst, have you?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Obviously by archen · · Score: 1

      Somewhat true in my opinion. If you think too far outside the box and find a solution that isn't the planned "expected" way, you're branded a cheater and get banned.

    4. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Myst is almost 20 years old. You're digging pretty deep there.

  5. Too much time spent teaching tests by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    -- instead of teaching them how to actually think.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by elsurexiste · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...teaching them how to actually think.

      Fascist!

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    2. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Dyinobal · · Score: 2

      ya in college I had a professor who simply asked questions during his class, and had us discuss them and defend our answers I'd always leave his class with a serious headache, because damn thinking is hard. It certainly isn't something you're taught in school, school is all about absorbing facts and parroting stuff back it isn't about critical thinking skills at all.

    3. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      That's just a communist attitude right there..

      Next you'll be saying that they shouldn't be taught how to become good corporate citizens.

      Buy more! Buy more now.
      Can you be more specific?

    4. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      -- instead of teaching them how to actually think.

      Paradoxically, this test proves otherwise.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by denis-The-menace · · Score: 0, Troll

      What's next critical thinking?

      That cannot happen or else religions would cease to be followed.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    6. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      This, this, a thousand times THIS!

      The us education system (and many others) for K-12 seems almost entirely devoted to learning by rote and teaching to standardized tests. There are certainly schools and individual teachers that buck this trend, but it's not until college that you've got a reasonable chance at actually being challenged to THINK.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    7. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by CubicleZombie · · Score: 2

      -- instead of teaching them how to actually think.

      My wife is a second grade teacher and the whole teaching paradigm now is all about learning by discovery. Back in my day, we sat in rows and columns and memorized. If today's kids are struggling with reasoning skills more than yesterday's kids, it's not the teaching methods that are at fault. Unless being forced to memorize everything is actually the better way.

      If you ask me, it's the TV shows they watch nowadays. No wonder they all have ADHD.

      --
      :wq
    8. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rows and columns? Back in my day, we had to sit in hilbert curves, and we liked it!

    9. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The problem is, teaching people to think isn't exactly a useful life skill. Being able to think is by and large less useful than being able to regurgitate facts, and much much less useful than being able to shmooze with the right people.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by hackula · · Score: 1

      I double majored in philosophy and poli sci and this was how every class I ever took was taught.

    11. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see a lot of comments about "schools don't teach you to think anymore." On the other hand, you can't reason the right answers out if you have the wrong basis (facts, memorization, etc.). It's like saying that elementary school math doesn't teach you how to solve large multiplication problems anymore, they just teach times tables! ... but it's hard to do a multiplication problem without knowing what 6 * 8 is off the top of your head. Memorization of some things is extremely important to reasoning skills.

      I also wonder if it has to do with books. Reading is out, other forms of media is in. Visual media doesn't make you think a whole lot. Even adults that do think can watch a movie, totally zone out and entirely ignore how things are presented, what views the movie is expressing (if any), whether or not it's realistic in any way, etc. Some movies push you to think; most, though, push people to turn off their brains.

      And since visual media (games, TV, movies, etc) are getting more and more prevalent ... I wonder if the lack of reasoning and thinking is related to the lack of necessity of imagination that is stimulated through reading books?

    12. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Mamma said Liberal Arts are the Debil!!!!1!!!ONE!!1!!!!

      My majors were Philosophy and Math, and it was the same most of the time. Very little of my Calculus was memorization, in fact we received 20 points per problem of which 1 was the actual answer.

      That said, the mindless droning on the so called News has an impact even if you were taught to critically think. As connected as we are, it's surprising how difficult it is to find any truth at all in medial.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by jd · · Score: 1

      Exactly. A test should be a measure of one's ability TO think, thinking should not be relegated to a measure of one's ability to take tests.

      Since practice is the main element of committing to memory, and practice can be monitored, there is actually no value in having distinct tests at all.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How, not what.

      Teaching someone how to think is giving them an ability.

      Teaching someone what to think is controlling them.

      Teaching someone to think is making them a skeptic.

    15. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by hackula · · Score: 1

      That was my experience with upper level math as well. It really is hard to imagine how any curriculum could be justified being a university level line of study without having this sort of format. If a subject happens to be entirely memorization than it really belongs in a tech school IMHO.

    16. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? are you serious? the mere fact you wrote that suggests that you can't think at all

    17. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I would speculate that it is impossible to teach kids to think- most teaching is cargo-cult learning with the hopes that some of them will develop into thinkers.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    18. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absorbing the facts is trivial, speedy and most often not actually required at all.
      If you think about it, most of what we consider "facts", are not facts at all; but rumors, assumptions, propaganda and delusions.

      To learn to really think, indeed requires one to unlearn most of those so-called "facts" everyone is so eager to feed you.

      I'd rather define "facts" as "garbage", and start from there. It's a slower progress, but you can go beyond the illusionary world most people live in.
      Yes, this takes lifetimes of effort, solely because society is not wired to independent and confirmational thought, instead viewing it as a threat and something scary (and sometimes it is).

      Keyword: dislodge

    19. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I was never able to memorize the table of 8. But I am quickly able to do the table of 2 in my head, so I calculated my way through the table of 8 faster than most kids remembered it from the top of their head. So I got a passing grade.

      I still don't know the table of eight, but I am pretty sure how to do some multiplication problems.

    20. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I took software engineering and one of my classmates took some philosophy courses for fun. One of the classes was basically boolean algebra. Stuff like, If all foos are bars, and some bars are blats, then some foos are blats (answer true, false, or insufficient information). We had recently taken a course which dealt with quite a bit of boolean algebra in our required math courses. He said that it was pretty sad watching the philosophy students try to wrap their head around the boolean algebra stuff. Stuff that was easy to us in engineering/computer science because we deal with boolean logic all the time was completely over their heads. Multiple lectures had to be spent just to get through De Morgan's Laws.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Just look at the world around you. You'll get further towing the party line than you will asking too many questions.

      This has been obvious to thinkers throughout the ages. Voltaire said "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." Heinlein expressed a similar sentiment when he said âoeBeing right too soon is socially unacceptable.â

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    22. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      What's next critical thinking? That cannot happen or else religions would cease to be followed.

      If you've seen an elephant, no amount of critical thinking will persuade you that elephants can't possibly exist. If you've never seen one but half the people you know claim to have, and you still refuse to believe elephants exist, your "critical" thinking is getting in your way. If you absolutely refuse under any circumstances that elephants can't exist and you see one, your critical "thinking" (rationalizing) will convince you that someone must have druuged you or you've gone crazy.

      Disbelief in something you've not experienced takes as much faith as belief in something you've never experienced, and far more fath than someone who believes in that thing and has actually experienced it.

      Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Obviously, that fellow wasn't talking about you.

    23. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's like saying that elementary school math doesn't teach you how to solve large multiplication problems anymore, they just teach times tables! ... but it's hard to do a multiplication problem without knowing what 6 * 8 is off the top of your head.

      I was never any good at rote memorization. OTOH, if something interested me I learned it easily and retained it, and I never did memorize multiplication tables. Instead, if I wanted 6*8 I'd multiply 6*4 and double the answer (I had them memorized up to 5). By junior high I had a slide rule, with one of those you don't need to memorize it.

      I also thought memorization was stupid; why memorize when you can look at a piece of paper? As long as you know why 6*8=32, why should you need to remember what 6*8 is? Just look it up, it only takes a second, and has the added advantage of being right; memory fails all of us sometimes.

      I also wonder if it has to do with books. Reading is out, other forms of media is in.

      That's nothing new, in my experience aliterates have vastly outnumbered literates for over half a century. "Spot the nerd" was an easy excersize when I was a kid, he was the one with a book and a pair of glasses. And the slide rule was a dead giveaway... There was a TV in my house my entire life, nothing has changed there, except there's more to watch.

    24. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      DOH! 6*4 is 48. I suck...

    25. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by slew · · Score: 2

      Actually, I'd take a more epistemological angle to the problem. I think we may have accidentally taught young people that knowledge is something that need to be "searched" for rather than "discovered".

      I think schools have always given a hint to students that ther superiors have the knowledge that they seek and all you have to do is seek it out, but due to the lack of available research resources in the past, both teachers and students have been forced to improvise, almost accidentally teaching students to "discover" their own knowledge. This allowed students to develop critical thinking approaches needed to discover the knowledge for themselves. For example, a student might have to go to a poorly indexed library and god-forbid use the dewey decimal system to lookup something and maybe skim a few encylopedia entries to discover synonymous or analogus topics. I even shutter to think about this, but even the act of "faking" references in an school essay requires the ability to develop a coherent reasoning path (enough to fool a teacher) and helps to develop these same skills.

      Today, we've trained a whole generation of folks that critical knowledge discovery skills are obsolete and that a computer can point you directly to nearly unlimited knowledge banks indexed by poorly phrased queries. This is the logical outcome of google/wikipedia culture. Unfortunatly, sometimes the journey is as important as the destination (especially, if you ever want to go anywhere else).

      As a silly example, how many times in a party, someone asks you something that you probably should know but you don't remember. Do you just "google-it", or do you try and develop a reasoning path to recover the information from your own knowledge bank? If you said the former, you are spending time improving your "searching" skills, but how long do you think it will take your reasoning path skills to atrophy?

      Then imagine born in a world where you never had to reason at all? You don't even have to reason-out your opinion, you could just search out someone elses opinion and parrot it? Maybe that's not something we should be thinking about. It's too depressing...

    26. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's hard to do a multiplication problem without knowing what 6 * 8 is off the top of your head. Memorization of some things is extremely important to reasoning skills.

      Maths is a funny example, because you can generally just do the stuff hard way until patterns start flowing automatically. By the time you calculate "8+8+8+8+8+8" for the umpteenth time after having it associated with "6", some part of your brain finally gets that it's "half of 8 followed by 8".

      For speedmultiplying it might not actually be that effective, but for more complex things it seems to be one of the better ways of "memorizing".

    27. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking students doth not Federal Money create :D

      Test scores, on the other hand, do.

    28. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is strange, since everybody knows that 6 by 9 is 42...

    29. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visual media doesn't make you think a whole lot.

      Twilight.

      Your argument about printed media forcing people to think is invalid.

    30. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      one more time!

    31. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a useful life skill for who? The person unable to think or those that want to think for them and keep them regurgitating facts? It's the difference between civilization and slavery.

    32. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Memorization of some things is extremely important to reasoning skills.

      But certainly not the things you just listed. Knowing why, how, and when to use it is often more important, in my opinion. And oftentimes, rote memorization is unnecessary and counterproductive.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    33. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by LeperPuppet · · Score: 1

      Then imagine born in a world where you never had to reason at all? You don't even have to reason-out your opinion, you could just search out someone elses opinion and parrot it?

      You're describing a large part of the current political landscape.

    34. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      The problem is, teaching people to think isn't exactly a useful life skill. Being able to think is by and large less useful than being able to regurgitate facts, and much much less useful than being able to shmooze with the right people.

      May be for the extremes in politics - both liberals and conservatives - that is true - they don't want people to think, just follow what they tell them. Doesn't matter whether your a communist or a fascist, just do as you're told.

      This is also the problem for Science in education. Several studies of colleges and universities have found that colleges such as Calvin College and Messiah College where debate over the Theory of Evolution, Creationism, and Theistic Evolution are encouraged do far better in reasoning, etc. than at public colleges where the professors surpress anything other than the Theory of Evolution.

      The public school system it appears isn't too different.

      When you surpress view points or discussion in order to teach to tests, get students to regurgitate specific answers, etc, then their ability to reason diminishes. Who'd a thought?

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    35. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Just look at the world around you. You'll get further towing the party line than you will asking too many questions.

      This has been obvious to thinkers throughout the ages. Voltaire said "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." Heinlein expressed a similar sentiment when he said âoeBeing right too soon is socially unacceptable.â

      Yeah, it really ticks off the managers of the Italian parent company where I work when we Americans ask questions, and don't just do what we're told like their Italian workers do without question. They don't understand it - even those that have worked abroad.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    36. Re:Too much time spent teaching tests by gmyuriy · · Score: 1

      What good did _thinking_ ever do :) On the other note: "SOS SOS !!! ... Hello, this is the German coast guard, what is your situation? ... We are sinking! SOS! Repeat! We are sinking! ... ... ... What are you thinking about?..."

  6. Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After billions of dollars we have produced an education system churning out children that cannot think for themselves.

    1. Re:Congratulations by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      But they get excited for the next ipad, so we have that.

      Sorry... with a story like this it's just too much of a temptation to let the karma burn.

    2. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because your representatives want a silver bullet, and ipads are shiny.

    3. Re:Congratulations by BlueStrat · · Score: 0, Troll

      [Congratulations] After billions of dollars we have produced an education system churning out children that cannot think for themselves.

      It's working precisely as designed.

      Churning out young Liberal/Progressives who are taught what to think, not how to think, and leaving them without critical thinking abilities is a feature, not a bug, as far as government is concerned.

      If it's any consolation, they *did* learn something...how to sing "Mmm-mmm-mmm...Barack Hussein Obama...".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Congratulations by DogDude · · Score: 0

      It's no coincidence that smart people tend to be more liberal. As the bumper sticker says, "Reality has a liberal bias".

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no coincidence that those who only think they are smart people tend to be more liberal.

      FTFY

    6. Re:Congratulations by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      [Congratulations] After billions of dollars we have produced an education system churning out children that cannot think for themselves.

      It's working precisely as designed.

      Churning out young Fundamental/Conservatives who are taught what to think, not how to think, and leaving them without critical thinking abilities is a feature, not a bug, as far as government is concerned.

      If it's any consolation, they *did* learn something...how to sing "Mmm-mmm-mmm...Romney is My Guy with Sara by his side".

      Strat

      ftfy

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    7. Re:Congratulations by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute... we're all taught that it's not nice to think critically about others. Being critical is bad! Critical thinking fosters racism, sexism, and all sorts of other isms! Be a generous thinker and make the world a better place!

    8. Re:Congratulations by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Churning out young Liberal/Progressives who are taught what to think, not how to think, and leaving them without critical thinking abilities is a feature, not a bug, as far as government is concerned.

      So is your contention, based on your post and your sig, that all ideas of liberalism are basically the result of brainwashing by public schools?

      I went through an American public school system, and the ideas I was taught there that could be construed as politically controversial amounted to (a) well-documented facts that conservatives have continued to deny, like evolution, (b) a lot of flag-waving patriotism, not along the lines of "government is good" but more "USA is better than everyone else", which isn't exactly liberalism, and (c) some subjective judgements suggesting that minorities and women had contributed to the history and culture of the United States. Never did I get anything along the lines of an expectation that I would adhere to politically liberal ideas.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Congratulations by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

      WTF are you on about? If lib/prog people were taught "how" to think, wouldn't they be of like mind and more easily controlled? In fact, isn't the biggest problem with the "left" side of the US political spectrum the fact that they're off in so many different directions and can't get their shit together? It's like herding cats.

      In contrast, the "right" side of the US political spectrum marches in lock-step unison.

      Quick summary:
      Right = binary: true/false, yes/no, on/off; Sith Lords
      Left = shades of grey; sometimes too many

    10. Re:Congratulations by fredrated · · Score: 1

      We have conservatives constantly bashing science, telling us the universities are bad places because people learn to think there and that is bad, and you claim that liberals can't think?

      Your inability to think, and your need to parrot what the right has told you to say, comes through loud and clear.

    11. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not we. I did not consent to an educational system funded through threats and violence, serving those with guns and badges instead of serving parents.

    12. Re:Congratulations by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      It's no coincidence that those who only think they are smart people tend to be more liberal.

      FTFY

      No. Psychopaths are often smart and like 'liberal' politics because it lets them tell others what to do.

    13. Re:Congratulations by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Wisdom comes from realizing how little you know. Many progressives aren't stupid but their cocksure attitude about being right is as disturbing.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    14. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After billions of dollars we have produced an education system churning out children that cannot think for themselves.

      You're assuming that's the goal of our education system.

    15. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it's working. The proletariat is not supposed to think for themselves. That's what the bourgeois is for. Captcha is sermon.. how fitting

    16. Re:Congratulations by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm reasonably certain that "liberal" and telling people what to do are a bit at loggerheads...

    17. Re:Congratulations by readin · · Score: 1

      If by "liberal" you mean letting people do what they want with their own lives and properties so long as what they do doesn't infringe on other people's lives and properties then you're right that they are at loggerheads.

      But at least in the US, "liberal" no longer means that and it hasn't meant that for many decades.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    18. Re:Congratulations by readin · · Score: 1

      In fact, isn't the biggest problem with the "left" side of the US political spectrum the fact that they're off in so many different directions

      There are usually more wrong ways to do something than right ways to do something.

      In contrast, the "right" side of the US political spectrum marches in lock-step unison.

      US news organizations often choose the term "lock-step" to describe conservatives whenever they are united. However they never apply that term to liberals when they are united.
      How ironic that you would choose to parrot back the term "lock-step" in a post where you argue that liberals aren't being brain-washed.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    19. Re:Congratulations by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      In the engineering fields, yes, typically, there are fewer "correct" ways to do things. However, politics and economics are more social sciences.

      "lock-step": When Rush Limbaugh's fans take pride in being called "ditto heads," what does that tell you? In contrast, you will see plenty of self-described "liberals" who disagree with, say, Joe Klein, or Rachel Maddow, or Keith Olbermann, or any "liberal" professional blow-hard. There is no liberal "messiah" to the same degree as Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck.

    20. Re:Congratulations by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "lock-step": When Rush Limbaugh's fans take pride in being called "ditto heads," what does that tell you?

      Well, that depends on the observer's point of view. People who wish to denigrate and dismiss that group's point of view would have all sorts of unflattering interpretations. Those without an agenda much less so. Those without an agenda might even think it may be turning a label placed on them by ideological opponents into a badge of honor.

      What's your point?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not seeing the difference.

  7. Let the public education by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 2

    bashing commence.

    Critical reasoning skills = critical thinking skills. Parents are just as vital in the equation here as teachers. Yes, teachers have a job to do there, but, in my opinion, this shows a failure of the culture, rather than education.

    From early on, we're conditioned to be mindless little consumers. Why think about problems when you can take a pill and make them all go away? Why consider alternates to problem solving when you can just spend the problem away.

    You want mindless drones, you get mindless drones.

    How to counteract this? Get rid of those freaking standardized tests, for one. Invest heavily in the arts in primary grades, and cross-teach the arts/sciences. Bring connections between drawing and engineering, math and music. And finally, take the politics out of my classroom. I don't need you to tell me how to teach. I take P.D. courses every year, have two advanced degrees, and years of experience telling me that I can generally figure out what's best for each. and. every. individual. student.

    But this is all just my opinion.

    1. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do a lot of complaining for someone who's still in highschool.

    2. Re:Let the public education by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But you are assuming that a government run school wants to produce students who can think critically.

      If they did, then these people may actually ask the hard questions. "Why are you in office if all you do is lie to the public, cheat to get ahead, and steal from the public coffers?", "Why is the drug scheduling system based on "Potential for abuse" and not "Danger to the health of the individual?", "How can you violate the 4th amendment to the constitution by passing security acts and not amending the constitution?"

      See, they don't want people who can think. They want people who will shut up and do what they are told.

      This from someone who's daughter asked the hard questions in school about drug policy. Thus he was visited by the police to discuss it in detail. (Not a drug user but the mere argument was enough to get them to stop by for a chat.)

    3. Re:Let the public education by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

      I'm the very first to bash public schools, but this time the first thing that popped into my head was "these kids never had to debug a problem with a desktop PC" (swapping parts with a working one, etc). And that, of course, was just the modern variant of working on cars, which in turn was the new version of farming (if I plant seeds in this fashion... or if I train my horse in this fashion...). What all three of these have in common is working with the hands. As Dr. Maria Montessori said, "The hands are the instruments of man's intelligence."

      What physical artifacts do kids have these days to learn with? I guess drugs and sex.

    4. Re:Let the public education by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      I think a large problem with current schools is the idea of fairness. Not all teachers are equal and certainly not all students, but all teachers are lumped together and students are generally taught to the lowest common denominator. Life is not fair, it should be taught in school, and those that excel would be allowed to.

    5. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I take P.D. courses every year, have two advanced degrees, and years of experience telling me that I can generally figure out what's best for each. and. every. individual. student.

      But this is all just my opinion.

      And yet you still haven't figured out one of the most basic tenets of the scientific method. You need to properly quantify the outcome of a procedure in order to determine if it is successful or not.

      You are like the teachers here in BC, Canada. They are against any kind of standard testing for the kids. They are against having teachers and/or schools ranked in any way. It seems the only hard numbers that they are interested in is the numbers after the dollar sign on their paychecks. They get real huffy if you ask them how we can select the best teachers or teaching methods or schools if we don't actually measure performance/outcomes.

    6. Re:Let the public education by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you know why they teach to the lowest common denominator?

      Let me tell you a story that happened just this year:

      We have an autistic student in the grade directly below the one I teach. Low-functioning, highly aggressive and combative, generally a disruptive force in the classroom. When we present the principal, then superintendent, then school board with evidence, research and suggestions, they all agree that he needs to be in a self-contained classroom. Realistically, what this kid is getting != what he's taking away from every other student during the day. So, we call a meeting with the parents, special needs advocate and a ROE representative just to cover all of our bases. What do the parents also bring to the meeting? A lawyer. A lawyer from ~ 600 miles away from the nearest urban center (yes, the words big city lawyer come to mind). Why? Because if we pulled their child away from his friends (he has none), then they would sue fast, sue hard, and sue often.

      In this day of reduced spending, teachers being paraded around like well, like someone that's paraded around for public scorn, what choice did we have?

      Realistically, the other 25 sets of parents should be able to say, "no, you assholes, your child does not get to sap mine." BUT, because we can't tell anyone about what specifically transpired in these meetings using names and what-not, no one knows. All they know is that there are 25 little kids that already hate school, because of one precious little snowflake.

    7. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is not fair, it should be taught in school, and those that excel would be allowed to.

      Yea, "all men are created equal" was just populist bullshit said to get the people of the colonies to rebel against the king (who was obviously one of those who excelled)

      Life is indeed not fair. Some people will always be slaves, ruled over by others. Tyranny is the only logical system for man.

    8. Re:Let the public education by toadlife · · Score: 1

      This from someone who's daughter asked the hard questions in school about drug policy. Thus he was visited by the police to discuss it in detail. (Not a drug user but the mere argument was enough to get them to stop by for a chat.)

      *shudder*

      My wife and I do not use any illegal drugs, but are both completely against the war on drugs, and we live in an extremely conservative, authoritarian area of the country.

      For the past few years when our young kids have had their "anti-drug" week in school, they've come home spouting mindless propaganda. In response, we've tried tried to explain it to them in as nuanced a way as we think they can handle.

      Looking forward to my "visit" one of these years.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    9. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you quantify that those tests actually measure anything relevant? Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    10. Re:Let the public education by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      I think a large problem with current schools is the idea of fairness. Not all teachers are equal and certainly not all students, but all teachers are lumped together and students are generally taught to the lowest common denominator.

      They don't teach to the lowest common denominator. Yes, nobody fails anymore. So every student is advanced to the next grade level. Then the teacher has to develop an individual lesson plan for each different group of kids. Which they do.

      What Loughla said in the other reply also happens exactly like that. You might have one kid consuming 75% of the teacher's resources at the expense of all the others (and as a teacher's husband, at my expense too!).

      I'd like to see kids promoted based on ability so that a teacher has a class full of kids of similar ability. You'd end up with a class in every grade full of the kids from the worst families, kids with disabilities, etc, and that would be considered unfair. Which it arguably is.

      --
      :wq
    11. Re:Let the public education by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>This from someone who's daughter asked the hard questions in school about drug policy. Thus he was visited by the police to discuss it in detail.

      COP: "We've come to talk to you about your daughter."
      CITIZEN: "About what?"
      COP: "Do either you or her do drugs?"
      CITIZEN: "I've decided to exercise my 1st, 5th amendment and Miranda rights. I am remaining silent. Good day to you sir." (shut door)

      NEVER talk to cops. They will use whatever you say *against* you. They are trying to put you IN jail, not keep you out of it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:Let the public education by hackula · · Score: 1

      What physical artifacts do kids have these days to learn with? I guess drugs and sex.

      Kids still build and troubleshoot their computers, just like before. This seems pretty close to "kids are dumber today" arguments which have been completely torn apart by the data. I would not be surprised at all if we were to find that reasoning skills have been slowly rising as well.

    13. Re:Let the public education by Relayman · · Score: 1

      You do understand that one or both of this child's parents are probably autistic as well, don't you? Perhaps you should find an autistic teacher or administrator (high functioning, I'm sure) in your school district who can speak their language.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    14. Re:Let the public education by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Drugs are truly terrible. I am talking about the hard core stuff that one hit will rewire your brain and make you permanently after that high, and not some weed.

      Teenagers have a mindset close to an adult but are not fully there yet. They think they are invincible and have not went through the pain of making a truly poor decision negatively effecting their life yet. They do not understand the power of addiction and what a chemical high can do to you?

      Yes, they need to know. By highschool level they should be taught how endorphines work too and just what will happen when you are caught. Many figure ok, I will smoke some weed and will get community service and a spanking if I get caught right? Big deal? What they do not understand is how it will ruin your life for the next 7 years. Congrats to your new job! ... oh wait you were accused of what!? Sorry buddy we can't hire you. Why don't you interview at McDonalds down the street?

    15. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to warn him that you also exercise your 2nd amendment rights. Heck, throw in the 3rd amendment just to confuse him.

    16. Re:Let the public education by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      No parents are assholes who do not respect their teachers or the teaching profession after being bombarded with how bad the US scores.

      I had seen one teacher threatened to be sued because they told their parents that their child was retarded! How do you insult my kid!!! She is soo smart you are stupid etc?

      The teacher gave an IQ test and show has an IQ of 71. Yes, by definition that child is retarded in mental abilities so why does the teacher take in the heat? Parents today like most Americans feel entittled and are aggresive to get ahead and feed their egos. Maybe the bad kids get it from their parents where they are told they are smart and teachers are stupid so they exhibit these behaviors in the classroom and these same parents also vote politicians in to hold their teachers responsible too.

      It is not language per say, but simply some students should not be mainstreamed. An aggresive student needs to be held in a special school with lots of staff memebers who are trained to restrain such students.

    17. Re:Let the public education by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      (Almost) everyone can have a patio garden.
      Free-form toys are cheap.
      Anything that can be taken apart and put back together is a learning tool.

      I think my kids learned more about creative thinking just by picking up sticks and doing things with them (how do I avoid getting in trouble after doing what I just did with those sticks) than from being told the "answer" or even to "explore" by a person in authority.

      Kids need to learn enough information to have a set of knowledge tools to use, and then they need a safe place to be let loose to use them in a mostly unstructured way. Montessori had it partly right, but kids need powerful external motivators sometimes too.

    18. Re:Let the public education by hackula · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure about this. Most schools have "gifted" programs and AP programs that teach well beyond what gets taught to the lowest common denominator. In my high school classes, while we were reading "Heart of Darkness", the kids next door were reading "The Wizard of Oz". There seemed to be a pretty wide range of offerings at my school at least, which happens to be located in what is known as "The Corridor of Shame" for having the worst schools in the entire country (for a good laugh, overlay the "corridor of shame" with the "bible belt" on a map). Sure, some kids go beyond what the AP classes teach, but to get a 5 on one of those tests, you have to be at or above the college level anyway. In fact, I think the AP classes I took were quite a bit more difficult than any of the college equivalents I ended up taking (they do usually map up with intro level courses).

    19. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *DOOR BROKEN DOWN*
      *Police enter with guns drawn at 2am*
      *BANG! Family dog shot and killed*
      COP: WE HAVE A WARRANT !
      *FAMILY GETS STRIP SEARCHED*
      *COPS LEAVE*

    20. Re:Let the public education by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Invest heavily in the arts in primary grades, and cross-teach the arts/sciences. Bring connections between drawing and engineering, math and music

      If we had a system, like Europe, where parents could actually CHOOSE which school to attend, then we'd have schools just like you describe, competing against the other schools to attract the kids. BUT no. Instead we have a monopoly school system that parents are forced to choose because they all the spare money has been sucked from their wallets..... leaving behind nothing for alternative choices (or methods) like you describe.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    21. Re:Let the public education by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

      I think my kids learned more about creative thinking just by picking up sticks and doing things with them

      Indeed, one of my favorite lines was "Before we had videogames, we went out played with dirt." Dirt and sticks, however, a hard sell over videogames, even for parents who understand and appreciate the value of tactile interaction. My point was that the majority of children don't even have that benefit of such parents.

    22. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does he have a support worker in the classroom to help manage/contain any outbursts? Any kind of "inclusion" should ensure there is enough support within the classroom.

    23. Re:Let the public education by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In this day of reduced spending, teachers being paraded around like well, like someone that's paraded around for public scorn, what choice did we have?

      Show some balls and fight. Then people might see that you actually care about education, and will be more willing to invest in education. As long as you continue doing nothing, nobody's going to give you more money.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    24. Re:Let the public education by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Were the founding fathers trying to say that everyone is the same in abilities, or that there are no predetermined castes - no one should have more rights under the law just because he/she was born to the 'right' parents?

    25. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think my response would have been:

      Ok, we hear you, and as you have correctly predicted we can't afford to risk litigation. We've given you our opinion as educational professionals what is best for your child, and you have chosen not to follow our advice. We are going to have to request that you sign a disclaimer to the effect that the negative effects of this decision on both your child and on the classmates that he is disrupting is solely your responsibility.

    26. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave the names out, but let the parents know that due to one disruptive child their children aren't getting the education their children could be getting.

      Let them sue the parent with the disruptive child.

      ---- Married to an ECSE Teacher - she's been hit several times (and kicked, and bit - had to get shots) multiple times.

    27. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you continue doing nothing, nobody's going to give you more money.

      That's not how liberals think. Got a problem? Throw money at it. Problem got bigger? Throw more money at it.

    28. Re:Let the public education by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Show some balls and fight. Then people might see that you actually care about education, and will be more willing to invest in education. As long as you continue doing nothing, nobody's going to give you more money.

      You obviously don't know anything about the world of teaching, at least not anything about how it works down in the South where unions are powerless. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down, hard. Teachers have been getting laid off left and right recently. If a teacher stands up and puts the district at risk of a lawsuit, they will be out of there faster than reality can crush the spirit of the fresh-faced idealistic graduate hired to replace them.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    29. Re:Let the public education by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      When we present the principal, then superintendent, then school board with evidence, research and suggestions, they all agree that he needs to be in a self-contained classroom.... So, we call a meeting with the parents, special needs advocate and a ROE representative just to cover all of our bases. What do the parents also bring to the meeting? A lawyer.

      How dare they. Two parents, who presumably are not professional educators, are invited to meet with three professional educators. Those three also consulted with three other professionals and/or administrators prior to the meeting, whereas the parents dared to get independent advice from one other person who was versed in disabilities law and had a clear duty to represent their interests. It's just not fair, I tell you.

      Why? Because if we pulled their child away from his friends (he has none), then they would sue fast, sue hard, and sue often.

      Possibly. There's that pesky "least restrictive environment" requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). You know, the requirement that means that you cannot declare little Johnny to be a "special ed" student and banish him to the furthest corners of the public school for perpetuity -- or more to the point until he ages out and gets dumped on the rest of society. The requirement that means that you have to mainstream him with educational aides or at least provide him with at least some appropriate exposure to his peers. Crazy damn requirement.

      In this day of reduced spending, teachers being paraded around like well, like someone that's paraded around for public scorn, what choice did we have?

      Here's a hint: to do your job. If you believed that placement in a special education classroom was necessary, then your job was to demonstrate that that placement is necessary, not to railroad the parents. If the placement was necessary, it could surely survive some scrutiny from "a lawyer" during an assessment or IEP meeting. Rumor has it that school districts and Departments of Education even employ their own laywers versed in IDEA.

      Realistically, the other 25 sets of parents should be able to say, "no, you assholes, your child does not get to sap mine."

      Realistically, you are supposed to make decision concerning the educational welfare of that child and objectively defend it in front of your state's Department of Education per IDEA. Realistically, the other 25 parents don't get a say because 536 other people enacted a law for very good reasons that these parents were bright enough to use as intended. You threw in the towel instead of doing the necessary work.

      I've dealt with IDEA. I'm aware of the process and procedures and the fact that a school can implement an IEP over the parent's objections. You're not getting any sympathy from me for folding in the face of token resistance during one meeting.

    30. Re:Let the public education by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      We are going to have to request that you sign a disclaimer to the effect that the negative effects of this decision on both your child and on the classmates that he is disrupting is solely your responsibility.

      "No."

      Now what? I mean, it's a cute solution, but not one that remotely complies with the law, and not one that you can force the parents to sign.

      There are a number of processes and solutions that are available -- this teacher simply wasn't willing to follow through on them. That is the school district's responsibility. End of story.

    31. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a clue... The needs of the *many* outweigh the needs of the *few*.

      In this case, the one disruptive child's right to an education does NOT trump the 24 other student's rights to that same said education.

      Since you can't do both, you must do the one that meets out the most *good*. ie - kick the nuisance child out of the class - end of discussion.

      If that doesn't work, let the parents of the 24 other students sue the parents of the 1 - then the will of the many wins out as it should.

      One person's rights end when they infringe upon others.

    32. Re:Let the public education by swx2 · · Score: 1
      Other than your sarcasm not entirely helping your argument, I don't really disagree with you on most of your points, except maybe this one:

      Here's a hint: to do your job. If you believed that placement in a special education classroom was necessary, then your job was to demonstrate that that placement is necessary, not to railroad the parents. If the placement was necessary, it could surely survive some scrutiny from "a lawyer" during an assessment or IEP meeting. Rumor has it that school districts and Departments of Education even employ their own laywers versed in IDEA.

      How would you go about demonstrating that the placement was necessary? And do you really believe that just because you've provided evidence of such necessity, the parent's won't threaten to sue regardless, wasting massive amounts of money? From what I can gather in Loughla's post, he/she teaches in a small community, and so their school department may not have the funds to mount a proper legal defense, especially seeing how the autistic student's parents were willing to spend the money to hire a lawyer from quite far away. The whole point of these legal threats may just be to say "i can waste a lot of your money", as to dissuade any real action, even if the reason was legitimate... because let's face it, frivolous law suites are not at all rare in this country.

    33. Re:Let the public education by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I am talking about the hard core stuff that one hit will rewire your brain and make you permanently after that high

      And what drugs would those be? Growing up, I only had access to meth, coke, heroine, weed, LSD, ecstasy, and shrooms. None of those fit into that category.

      Many figure ok, I will smoke some weed and will get community service and a spanking if I get caught right?

      Exactly. I don't know what horrible locale you live in, but where I grew up and live, getting caught smoking weed will not ruin your life for seven years. I got caught three times. I also got caught with other stuff.

      The kind of ridiculous hyperbole you are spouting is exactly why programs like D.A.R.E. have been complete failures.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    34. Re:Let the public education by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Better to fight the good fight and lose than to be complicit in the intellectual homicide we refer to as public education.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    35. Re:Let the public education by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Research shows otherwise and how addicts get stuck. You are an adult and know the risks. Students do not understand addiction yet. My father is an alcoholic so it is a touchy subject for me. They can ruin your life if you are not careful and nearly hard if not impossible to quit once your hooked. Heroine especially is bad.

      Caught with that and no one will hire you PERIOD. These are the risks and I see nothing wrong with warning students. Do I think someone's life deserves to be trashed because of a few puffs of weed? Of course not, but I do not make the rules and just dictate the consequences. Maybe you live outside the uS?

    36. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parents trump everything. Especially when they have a lawyer attached to their hip.

      My other half left teaching after SIXTEEN years because of this bullsh*t. Taught Special Populations
      ( read that special ed ) her entire career. One child can destroy an entire classrooms ability to learn
      anything, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Until this changes, public schools
      are doomed.

      The only way the parents will agree to removal of their little angel from the classroom is if the school
      agrees to pay for everything. Which will never happen, so Captain Chaos gets to stay and the rest of
      the class gets to suffer for it. That's the system we have in place today.

      Going back to the issue at hand . . . .

      Teachers are TOLD what their curriculum will consist of. They WILL teach the test as they are instructed
      or they WILL be without a job. Districts don't give a sh*t if the kids learn anything past the ability to score
      well on the standardized tests because Funding is dictated by how well the district does on those tests.
      Period.

      It should be an obvious problem when a big percentage of kids can't pass a simple reading comprehension
      test, yet it is currently impossible to fix the way it's setup. Solution ? Dumb down the test of course ! :|

      Districts cry about their budget woes while they build a multi-million dollar Stadium and Sports Facility. They pay
      administrators and, in many cases coaches, six figure plus salaries. Then they have the balls to ask for a tax
      increase so they can build a track or something :|

      Our public school system is pathetic.

      Then again, the educated elite loves stupid subjects. :D

    37. Re:Let the public education by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      How would you go about demonstrating that the placement was necessary?

      Mandatory due process hearing

      Mandatory due process hearing after sustained discplinary action

      And do you really believe that just because you've provided evidence of such necessity, the parent's won't threaten to sue regardless, wasting massive amounts of money?

      The parent can't 'sue' until they've exhausted the administrative remedies. In any event, a lawsuit would cost the parent at least as much money, since one of the school district or the Department of Education will have lawyers who are well versed in IDEA. It's farcical to claim that parents have more resources available to them than the resources available to school districts themselves.

      The whole point of these legal threats may just be to say "i can waste a lot of your money", as to dissuade any real action, even if the reason was legitimate...

      What legal threat? The OP complained that the parents brought a lawyer to special education team meeting. All the "legal threats" appeared to be suppositions by the teacher based upon that fact. The alternative is that you cut off the parents from all recourse whatsoever. They cannot hire their own professional to advise them, they cannot have an adminstrative appeal before a neutral hearing officer, and they cannot file a civil appeal if the regulations were not followed or if there is no substantial evidence to support pulling their child out of a normal classroom setting.

      That is not the law, nor should it be. You have no idea how hard it is to have an administrative decision overtuned in the courts, nor of the resources available to schools through regional service centers and state Departments of Education. The teacher wants to blame the parents for disagreeing with the IEP team, but isn't willing to take the matter outside the district and in front of a neutral party... it's not sarcasm you're detecting -- it's anger. This person is clearly unwilling to do their job, and is going to make the kid suffer for it if the kid happens to be in their class next year. The parents couldn't possibly have a valid concern -- they're simply defiant jerks. "[W]hat choice did we have?"

    38. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 19 year old son asked me what the song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was about. I shrugged and looked out the car window, trying to spot the little elves peeling back the seams of reality between th.. uh.. anyway, by the time I was his age, I had experimented with several different hallucinogens, smoked vast quantities of weed and hash, tried a little opium, and gotten off to a great start on my continuing but fairly well managed alcoholism. His reasoning skills are fine, as are mine.

      Despite the fact that he poured weed'n'feed lawn fertilizer all over our vegetable garden yesterday. >O

    39. Re:Let the public education by hurfy · · Score: 1

      "Before we had videogames, we went out played with dirt."

      lol, i remember making flying saucers out of dirt clods for my little green army men as a kid since i only had one jeep :)
      Air battles rarely had a winner tho....

      I think it is all due to today's kids not having access to quality dirt clods!

    40. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of these legal threats may just be to say "i can waste a lot of your money", as to dissuade any real action, even if the reason was legitimate...

      What legal threat? The OP complained that the parents brought a lawyer to special education team meeting. All the "legal threats" appeared to be suppositions by the teacher based upon that fact. The alternative is that you cut off the parents from all recourse whatsoever.

      No, the OP complained that the parents paid a "big city" lawyer to drive 600 miles to sit in on the first administrative hearing. That makes a clear statement that the parents are willing to bring substantial resources to bear as early in the process as necessary, and should rightly be viewed as a threat of legal action.

      It tells the teacher that she should expect to spend several hours, if not days, of additional unpaid overtime to justify the case. It tells the principal that the teacher, and probably an administrator will have to spend time in hearings, and maybe in court to move the process forward. Now, Mr. DRJ Law, it may be that in your line of work people have a lot of unspecified time that can be allocated flexibly to the most pressing problem, but teachers are pretty much expected to be in front of their class for the vast majority of their compensated time. They don't have the concept of 'billable hours.' A legal battle, or the prospect of a legal battle, is more about the massive inconvenience and disruption than it is about school budget. Maybe the cost in time and attention to deal with the parents and their lawyers is more detrimental to the remaining students than the autistic kid's interruptions. Maybe it's just not worth the hassle for other people's children.

    41. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that teachers and school administrators are some of the stupidest people in our society. Schools tend to be run like shit, have shit policies, make shit decisions, and have shit organization.

    42. Re:Let the public education by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Teenagers have a mindset close to an adult but are not fully there yet. They think they are invincible

      I don't remember thinking that even once. I don't think I've ever met anyone who believes they're immortal. Are you referring to the insane?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    43. Re:Let the public education by glodime · · Score: 1

      Possible tactical response: Schedule lots of meetings with the Lawyer until the parents get the message.

    44. Re:Let the public education by toadlife · · Score: 1

      If getting caught with drugs results in disenfrachisment, then of course kids should be warned about it. Telling them lies or overblown horror stories about the actual substances however only leads to a breakdown of trust.

      Drug education today reminds of the failed abstinence-only style sex education systems that have been larely abandoned for methods that are proven to be much more effective. They are filled with more hyperbole than fact and do nothing to arm kids with the information needed to make sound decisions.

      BTW, I live in California. Marijuana possession in small amounts that a typical user would have is at most a misdemeanor and does not result in disenfranchisement. I benefited from a robust system of rehbilitation when I was a juveline and abused drugs. My record was sealed after I turned 18.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    45. Re:Let the public education by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't happen in a private school; Neither the parents of the other children nor the school would allow it. Given all of the horror stories, you'd have to be crazy to send your children to public schools these days. Is it any wonder then that most parents, the ones who care anyway, will do just about anything to ensure that their kids don't end up in one of our failing public schools?

    46. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you may have missed the point of that story.

    47. Re:Let the public education by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on principle, but principles aren't shelter or food. My wife was an English teacher at a local district that has basically been overtaken by the parents. The district forced her to resign after some disruptive little shit caused a scene, then lied to his parents about the entire story. They then hired a lawyer who went to every media outlet in town to further spread these lies while my wife was never allowed to tell her side (district orders). The district originally supported my wife, but because of the bad publicity and the fear of a lawsuit, they did a complete 180 and gave her the option of resigning or being terminated immediately. She wasn't even allowed to bring her union representative into the meeting. She ended up finding a new job at a private school where the kids who attend actually want to be there, but she's had to take a 40% pay cut.

      Most schools are just daycare centers now, and its going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    48. Re:Let the public education by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I have to say, I respect parents like that. Their child has a problem, and they are doing everything they can to help, screw everyone else.

      The actual problem here isn't the autistic child's parents, it's the other parents who don't care about their children. "Oh, there's a bad kid in your class, deal with it" is their response. Where are THEIR lawyers? When are THEIR meetings scheduled? They just don't care, and so they get the short end of the stick. All is well.

    49. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... does it matter?

      The statement I'm focusing on is "life isn't fair". It doesn't matter what the founding fathers meant, "Life isn't fair" is still a perfect explanation to why all men are NOT created equal

    50. Re:Let the public education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My son is autistic (though not combative). Every meeting with the school I bring in as many people as I can to make sure he gets the appropriate education he needs. It's very common for schools to dump kids like him in some babysitting zone where they won't be educated. It's cheaper, it's easier. The only way for a parent to be sure the system doesn't screw the kid is to have advocates that know what the school is supposed to provide.

      I see your point in that this child is disrupting other children, however balance that one case with the many cases of school systems saving a buck by screwing kids and parents with no idea about how the system works.

    51. Re:Let the public education by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I'm a stoner, and let me tell you, todays kids don't even know how to take a decent puff of weed, or roll something useful to save their lives - they are either "cool kids" who don't know the fuck they are doing, or are "trashy junkies" like me who take time to think and learn, and maybe even appreciate the high rather than treating it like booze, and and not paying attention. I don't have all that much sexual experience - but most of the raunchy ones, I don't think they even know what they are after except a reputation - God knows I haven't met anyone who can handle my appetite, or the emotional attachment I'm looking for - the few times I scored I felt like a fucking aerobics instructor.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  8. What do you expect? by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Multiple choice, standardized tests don't promote reasoning, just memorization. It's time we revamp the education system and our testing methods. Let's focus on students completing lengthy projects and being graded on their success.

    1. Re:What do you expect? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Multiple choice, standardized tests don't promote reasoning, just memorization.

      You're not kidding.

      I took a first year logic/critical reasoning class later in university because I still needed a first year credit and that sounded interesting.

      We were talking about confidence intervals ... and confidence interval of 0.05 meant you were 95% sure. On the exam, the question asked about a confidence interval of 0.5, which I answered as 50% sure.

      The professor marked it wrong, and said that since we'd only covered 0.05 in class, it was a typo -- nobody was expected to know about 0.5. I told her that since it was a class on critical reasoning, she was an idiot and demanded she mark my correct answer as correct. I had to go to the department head to get her to do it.

      When the teachers can't follow reasoning, how the hell are they supposed to teach it? In this case, she was expecting blindly repeating the example from class, not doing any thinking (even though as written all of the people she marked right couldn't have been).

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:What do you expect? by Klync · · Score: 2

      The problem is that decision makers need actionable data in order to inform decisions. Whether this is for legislators parceling out funding or administrators deciding on admissions, it applies across the system. The system is designed so that the system works smoothly; not so that children are educated nor that society is improved. I would love to agree with you and say "let's just fix this glaring problem"; But, how? Just about everyone I've ever met who's associated with the education system knows that standardized tests are a joke; and they want, desperately, to enrich children's lives. But the system fights them at every turn. It's no conspiracy, it's emergent behaviour. How do we push this side-effect out from the system?

      --

      ----
      Not to be confused with Col.
    3. Re:What do you expect? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      That's why I loved Computer Science in college; more full-quarter projects with almost no tests meant I learned a lot more. I spent more time working on my project and less time worrying if I could recite a line-for-line perfect copy of a quick sort (which is built into almost every API nowadays using generics/templates/etc) or determine which set of code lines would throw an exception because of some obscure rule that was based on how the API worked with specific inputs (which, give me a copy of the documentation, I can go look it up in 20 seconds).

      --
      -SaNo
    4. Re:What do you expect? by BetterSense · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still remember getting this one wrong in grade school:

      How many 'states of matter' are there?
      a) 1
      b) 2
      c) 3
      d) 4

      I would answer 4--Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma--because I read books. But we weren't expected to know about plasma, so the correct answer was always 3, and I was marked wrong. The teachers never gave me credit, because I don't think they knew what a plasma was either.

    5. Re:What do you expect? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>confidence interval of 0.05 meant you were 95% sure. On the exam, the question asked about a confidence interval of 0.5, which I answered as 50% sure. The professor marked it wrong, and said that since we'd only covered 0.05 in class, it was a typo
      >>>
      So she expected you to answer 0.5 == 95% sure, even though it was clearly wrong?!?!?
      What a dumb bitch.
      Was this really a professor or a TA?

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:What do you expect? by djlemma · · Score: 1
      I believe that is why the tests in question were administered with a computer- from TFA:

      The computer simulations offer NAEP a much better way to measure skills used by real scientists than do multiple-choice questions

    7. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My critical thinking instructor in University was quite good; he was a fresh PhD (in Philosophy), and was quite good with the expalanations. What surprised me were the students. They were confused by basic logic, and seemed to have no idea whatsoever what the prof was asking at any point. Trying to take written arguments and break out the premises and conclusions? May as well have been magic to some of them (despite weeks of practice and explanation).

    8. Re:What do you expect? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I'm a little confused in your reasoning vs memorization comment.

      Take a math problem as an example. You teach the student why you arrange the formula in the way that it is done, but the student only has to memorize the resulting rules in order to come up with the correct answer.

      Did the student use reasoning to solve the problem or memorization?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better to leave things alone than prove just how bad they really are. And after meeting engineers from around the world I think we are on par.

    10. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multiple choice, standardized tests don't promote reasoning, just memorization. It's time we revamp the education system and our testing methods. Let's focus on students completing lengthy projects and being graded on their success.

      I agree.... I grew up in South Africa (prior to becoming democratic), and I don't remember us having any examinations (you call them tests here in the US) which were multiple choice driven. There may have been a handful of multiple choice questions, but these were pretty rare and far between (I remember us looking through exam papers at the start of the exams hoping we got multiple choice questions, since those were typically the easiest to answer).

      Almost *all* of the examination questions required knowing or working out the answers, and essay type questions (where you had to describe how something worked, draw a picture of some biological function / cell etc).

      A lot of questions were to describe how or why something worked the way it did.

      I was surprised to discover that a lot of the American school testing is multiple choice based.

      FYI, in the days during Apartheid, we had separate exams and schooling systems for the different groups in SA i.e. whites, blacks, indians etc. I am East Indian, and we had one of the most difficult examinations in the country (when comparing final year examination papers). I believe there is now a single schooling system and examination for everyone in SA (after Apartheid was abolished), and I'm not sure what the examinations look like now (I no longer live in SA).

    11. Re:What do you expect? by hackula · · Score: 2

      This makes my insides hurt. This makes me want to go back and become a teacher just to go screw with the straight-A-memorizers. The only questions I plan to ask are tricks. Good luck little miss "I-made-color-coded-flash-cards-but-dont-understand-a-single-god-damned-term-on-them".

    12. Re:What do you expect? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      So she expected you to answer 0.5 == 95% sure, even though it was clearly wrong?!?!?

      Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying ... as I said, I had to argue with her and eventually go over her head because I insisted that by applying the reasoning of " (1 - x) * 100 = % certain" I had the right answer, and that given the question saying "0.5", there was no way in hell to arrive at 95% certain.

      She insisted that since we didn't cover that specific example in class, it was clearly a typo and I had it wrong. She still left all of the people who had answered by rote (and incorrectly) as having answered the question correctly.

      I more or less told her that if that was how she was treating it, she wasn't qualified to teach critical reasoning.

      Was this really a professor or a TA?

      She was a professor, though I don't believe a tenured one -- she could have just been a 'lecturer'. Not sure where they got her from, but I don't think they brought her back the next year.

      At the time, it was completely mind-boggling. I remember explaining my reasoning to her, and she just dug in her heels and said I was wrong. Having to argue reasoning with someone who is supposed to be teaching it is quite sad.

      When I went to the department head, he just shook his head and informed her that she was required to change my mark.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    13. Re:What do you expect? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      >>>confidence interval of 0.05 meant you were 95% sure. On the exam, the question asked about a confidence interval of 0.5, which I answered as 50% sure. The professor marked it wrong, and said that since we'd only covered 0.05 in class, it was a typo
      >>>
      So she expected you to answer 0.5 == 95% sure, even though it was clearly wrong?!?!?
      What a dumb bitch.
      Was this really a professor or a TA?

      A friend of mine, while working to get her Ph.D., taught a 101 course. The first time teaching it, she found that the students had significant problems with basic math. So, on her second semester teaching it, she decided to give them a basic math quiz on the first day of class (didn't count towards their grade) to determine the extent of their problems. Turns out they had problems finding a points on a graph, adding fractions, solving for x given a single linear equation...one of the students couldn't figure out the answer to -3 + 2, although it was later determined that she was paradoxically able to answer it if it was phrased as 2 - 3.

      These were college students.

      The professor or TA in the story by the GP was clearly in the wrong. However, I think I know how she became that misguided. After encountering so many students of the caliber I described above, she reasoned that this guy, who answered 50% for a confidence interval of 0.5, would have answered 50% for 0.05 and got the answer fundamentally wrong, but was trying to weasel a better grade for himself once he found out the typo was in his favor. Teach enough students of the caliber I described above, and you get jaded and assume everyone is an idiot. That's not an excuse, and she shouldn't have even argued the point, but I bet it's the reason why she did.

    14. Re:What do you expect? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, there are far more than four, if we're to get technical. For the correct answer to be three, the test would have to indicate that it's referring to classical states, but if it merely asked for states of matter, none of those answers are correct.

    15. Re:What do you expect? by Xibby · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, plasma was introduced in my 8th grade science class. Where I grew up, K-6 science was taught by classroom teachers with a series of classroom kits that rotated between classrooms for a grade level. Only PE, music, media (library skills), and computers were taught by specialists, though there were a few teachers who taught advanced math and reading for students who where ahead of their classmates. (No personal experience with the other end of the spectrum myself.) From 7th grade onwards each subject was it's own class with a teacher who was licensed to teach a specific subject and age group.

      So your statement that teachers marked you wrong for your correct answer isn't surprising, the teacher may only know what's in their teachers guide for the course material as they are licensed for general K-6 classroom instruction (or your state's equivalent if you're in the US.) A good teacher would correct your mark if you brought evidence that the test answer was indeed correct, something that should be easy in today's internet connected age. Much easier that it would have been for myself who would have had to go to the library and pull out the card catalog, on actual paper stock, to find evidence to back my answer.

      --
      I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
    16. Re:What do you expect? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      I remember getting in trouble in algebra for not using the substitution method and not documenting every single step. I thought I was pretty bad at math until I got a CS degree. Now I know I'm bad at math but not for any reasons that my teachers said.

    17. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They always wiggle out of that shit by stating that you're supposed to choose the "most correct" answer.

    18. Re:What do you expect? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1
    19. Re:What do you expect? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1
    20. Re:What do you expect? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Sure... and how do you grade projects. How do you revamp the system?
      It is insanely easy to find flaws in anything. Now try working out a solution.

      Having gone through university in Canada... I cannot comprehend how anyone advocates project based testing. Projects are the easiest to copy, team up with a smart person who does all the work...

      No doubt, some will say... but the teacher should create new and innovative projects every single year and keep an eye on their students. Yeah... good luck with that. Try being a teacher with a large number of students and keeping an eye on all of them and making every project unique.

      It ain't gonna happen.

      So long as grades are required, things like standardized tests are essential for objective testing. Grades are required to determine who gets into which program, who gets what job, who gets into professions...

      Standardized choice are a basic testing requirement. All the 'smart' kids I knew who had decent work ethic all did well on the standardized choice test. It isn't a guarantee of success and it might seem tedious and bothersome... but they are a bare minimum to determine success.

    21. Re:What do you expect? by Taser · · Score: 2

      There's also a "curator effect" that some teachers take to heart, if you can call it that, in the sense that if it wasn't taught by them, you shouldn't know about it, or that knowledge is suspect in some way.

      Going back to ancient times, my class on Applied Programming used Lotus 1-2-3 macros to develop an automated spreadsheet. Our professor insisted that we use /X commands, which were cryptic and made debugging difficult. My cousin loaned me a book which explained that the /X commands could be replaced with commands in braces, so /XBG would appear as {GOTO}, for example. My code became much more legible and easier for anyone who came afterwards to follow.

      The professor, however, refused to accept any assignments that used the brace variant of these commands, even though they were legitimate and functionally identical, simply because he hadn't taught them. After all, I could have "cheated" by obtaining knowledge that wasn't available to others in the class. That was one professor that lost a lot of respect in my eyes. As someone who's been on both sides of the teaching relationship, I would regularly take pride in those that exceeded the scope of my classes, and that went above and beyond what we could cover in the classroom.

    22. Re:What do you expect? by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      Well, I think you're both wrong. There are very many states of matter. Not everything fits in neatly to those buckets. What is glass? a liquid or a solid? (A: neither, or both, depending on how you look at it) What about Bose-Einstein condensates? Superfluids? There are many others, too. Their properties don't fit neatly into one of the four states you mentioned.

      --
      --Be human.
    23. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other then the four (Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma) what are the other states of matter you are talking about? Or are you confusing the transitions of matter as states?

      Transitions include: Melting/Freezing, Vaporization/Condensation, Sublimation/Deposition, Ionization/Deionization.

    24. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's worse is there's actually 6 phases of matter.

      Solid
      Liquid
      Gas
      Plasma (ionized gas)
      Bare Nuclei
      Nuclear Fragments

      True story!

    25. Re:What do you expect? by slew · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should look at this as I often did in grade school. This is just preparing you for life.

      My parents often taught me way back then that, the people who are "judging" you in life are not always fair, but it is not necessarily your job to prove them wrong if it doesn't make a difference. In the end, the only person you are in competition with is yourself, not your teacher, and not your friends.

      Looking back, that was pretty wise advice.

    26. Re:What do you expect? by slew · · Score: 1

      This makes my insides hurt. This makes me want to go back and become a teacher just to go screw with the straight-A-memorizers. The only questions I plan to ask are tricks. Good luck little miss "I-made-color-coded-flash-cards-but-dont-understand-a-single-god-damned-term-on-them".

      Trick questions always remind me of my High School calculus teacher.

      He used to only give tests that were true-false or multi-"guess" test (still had to show your work) and he always had an angle. One pop-quiz he gave a multiple choice test on integration by parts where every single answer but one was "e) none of the above". Another test he gave was a true-false test on summation limit convergence where you could get 10% extra credit if you got every answer *wrong* (and had the guts to try for it).

      The only other time I had a teacher do something like that was intro to electromagnetics in university. The first question of the midterm (worth 20% of the grade) was to write down maxwell's equations in complete english sentences using no mathematical symbols. I'm sure that thwarted many of the "flash-card" memorizers.

      My point: there are teachers out there that do this already. Unfortunatly, there aren't enough of them.

    27. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      absolute zero, particle, and wave. I only count three.

    28. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... we weren't expected to know about plasma...

      Really? Even my 8 year old pretends that he has a weapon with two modes: 1) Plasma, and 2) Bose-Einstein Condensate.

      He's either trying to explode me or melt me to the lowest quantum state. But then again, he's being educated in the birth country of Ernest Rutherford.

    29. Re:What do you expect? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "We were talking about confidence intervals ... and confidence interval of 0.05 meant you were 95% sure."

      As an instructor of basic statistics: That's not even right in the first place. It's mangling together how confidence intervals are presented with how hypothesis tests are presented (two closely related, but complementary concepts).

      Confidence intervals have a "confidence level" presented as a percentage which is customarily 95%. In a standard scientific journal it will look like, "mean 3.5 (95% C.I. 3.2-3.8)". This indicates that the sample mean (average) was 3.5, the population mean is likely between 3.2 and 3.8, and if we run this process many times, 95% of the time the population mean will in fact be in the interval that gets constructed at the end.

      Hypothesis tests, in contrast, have a "significance level", in some sense the chance of being wrong about your new/alternative hypothesis, which is customarily 0.05 = 5%. This indicates that if the hypothesis were false (i.e., the null hypothesis true), and we ran the experiment many times, we would observe the statistical result or something more severe less than 5% of the time. You could turn that around and say, "If the new/alternative hypothesis were not true, and we ran the experiment many times, then 95% of the time you'd get a result which did not match what we saw or something more severe", but I've never seen it expressed like that in practice.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_level

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    30. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent 2 semesters teaching remedial math to college freshman. I simply could not believe they somehow passed high school with such poor math skills (similar to what you cite above). Although it quickly became apparent that most of these students had enough ability, they would not actually show up to class every day, and do home work every night. The failure rate was very high.

    31. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many 'states of matter' are there?

      a) 1 -- Matter and Don't Matter.

    32. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently kids these days also struggle with noticing whether they CTRL-V'd twice or not.

      p.s. What ever happened to the lameness filter? Isn't it supposed to catch blatant duplications?

    33. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now try working out a solution.

      So you're saying that, in all the world, there isn't a better system in use? No wonder the system is broken. I'll continue homeschooling my kids, thanks.

      All the 'smart' kids I knew who had decent work ethic all did well on the standardized choice test.

      No, they were just good at rote memorization.

    34. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's low temperature states like Bose-Einstein Condensates to being with

    35. Re:What do you expect? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should look at this as I often did in grade school. This is just preparing you for life.

      That just ignores the actual problem and 'teaches' people the obvious. If you want to have them learn about life, ship them to Africa.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    36. Re:What do you expect? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 3, Informative

      The three classical states are so grouped because each can change into any of the others. You probably are already familiar with freezing/melting and vaporization/condensation, but may not be familiar with sublimation or disposition.

      Plasma is grouped as a high-energy state of matter, apart from the other three, because only a gas can undergo ionization and become plasma (and a plasma can undergo deionization to become a gas). Another high-energy state is quark-gluon plasma (not to be confused with typical plasma).

      Low-temperature states (consequently low-energy, but I refrain from calling it this directly) are on the other side of the spectrum. Perhaps the best example is superfluid, created when matter is cooled close to absolute zero. It has some pretty interesting properties, among the most prominent being infinite fluidity and infinite thermal conductivity.

      Also a low-temperature state, Bose-Einstein Condensate, is when the matter stops behaving like you would expect it to (separate particles) and instead in a quantum state.
      --

      For obvious reasons, you can see why these other states of matter aren't included in third grade textbooks, since many of them require some higher level mathematics and understanding of physics to begin to understand. Plasma is sometimes included early on because it is easier to explain and very common in everyday life (fire, electricity).

      But that doesn't vindicate teachers from teaching it wrong. Adding the word classical can make a whole world of difference when later they're taught about additional states, and doesn't leave the impression that those three are the only states of matter. It's akin to an elementary teacher telling children that rational numbers are the only numbers there are (irrational numbers are very real, so too are unreal numbers and hyperreals). Just because you can't explain something doesn't excuse you of teaching it wrong.

    37. Re:What do you expect? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      You forgot energy, E = m c^2 and all that jazz.

    38. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you get an idiot with just an education degree without taking any major subject in his/her undergraduate level, what else can you expect. These bogus education degrees are baby sitting (Bachelor of Baby Sitting - BBS) and worth the paper it is printed. Yet no one including parents question this aspect. Look at Finland where one has to have a Master's degree with 3.75 or more GPA and ability to teach. Here the local political parties and religious perverts spoil the future of our children. Sorry, parents need to fight to get the best teacher and pay them well.

    39. Re:What do you expect? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      "So long as grades are required, things like standardized tests are essential for objective testing. Grades are required to determine who gets into which program, who gets what job, who gets into professions..."

      Homeschooling is great in a libertarian society... which doesn't happen to be the world we live in.

      Do tell me who gets to be a doctor in your homeschooled education? How do you get admission to medical school without grades? Do you want medical school without grades?

      That is the point you're missing. Grades are not 100% about the making the student better. They are used in the greater context of society.

      No, any smart person who cannot pass a decent multiple choice test is either not very smart or not very hard working. Both of which are required to be successful and both are good values.

      And most multiple choice tests aren't just about rote memorization. They often require thinking and analysis... but they only care if you get the answer right or wrong.

    40. Re:What do you expect? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Multiple choice, standardized tests don't promote reasoning, just memorization. It's time we revamp the education system and our testing methods. Let's focus on students completing lengthy projects and being graded on their success.

      And then teachers, professors, and TA's might actually have to think while grading.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    41. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my first year of engineering given the question on a final to name the types of computer displays. I answered teletype, lamps, diodes. CRT and plasma. LCD was not an option then. I was nicked for the plasma answer. I wonder if he lived long enough to view a plasma TV. Yes, the first computer I worked on had magnetic core memory. This guy had been the chief engineer complete with PHD in engineering + 51 computer patents for Burroughs until he "got tired of making Mr. Armstrong rich". I think he got tired of thinking and went into teaching.

    42. Re:What do you expect? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Heck I had issues with negative numbers and their existence...

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  9. God I hated biology by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    I'd probably suck at that test too.

    1. Re:God I hated biology by hackula · · Score: 2

      Don't get down. Biology is barely a real science.

  10. No Child Left Behind Sucks. by ilikenwf · · Score: 2

    When I was going to American public schools prior to my college career, I found that my teachers all taught only the content that would appear on standardized tests, in an effort to fund themselves and the school more.

    In fact, when my cohorts and I would refuse to take the portions of said tests or would write satire about how we hated the tests on the essay portions, the teachers would forcibly make us redo them according to the directions. Interesting, considering these tests were not recorded on my "permanent record," nor were they beneficial to me in any way. All the teachers cared about was getting a high overall score to get the school funded and increase their own paychecks.

    As a result, only a few of the teachers who actually cared about the students ended up teaching anything of true value or usefulness for our futures. While some of that overlaps the content that was within the standardized tests, I can't help but think that taking those 2 weeks at the end of every year to take the practice tests and such would've been used better in other ways.

    Really, classes need to be focused after grade 6 or 7 on being useful for future pursuits of specialized interest, focusing on practicality rather than general theory like they are now. I don't use the majority of what I had to learn in grade school or even college for my daily work (coincidentally, I work at a college).

    1. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why did that surprise you?
      Teachers are doing a job. If that job is evaluated based on standardized tests, they will make sure that job is done well.

      Do you not work for income? Would you not focus on the parts of your job that are actually evaluated?

    2. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      First off - everyone exists to justify their own existence. Do you blame the teachers for wanting to keep their jobs, not be ostracized publicly when their scores tank, and well, keep their jobs?

      Anyway - so NCLB sucks; that's not news. What would you have them do instead? People demand metrics about how their little precious baby learns, but no one is willing to pay to have it done correctly. People demand top-rate education, but no one is willing to fund it outside of mandatory fees (and even then only if coerced).

      There's something in there about cake and eating it, I think.

      Really, though, how would you change it? Don't just pose problems, pose solutions - you never know who might read this stuff.

    3. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's actually illegal for them to review the tests, let alone coerce students to change their answers.

      I forget where the article was, but I read recently that fraud is very common - teachers changing answers themselves and such...

      Here are some to wet your whistle.

    4. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My teachers did the opposite. Their union said that if children perform poorly on standardized testing, it gives them reason to lobby for more money. "Your children are failing! Your budgets are causing them to suffer and miss out on their lives!"

      I was still in the top 95% of every standardized test I took. In fact, none of the people I associated with scored below 60% nationally (and I was on the football team), yet our state still ranked in the bottom 5, that year. Guess who went on strike later that year?

    5. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

      Same here, because they were easy for me.

      Either way the teachers go, though, depends on the school district. In the end, it's really all about the money...most of the teachers really don't give a crap about the students or their education.

    6. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I think you are remembering the Atlanta Test Fraud scandal.

    7. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      NCLB has risen academic students greatly. For example students in 6th grade now can graph and so simply pre-algebra. When I was your age in 6th grade all we did was multiple, divide, and subtract and use new cutting edge things like carrying over numbers. If you were very smart and had a knack for math you can do advanced placement into doing the things you did in 6th grade by 7th grade and learning what X is etc.

      As a result the US was a joke compared to other countries and something had to be done to force these teachers to teach rather than not leaving the slowest 3 kids in the class behind. There was no special ed back in those days except if you were severely retarded or had bad issues so teachers had these students and didn't want to piss off their parents.

      Do not be mad at your former teachers. If they are untenured you could end up firing them and they have everyright not be fired because some kid sees through the BS and refuses to go along. The ones who do not give a shit are tenured and untouchable. It is an ugly mess as principles tend to fire and rehire the same teachers now year after year and put undue stress on them just because they have a right to refire like the private sector. It is an ugly mess and with the TEA party obessed with paying them minimium wage and taking away their collective bargaining rights they are under extreme pressure by the governors in their respective states to put the pressure on them.

    8. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      Google search "Michelle Rhee". Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole.

    9. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Bardez · · Score: 1

      Anyway - so NCLB sucks; that's not news. What would you have them do instead?

      Roll it back to how it was before NCLB. Standardized tests into the wind, maybe one every 2 years (how I had them up until 2002). If a system doesn't work, roll it back to the old version, then fix it.

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
    10. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      If it was the actual test itself and if time were up yes that is bad. If it were typical coursework where they are pretest or ask similiar questions then yes the teachers need to do this.

    11. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

      You're extremely biased. A teacher, perhaps?

    12. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I did substitute teach for awhile in between jobs and my ex was a teacher who kept getting fired and rehired and was treated like dirt because of stupid metrics. She was special ed and would get penalized for her retarded kids not scoring grade level. To make the governor happy they had to fire her and rehire her every year. It became so stressful we moved out of state and divorced over money issues as we freaked out about being homeless every year. I realize the my grammar was poor but I typed that on a phone but that is why I am so strongly opinion oriented on this subject.

      Anyway, I am just giving you another perspective from the teacher's point of view. I looked at the tests for 8th grade and saw actual quadratic formulas on it! Are you aware that was 12th grade stuff when I went to school?

      There are good and bad points to NCLB and I hated highschool too when I was in it as teachers treated me poorly but I realize now that is it just a few bad apples who do not htink like adults yet force teachers to treat everyone like children. The teachers are trying to protect their jobs unless of course you say it is cheating and on the real tests told you to change their answers.

      The ones who cared about you will never have to worry about being homeless because you wanted to challenge the system. It is a sucky job to do and I strongly believe in tests but they should not be the only metric. Critical thinking is more important as well as teaching anything besides just reading, writing, and math all day long. My step kids have not had a single history course yet and they are in 7th grade. Why? How does that help boast the NCLB scores? ... aka how does that raise the share price in the private sector?

    13. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      You're extremely biased. A teacher, perhaps?

      I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    14. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Standardized testing is a demon in the American "progressive" thought, and every time a deficiency in the American education system comes up, the talking heads jump up to blame the problem on standardized tests and NCLB. But this problem long pre-dates NCLB.

      Standardized testing has been used for centuries around the world, and is in widespread use today in China, most of Europe, and most countries that have demonstrably better education systems.

    15. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am not suggesting standardized test are bad. I am merely explaining that people will tend to focus on the things they are being measured doing.

    16. Re:No Child Left Behind Sucks. by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope at least a small proportion of teachers work for the love of teaching and of passing knowledge. If all you care about is money, you shouldn't be a teacher in the first place.

      A lot of people have become so jaded they can't even notice the problem.

  11. Squirrel! by retroworks · · Score: 2

    My three kids are capable of reasoning, but they have a lower tolerance for the amount of time it takes to arrive at an answer through logic. They expect correct answers to be displayed, not deduced. They do play chess, but angry birds as well.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Squirrel! by hackula · · Score: 0

      ...and SC2, which would make the guys who invented chess piss their pants. Like every generation before, our kids will make us look like imbeciles one day.

  12. There are solutions: Philosophy is one by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_for_Children

    Philosophy can be integrated into the curriculum as early as Elementary school, and has wonderful effects that extend beyond developing reasoning skills.

    1. Re:There are solutions: Philosophy is one by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Oh, that ought to go down really well, like a loud fart during the silent prayer in church, with school boards that want to ban the teaching of evolution and advance Intelligent Creationism Design.

      Philosophy and dogma don't mix well. And philosophy tends to be blasphemous to boot.

      Didn't the Spanish Inquisition get rid of all those meddlesome philosopher kids?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:There are solutions: Philosophy is one by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Philosophy can be integrated into the curriculum as early as Elementary school, and has wonderful effects that extend beyond developing reasoning skills.

      Yes, that would make sense...but where would you find qualified teachers? Schools tend to hire the products of their own system, therefore if the schools are deficient, their graduates will share the deficiency.

      I taught philosophy, both as a Teaching Assistant at a major State university while in grad school and at a 2 year "community college" while I was looking for a university teaching job. I found that 90% of the undergraduates in my classes could not effectively express themselves in writing. Many of them could not construct a grammatically correct sentence. The ability to organize thoughts into paragraphs and to carry a line of thought to some sort of logical conclusion was within the ability of only that top 10% of my students.

      This was not only a problem with the written word, but also of reading comprehension. For example, I found that the majority of students could not tell the difference between views that a writer was advocating and those views he cited only so that he could oppose them. Very few of them knew how to read critically, even how to tell the difference between a statement that was supported by an argument and a mere assertion. They had trouble recognizing arguments, let alone evaluating them for relevance or for obvious fallacies.

      I did the best I could, but my ability to help these students was limited by their lack of the basics of education. Clearly, their 12 years of public school had been largely wasted time, and I was not going to fix this in one semester.

      I'm not optimistic about being able to fix this problem, as the American educational system is pretty much a bloated self-serving mechanism that runs on its own inertia (and the excessive funds it extorts from the public). It ought to be fixed in English and Science classes beginning at a very early age after students have mastered the basics—reading, writing and arithmetic. Both sorts of classes should concentrate on the basics of critical thinking; they should stress the idea that assertions must be supported by reasons. English should equip students with the ability to read critically and to coherently express their thinking both orally and in writing. Science should teach how to observe, how to draw conclusions from those observations, and how to test those conclusions. That's how it should be. I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    3. Re:There are solutions: Philosophy is one by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      There's work being done on training existing teachers to teach philosophy. I'm optimistic, especially when starting early enough to have a larger impact on problems as they arise.

  13. Common problem by necro81 · · Score: 2

    Although humans are called the "rational animal," I think it is, at best, only correct to call us an animal capable of reason. Logical reasoning isn't necessarily innate: it's something that takes teaching and practice. And even then, as we all know, people who are otherwise very good at reasoning things out can be downright dimwitted about applying that logic to other situations.

  14. But only because Slow Steve skewed the results by crazyjj · · Score: 0

    Most of the students actually did fine. But Slow Steve screwed them all again.

    DAMN YOU SLOW STEVE!!

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  15. Still number 1 in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self esteem, though!

  16. Anti-american skills by vlm · · Score: 2, Funny

    reasoning skills needed to investigate multiple variables, make strategic decisions, and explain experimental results

    Those skills are all anti-american. You're supposed to follow the herd and believe whatever the preacher and TV say. Anything else isn't cool.

    They need questions like:
    1) Sally takes three plants and puts one in the dark, one in the shade, one in open sunlight. What is the most likely thing to happen next:
    a) The DEA agents find the plant in the dark and bust her
    b) The DEA agents find the plant in the shade and bust her
    c) The DEA agents find the plant in open sunlight and bust her
    d) Sally switches into the far more lucrative prostitution trade and dies of a half dozen STDs.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Anti-american skills by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      Needs a "+1, bums me out" mod.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:Anti-american skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer: roll up the sheet of paper the question was written on into a doobie

      What do I win?

    3. Re:Anti-american skills by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      e) Sally hires a Professional Horticulturalist to analyze and maintain her plants.

      People expect specialization, and assume that the skills needed for it are obtained during that training.

    4. Re:Anti-american skills by budgenator · · Score: 1

      D,

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Anti-american skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Professional Horticulturalist then turns her operation around so that she can get off the street and get her STDs treated. All of which proves that you can too lead a Horticulture.

  17. No one wants US to think. by Nyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one wants us to be able to think for ourselves. Not the corporations, nor the Government. People that are able to reason, and think for themselves, see the bullshit that is going on, and will call it out. Unfortunately, the bullshit runs this country and the corporations.

    Or you're like me, able to reason and so tired of how stupid most everyone else is, that you gave up and just going to watch the world go to hell.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:No one wants US to think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]. Seriously. No one wants you to think? Did you make that up, or is it your pet conspiracy theory? Apparently the NAEP wants people to be able to think. And lots of other important people do, too. So Please, please, think a little before going into your anti-government, anti-corporation (hey, you've got the conspiracy theories of both the left and the right wrapped up!) rant.

    2. Re:No one wants US to think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, it's like you spread your cheeks and words fell, at random, out of your ass. I don't want morons like you to stand up and "defend" my country, so please STFU forever.

    3. Re:No one wants US to think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep making excuses for your failure to succeed, failure to communicate, failure to work with others, and failure to persevere in the face of adversity. I'll be busy working on making my dreams come true despite the naysayers like you.

    4. Re:No one wants US to think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it doesn't, it doesn't dwindle down into the depths of hell, instead it progresses; it progresses in the most mind numbingly insignificant amounts that it can so as to rub your nose in the fact that ultimately you are wrong. damn world.

  18. Standard Reasoning by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    One of the biggest reason failures I see going around involves the overloading of the word 'fact'. There is 'fact' as in the opposite of fiction, and then there is 'fact' as in the opposite of opinion.

    What we see is 'reasoning' that goes like this...

    1+1=37. This is a fiction, and thus isn't a fact. It is the opposite of a fact, so that makes it an opinion. Opinions are by definition not wrong, so 1+1=37 isn't wrong. since it isn't wrong, it must be right. Since it is right it must be true. Since it is true, it is a fact.

    Eureka! 1+1=37 !!!

    1. Re:Standard Reasoning by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Standard Reasoning by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      This will be modded "flamebait" I know, but this is the type of reasoning that the GOP is using to make all of their arguments right now.

      Before you hit that button, I am aware that the Democrats are doing the same thing a lot of the time as well.

    3. Re:Standard Reasoning by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      Yes, that kind of circular reasoning is called induction. A car example, specially for Slashdot: A Trabant is no car. No car is better than a Bentley. Therefore a Trabant is better than a Bentley.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    4. Re:Standard Reasoning by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The flaw in your logic, in addition to the "fact != fiction, fact != opinion, opinion is true => fiction is true" argument, is that opinion is not the opposite of fact.

      This is quite easily demonstrated: "The sky is green." is not opinion (because it's an objective statement), and it's not a fact (because it isn't true). "The sky should be green." is the opinion which can't be wrong, only stupid or silly.

      Also fun, of course, is "Socrates is mortal. A cat is mortal. Ergo, Socrates is a cat."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Standard Reasoning by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      Nothing is lighter than hydrogen. A vacuum contains nothing.Therefore a vacuum will be buoyant in hydrogen.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    6. Re:Standard Reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then flamebait it is when rather than using "GOP", you could have simply used "politicians", and saved having to explain it applied to dems as well.

    7. Re:Standard Reasoning by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Your inductive logic missed out the part where the Trabant is considered not only better than a Bentley, but is also considered a car.

      What the GP was pointing out is that some people can't differentiate between subjective and inductive, and so start off inducing, switch to subjective reasoning, and then jump back to an induced conclusion -- therefore not only arriving at the *misleading* statement that a Trabant is better than a Bentley, but also the factually incorrect statement that a Trabant is a better _car_ than a Bentley.

      I as happy to see the "This is a crow. That is a crow. They are black. Therefore all crows are black" argument trotted out earlier in this thread :)

    8. Re:Standard Reasoning by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It is in English. At least that is what is being taught to every one of our children in the public school system, and has been for at least the last 40 years.

      I explain how people's logic is flawed by misuse of an overloaded word, and you try to tell me I'm wrong by example of using bad logic via confusion of the overloaded word.

      "The sky is green." is a fact when using the word fact in the fact vs. opinion form. "The sky is green" is not a fact when used in the fact vs. fiction form.

      This is no different than the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" confusion.

    9. Re:Standard Reasoning by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It isn't even induction. It is more of a pun. With induction, all the words continue to mean the same thing. In this case, a different word is being used that just happens to be a homonym. A better Slashdot car example would be: My car is a Mustang. Kicking a horse is animal crualty. Therefore kicking the tires of my car is animal crualty.

      The difference in the two examples is that in your induction example, Bentley always means the same Bentley, Trabant always means the same Trabant, and no car always means the same no car. Whereas the pun example, Mustang does not always mean the same Mustang.

    10. Re:Standard Reasoning by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You know, I take that back. It is just traditionally, in induction, the shift of meaning is so much more subtle that it seems like a different animal.

    11. Re:Standard Reasoning by rajafarian · · Score: 1

      If I were to get a PhD in Philosophy, which I'm pretty sure I'm not, one of my ideas for a thesis is The Public Misuse of The Aristotelian Syllogism And How Governments, Corporations, and Monotheistic Religions Use It To Totally Screw You.

    12. Re:Standard Reasoning by rajafarian · · Score: 1

      You remind me of when I would tell some Republicans, "You're president lied to get us into an illegal war that is going to cost us over a trillion dollars!" and they would reply, "So, your president lied about a blow job." WTFF

    13. Re:Standard Reasoning by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Really, ALL of the GOP's arguments are reasoned by saying "this is my opinion, opinion's are never wrong, therefore it's right, so it's actually fact, not opinion?"

      Because I've never heard that, even once. Do you think you might just be exaggerating a little bit?

  19. The death of logic by snarfies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Noted sci-fi author John Barnes recently wrote something about this in his blog: http://thatjohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2012/06/hobo-queen-of-sciences.html

    tl;dr version (though its quite a good read, as his books that I have read so far): Girl in her class tried using angry pounding shouting as a debate tactic, and when asked about it, she declared it was "logic." "I was totally logical. I pointed things out real loud and told people they were dumb if they didn't believe it, and I yelled so they'd get the point."

    Yeah. Back in my day "Logic" was a little bird tweeting in the meadow, nowadays its "agrees with me."

    1. Re:The death of logic by Johann+Lau · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh wow. You know, the people in Idiocracy are at least likeable.... what will actually happen might be so much worse. Also, it will not take 500 years, no siree bob.

    2. Re:The death of logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not surprising. Debates turn either into a shouting match, a who invent more facts to support his opinion, or worse into a recitation of the list of logical errors to attribute them to one's opponents.

    3. Re:The death of logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since quite a bit of traffic flowed to the original "Hobo Queen of the Sciences" piece from this comment, I thought I'd mention that there's a follow-on about how logic education might be done at http://thatjohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2012/06/sneaking-hobo-queen-into-school.html. Thanks!

  20. No experience with the utility of reason by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kids live in a world even more arbitrary and capricious than that of adults. This is especially true in primary and secondary school. Why, then, would they develop reasoning skills? Those that do end up challenging authority and getting arbitrarily slapped down, so there's negative incentives as well as a lack of positive ones.

    1. Re:No experience with the utility of reason by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I hear that a lot from 'rebels' actually. I'm curious what you really mean?

      Of course, from the examples I've witnessed, their 'slapdowns' are neither capricious nor arbitrary. Let's use the last four instances of 'authority being challenged' I've seen already this week:
      - no, you can't smoke weed in school.
      - no, you're not a precious snowflake, you have to follow the rules laid out for everyone
      - no, you have to have a parking pass because there are limited parking spaces. Even if you "really just need to park here for a second"
      - The school day is over at 3:00. We as the school are responsible for you until then, so no you can't just 'run across the highway to get a Red Bull"

      I'll be the FIRST to agree with you that the 'no tolerance' rules are idiotic, and mainly crafted NOT for the welfare of the kids, but to protect administrations from having to make (and defend) judgement calls from schools of litigation-hungry lawyers. But that's not the SCHOOL's fault. Schools are empowered *exactly* to the degree that parents (through their school board) chose, over time.

      Take our two school districts. In one, a teacher physically 'disarmed' a kid who was harming other students with their book (cracking them hard with the spine). That teacher was suspended with pay pending an investigation, because they put their hands on a kid. Another adjacent district, a kid made a particulary foul-mouthed comment to a teacher and she slapped him. His parents not only REFUSED to press charges, they forced the kid to apologize to the teacher. (That didn't stop one opportunistic parent from discussing suing the district for the 'emotional harm' done to their student for witnessing the encounter. That suit didn't go anywhere though.) Two districts, two entirely different approaches....all based on the parent response.

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:No experience with the utility of reason by russotto · · Score: 1

      I'll be the FIRST to agree with you that the 'no tolerance' rules are idiotic, and mainly crafted NOT for the welfare of the kids, but to protect administrations from having to make (and defend) judgement calls from schools of litigation-hungry lawyers. But that's not the SCHOOL's fault. Schools are empowered *exactly* to the degree that parents (through their school board) chose, over time.

      Passing the buck doesn't make an arbitrary decision (and zero tolerance rules are perfect examples) less arbitrary. Nor is it particularly relevant to the student whether or not the arbitrary decision was made by the principal or the school board; either way, no amount of reason will make a dent in it.

    3. Re:No experience with the utility of reason by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Kids live in a world even more arbitrary and capricious than that of adults. This is especially true in primary and secondary school. Why, then, would they develop reasoning skills? Those that do end up challenging authority and getting arbitrarily slapped down, so there's negative incentives as well as a lack of positive ones.

      I think I see the problem here... there's a difference between questioning authority and challenging authority. If you challenge authority, you'll be slapped down for the purpose of maintaining authority. If you QUESTION authority, you'll still get ignored/slapped down from time to time, but the authority figure is the one who ends up looking silly, and the student still learns something (even if it's "they don't want to answer that question for some reason".)

      This is actually a distinction I'm currently attempting to teach to some kids; follow authority, but question when you don't know why or think they've got it wrong. It's better than both ignoring authority and blindly following authority.

  21. cognitive dissonance by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if a case could be made that cognitive dissonance experienced at a young age has prevented the development of proper reasoning skills. If you're told repeatedly that something is true that you can see is false, (or vice-versa) or told at a young age that something did not happen when you have direct experience that it did, the experience does strange things to your brain.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:cognitive dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if a case could be made that cognitive dissonance experienced at a young age has prevented the development of proper reasoning skills. If you're told repeatedly that something is true that you can see is false, (or vice-versa) or told at a young age that something did not happen when you have direct experience that it did, the experience does strange things to your brain.

      Still having trouble counting lights I see.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU

    2. Re:cognitive dissonance by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Which was a brilliant paraphrase of Orwell's "how many fingers am I holding up?" (Although that ended differently.)

      But yes, you're right.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  22. Re:Compared to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah yeah. Go fuck yourself.

  23. wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9 levels and only 6 trays... well that's impossible to figure out! what's the answer?

    1. Re:wait a sec... by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Some of that depends on the mechanics of the test. They mentioned interactive computer use, which by its nature is going to constrain what can be done with the lab environment to at least some degree. What sorts of things were the students allowed to do toward getting the experiment to work?

    2. Re:wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Use fertilizers 2, 4, 6, and 8. Find the one that performed best, and put the two fertilizers on either side of it on the next to trays. Either that one, of one of the last two will be the best.

    3. Re:wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, crap, i just tried this and I misread the damn problem :) I first read it as just "9 fertilizers" and not "9 levels of fertilizers" -- mumbles, always hated reading anyhow...

    4. Re:wait a sec... by Gargon+the+Rat · · Score: 1

      Easy. Use fertilizers 2, 4, 6, and 8. Find the one that performed best, and put the two fertilizers on either side of it on the next to trays. Either that one, of one of the last two will be the best.

      This only works if the performance is convex.

      If the test creators didn't specify that in some way, then there's a problem with the test.

      The report does not contain the string "fertilizer" so it's a bit hard to tell what the question said.

    5. Re:wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This won't work. Let's say level 8 actually performed better than 2,4, and 6. That doesn't mean that levels 7,8, and 9 are among the best. The correct answer could be level 1. You're assuming there's an absolute relationship with the level.

    6. Re:wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprisingly, the test mechanics are broken on the fertilizer experiment. For the demo test and the first two sunlight tests, the mechanics were:

      1) place all the trays
      2) click the "run experiment" button
      3) click the "view results" button
      4) document the results

      But for the fertilizer test, you

      1) place a subset of the trays
      2) click the "run experiment" button
      3) click the "view results" button
      4) place the remaining trays
      5) click the "run experiment" button
      6) client the "view results" button
      7) document the results

      There was nothing to indicate that placing only a subset of the trays was an option for the fertilizer experiment. And that's certainly not how a real greenhouse works, so it was somewhat surprising that they chose to do it that way. Simply put, if you assumed that the game mechanics hadn't changed, then you placed all the trays in step one like the other experiments, and you probably lost. Now, if you were playing a recreational game, you'd obviously go through trying different things, and reason out how the mechanics of the test have been arbitrarily changed by the designer for the fertilizer experiment. But this was a one-shot test, and there's not much you can do to experiment with the test constraints.

      The only ways to win are: (1) you don't recognize the mechanics, and you accidentally do the right thing because you haven't been paying attention, or (2) you accidentally guess the right amount of fertilizer. Otherwise, you're screwed.

      But whatever; I guess I'm glad I'm not in fourth grade.

    7. Re:wait a sec... by slinches · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping that's sarcasm, but since it isn't always clear on the internet I'll answer it ....

      Assuming the test can only be run once, sort the fertilizer levels and exclude a few in between (e.g. test levels 1,2,4,6,8 & 9). Then plot the results, look for a pattern and pick where the maximum should occur. Since this is a simulated test, the results should fall on some sort of continuous curve making this a relatively simple task. Although, expecting a 4th grader to understand that local minima and maxima occur between slope sign changes is probably a bit of a stretch.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    8. Re:wait a sec... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Actually you bring up a good point- that the scenario that was presented was not 'real science'. No scientist would publish a paper stating 'fertilizer level 4 would is best'

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    9. Re:wait a sec... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      When kids point out logical errors in the question on a standardized test they get slapped down.

      I did this on a standard writing test when I was in high school and got blasted for it.

    10. Re:wait a sec... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      What if the benefit of fertilizers isn't a monotonous function? What if fertilizer quantity 5 is best, while fertilizer quantity 2 is second best?

  24. Teach Logic by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm coming around to the opinion that we've got to teach logic at a very young age, as was done in classical education. Ultimately it's the foundation to all of math and the scientific method. If the first time you study basic logic is in college, then your entire education is built on shifting sand.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:Teach Logic by hackula · · Score: 1

      I agree that logic is awesome and should be force fed to kids at the expense of just about anything else, however,... Godel's proof put hole in the idea that logic is the foundation of math and science. Logic leads to simple arithmetic and not much further. Sorry to nitpick.

    2. Re:Teach Logic by dcollins · · Score: 1

      You've very much misunderstood Godel's incompleteness theorem(s). It's almost the exact opposite of what you just wrote.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    3. Re:Teach Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find some thoughts about how to introduce logic in elementary school at http://thatjohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2012/06/sneaking-hobo-queen-into-school.html. Warning, it's mostly about informal logic (common sense, not abstract mathematical, reasoning, enthymemes and cases, not syllogisms and litotes, which for some reason offends some of the math-oriented types) and it's fairly practical-minded, more about teaching application than about appreciating the beauty.

  25. Government run program fails!? by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Perhaps it has a little something to do with the fact that we're doing anything but teaching our children how to read. I'm sure they can tell you all about the first homosexual trans-gender american Indian activist farmer and how/why he/she is so important to our country. And when asked "why do we have to teach our children this hippy bullshit instead of hard math, English and science?" You'll get a vapid, nebulous answer like "It's for the good of the American people you insensitive jerk!". And then I'm expected to twist my perspective to think that learning to read isn't as important as teaching tolerance, acceptance and eventually pride in the people that our parents would have found morally repugnant. So to hell with reading! We need to know more about how the evil Europeans made so-much-worse the lives of the nomadic, cannibalistic, tribal war having, no wheel inventing, no medical, no road having, no written language having American Indians.

    K-12 should be about learning how to become a scientist. Everything else can flow though that. Right now we're turning out complete idiots that can't read or write, have no critical thinking skills, no idea what the scientific method is or how to balance a check book. But I'm sure they can all tell you who MLK Jr. is. We need to get our priorities straight by kicking out the 1984 style political brain washers in the school. School is not there so you can train a wave of brainless leftists to vote for your party in the next election cycle! And I would be just as upset if the rightists were doing the same thing.

    1. Re:Government run program fails!? by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      I think that the biggest problem stems from the fact that, as is often stated, "those who can not do teach". You get a degree because you don't want a job that will kill you (or make you kill yourself) before you hit 45. You have any talent with science or math, and you want to use that talent. You want to get out there making/discovering things. You don't (usually) want to put up with a bunch of of nasty little latchkey brats who were never disciplined by their parents. You DEFINITELY don't want to do that for a fraction of what you'd make doing all the cool shit.

      Raise the difficulty in becoming a teacher, get the fluffy bullshit out of the classroom, then tack on an extra 25% to the salary, minimum. I'll help foot the fucking bill, and I'm not planning on ever having kids.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:Government run program fails!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need a review of logic skills, buddy. Blaming it all on incapable teachers? Why would the US in particular have lousy teachers? Why now? I taught for a year in public school, and I can tell you it takes a Herculean effort to prop up a failing education system, even without constantly being sabotaged by the administration's bizarre and random rules and constant rebukes. When a teacher gets a classroom full of highschoolers who don't know how to use the internet to find information, don't know basic skills arithmetic or have any idea of what the Cold War was, you'd have to be incredibly, exceptionally talented to get them back to grade level.

      Btw public school teachers do not make bad money. Most quit because of the emotional toll of the job, not to seek higher wages. I was literally harassed by my supervisor (didn't tell the union in time) and made to teach Remedial classes which take an entire year to teach kids basic skills like multiplication, and literally got in trouble for not following the script given in the back of the book. As a new teacher, instead of training to help me, I was pulled out to meet with the principal who lectured me about maintaining proper discipline in my classroom and them gave me an ultimatum if my skills did not improve. But absolutely, let's blame teachers for everything. After all, that's the easy answer.

    3. Re:Government run program fails!? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Because if everyone learned how to see for themselves, conduct experiments, and draw logical conclusions based on evidence instead of prejudices, they would all come to the conclusion that everyone can contribute to society regardless of race or sex; that wealth, not race, is the greatest dividing factor in society; that the key to social cohesion is people committed to love and help each other, not what stick goes in what hole; and that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

    4. Re:Government run program fails!? by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      I make an argument from only being able to see one side of the fence; I've never been a teacher, only a student. Having never been a teacher, I cannot tell the difference between the administration or the teachers. If their attitudes and beliefs are separate, I feel more effort should be made to make them so.

      I never even said I blamed EVERYTHING on incapable teachers. I just gave the case for their being far more substantial motivators for talent going to a private employer rather than a public school. When you're hiring for a job, you don't attract the best by paying the least. That's pretty straightforward. As far as the amount of money they make, I will have to assume that they make more than I thought based upon your comment. It's anecdotal, but I've heard more than one teacher complain about how little they make.

      My explanation for "Why now?" has applied for at least the last 16 years, probably longer. I say 16 years because starting when I was about 12 years old, I lost half of a semester of science class each year to DARE or some equivalent program. I was the only one I was aware of who was bothered by this, and I was mocked by my peers because of it. I suppose this could be administration-fueled, though I find it hard to believe that all the schools had time taken out of science for it, which was the bit I was particularly bitter about. This was also the school that literally gave me nothing to do throughout 3rd and 4th grade math, because I had been able to do multiplication and division after being home-schooled through 2nd grade. I got yelled at by a teacher for suggesting negative numbers as a means for subtracting a greater number from a lesser. This was also the school who wanted to put me in the 'retard' classes because I could demonstrate math in my head without needing to show my work. The latter was probably because I was being uncooperative and they didn't want to deal with me.

      After graduating and going to college, I would hear things about how crazy bad things would be there for my brother, who is about 10 years younger than I. I heard things about how he would be taught multiplication for about a week, division for a week, fractions for a week, and so on and so forth and then wonder why he didn't understand what the fuck was going on. An inch deep and a mile wide. I think my parents probably had to spend more time straightening him the fuck out than the school put in to him.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  26. No the don't! They don't struggle. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Survey after survey has shown that the self confidence of US students are high and they rate themselves at top of the scales. If they are struggling with reasoning skills they would not have this level of confidence. The more accurate description would be, "the US students have poor reasoning skills, but they don't even know that, and they assume their own faulty analysis is world class."

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:No the don't! They don't struggle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunning–Kruger effect is real, news at 11.

  27. Kids are not taught to reason .. just to test well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reasons for this are numerous.
    1) No child left behind.
    2) Not allowing kids to fail
    3) Lack of good teachers
    4) Tenure preventing the removal of bad teachers
    5) Standardized testing used as a measure of school success resulting in the practice of "Teaching to the Test"
    6) Teachers generally get an education degree to teach and do not have the depth of knowledge to actually teach.
    7) People with degrees generally can make twice what teachers can in "the real world"
    8) Wasted funding on programs that until the last 20 or 30 years were the responsibility of the families.
            Additionally these programs are generally useless and only serve to further marginalize the students in them
    9) Lack of efficiency due to "Institutional Stupidity" ... there are more but you get the point.

  28. No more metrics by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone hear on slashdot probably worked for an employer who utilized these and quality went down everytime where job performance was measured. Every MBA and even undergrad taking business management courses knows that quality always sufers when metrics are used inappropriately as game theory dictates that everyone's goal is to keep ones' job. Not help the company out. So if someone figures out a way to reduce inventory to save costs the VP of manufactoring has a hissy fit as his metrics suffer on amount of units he stores and he gets a write up etc.

    Worse, studies show in business management courses like "Good to Great" that when companies do this it is because their employees suck. Putting in new management metrics makes it suck more, not make bad employees turn into good employees.

    Some moron thought it was a great idea since the private sector uses these and included it in education. There are so many reasons why these tests should not used as metrics. It is insulting to the teachers too (my ex was a teacher) as they do not even set the cirriculumn used. Basically they are handed down a copy of the test in points and decimals increments how they test per objective. 12.3 "Student shows adaquite code switching in communication, by utilizing a,b, and c etc". So on October 19th at percisely 10am - 10:53 they are handed worksheets and drilled over and over again.

    Code switching is a fancy teaching term in comprehending a concept through verbal steps given and those terms are in by academic elitist in the teaching system (yes they are in teaching too and not just in computer science).

    What they need to do is track per student tests year after year (OMG high tax payer costs!!)so teachers who teach inner city schools or those who teach all Mexicans (common where my wife taught in Southern California) do not become penalized. Also special ed teachers are getting a bad rap for poor test scores and many are being showed the door before tenure. The bad teachers who are tenured are unfirable in contrast to the good teachers. They also need to bust the teacher unions so they can fire bad teachers but teachers are not judged whether on language scores where they have only 2 native speaking english students per classroom like in Texas, Arizona, and California. Also kicking out the bad bottom 10% of students and forcing them to work minimium wage jobs would be a great thing too! They do not want to be there and they just irritate and disrespect teachers and hurt other students who want to learn. In China if you act like that and yell in class, make fun of the teacher, and cut class they will take you out in 8th grade and make you work in a factory. That is why their test scores are so damn high.

    Compulsive education, no per student test scores, and test metrics as the only measurement sound like very poor management techniques.

  29. Re:Compared to? by alen · · Score: 1

    everywhere

    talk to people from other countries and almost everyone has to take a series of exams in their senior year of high school where the score determines which college you go to, if you go to college at all. and unlike the US where a former illegal immigrant and fruit picker can go to harvard medical school and become one of the top neurosurgeons in the country, once you screw up your youth you screw up your life. no going to a good college later on

  30. Never would have guessed by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    After watching the Republican primary debates, I certainly NEVER would have guessed that Americans had poor reasoning abilities.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Never would have guessed by Barsteward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Add deists to that list

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:Never would have guessed by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Hell, hearing debates in Congress or the Senate confirms it. They amount to "You sir, are a commy loving terrorist and I have to save the world from you." Response "I know you are, but what am I?"

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Never would have guessed by argStyopa · · Score: 0

      Yep it's just Republicans.

      (Quod Erat Demonstratum.)

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:Never would have guessed by readin · · Score: 1

      People who are likely to make up their minds based on debate performances tend to be people who haven't paying attention to the candidates records or to what they've been saying during the campaign. This is especially true when the debate becomes Democrat vs Republican.

      The debates are therefor not aimed at the most well-informed voters because those voters have usually already decided - and in any case aren't likely to be persuaded by a single performance on a single night.

      Instead debates are aimed at the least well-informed voters. Debates don't tell you much about the reasoning skills of informed Americans, they tell you instead about the reasoning skills of a small set of uninformed voters. This is even more true of commercials as election day grows near.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    5. Re:Never would have guessed by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      This is true to all sorts of advertising.

    6. Re:Never would have guessed by ZorroXXX · · Score: 1

      This is true to all sorts of advertising.

      I tend to consider most advertising as an intellectual insult.

      --
      When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
    7. Re:Never would have guessed by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Can you name another party that had primary debates on TV this year? Please elaborate.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  31. Re: No surprise here either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Similarly, since I am not US, I must not have reasoning problems too.

  32. Re:Kids are not taught to reason .. just to test w by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    Societies have to act as a whole to have good educational institutions.

    I think Wisconsin is a great example of this. The state has put teachers under attack because the Republican part of the state (including many outside interests) have their own agenda.

    The Scandinavian countries have worked to make teaching a profession that has good pay and benefits and they have the results to show for it. There is care for society as a whole. Here in the U.S., however, we are going through the most selfish period of our history so far. No one (especially those with money) wants to spend a dollar that doesn't personally help them.

  33. Americans are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why else would they reelect GWB?

  34. Take the test. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a link to the actual interactive test used. You can compare your scores to that of American kids. http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/

  35. Suh-weet! by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll be 44 in a couple of weeks.

    Another name for this is "job security".

    1. Re:Suh-weet! by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      Another name for this is "job security".

      Unless the value of your job to others requires that they have reasoning skills.

      Granted, those types of jobs have been losing propositions for a while now. Jobs like "educator", for example.

    2. Re:Suh-weet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is when you get too old to work and these people are the ones caring for you...

  36. Discrimination is evil by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    Control groups require segregation so that you can discriminate between hypotheses.

    This is evil.

  37. Guess who. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    Freedom is the right to say two plus two make four. If granted, all else follows.

    From the totalitarian point of view, history is something to be created rather than learned.

    [..]

    Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another impossible for literary purposes. Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy - or even two orthodoxies, as often happens - good writing stops."

    (emphasis mine, because it's hard to *not* think of the Republimocratic Party when reading the above)

    [..]

    Meanwhile, totalitarianism has not fully triumphed anywhere. Our own society is still, broadly speaking, liberal. To exercise your right of free speech you have to fight against economic pressure and against strong sections of public opinion, but not, as yet, against a secret police force. You can say or print almost anything so long as you are willing to do it in a hole-and-corner way. But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves.

    [..]

    For the moment the totalitarian state tolerates the scientist because it needs him. Even in Nazi Germany, scientists, other than Jews, were relatively well treated and the German scientific community, as a whole, offered no resistance to Hitler. At this stage of history, even the most autocratic ruler is forced to take account of physical reality, partly because of the lingering-on of liberal habits of thought, partly because of the need to prepare for war. So long as physical reality cannot altogether be ignored, so long as two and two have to make four when you are, for example, drawing the blueprint of an aeroplane, the scientist has his function, and can even be allowed a measure of liberty. His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established. Meanwhile, if he wants to safeguard the integrity of science, it is his job to develop some kind of solidarity with his literary colleagues and not disregard it as a matter of indifference when writers are silenced or driven to suicide, and newspapers systematically falsified.

    But however it may be with the physical sciences, or with music, painting and architecture, it is â" as I have tried to show â" certain that literature is doomed if liberty of thought perishes. Not only is it doomed in any country which retains a totalitarian structure; but any writer who adopts the totalitarian outlook, who finds excuses for persecution and the falsification of reality, thereby destroys himself as a writer. There is no way out of this. No tirades against âindividualismâ(TM) and the âivory towerâ(TM), no pious platitudes to the effect that âtrue individuality is only attained through identification with the communityâ(TM), can get over the fact that a bought mind is a spoiled mind. Unless spontaneity enters at some point or another, literary creation is impossible, and language itself becomes something totally diff

    1. Re:Guess who. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      sorry for the broken characters...

      Ã means "

      Ã" means - ... heh.

  38. I'm not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The results mirror my impressions after teaching a summer school course in Anatomy and Physiology for nurses. The state of our health care is in peril (and that has nothing to do with Obamacare (which, by the way, was needed)). Half the class missed a simple question regarding blood groups, and it's not that f...ing hard. There are basically only 4 blood groups (I am aware of subgroups), and only 3 combinations of blood group antibodies (and they don't occur randomly, there is a pattern). Throw in rh, and it's still not that complicated. DON'T get sick. These nurses will be taking care of you.

  39. No shit. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    The US school system is designed to turn people into mindless worker drones.
    Kids are taught not to reason, but to leave reasoning up to their superiors.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:No shit. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Designed? I thought it was thrown together from whatever was available and didn't offend anyone important.

  40. so do something about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    highly aggressive and combative

    In a modern US school, this is not your problem. You aren't allowed to deal with it yourself, but you can call the cops. Do it. Assault and battery is illegal. He's older than 7, so yes he can be put on trial. He's nearly old enough for a ruthless prosecuter to ask for him to be tried as an adult. If nothing else, each day he is gone is a day the other students can learn.

  41. Re:School is about social indoctrination... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    It is possible to think for yourself, and go to school. I'm a wonderful example of that.

    As a human, you can create a business of your own, or even grow your own food and build your own housing. Of course, you'll need to buy land, but that's getting into other things.

    Yes, bad things happened in the past, and will continue to happen. We're lessening our bad things by the century, though.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  42. The web page with the tests used in this study by muhula · · Score: 0
    1. Re:The web page with the tests used in this study by hurfy · · Score: 1

      INTERESTING

      Everyone should try this. Some of the required answers bothered me. Like the 4th one , i think, on 4th grade freezing test.
      What happens to the water when the temp drops from 7degrees to -1 C (i didn't know we actually went metric behind my back)?
      They have to say BOTH that the water gets colder and that it turns to solid/ice. Seemed to me, 'gets colder' was a given but has to be in answer for full credit. VERY few correct answers on this one, lots of partials obviously.

      On the other hand, the fact that not everyone could read the volume (110ml) in the beaker was kinda scary. They either couldn't interpet the 10 marks between 100ml and 150ml as 5ml each or they made up an incorrect unit.
      Also there were a few that didn't get either colder/freezes/solidifies/turns to ice for 1st example...I assume they were taught 0 is freezing at some point...just what did they answer?

  43. So? by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just have to ask, is it really reasonable to assume that everyone should have great analytical skills? The study says that about one third of the students had the necessary reasoning skills. This sounds about right to me. Most people are not very analytical. This is why professions that require good analytical skills (medicine, engineering, law, etc.) tend to pay good wages.

    Anyway, this study would be more interesting if we could compare current results with results from the past, or results in other countries. As it is, it's about as interesting as saying, "One third of students were over five feet tall." Without some sort of context to put that in, we can only speculate on its significance.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:So? by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      I just have to ask, is it really reasonable to assume that everyone should have great analytical skills? The study says that about one third of the students had the necessary reasoning skills. This sounds about right to me. Most people are not very analytical. This is why professions that require good analytical skills (medicine, engineering, law, etc.) tend to pay good wages.

      It is ironic that current popular "wisdom" has concluded that everyone must have these skills in order for our society to succeed. Reasoning skills indeed.

    2. Re:So? by SoupGuru · · Score: 2

      I've also heard that around half of school children have below average reading comprehension and geometry skills.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    3. Re:So? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      this study would be more interesting if we could compare current results with results from the past,

      The IQ tests are administered to a large number of people every year and the "curve" the raw scores to get the median to 100. Every year more and more people score higher and higher, eventually they create a new test. By going through the history of these "curving" or raw score to scaled score mapping we can estimate how much a person scoring 100 in an earlier era would score today.

      It is called the Flynn Effect . A person of normal intelligence in 1970 would score about 90 in IQ tests today. A person of average intelligence would score barely 50 in IQ tests.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have to ask, is it really reasonable to assume that everyone should have great analytical skills? The study says that about one third of the students had the necessary reasoning skills. This sounds about right to me. Most people are not very analytical. This is why professions that require good analytical skills (medicine, engineering, law, etc.) tend to pay good wages.

      Do you think they would pay even more if we made everyone else illiterate?

      Other that basic reading and the ability to add and multiply, what is the point of education besides critical thinking? If people can't reason, we should not have bothered to send them to school past the point where they can read an instruction manual and add the numbers on a receipt.

    5. Re:So? by archen · · Score: 1

      Also possibly a side effect of the Dunning–Kruger effect. People can't ascertain their own analytical skills, therefore think they have them and are dismayed when average students score low on measurements.

    6. Re:So? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      ...what is the point of education besides critical thinking?

      Good question. Can critical thinking be taught? I wonder sometimes. I remember when my daughter was in elementary school and all fourth graders were required to take strings. I thought this was fine, and she did very well on the violin and viola. But at every concert they would give us a little spiel about how children who played music did better on math tests. Their conclusion was that playing music would make the kids better at math -- which is not necessarily the right conclusion. Instead, it might be that kids who do well at math tend to gravitate towards music. I know that my daughter ended up becoming quite talented musically (she even earned a couple of scholarships), but struggled to pass basic algebra and geometry.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    7. Re:So? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      this study would be more interesting if we could compare current results with results from the past,

      It is called the Flynn Effect . A person of normal intelligence in 1970 would score about 90 in IQ tests today. A person of average intelligence would score barely 50 in IQ tests.

      Somehow I think they/you got the curving wrong. More likely that someone in 1970 would get 110 today, and someone average then would go hire for exactly the reason of TFA. While kids today have the capability to be as intelligent, the educational system is structured such that they end up not being so. So IQ has gone down in the last 50 years, not up.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  44. Big surprise? by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people are not going to become scientists. At the elementary school level, people are not yet pre-selected for thinking roles; you're looking at basically a more or less random sample of the population.

    Out of a thousand elementary school kids, how many will become scientists, engineers, etc?

    Now if, say, third year engineering students across the USA are were found to be struggling with reasoning skills, oops, that would be troubling news.

    Unfortunately for those kids who are struggling with reasoning, though, a lot of the kinds of jobs that they might have easily gone into after high school fifty years ago are now overseas.

    1. Re:Big surprise? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      Out of a thousand elementary school kids, how many will become scientists, engineers, etc?

      Reasoning skills aren't only important to scientists and engineers. They are also important to (and this list is not exhaustive) managers and administrators, accountants, lawyers, teachers, counselors, law enforcement officers, soldiers, guardians of children, people managing households, and -- in a democratic society -- citizens.

  45. Crapping on Americans by Das+Auge · · Score: 1

    But if you don't spin it that way, then you can't crap on Americans. Which is often the point; facts be damned.

    1. Re:Crapping on Americans by djlemma · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I find it interesting that so many comments on this article are about how bad the education system is in the United States, and people claiming that there's a mountain of data to back up that assertion even though TFA doesn't actually touch on it. Meanwhile, not too long ago, you had this article pointing out that test results are really a straw man, and the US is actually doing rather well with education.

      I mean, I'm all for good debate, I'm all for improving things, but if one doesn't use a bit of logical reasoning when one is debating about logical reasoning, there's a slight risk of irony. :)

    2. Re:Crapping on Americans by internerdj · · Score: 1

      The study appears to have been done by the US Dept of Education on US students. I'm not surprised that the article doesn't mention a comparison.

  46. we'll see them by Major+Downtime · · Score: 1

    We will see the kids that did well on the fertilizer test on the next episode of "Weed Wars".

  47. Re:School is about social indoctrination... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know indentured servants are different then slaves, at least in the historical period of the time. Such as actually having a term period, children not taking up the parents contract. Servitude may be considered slavery now, but there is a distinction there, and is historically inaccurate to call them slaves. And settlers versus thieves? Please, the hyperbole is palpable. The more accurate term is spatial relocationists.

  48. Re:School is about social indoctrination... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, my ancestors were Irish. Does that mean I can consider myself a disadvantaged minority? My wife is Chinese and Chinese people were victimized in the US as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act). Do you think any of this will help my Irish-Chinese children get into Harvard? Come on, there must be a "plus factor" in there somewhere, right?

  49. no surprise here by serbanp · · Score: 1

    This is what you get when the school system relies heavily on grading using the "multiple choice" method.

    Yes, it's much easier to check the results and removes any subjective bias from the evaluation, but it also completely kills the cognitive development, as the kids must only remember which answer seems more plausible. Instead of concept development, we have memory training.

    Of course, the "multiple choice" type of testing is nowadays quite popular outside US, so I guess that the lack of reasoning skill is not US-bound.

  50. That's one way to interpret it by Solandri · · Score: 2

    The headline implies that US students have more difficulty with reasoning skills than other students as a whole, or that this difficulty is unique to students from the US.

    The way I interpreted it is that they only tested U.S. students, so it'd be premature to assume the results extrapolate to students elsewhere. If you have a bunch of green and red apples, and you try a few of the green ones and they taste bad, the correct declarative statement would be "The green apples taste bad." It implies nothing about the red apples - they could taste good or bad, they could even taste worse. Generalizing it to "The apples taste bad" would be premature, and throwing away one of the distinguishing characteristics of your data set (you ate only the green ones).

    A big problem I see among people getting caught up in flame wars and internet debates (especially political) is that when they read a statement with multiple possible interpretations, they tend to pick the interpretation which most offends them. I dunno if this is learned or innate, or is self-selection bias (those who are offended tend to speak up more). I think I notice it more because I usually assume most people are nice folks, and thus the least offensive interpretation is what the author intended.

    1. Re:That's one way to interpret it by djlemma · · Score: 1

      The way I interpreted it is that they only tested U.S. students, so it'd be premature to assume the results extrapolate to students elsewhere. If you have a bunch of green and red apples, and you try a few of the green ones and they taste bad, the correct declarative statement would be "The green apples taste bad." It implies nothing about the red apples - they could taste good or bad, they could even taste worse. Generalizing it to "The apples taste bad" would be premature, and throwing away one of the distinguishing characteristics of your data set (you ate only the green ones).

      My problem with that is- this was the first time this particular test was administered. The results, therefore, don't have any baseline with which to compare to. We're not comparing red apples to green apples, we're comparing expectations to results. Where did the expectations come from? The people that wrote the test, I suppose...

    2. Re:That's one way to interpret it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Given your aptitude for reasoning, I'd reason that you are either not a student, not from the US, or both.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:That's one way to interpret it by PitaBred · · Score: 2

      So... if I go get some food and my expectation is that I get the right thing, and they give me the wrong thing, it's entirely possible that my expectations are just off, and I'm expecting too much?

      They showed that the kids were all very good at getting answers when given a structured set of data and tests, but not when asked to design an experiment. That means that design skills are lacking relative to analysis skills. There's no running study needed.

  51. US adults do, too by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Otherwise why would they pay attention to humdreds of millions of dollar ads to vote for GOP (and other) candidates who are going to do things that will hurt them, personally?

    For example, none of you slashdotters *ever* want to have sex except to reproduce legally, right?

                    mark

    1. Re:US adults do, too by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Not only that, they are voting for congresscritters that don't listen to a constituent for any reason. They go to town meetings so their voters can "see it their way." They don't even pretend that they care any longer... but Joe Idiot will continue to vote for them because of the (R) after their name.

  52. Overly critical. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who thinks American students are bad with reasoning obviously hasn't spent much time outside the country. Those people haven't seen anything, especially Asia. And the problem isn't just reasoning skills, it's simply entertaining your own opinion as opposed to trying to please a superior. I've been in situations where an employee was asked what they thought about something and they'd sheepishly avoid the answer. Even when pressed they seemed unable to come up with a response. Lack of creative and independent thinking continues to be a problem, even in Japan.

    That said, I think America is moving too far in the opposite direction. Sometimes rote memorization essential. And you need standardized tests to glean some sort of progress. They might not be perfect, but there's no better alternative.

    The fact of the matter is that you need the fundamentals before you can progress. It's similar to artistic technique. Too many people hide behind the label of modern art to excuse their lack of talent. In order to have flexibility you need underlying ability. It's essentially the same principle here. And the fact is that kids don't necessarily have the knack for reasoning that people acquire with age. So why waste excessive amounts of energy trying to drill that into them?

    But certainly, Americans have the ability to think independently and creatively. And I find them to generally be better informed and less prone to falling for myths, urban legends and other such nonsense. I'll concede, it could be the part of the country where I live. But overseas and amongst immigrants I've found that the consensus is that the US has the best educational system in the world.

    1. Re:Overly critical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, so you've been to Japan where it can be considered rude to speak one's mind.

    2. Re:Overly critical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the children who can reason but not remember anything.
      Like me as a kid, and still as an adult.

      Learning through school is a nightmare, most teachers don't know what they are teaching and can only teach how to do things by remembering rules.
      I always was way behind class as the kids learned more and more rules by memorization, then after a few months I finally figured out how things really work and then surpassed the teacher from one day to the next.

      Must have been weird for the teachers I am sure.

    3. Re:Overly critical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might not be perfect, but there's no better alternative.

      What? Of course there are. Just look at the education tables for Western countries above the US. Australia is one of them. I live in Perth. None of the tests I took were multiple choice or standardized. Western Australia has one of the better education systems in the world.

    4. Re:Overly critical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only at the graduate level and only a few universities produce thinking people which is perceived in Asia as the best education. Academic smart, creative smart and street smart are all necessary and reasoning is the foundation for any one to be successful. Just rote memorisation produces academic smart only and that is the case in most of Asia. But because of some enlightened parents and the freedom provided by the US constitution, many students end up getting the creative smartness and street smartness leading to innovations. Can we teach all these to American students? Yes, but you need to find the best Graduate to teach them. If Stanford, MIT, Harvard and the other top universities get together under the leader ship of Bill Gate, Buffet, Opera and other billionaires and strive to improve the US education system without the interference of GOPs and Democrats, this country will create the best reasoning students. Will Obama listen to this?

    5. Re:Overly critical. by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks American students are bad with reasoning obviously hasn't spent much time outside the country. Those people haven't seen anything, especially Asia. And the problem isn't just reasoning skills, it's simply entertaining your own opinion as opposed to trying to please a superior. I've been in situations where an employee was asked what they thought about something and they'd sheepishly avoid the answer. Even when pressed they seemed unable to come up with a response. Lack of creative and independent thinking continues to be a problem, even in Japan.

      That's in part because in some places (like Japan) you don't do that in a meeting, or at work. You do that over a meal outside of work.

      That said, I think America is moving too far in the opposite direction. Sometimes rote memorization essential. And you need standardized tests to glean some sort of progress. They might not be perfect, but there's no better alternative.

      No you don't. You only need standardized tests if you want to make wide comparisons that often tell you nothing any way. There are far too many factors in education to make standardized tests useful - even if the curriculum was 100% the same - students connect differently with different teachers, teachers have different methods, people are different, some students are super smart but don't test well, others are really dumb but test very well, etc.

      Standarized tests don't get to the core of the problems in education. They only add to it - both from distracting teachers from being able to teach, and students from being able to learn, to having schools teach to the tests so that their students do well and they get more funding. There's a reason why colleges and universities are putting less and less emphasis on SAT and ACT scores.

      The fact of the matter is that you need the fundamentals before you can progress. It's similar to artistic technique. Too many people hide behind the label of modern art to excuse their lack of talent. In order to have flexibility you need underlying ability. It's essentially the same principle here.

      True - you need the fundamentals; reasoning is one of them.

      And the fact is that kids don't necessarily have the knack for reasoning that people acquire with age. So why waste excessive amounts of energy trying to drill that into them?

      Go talk to a kid between 2 and 5 years old. They nearly all have excellent reasoning skills. Talk to them 5 and 10 years later, and those skills have probably diminished due to the education system, standardized testing, and force fed answers.

      But certainly, Americans have the ability to think independently and creatively. And I find them to generally be better informed and less prone to falling for myths, urban legends and other such nonsense. I'll concede, it could be the part of the country where I live. But overseas and amongst immigrants I've found that the consensus is that the US has the best educational system in the world.

      I'm not saying that other countries are not worse off. Honor cultures (asia, middle-east) really suffer because of it. Western cultures tend to suffer due to political idealogies for feeding desired answers (e.g. Europe, Russia, even the US). Facism and Communism push for unquestioned authority.

      So you have not only cultural issues, but educational ones too.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  53. Get More Rigorous Tests or Don't Come to Uncle Sam by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    If you want to get money from Uncle Sam, you are going to have to do what the feds want to do.

    So you have two options:

    1) make the tests really comprehensive so "teaching to the test" means teaching everything

    2) stop accepting federal money

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  54. I blame off-shoring by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

    Kids don't have any reason to learn how to use their brains or learn any skills. What would they need them for? We've managed to offshore just about every profession requiring either.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  55. Re:Obama, the TSA and lotteries shows adults do to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take a former college law teacher with three senate terms over a guy who's got nothing more than a single term as state governor.

  56. Re:School is about social indoctrination... by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    The Irish in the 1600s were not slaves. Slaves are property which involves upkeep and devaluation while "indentured servants" are more like serfs in that they have no actual owner and therefore LESS value than slaves do. Their indentured status could be thought of as a form of bondage but it NOT slavery. Ownership is of the debt not of the one who has the debt. This is a BIG difference.

    Wearing out your slave is like abusing YOUR car while wearing out your serf is like abusing a rental car you bought insurance on (no cost to you if you beat the hell out of it.)
    -
    Post WW2 it would seem our direction was being engineered towards mindless worker/consumer drones with the upper class being the leadership in an idealistic social darwin type system (with heavy contradictions.) Now we are achieving the ideal plans of extremists of that era the place for factory worker drones is slowly being eliminated by technology. This is leaving us with a whole lot of drones without work and unable to compete with societies who were not so foolishly engineered into a dead end.

    I think; therefore, I am dangerous.

  57. Doesn't come as a shock by Minter92 · · Score: 1

    To anyone who's ever read reddit.

  58. Re:Compared to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hurts, dont it?

  59. Solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an American (born and bred from the 3rd oldest Colonial town) I'd like to take a crack at this.

    9 levels and 6 fertilizers. i'm guessing the solution here is to use 5 trays for levels 1,3,5,7, and 9, figure out which two of those five had the best performance and use the remaining tray for the middle value to see if that was the superior level? (i.e if levels 3 and 5 had best output, then measure level 4 to confirm, leading to sampling: 1x345x7x9

    Or, switching it around, perhaps measure levels 2,4,6 and 8 then measure the two empty spots between values with the best performance, then you get a readout of a contiguous 5 levels of presumably the best levels. (i.e. x23456x8x) If it's level 2 or 8 that's initially ideal, then you could only measure a contiguous 4, of course. (1234x6x8x)

    Thoughts?

  60. Re:Kids are not taught to reason .. just to test w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education works in Scandinavian countries because the population is heterogeneous.

    I know that's true, because a racist told me.

  61. Christian country by sir-gold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is no wonder that we have a lack of reasoning skills when we have a popular religion that instructs us NOT to reason, and to simply accept things the way they are without question.

    Having children who can properly think and reason leads to uncomfortable questions like : "why are there no dinosaurs in the bible?" or "how can the entire earth flood in only a few days?" or "where did Noah store all that food?"

    In other words, The US is full of stupid people, because their religion tells them to be stupid

    1. Re:Christian country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, we're attacking young minds in both ways, on one side religion (all of them) that is founded on a the idea that reason is a terrible evil thing and that the world is the way it is because that's the way it is do not question the perfection, you can't possibly understand it.

      vs

      Now figure out how to engineer gods perfect creations to do something better then they already do.

    2. Re:Christian country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.. Just wow.... Not at the nature of this comment... But because more of the comments don't say exactly this. When 46% of the country believes in creation while ignoring or actively denying actual scientific reproducible evidence, that would lead me to believe that at least 46% of the country would have trouble with reasoning skills. Coming from the reasoning that came to the conclusion that evolution is wrong, applying it in any other form would be wrong too. Now I'm not giving them the credit of begin able to think that though themselves, but it's the underlying idea.
      This is one of those correlations I thought of immediately upon reading the title of this story.

      Living in a well populated high tech area, I constantly have to remind myself that while there are a lot of stupid people around here, it's not at all representative of the rest of the country where the MAJORITY of people are stupid. America is generally speaking a country of crazy stupid people (I'm looking at you "the south").

    3. Re:Christian country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having children who can properly think and reason leads to uncomfortable questions like : "why are there no dinosaurs in the bible?" or "how can the entire earth flood in only a few days?" or "where did Noah store all that food?"

      1. There, just not mentioned.
      2. Miracle - those don't happen anymore.
      3. Miracle - those don't happen anymore either.

      Those were satisfactory for six-year-old me. I understand your desire for cold, unfriendly reality, but kids like to bring imagination into what they are taught in school. A book of miracles fits the bill. Stop bringing religion into this.

    4. Re:Christian country by Loopy · · Score: 1

      I can only pity those who believe themselves immured in such a wholly polarized society.

      The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
              F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up", Esquire Magazine (February 1936).

      Not all adherents of religion are wacko nutjobs. More importantly, not all religions require nutjobism of its supplicants. ;)

    5. Re:Christian country by Zirbert · · Score: 1

      These questions might not be as self-evidently ludicrous as you seem to think. Assumptions are your enemy.

      Having children who can properly think and reason leads to uncomfortable questions like : "why are there no dinosaurs in the bible?" or "how can the entire earth flood in only a few days?" or "where did Noah store all that food?"

      In other words, The US is full of stupid people, because their religion tells them to be stupid

      "why are there no dinosaurs in the bible?" - there are. Well-documented, just not by that name. You did know that "dinosaur" is a neologism, coined in the mid-19th century, right? Look for terms like "leviathan", "dragon", and "behemoth", then laugh at the footnotes saying that those terms probably mean something like a hippopotamus.

      "how can the entire earth flood in only a few days?" - 40 > "a few".

        "where did Noah store all that food?" - how much food did he need? Were some of the animals onboard used as feed for others (especially given that some reproduction / breeding may have taken place during the time spent afloat)? How much space was available? How much preparation time was available? Your question is an interesting design challenge; dismissing it out of hand would be a mark of an uninquiring mind.

      I'm not trying to argue for a literal interpretation of the Bible here - I'm trying to make the point that critical thinkng cuts both ways. Calling other people "stupid" because they've given consideration to questions you didn't consider worthy is not a mark of greater intelligence, it's a mark of different interests.

    6. Re:Christian country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you hit the nail dead on the head. I was confronted this weekend by my Christian family about my Atheism. They asked me why, and I told them there wasn't enough proof for me to believe in the existence of any god. Rather than taking my answer at face value and evaluating it, their responses were:
      1) You're going through a phase (a 13 year long phase)
      2) You haven't gotten enough educated (pressed further, they meant I hadn't gone to church enough)
      and 3) Don't you feel a void? (there can't be a void if that thing was NEVER THERE TO BEGIN WITH). ... and then I acknowledged that religion was something of faith. we ended with.. if Jesus ever came and showed me proof, I would definitely check his work.

      I think that logic and critical thinking is just more important to some people than others. Like anything it life, for some it is becomes a way of life through which they see everything.. and for others, merely a tool to answer standardized tests when those situations come up.

    7. Re:Christian country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf

      Colonial America had he highest Literacy in the world and a lot higher than us now and they were at least extremely seriously spiritual. Here I avoid Christian country debate. What happened?

      In the hmm 8o's official us government studies could seriously compare our educational system to an act of war by a foreign enemy. And I suppose thi situation was the fault of your local quakers?

      Sigh.

      I do note something in the story about poor multivariable reasoning.

    8. Re:Christian country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent straw man, sir.

    9. Re:Christian country by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      Those were basic question that a child would ask, how about some grown up questions.

      How much water does the earth contain (including the ice caps)? Assuming the ice caps melted and caused the flood, how long would it take them to melt (at a reasonable earth-like temperature)?.

      How many animals were on the arc (seven pairs of every bird and clean animal, and one pair of every unclean animal)? how much space would they take up? How much food would they require? How much would all of these animals (and their food weigh), and would the arc even float with that kind of weight?

      If you are given an answer that is all neat and tidy and doesn't lead to more questions, it's probably the wrong answer. "Because God is all powerful and he loves us" is about the tidiest answer you could ever give someone.

      I really believe that some people are so severely stressed out by unanswered questions that they are willing to accept the tidy (but false) answers just to get rid of the nagging questions.

  62. Re:Get More Rigorous Tests or Don't Come to Uncle by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

    I'll take 2 please. The school systems were originally meant to be funded and controlled by the locales in which they reside. So much for freedom.

  63. Sort by race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Group results by race and you get an entirely different picture. Hispanic and African American test scores have been pulling down scoring in every state in the country. When you lump large groups of stupid children with smart ones, the stupid ones dramatically taint the results.

    1. Re:Sort by race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the real problem is free school lunches. If you look at the test scores of the kids who get free school lunches, they're pulling down the test scores for the rest of the kids.

      The clear, simple, and obvious solution is to get rid of free school lunches.

  64. For proof, just look at USA team sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Athletes are taught to do...not to think or reason. Basketball is so typical - if a player gets trapped, coach calls a timeout, come here and let me tell you what to do. Every play in the NFL has a coach telling the players what to do. Baseball is the same. It's all quite sad really

  65. Take the tests yourselves here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/

  66. Yep, no surprise by Corson · · Score: 1

    But that's not an issue; they all will become managers and investors as all the "low level" jobs will be done overseas. Isn't this what globalization is about?

  67. Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why think when you've been taught to just "believe" everything that's told to you. No need for reasoning when everything a teacher tells you must be true.

  68. Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion, meet education, education meet religion

  69. Been an issue for a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at abortion. It's either OK or not ok. If you think it's ok, then you think it's an embryo. If you think it's not ok then you believe it's a baby.

    However, you will find that so many people think that abortion is not ok except in the case of incest or rape. I guess they conclude that if the woman was raped, then it's an embryo, but if she was not raped, then it's a baby. This was the basis for abortion being legalized 40 years ago. If you try to reason with these people (towards either view), you will find they usually just change the subject.

    1. Re:Been an issue for a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice straw man. I've never met a single human being who thinks abortion is OK. If you imagine that people think abortion is OK, then you've never actually talked to someone who believes abortion should be safe and legal.

      Here's the truth: Nobody thinks abortion is OK, but a lot of people believe that abortion is sometimes best choice, because sometimes all the other choices are worse. The only thing worse than a baby that's never born is a baby that nobody wants.

    2. Re:Been an issue for a long time by neminem · · Score: 1

      I think abortion is totally OK. Congratulations, now you've met someone who thinks abortion is ok! (For certain definitions of "met".)

      (Rather, I think abortion is ok for at least a couple months, while you're talking about a bundle of connected cells, none of which could conceivably be described as creating a brain or a nervous system. I'm not an expert, but I've generally heard ~3 months given as a time after which the entity you're looking at is more than just some cells stuck together. I could be convinced to move that number higher or lower with facts, but not all the way to 0.)

      The way I see it, if you want to call abortion after 3 weeks murder, you should be prepared to call every miscarriage an instance of involuntary manslaughter.

  70. Re:Compared to? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many people who fail high school can then go to medical school. Probably not many, unless they have insanely rich parents - which rules out the illegal immigrants and fruit pickers.

  71. What is this? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

    At grades 4 and 8, White students had higher average scores than other racial/ethnic groups, and Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students (table A). At grade 12, there was no significant difference in scores for White and Asian/Pacific Islander students, and both groups scored higher on average than other racial/ethnic groups.

    Race/ethnicity | Grade 4 | Grade 8 | Grade 12
    White | 163 | 162 | 159
    Black | 127 | 126 | 125
    Hispanic | 131 | 132 | 134
    Asian/Pacific Islander | 160 | 160 | 164

    The writing sounds bias to me. It said that at grade 4 & 8, White kids have the highest score. Then at grade 12, there is no significant difference. To me, these two parts give different meaning -- when white kids are better, praise them but when they are lower generalize them to be equal. Instead of emphasizing that the white kids have the highest score, why can't they simply said at all grades (4, 8, and 12), there is no significant difference between both White and Asian kids? Not that I think this is racist, but I don't feel comfortable with a science report which contains hidden message or bias. It is not scientific to me.

  72. Could be worse by formfeed · · Score: 1

    At least it says "U.S. Students Struggle With Reasoning Skills" not "U.S. Students Gave Up On Reasoning"

  73. But I bet they learned a valuable lesson by gelfling · · Score: 1

    About sharing and self esteem as they all failed. School hasn't been about thinking or ability for decades. It's about feeling good about mediocrity.

    1. Re:But I bet they learned a valuable lesson by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      About sharing and self esteem as they all failed. School hasn't been about thinking or ability for decades. It's about feeling good about mediocrity.

      Actually, this seems to be a rather good description of religion and how it makes one feel. Religion has been supplying happiness or contentment to the average unfullfilled person for millenia. The movement of this "benefit" into our schools is a more recent development.

      I think reality is that most lives are mediocre and religion and now school provides a cooping mechanism for this. Time will tell if this is a good or bad thing for our country.

      Many people of faith seem to feel that their belief provides them with a call to action. But instead from the outside I see it as a call to passiveness and indifference. The concept of a judge in the sky, implies that bad deed can be dealt with in some afterlife. To me this is a poor mindset that allows passive contentment that all will be resolved in some other reality in a fair way.

      some quick examples are: rich men will have a tough time getting to heaven. The meek shall inherit the earth. Turn the other cheek. And of course the general concept of after life judgement. Im sure the real list is much longer. But each of these seems to tell the faithful: dont worry about ur crappy life and dont worry about those who are taking so much from u... for all will be dealt with after they/you die. So just put up with all the crap for now, because justice is coming... just not in ur current life.

      It is my opinion that all justice occurs in this reality and that those who escape life without justice basically got away with it. I mean we ourselves create our own ying/yang. Perhaps I would feel better about it with a little faith.

  74. Strategic analytic thinking for 4rth graders? by CanarDuck · · Score: 1

    So only 1/3 of fourth graders were able to find the experimental setup to find the best fertilizer level out of nine, when you are only allowed to try six out of them.

    The correct strategy consists in going in two steps, first trying out interspaced levels e.g. 2-4-6-8 then "refining" with the two remaining tries around the approximate minimum. This necessitates to model implicitly/intuitively the plant growth as a unimodal (increasing, then decreasing) function of the fertilizer level, thinking ahead with the limited tries constraint, and mentally planning different outcomes of the two steps.

    I'd go contrary to the flow and say that 33% of 4rth graders solving an assignment of this difficulty is pretty darn awesome.

  75. Nine fertilizer levels, six trays?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, I'm stumped. How DO you find the ideal fertilizer level when you only have six trays? I read the whole report and that example is NEVER used. I easily and correctly answered all the questions at 4th, 8th and 12th grade levels, which is heartening given I have a BS in Biology, but this fertilizer problem is a real thorn in my side.

    1. Re:Nine fertilizer levels, six trays?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really simple, if you're willing to design an experiment that is invalid in real life, but valid in the artificial constraints of the simulator.

      Here are three hints:

      1) subjects run at different times of the year are directly comparable
      2) the size of the effect is so large that you never need a sample size greater than n=1 to get statistically significant results
      3) the effects of fertilizer is continuous with a continuous first derivative, and a negative second derivative globally. There are no local minima, and the only local maxima is also the global maxima.

      Now can you figure out?

    2. Re:Nine fertilizer levels, six trays?! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      The experiment is at http://nationsreportcard.gov/science2009ict/mysteryplants/mysteryplants.aspx , and it's completely bogus, revealing that it's not just kids who are stupid in US.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  76. Nine fertilizer levels, six trays?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "When asked about the ideal fertilizer levels for plant growth, however, only one-third of the students were able to perform the required experiment, which featured nine possible fertilizer levels and only six trays."

    Okay, I'm stumped. I have a BS in biology, but can't figure out how you WOULD test nine fertilizer levels using six trays. I read the whole report (which is interesting) and correctly answered all the examples in it, but I can find NO mention of this experiment. Can someone help me out here?

  77. NAEP researchers have poor reasoning skills. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    I have looked at the problem with plants that was given to kids, and the part about fertilizer is bogus as far as experiments are concerned.

    There is an implied assumption that the plant flowers and leaves growth per the amount of fertilizer graph has a single, wide and approximately symmetric peak, so 6 samples will be always sufficient. However no such information is provided, and nothing in the experiment tests those assumptions. If one considers the hypothesis of a single peak to be "obvious", it's still impossible to predict the sufficient number of measurements. It happens to be six, but it may not be. For example, a perfectly valid sharp asymmetric peak:

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    3 9 7 7 7 7 7 4 3

    Now how would one justify any six measurements to get the correct result only based on the values from already performed measurements?

    The kid may decide that the task is to perform the measurements with "obvious" assumption that there is one peak and in the hope that six measurements will be sufficient, however none of this is a valid approach to the experiment, and single-peak assumption is a common mistake to begin with.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  78. Statistical significance by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    The writing sounds bias to me. It said that at grade 4 & 8, White kids have the highest score. Then at grade 12, there is no significant difference. To me, these two parts give different meaning -- when white kids are better, praise them but when they are lower generalize them to be equal.

    Or, you know, maybe they used a standard test of statistical significance with an alpha value of 0.05 (which is what the report, in somewhat dumbed-down language, seems to say they did, see p. 19 of the report, under "Interpreting the Results"), and while there was an observed different in the mean results at 12th grade between API and White students, they weren't statistically significant by that standard.

    Not that I think this is racist, but I don't feel comfortable with a science report which contains hidden message or bias.

    Applying a standard statistical test to determine if measured differences in the sample are likely enough to represent real differences in the underlying population from which the sample is drawn isn't "hidden message" or "bias" (well, I guess its could be a hidden message of "you should only report things as being meaningfully different if the results provide a reason to believe they represent a real difference", or a bias against reporting meaningless results.)

    1. Re:Statistical significance by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, maybe they used a standard test of statistical significance with an alpha value of 0.05 (which is what the report, in somewhat dumbed-down language, seems to say they did, see p. 19 of the report, under "Interpreting the Results")

      I understand that (and by the way, it is on page 6 for "Interpreting the Results" and 60 for "Interpreting Significant difference" on the PDF report, not 19). What I mean is that when a report is written in the way of scientific, why can't it be written in such a way that there is ambiguous meaning in the way that it looks bias. In this case, the 2 summaries of the score give out different meaning. The first one is showing that Whites are superior when they did a little bit better; whereas, the second part, where Asians did even a bit better, is saying there is no significant difference. As a said before, why can't they say that in all grades, there is no significant difference, and then go on that Whites had the highest for grade 4 and 8.

      Oh well, I guess the people who do the edit of the report may not be the same group of people who analyse the data...

    2. Re:Statistical significance by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      In this case, the 2 summaries of the score give out different meaning. The first one is showing that Whites are superior when they did a little bit better; whereas, the second part, where Asians did even a bit better, is saying there is no significant difference. As a said before, why can't they say that in all grades, there is no significant difference, and then go on that Whites had the highest for grade 4 and 8.

      Because statistical significance isn't based on just the absolute value of the difference of the means, so its quite possible to have the situation where the place where the difference of means is greater that the difference is not statistically significant, where the place where the difference of means is less the difference is statistically significant.

      Your comment seems based on the premise that a smaller difference should always be presented as statistically insignificant if a larger difference in the same measure in a different population in the same report is statistically insignificant, but that's simply a failure to understand what statistical significance means.

  79. Perhaps more succinctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atheism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for rationality.

  80. Re:Compared to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no national comparison made or implied. The test was conducted in the US and posted to the Internet.

  81. Electrolytes! by da3dAlus · · Score: 1

    "When asked about the ideal fertilizer levels for plant growth, however, only one-third of the students were able to perform the required experiment..."

    Did anyone suggest Brawndo? Don't they know it's got what plants crave?

    /Headed there sooner than you think
    //I don't want to live on this planet any more

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    1. Re:Electrolytes! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Right there with ya on that... The thing is, once you get close to the event horizon, space and time warp badly so you can never really be sure where you are or when you'll actually fall in.

  82. Uhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand this article.

  83. You are describing bad teaching practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One pop-quiz he gave a multiple choice test on integration by parts where every single answer but one was "e) none of the above".

    Putting "none of the above" as a possible answer in a multiple-choice-single-answer test confuses the students and reduces the reliability of the scoring of the test as it favors the "gamblers".

    Spamming a test which requires calculation is not only counterproductive - it as an asshole move.
    Instead of calculating for one solution, student now must find a solution - and then double and triple check his/her calculations to be absolutely certain that it is not ANY of the above before selecting "none".
    So, a task that would take 5 minutes now eats up 10-15 minutes of the time given.
    And when students run out of time, only thing left is to gamble.
    So As get downgraded to Bs, which are worth as much as Ds as a measure of actual knowledge, cause the whole test favors "I'm feeling lucky" gamblers.

    A test should be as objective as possible. It should not favor math geniuses, nor memorizers, nor slackers.
    Every single student who attended the classes must be able to pass the test.
    Those who did all the homework must be able to get top grades.
    Those who only did SOME homework should be able to get at the very least average grades.

    You get 50% of students who are failing the test, despite their attendance of the classes?
    It's not the students who are failing but either your teaching skills or your tests.

    The first question of the midterm (worth 20% of the grade) was to write down maxwell's equations in complete english sentences using no mathematical symbols. I'm sure that thwarted many of the "flash-card" memorizers.

    That is not a "memorizer trap".
    That's a goodwill bonus, an equivalent to giving points for signing your name right.

    1. Re:You are describing bad teaching practices by slew · · Score: 1

      I disagree with many of your assumptions.

      Every single student who attended the classes must be able to pass the test..

      Why should they automatically pass every test by virtue of showing up?

      Those who only did SOME homework should be able to get at the very least average grades.

      Why? Shouldn't everyone be expected to do all the homework in order to get an average grade?

      I think you are making the totally baseless assumption that these tests were somehow 100% of your grade (they were 50%). You are also assuming that no partial credit was assigned to a multiple-guess test which would also be a false assumption. If you couldn't cut it in AP calculus, you could transfer to regular Calculus class at any time (with automatically +1 grade inflation, B->A, C->B, D->C, but F->F)

      Perhaps you are part of the every increasing clamor of dumming down to the least common denominator or that somehow a partial distribution of students should have a certain distribution of grades. As this particular calculus teacher pointed out, he basically expected everyone taking this class to learn the material and get an A (the result my year was ~70%A, ~20%B, 3 people transfered to regular calculus including the class validictorian to preserve her 4.0GPA, schools didn't have any bonuses gpa points for AP/IB classes back then). There was no making the test so hard as to attempt to discriminate levels of knowledge. There was no grading on a curve. If you wanted that, you were supposed to drop the class and enroll in the regular Calculus class which was taught more traditionally. The class was acutally offered as the first class of the day actually before the official public school start time (the normal school time started at 8:00am, but this class unofficially started at 7:30am to weed out the "slackers" and make sure everyone taking the class was committed). Basically it worked as most folks passed the AP calc test. So why is expecting kids to learn the material a bad teaching practice again?

    2. Re:You are describing bad teaching practices by hackula · · Score: 1

      I completely disagree with the idea that the students who do the homework and show up to class should necessarily get the top grades. It should not matter what method is employed to learn. Someone who knows and understands the material should get an A... period, end of story. The world does not grade on effort, neither should school. Busy work should not be graded at all. Homework is one study method and should not be graded either. If you learn better by listening intently to lectures, do that. If you learn best by reading the book, do that. Homework, do that. All of the above, do it. At the end of the day, the grade should come from whether or not you can demonstrate that you learned the material (usually in the form of a test, but projects could work too). When school becomes about something besides imparting knowledge to students, it fails.

  84. They should have talked to my local priest by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Since he was a chain smoking creationist. (Oh, and he looked like he wanted any excuse to start a fight with one of the parishioners which he would probably win, he seemed like a pretty tough bastard.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  85. Will follow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teach them compassion not competition and everything will fall into place.

  86. And Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting in the light of the recently published statistic that 46% of Americans do not believe in evolution.

  87. I want to test myself by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    There is not enough information in the article to see if I am able to pass this test. There are 9 fertilizer levels and 6 containers. Meaning, I assume there is only space to test 6 of the levels and infer the others. What information about the fertilizer for each was given? Was there a consistent variation of levels across the 9? And was there more then one type of fertilizer and how was it varied? How am I supposed to know whether or not I could pass?

    Given the provided information, I will state that level 7 was the best fertilizer because this is more then 1/2 but not too much. And 7 is a faithful number, and we all know that logic is simply an extension of faith.