Slashdot Mirror
Some States Dropping GED Tests Due To Price Spikes
First time accepted submitter murkwood7 writes with news about states looking for an alternative to GED tests because of cost constraints. "Several dozen states are looking for an alternative to the GED high school equivalency test because of concerns that a new version coming out next year is more costly and will no longer be offered in a pencil and paper format.
The responsibility for issuing high school equivalency certificates or diplomas rests with states, and they've relied on the General Education Development exam since soon after the test was created to help returning World War II veterans.
But now 40 states and the District of Columbia are participating in a working group that's considering what's available besides the GED, and two test makers are hawking new exams."
In operation since shortly after WWII wrapped up, and now Pearson steps in and the price spikes... Allow me a moment to collect myself after such an earth-shattering surprise. Does anybody know what moment of insanity and/or oversight in foundational structure allowed Pearson to get in on the action in the first place?
Or it means that you couldn't keep going to school because you had to support your family or that your family had issues that you had to escape (see, crime, poverty). One of my very good friends dropped out of high school, got his GED, attended college, and graduated with degrees in both electrical engineering and computer engineering. He also maintained a 3.9 GPA (only one class ever gave him less than a 4.0). Now, he's a very smart guy, mind you, but it just goes to show that not everyone out there getting a GED is meth-snorting, glue-sniffing trash. Try having a little compassion.
The usual reason given for privatizing is the old canard "the private corporations can do this at a much lower cost".
.
The real reason for privatizing is to help funnel public funds into the hands of the corporations run by the buddies of whomsoever happens to be in power at the moment, democrat or republican.
.
The idea of saving money helps sell privatization, but it never takes into account: -- cost over-runs
-- no incentive to keep costs down
-- no incentive to make availability or usability easy
-- no incentive to use formats or techniques that would allow easy migration of data or processes onto other platforms in case this doesn't work out (i.e. companies have a perverse incentive to make themselves indispensable)
-- low-ball bids make you think the cost is going to be lower, but the political pal always makes sure that the corporation gets a cost plus profit contract, rather than a fixed cost contract. It's a scam, this push to privatize is not helping anything.
It's not common sense he needs. It's a big cluebat across the side of his head that he needs.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
> "the private corporations can do this at a much lower cost".
> The idea of saving money helps sell privatization, but it never takes into account:
That this only works when there is competition.
Creating a private monopoly just grantees that rents will go to the private hands.
Some dumb fucks of kids grow out of it, to become smart and productive adults. Others become Slashdot AC trolls.
I suggest you read Adam Smith's commentary on the value of publicly funded education in "The Wealth of Nations." After noting the higher "efficiencies" of privatizing education, Adam Smith still concludes that a more broadly educated public through public education (even at the expense of wasting a bit more money on less-motivated students) is ultimately for the public good. Of course, more modern free-marketeers who don't give a fuck about the public good (only maximizing profits) come to different conclusions.
And so what? Imagine that a person is a horrible, 2bit no-account lazy bum who dropped out of school because he wanted to smoke pot.
Well, people can change! Such a person shouldn't be held back because of what he did in high school. We all sucked in some ways in high school.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Smith's specific discussion in "Wealth of Nations" concerned university level education, not sixth grade, though the same general class of arguments apply at basically every level (the more educated the populace, to whatever level they are capable of rising to though perhaps not paying for on the private market, the better overall for society).
There are many of us that have never used drugs that have taken the GED exam, myself included. During high school both my father, and my younger sister died. And my mother decided that I moving to follow my grandparents was a good idea, and my credits transferred for half what they were worth at the previous school. so as a junior I credit wise I looked like a freshman. (since half credits were rounded down) I had never used any drugs that were not prescribed to me or came over the counter. (and no I did not modify those) my GPA did suffer due to everything I was going through, but even then I was never a straight A student. So, I took the GED exam which at that time was weighted so that only 25% of high school graduates could pass it. I passed it on my first try
I was stuck in a dead end job for many years, but I'm finally back in school. Currently have completed an EE minor, am one class away from a math minor as well, and I am working on completing my senior year for a CS major..
Who are you to say what someone else needs? Especially, if you don't know their life. The details I placed in this post are just a fraction of the stories and difficulties I have faced. If you think you know him well enough to state "It's a big cluebat across the side of his head that he needs." then maybe he knows you well enough to state the same, or possibly worse.
The test is computerized, but it is still proctored. You need to schedule the exam in a testing center, and show up at the appointment time with a valid ID.
If GED test can be taken online, I bet you there will be attempts in test taker impersonation.
New Economic Perspectives