Anyone who says [citation needed] is not asking for a citation. They are saying "you are wrong".
The "level of debate" you are asking for would be something along the lines of, "I'm not sure your conclusion is accurate. Could your provide a citation, please?".
Besides, things that are obvious do not require a citation just because you disagree with it. Water is wet, no citation needed.
They conclude in the article that universities are too focused on vocational skills and not enough on Liberal Arts? WTF? People can't get jobs with Liberal Arts degrees because they don't have any job skills. This has been the rip on American universities since, well, forever (my Liberal Arts degree from 1993 included). Now these clowns say it's the opposite?
Because that's going to make far less money in the long run.
No it isn't. That's already their business model. Make software that runs on computers that they don't make. How would developing for an iPad be any different?
Shocking news. Microsoft displays faux sense of shock that Apple did something before them. This just in...Microsoft's processes actually require that they wait for Apple to do something first, then just copy it.
No amount of dumb environmental laws can close the large distances required to travel in America. Mass transit can't work here, because nobody is going to take a train from Miami, FL to Seattle, WA. Just like how nobody takes a train from Spain to China.
What skill is acquired in an American History class. It's not a skill, it's knowledge.
There are knowledge-based objectives and skills-based objectives. When clearly outlined, they form the basis of a standard against which to measure. Here are the Texas social studies standards for high school: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter113/ch113c.html History, by its nature, has all knowledge-based objectives, but you'll notice that the Geography classes have some skill-based objectives. Many subjects have both.
Who defines the boundary of "has acquired" and "hasn't acquired".
Curriculum developers and standardized test developers.
Who writes the test?
People like me with MAEds in Curriculum.
If it's the state, why should the teacher do anything except teach what is on the test?
Good point. The whole point for a test is to measure if the objectives have been met. If you teach what's on the test, you are assured the objectives will be met. As a matter of fact, if a teacher DOESN'T teach the material that is on the test, then they aren't teaching the right stuff. It's not a bad thing--it's actually part of good curriculum design. Here in Texas, a standardized test is invalid if it has questions that aren't mapped to a specific objective in one of the standards. Teachers have to teach to the standards, and it logically follows that what they teach in class will be on the test.
In your Jefferson example, if a test question asked something like, "what color were Jefferson's eyes", that couldn't be mapped to a (legitimate) objective. But if the question was , "Describe the role Jefferson played in the Declaration of Independence", that would be an easy one to map -- 113.35 United States Government (c) Knowledge and Skills 2B - analyze the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, on the development of the U.S. government
If it's the teacher that defines the boundary of "has acquired" and "hasn't acquired" then why would we need defined score boundary?
Because the teacher doesn't define the boundaries. That's what the "standardized" part of standardized testing means.
I don't intend to sound mean, it's just public school curriculum and standardized testing isn't as free-range-chicken as most armchair educators think. People can poo-poo an MAEd all they want, but there's a science to education.
I've lived in Europe (England and Germany), and despite your high fuel costs and insane environmental laws, your environment is no better than ours here stateside. And your quality of life and individual freedoms are lesser for it as well. That's my entire point. We "insanely wasteful" Americans are still here and haven't died, in spite of not caving to unrealistic environmental laws.
With that, I'd much rather live in Europe, regardless of the dumb environmental laws, because I prefer the excellent mass transit of Germany to the miles and miles of open highways here in Texas.
yes, this year the debate is about causation. next year it will be about economic feasibility the year after that they will start quoting Zeno's paradox and pointing at the impossibility of change.
That's a good point, even if modded troll. You know the whole green movement could speak volumes to their cause if they actually practiced what they preach. I see more green movement causes bumper stickers (hint: on a car, ironically) than I do people ditching their cars.
If you think that the whole place will be baked dry before you die, or before your children die, or before your grandchildren die, then I'd suggest you have a rather extreme position on global warming.
You get the people who think the world isn't heating up. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.
Those people are easily dismissed as "kooks"
You get the people who will acknowledge that the world is warming up, but insist humanity has nothing to do with it. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.
Also kooks.
Then, you get the people who are willing to accept that it is happening and that we are largely responsible, but think the whole problem will sort itself out so we shouldn't make any changes. Well, at least that's a place to start discussion, I guess.
He's no longer marked troll and is marked +5 insightful. And, he's not arguing global warming doesn't exist, he merely mentioned in #2, that the reaction to the mere existence of global warming can be argued to be disproportionate to reality.
This is the danger I was trying to avoid. I don't want to be grouped in with the global warming skeptics, because I'm NOT skeptical that global warming is occurring. I'm skeptical that humans can do anything about it, though, which is why I offered up another point of view from the black/white option of believe/don't believe global warming.
No worry, it's a self correcting problem. Climate change will change our entire civilization.
Ironically, that's kind of my point. Eventually some global climate crisis will wipe us out. I think it's pretty silly for governments to think they can regulate human behavior to prevent that eventuality from happening.
Since it was my comment to start this thread, I'd have to concur with your analogy. This is exactly what I meant. It happens anyway, so why waste the resources or change our civilization dramatically when it won't change anything?
Well, that's kind of what I meant, but there's still another crowd, that I fall under. Understand it is happening (anthropogenic, or non), but don't think anything can be done about it without massive changes to society as we know it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who says [citation needed] is not asking for a citation. They are saying "you are wrong".
The "level of debate" you are asking for would be something along the lines of, "I'm not sure your conclusion is accurate. Could your provide a citation, please?".
Besides, things that are obvious do not require a citation just because you disagree with it. Water is wet, no citation needed.
Because the highly ranked universities in the United States got the way in spite of the university system?
It's actually pretty sad that somebody would demand a citation of something so patently obvious.
They've got cheaper education at home.
FTFY.
Because it is so hard to find a citation for something so obvious as the United States has the best university system in the world:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2010/02/25/worlds-best-universities-top-400.html
It's amazing that a perennially bad 6-5 football team can actually cause deification of the players.
Those NE schools you are citing are just doing it wrong. There's plenty of money to be made in college sports:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/388387-texas-longhorns-how-the-athletic-department-keeps-the-money-flowing
They conclude in the article that universities are too focused on vocational skills and not enough on Liberal Arts? WTF? People can't get jobs with Liberal Arts degrees because they don't have any job skills. This has been the rip on American universities since, well, forever (my Liberal Arts degree from 1993 included). Now these clowns say it's the opposite?
Because that's going to make far less money in the long run.
No it isn't. That's already their business model. Make software that runs on computers that they don't make. How would developing for an iPad be any different?
Shocking news. Microsoft displays faux sense of shock that Apple did something before them. This just in...Microsoft's processes actually require that they wait for Apple to do something first, then just copy it.
No amount of dumb environmental laws can close the large distances required to travel in America. Mass transit can't work here, because nobody is going to take a train from Miami, FL to Seattle, WA. Just like how nobody takes a train from Spain to China.
What skill is acquired in an American History class. It's not a skill, it's knowledge.
There are knowledge-based objectives and skills-based objectives. When clearly outlined, they form the basis of a standard against which to measure. Here are the Texas social studies standards for high school: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter113/ch113c.html History, by its nature, has all knowledge-based objectives, but you'll notice that the Geography classes have some skill-based objectives. Many subjects have both.
Who defines the boundary of "has acquired" and "hasn't acquired".
Curriculum developers and standardized test developers.
Who writes the test?
People like me with MAEds in Curriculum.
If it's the state, why should the teacher do anything except teach what is on the test?
Good point. The whole point for a test is to measure if the objectives have been met. If you teach what's on the test, you are assured the objectives will be met. As a matter of fact, if a teacher DOESN'T teach the material that is on the test, then they aren't teaching the right stuff. It's not a bad thing--it's actually part of good curriculum design. Here in Texas, a standardized test is invalid if it has questions that aren't mapped to a specific objective in one of the standards. Teachers have to teach to the standards, and it logically follows that what they teach in class will be on the test.
In your Jefferson example, if a test question asked something like, "what color were Jefferson's eyes", that couldn't be mapped to a (legitimate) objective. But if the question was , "Describe the role Jefferson played in the Declaration of Independence", that would be an easy one to map -- 113.35 United States Government (c) Knowledge and Skills 2B - analyze the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, on the development of the U.S. government
If it's the teacher that defines the boundary of "has acquired" and "hasn't acquired" then why would we need defined score boundary?
Because the teacher doesn't define the boundaries. That's what the "standardized" part of standardized testing means.
I don't intend to sound mean, it's just public school curriculum and standardized testing isn't as free-range-chicken as most armchair educators think. People can poo-poo an MAEd all they want, but there's a science to education.
I've lived in Europe (England and Germany), and despite your high fuel costs and insane environmental laws, your environment is no better than ours here stateside. And your quality of life and individual freedoms are lesser for it as well. That's my entire point. We "insanely wasteful" Americans are still here and haven't died, in spite of not caving to unrealistic environmental laws.
With that, I'd much rather live in Europe, regardless of the dumb environmental laws, because I prefer the excellent mass transit of Germany to the miles and miles of open highways here in Texas.
I don't give a damn who we blame, but let's find a way to halt/fix it, shall we?
Well shouldn't you start with an understanding of the cause before jumping in head first to find a fix?
yes, this year the debate is about causation. next year it will be about economic feasibility the year after that they will start quoting Zeno's paradox and pointing at the impossibility of change.
ultimately scientists debate nested interests stall.
Then after that it's the year of Linux?
That's a good point, even if modded troll. You know the whole green movement could speak volumes to their cause if they actually practiced what they preach. I see more green movement causes bumper stickers (hint: on a car, ironically) than I do people ditching their cars.
If you think that the whole place will be baked dry before you die, or before your children die, or before your grandchildren die, then I'd suggest you have a rather extreme position on global warming.
You get the people who think the world isn't heating up. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.
Those people are easily dismissed as "kooks"
You get the people who will acknowledge that the world is warming up, but insist humanity has nothing to do with it. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.
Also kooks.
Then, you get the people who are willing to accept that it is happening and that we are largely responsible, but think the whole problem will sort itself out so we shouldn't make any changes. Well, at least that's a place to start discussion, I guess.
Good, I'm glad we have a starting place.
He's no longer marked troll and is marked +5 insightful. And, he's not arguing global warming doesn't exist, he merely mentioned in #2, that the reaction to the mere existence of global warming can be argued to be disproportionate to reality.
I would hate for common Joe to "make up his own mind" about something that is scientifically complex.
This is the danger I was trying to avoid. I don't want to be grouped in with the global warming skeptics, because I'm NOT skeptical that global warming is occurring. I'm skeptical that humans can do anything about it, though, which is why I offered up another point of view from the black/white option of believe/don't believe global warming.
No worry, it's a self correcting problem. Climate change will change our entire civilization.
Ironically, that's kind of my point. Eventually some global climate crisis will wipe us out. I think it's pretty silly for governments to think they can regulate human behavior to prevent that eventuality from happening.
Since it was my comment to start this thread, I'd have to concur with your analogy. This is exactly what I meant. It happens anyway, so why waste the resources or change our civilization dramatically when it won't change anything?
Well, that's kind of what I meant, but there's still another crowd, that I fall under. Understand it is happening (anthropogenic, or non), but don't think anything can be done about it without massive changes to society as we know it.
That's true in normal intersections as well.