"If the educators are gathering data that showing people who failed or never took geometry end up making 50% less more than students who do pass geometry, they will more than likely look to tailor the curriculum to help students develop the skills and abilities required to pass geometry."
In schools, there are (at least) opposing camps: the educators (teachers in classrooms with students) and administrators (pointy-haired bosses). It's easy to overlook the very deep disconnect that these groups have within a school system. In the last 20-30 years, a tipping point has been crossed in which more money is spent on administration than teaching; shared governance has basically booted teachers to the curb, with the biggest decisions by admins only; most college teachers being contingent adjunct faculty (not tenured with protection from admin retaliation), etc.
Anyway, the people doing these giant database projects are generally not the educators you're looking for. They're Bill Gates, they're outside think tanks, they're private companies looking to sell a product and make a buck. In most high schools now the educators are not even in charge of the curriculum anymore, so they couldn't change it if they wanted to. I was talking to a local high school teacher who told me that he had to write down and formally file paperwork on any question or response who might deliver in the classroom; if an administrator walked in the room and heard him answering a question from a student that wasn't on the filed lesson plan, then he would receive an "unacceptable" job performance rating for that day. Stuff like that. The tighter you squeeze...
"Generally the combination of both the in-body citation and the bibliographic entry constitutes what is commonly thought of as a citation (whereas bibliographic entries by themselves are not)." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation]
You need a short on-point quote, plus the reference. Simply naming an article or book (bibliographic entry) does not count. You've still said absolutely nothing that actually relates to the gggggp post. Tends to make one think of those people who go on about quantum stuff without really knowing anything about it.
Thank you for that link to an 8,000-word article which doesn't initially seem related to your comment. Can the point be addressed in a key quote or summary paragraph?
"Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?"
I believe there's quite a few nations that don't even have the technical capacity to record and search every citizen's phone, email, video, and text communications. Of course the U.S. was first in that regard.
You always get that in the first 5 minutes of an economics course (to theoretically cover their ass), and then the rest of course is about money. They don't really have any way to verify, measure, or make predictions based on that piece of dogma.
I agree, but I don't think that the singularity breaks into the Top 3 sci-fi faith-based initiatives. I usually count them like:
(1) Technology will reduce our work hours until almost all of us are leisurely, creative, artist-types. (2) Automated warfare will result in conflicts occurring in which almost no humans die. (3) There is intelligent life in outer space that we can possibly contact.
Disagree. What is "hypothesis testing" (a well-established element of inferential statistics) if a hypothesis is "without a way to make or test predictions" (according to you)? And other problems.
"For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it." [Wikipedia: Hypothesis]
So you're talking about a theoretical free-market company that doesn't exist. The rest of us are talking about actual companies as they really exist, which are generally irrational, poorly run, anti-democratic, and at the whim of some possibly charismatic but out-of-touch business owner. Small or large. Whether with natural, artificial, or no monopoly.
"There are no 'corporate-style administrators' in public schools..."
Pretty much all of your statements are factually false, so I'll just deal with the very first one as an exercise. Consider where I teach: the City University of New York, the largest public urban university in the country. Ultimately CUNY is run by its Board of Trustees (mostly appointed by the mayor and governor). In the last 25 years, how many corporate executives have been on the board? 24 (53% of the total). How many corporate lawyers have been on the board? 12 (27% of the total). How many many labor leaders have been on the board? 0 (zero). How many of the current trustees have a PhD? 0 (zero). How many make their living teaching at a university? 2 (out of 15).
I read this as whining that an administrator just doesn't want to do any friggin' work as part of their job (namely: document and prove that a teacher is negligent). Here is a study on when unions are more involved in hiring/firing of teachers, and the result is that they are far more aggressive about firing teachers than administrators.
"Nonetheless, CTs [consulting teachers] rose to the challenge - not in all cases, but at a much higher rate than principals - and when necessary, they recommended nonrenewal... The result was that out of 88 new teachers who were in the program in its first year, 11 (12.5 percent) were not renewed for employment... In the year immediately before PAR [peer assistance and review], only three teachers out of a teaching force of almost 3,000 were not renewed."
I've also seen this kind of thing first-hand. At my current job observations are done by fellow teachers (sit in my class for an hour, fill out a detailed 7-page report, have a sit-down conversation with me after I read it, every semester). At my prior job observations were to be done by the assistant dean (bagged it off for 3 years, I begged and pleaded to get something on file, he sat in on an introductory computer class for 5 minutes, wrote down a notecard-sized piece of garbled nonsense totally unrelated to the class content). In summary: Administrators are pretty lazy about doing their job.
And yet all these better-performing countries have more leftist governments, stronger social safety nets, more concern about equity, and less economic inequality.
I would submit that the teachers' unions are practically the only thing keeping the U.S. public school system halfway functioning. The more the system has been taken over by non-teaching corporate-style administrators, the more it's gone down the toilet (and the more those administrators have used it as a stick to further beat down the unions). Foreign countries with stronger unions also have stronger educational outcomes.
The choice is effectively between having decisions on how students are taught made by either (a) Dilbert and friends, or (b) their Pointy-Haired Boss. Choose wisely.
The House Leadership is all GOP. They've claimed that their number one priority is stopping whatever Obama wants. Mostly they've done that -- except on this one single thing, namely freedom online, they decide to roll over. So this serves as a pretty good test for both parties as to what their true priorities are.
Obama's a pretty terrible President, but when push comes to shove it's a good check-in that the reason for that is that he really wants the same things as the GOP.
I'm sure that FBI Director James Comey has specific case files he can point to of this actually happening, and wasn't engaging in hyperbolic BS like he normally does.
"Logical Fallacies -- Changing the Subject: The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to believe or disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful to cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the person instead of the argument."
Of course, that example isn't the legal risk area, is it? The legal danger isn't when an engineer says something outrageous and the vanity mirror pops off (clearly unrelated if assessed in a court trial), the problem is when the engineer wrote "rolling sarcophagus" and later the car actually became a "rolling sarcophagus" (then you've got proof of advance management negligence).
That is: the legal risk for company management is when the engineer is actually telling the *truth*, so in response they want the engineers to *lie* (or at least obscure problems).
Slashdot Mirror
There's your summary, well done.
"If the educators are gathering data that showing people who failed or never took geometry end up making 50% less more than students who do pass geometry, they will more than likely look to tailor the curriculum to help students develop the skills and abilities required to pass geometry."
In schools, there are (at least) opposing camps: the educators (teachers in classrooms with students) and administrators (pointy-haired bosses). It's easy to overlook the very deep disconnect that these groups have within a school system. In the last 20-30 years, a tipping point has been crossed in which more money is spent on administration than teaching; shared governance has basically booted teachers to the curb, with the biggest decisions by admins only; most college teachers being contingent adjunct faculty (not tenured with protection from admin retaliation), etc.
Anyway, the people doing these giant database projects are generally not the educators you're looking for. They're Bill Gates, they're outside think tanks, they're private companies looking to sell a product and make a buck. In most high schools now the educators are not even in charge of the curriculum anymore, so they couldn't change it if they wanted to. I was talking to a local high school teacher who told me that he had to write down and formally file paperwork on any question or response who might deliver in the classroom; if an administrator walked in the room and heard him answering a question from a student that wasn't on the filed lesson plan, then he would receive an "unacceptable" job performance rating for that day. Stuff like that. The tighter you squeeze...
Citation needed, like this:
"Generally the combination of both the in-body citation and the bibliographic entry constitutes what is commonly thought of as a citation (whereas bibliographic entries by themselves are not)." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation]
You need a short on-point quote, plus the reference. Simply naming an article or book (bibliographic entry) does not count. You've still said absolutely nothing that actually relates to the gggggp post. Tends to make one think of those people who go on about quantum stuff without really knowing anything about it.
Thanks again for telling us how it can't be explained.
Another option: Lobby for regulation to make this kind of move against the communications utility illegal.
Thank you for that link to an 8,000-word article which doesn't initially seem related to your comment. Can the point be addressed in a key quote or summary paragraph?
That's always what it seems like to me, too. I haven't yet heard a coherent explanation why quantum entanglement is any different from that.
(My own metaphor involved two differently-colored hamsters in an opaque tube, yours is probably better.)
"Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?"
I believe there's quite a few nations that don't even have the technical capacity to record and search every citizen's phone, email, video, and text communications. Of course the U.S. was first in that regard.
You always get that in the first 5 minutes of an economics course (to theoretically cover their ass), and then the rest of course is about money. They don't really have any way to verify, measure, or make predictions based on that piece of dogma.
I agree, but I don't think that the singularity breaks into the Top 3 sci-fi faith-based initiatives. I usually count them like:
(1) Technology will reduce our work hours until almost all of us are leisurely, creative, artist-types.
(2) Automated warfare will result in conflicts occurring in which almost no humans die.
(3) There is intelligent life in outer space that we can possibly contact.
Obligatory xkcd. Look at the House since 1992.
It wasn't poorly worded, it was the exact opposite of the truth.
P.S. The fact that GP got scored "5: Insightful" is among the worst signs for Slashdot that I've seen to date.
Disagree. What is "hypothesis testing" (a well-established element of inferential statistics) if a hypothesis is "without a way to make or test predictions" (according to you)? And other problems.
"For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it." [Wikipedia: Hypothesis]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_test
So you're talking about a theoretical free-market company that doesn't exist. The rest of us are talking about actual companies as they really exist, which are generally irrational, poorly run, anti-democratic, and at the whim of some possibly charismatic but out-of-touch business owner. Small or large. Whether with natural, artificial, or no monopoly.
"There are no 'corporate-style administrators' in public schools..."
Pretty much all of your statements are factually false, so I'll just deal with the very first one as an exercise. Consider where I teach: the City University of New York, the largest public urban university in the country. Ultimately CUNY is run by its Board of Trustees (mostly appointed by the mayor and governor). In the last 25 years, how many corporate executives have been on the board? 24 (53% of the total). How many corporate lawyers have been on the board? 12 (27% of the total). How many many labor leaders have been on the board? 0 (zero). How many of the current trustees have a PhD? 0 (zero). How many make their living teaching at a university? 2 (out of 15).
http://www.psc-cuny.org/clarion/may-2014/cuny-trustees%E2%80%99-index
I read this as whining that an administrator just doesn't want to do any friggin' work as part of their job (namely: document and prove that a teacher is negligent). Here is a study on when unions are more involved in hiring/firing of teachers, and the result is that they are far more aggressive about firing teachers than administrators.
"Nonetheless, CTs [consulting teachers] rose to the challenge - not in all cases, but at a much higher rate than principals - and when necessary, they recommended nonrenewal... The result was that out of 88 new teachers who were in the program in its first year, 11 (12.5 percent) were not renewed for employment... In the year immediately before PAR [peer assistance and review], only three teachers out of a teaching force of almost 3,000 were not renewed."
I've also seen this kind of thing first-hand. At my current job observations are done by fellow teachers (sit in my class for an hour, fill out a detailed 7-page report, have a sit-down conversation with me after I read it, every semester). At my prior job observations were to be done by the assistant dean (bagged it off for 3 years, I begged and pleaded to get something on file, he sat in on an introductory computer class for 5 minutes, wrote down a notecard-sized piece of garbled nonsense totally unrelated to the class content). In summary: Administrators are pretty lazy about doing their job.
And yet all these better-performing countries have more leftist governments, stronger social safety nets, more concern about equity, and less economic inequality.
I think your Google glasses were set on "opposite vision" when you read the article.
I would submit that the teachers' unions are practically the only thing keeping the U.S. public school system halfway functioning. The more the system has been taken over by non-teaching corporate-style administrators, the more it's gone down the toilet (and the more those administrators have used it as a stick to further beat down the unions). Foreign countries with stronger unions also have stronger educational outcomes.
The choice is effectively between having decisions on how students are taught made by either (a) Dilbert and friends, or (b) their Pointy-Haired Boss. Choose wisely.
The House Leadership is all GOP. They've claimed that their number one priority is stopping whatever Obama wants. Mostly they've done that -- except on this one single thing, namely freedom online, they decide to roll over. So this serves as a pretty good test for both parties as to what their true priorities are.
Obama's a pretty terrible President, but when push comes to shove it's a good check-in that the reason for that is that he really wants the same things as the GOP.
I'm sure that FBI Director James Comey has specific case files he can point to of this actually happening, and wasn't engaging in hyperbolic BS like he normally does.
Maybe you were too drunk to notice.
"Logical Fallacies -- Changing the Subject: The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to believe or disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful to cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the person instead of the argument."
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/subject.htm
Of course, that example isn't the legal risk area, is it? The legal danger isn't when an engineer says something outrageous and the vanity mirror pops off (clearly unrelated if assessed in a court trial), the problem is when the engineer wrote "rolling sarcophagus" and later the car actually became a "rolling sarcophagus" (then you've got proof of advance management negligence).
That is: the legal risk for company management is when the engineer is actually telling the *truth*, so in response they want the engineers to *lie* (or at least obscure problems).