My solution if I am a professor is to simply to allow open book, or at least open note. That reduces the incentive to use a smartwatch or other 'banned' resource, as it doesn't provide an advantage, since other students will have pretty much the same tools at hand.
It's absolutely possible to design an open-book test that will still be challenging or impossible to those who are unprepared. If you are only testing student's ability to memorize rote facts and formulae that can easily be looked up, then your test is bad and people will find ways to cheat.
From years of TA'ing and proctoring university tests, I quickly learned to always have the bathrooms checked by someone shortly after the test began. Students would sometimes stash a bookbag of texts in the stalls if it was a closed book test.
As the head of the department of state, she is the ultimate authority on what is "classified" and what is not, at least for information originating in the state department. While the vast, vast majority of federal workers could not do such a thing without going through a lot of bureaucratic channels, she is one of the very few people who can simply look at something and say "That document is not classified. Remove those headers and send it to me via email", and it is perfectly fine.
Not saying that is definitely what happened here, or that that situation accounts for 100% of the emails in question. But people seem to think she was a lot less powerful than she was. She was one of the top bureaucrats in Washington. Since I don't have access to all the ins and outs of her emails and what exactly they contain, I will be content to let the FBI sort it out and wait for their conclusion.
If the numbers had been larger and the dose lethal, would you still call it flamebait/FUD? It's quite ridiculous how many posters here consider nuke plants as safe as having a coal plant. It's time to eradicate nuclear plants and replace them with wind farms connected to hydro-electric dams that store any excess energy that is not immediately consumed.
You're right, that is ridiculous. Nuclear is in fact much safer.
I don't disagree that ADHD is often misdiagnosed in children, especially boys. And treatment far too often is to go straight for the meds. And if they don't work, try a higher dose! It really is a sad state of affairs.
However, as someone who actually suffers from ADHD, I felt the need to comment on your post, because there is also a certain element of our society who thinks it is a completely made up disorder, and your post might be construed to convey that notion. I don't know if that was your intention or not, but I just want to point out that there are in fact children out there who do need medication to function at school and at life in general. The working theory is that there are measurable, structural differences in the ADHD brain, which studies have born out. I hate the misconception that you "grow out" of ADHD. You don't. If your kid grew out of it, your child was probably just a normal child who then grew up to develop the ability to focus at will. In cases like mine, I still require medication to do a lot of normal activities. Sure, I can get by without it, and I even do that intentionally from time to time (I hate taking amphetamines daily). But I am... off. I leave sinks running for hours after washing my hands (three times this month). I leave laundry in the washer soaking wet until the next day. I sometimes have trouble holding conversations with people because my head drowns out their speech with its own incessant noise. And my job performance (computational physics, requires detailed focus) suffers. It's not a lack of willpower. And it's not just sometimes (everyone can get distracted from time to time), it is a daily struggle to stay on task. It's a constant stream of noise in my head that doesn't allow me to focus on much of anything without great effort.
The problem with children is that the symptoms present as a hatred of homework and school, which is a common and not unreasonable reaction that boys have to school. And it's really hard to know what a child means when they say "I can't focus on my homework" because to children that probably means the same thing as "I don't want to focus on my homework"http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/07/03/1634215/common-medications-sway-moral-judgment#. A mature adult can more straightforwardly tell you, "I want/need to do task A, but I can't seem to focus on it or finish it and it drives me crazy." Better diagnostics are absolutely necessary, especially when we are talking about giving amphetamines to developing young brains. I won't do it to my children unless I am absolutely 100% sure of what it is. When the problem is bad, real, and affecting their grades and social development, and all other counselling approaches have failed. A few dirty pictures and a 'forgotten' homework assignment or two are not enough. Not even close.
I just had a most unpleasant experience with tech support which took the better part of a week to resolve, including many hangups. Why? Because there was water on my phone line. Not a problem with my equipment, but they wouldn't believe an IT professional that it was on their end.
Assuming everyone has a smartphone, eh? Well, I don't. I pay 12 bucks a month for basic cell service, no need to bump it to $50+ for the rare occasions it would help me chat with tech support.
I sent in an email once. I got an autoresponse that emails were lower priority than phone calls and that I would get a response within 7 business days. So... I call BS.
Also, the chat service doesn't work if your internet/phone is out. That is usually why I call, it's not like I just want to say hi or something.
What if it is a problem with the line itself? Or if you don't use their crappy modem/router, but instead have your own professional gear that they won't look at?
I had a problem with my connection after the recent rains here. My landline was occasionally noisy with static, and my internet would drop out around the same time, no explanation. It had never done anything like that before. I called tech support and told them I had water on the line and needed someone to come out. They told me it was just my cordless telephone, maybe the filter was broken or something, and that I should leave it unplugged for 24 hours and check my internet connection. I couldn't absolutely rule out their explanation, even though it seemed unlikely, given all the rain and the fact that I know what water on the line sounds like. So I followed their advice, and the next day my router logs unsurprisingly showed that it had cut out several times.
I call them back again, happy to let them know that it wasn't my phone, and expecting that they would send someone out. This time they told me it must be my modem, and that I should unplug my modem and let them know if my phone was still full of static. I told them that made no sense, and that furthermore, I wasn't going to sit on the phone for 2 hours listening for an intermittent static sound that happens for 5 minutes every two hours. I demanded that they send someone out to fix my line. They tried then to convince me that it was the wiring in my house, and they would fix it for me for a fee. I told them that there was no house wiring. The only wiring was a two foot long phone wire drilled directly through the wall and into the phone box outside. No other wiring. I got hung up repeatedly, and was more than once told that if it was so intermittent, it shouldn't be an issue. Nevermind that I often am working on servers from my home in many different parts of the world, and transferring data files that sometimes take a few hours to complete. THey actually tried to pass it off as acceptable. They also told me to move my phone outside and try to use it directly from the box and see if there was static. Again, I had to patiently explain that it was something that only happens every two hours or so and that I'm not going to sit out there to diagnose their problem for them. Nevermind that I already told them there was only two feet of wire from the box to the jack inside, and it was very unlikely the problem was there.
Long story short: After five days of repeatedly calling them, they finally acquiesced and sent out a guy to look at the line. It had a ground on it due to water in the line. I honestly don't know what I could have done to get them out sooner and fix it. They wanted me to buy a new modem at my expense to rule out modem issues before they would send someone out. I escalated almost every call, and got hung up on several times.
I agree that after taking out the loans, he should have done everything he could to get rid of them. He didn't. He was "above" taking a job, even for just a few years, to help him get rid of the loans. He also attended a private school, which was a bad decision if he couldn't afford it, both then and now. (Note: Some high-dollar private schools, like Harvard and Vanderbilt, will not allow you to take on debt. If you can't pay the tuition, they call it even as long as you keep your grades up and work in the cafeteria or something). He also doesn't say when he defaulted, which is really important since you can't get rid of student debt through bankruptcy anymore. Advising millenials to default is sentencing them to an entire lifetime of bad credit, not just 7 years of rebuilding. So yeah, I think he's an idiot, and he's doing more harm than good.
But he does have one thing in common with a lot of people getting themselves into trouble today: He was 17 when he first took out the money, and he was doing something that likely every adult had told him for his whole life: Go to college! Go to college! It's a good investment!
Flashforward to today, and kids still hear that. Is going to a $50k/year private school to study latin a good investment in your future? No, probably not. But the counterargument I hold is true: That it is a good investment for the public to enable that student to study Latin by creating a public university that is affordable. But nowadays, public universities are getting so expensive that even that is not a very good investment outside of STEM degrees because you will need to immediately start making payments of $1500/month.
I still find it hard to blame the students when they make decisions at 17 or 18 based on what the adults around them are telling them (go to college! Get any degree!). And judging by this thread, a lot of people are clueless as to the true costs of modern college. My financial advisor told me that at current rate of tuition inflation, I will need to have 150k saved to pay for for my child to go to college. At a public, in-state university. I have started saving early, and I can probably afford it, but most can't. And I find that reprehensible, considering it is supposed to be a public university.
The cafeteria food is included in the "room and board" It's the "board" part. It's actually fairly cheap. $8700 for a place to stay and a guarantee you won't starve for a year.
Ad hominem. I have zero debt and do quite well for myself. I could survive for a long time without changing a thing if I suddenly lost my job. I tend to think I'm fairly decent at it. I have been very poor in the past, though, and I have a semblance of empathy for people that are struggling. It is not nearly as easy as everyone makes it sound to pull yourself up.
Even removing these "luxuries", you still have to pay for room and board. That is not a luxury and costs more than the school itself. BOoks and room and board alone brings the four year cost to around $65k. That's if you live like a monk in your dorm room and eat exclusively cafeteria food. Realistically, we are talking $70-80k over 4 years.
WHere I live, in-state tuition is officially $6,664 for a resident. But then on the university's page, it also adds in 8700 for room/board, 1072 for books, and essentially 3800 for 'miscellaneous', because you might just occasionally want to go to a movie or drive a car. Granted, those are 'luxuries'. Still, the university recommends you have $20k/year. Which is $80k for a four year degree. Not $100k, but it is pushing towards it in a 'cheap' state. If you happen to have parents that will let you live at home and are nearby the school, you can do it for a lot cheaper. But not all people have that luxury.
http://admissions.unm.edu/cost...
So tuition is not the whole story. Show me a UC website that says you realistically need less than $50k to go to school there....
Public universities can still easily cost over $100k after 4 years. I am saying that we do a very poor job of subsidizing undergraduate education costs. And although graduate school costs are also quite high, I am really only talking about undergraduate costs. It should be as low-cost as possible. University of California was, in fact, free for in-state students for a long time.
Even if free, you still won't have any of your own money to spend and start a life. I doubt many people would choose a lifestyle of collecting 10 different undergraduate degrees as a career. Even so, I'd be fine with reducing or eliminating subsidies to students who already had a degree, if that makes you feel better. My point is that a basic undergraduate education should be available, and you don't need ten undergraduate degrees before you can claim you are finally "educated".
I honestly don't mean to create that dichotomy, and I applaud you on your efforts. In fact, I wish more people did things the way you are.
I just don't feel that a university education, for anything, should cost upwards of $100k for a PUBLIC school.
The author made some poor decisions, and went to a private school to boot. I have less sympathy for him than others, but I generally don't fault young people (who are prone to make mistakes) for going out and trying to get an education.
Nobody owes you a career... Absolutely 100% agreed.
But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with.
I don't buy it that we can't afford to educate our young people. It is absolutely an attainable goal. You handwave it away by saying the world isn't fair. I agree. But that does not mean we should lie down and accept things that are possible to change. University of California used to be free. Think about that. And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state. It doesn't have to be this way.
I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I do not fault anyone for trying to get an education.
I am not a socialist, or even very liberal, and I don't really follow how education equates to general wealth. I said that education should be available to all, not that everyone should be wealthy. Everyone should not and will not be wealthy. If you major in art history, be prepared to work at Starbucks. But there is absolutely no reason that someone should be shut out from learning about it because of money.
ALmost the only thing I do think the government ought to help enable is for anyone to get educated in whatever field they desire. It can only help lead to a educated populace which is more capable of critical thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of. You submitted an article about the Navy seeming to do a good job handling a kind of mundane situation.
I support nuclear and don't generally enjoy your submissions, but I am very happy to see you have a good sense of humor about it. Enjoy your day.
My solution if I am a professor is to simply to allow open book, or at least open note. That reduces the incentive to use a smartwatch or other 'banned' resource, as it doesn't provide an advantage, since other students will have pretty much the same tools at hand.
It's absolutely possible to design an open-book test that will still be challenging or impossible to those who are unprepared. If you are only testing student's ability to memorize rote facts and formulae that can easily be looked up, then your test is bad and people will find ways to cheat.
From years of TA'ing and proctoring university tests, I quickly learned to always have the bathrooms checked by someone shortly after the test began. Students would sometimes stash a bookbag of texts in the stalls if it was a closed book test.
As the head of the department of state, she is the ultimate authority on what is "classified" and what is not, at least for information originating in the state department. While the vast, vast majority of federal workers could not do such a thing without going through a lot of bureaucratic channels, she is one of the very few people who can simply look at something and say "That document is not classified. Remove those headers and send it to me via email", and it is perfectly fine.
Not saying that is definitely what happened here, or that that situation accounts for 100% of the emails in question. But people seem to think she was a lot less powerful than she was. She was one of the top bureaucrats in Washington. Since I don't have access to all the ins and outs of her emails and what exactly they contain, I will be content to let the FBI sort it out and wait for their conclusion.
If the numbers had been larger and the dose lethal, would you still call it flamebait/FUD? It's quite ridiculous how many posters here consider nuke plants as safe as having a coal plant. It's time to eradicate nuclear plants and replace them with wind farms connected to hydro-electric dams that store any excess energy that is not immediately consumed.
You're right, that is ridiculous. Nuclear is in fact much safer.
Then we are in perfect agreement. And your wife does very important work.... Kudos to her.
I don't disagree that ADHD is often misdiagnosed in children, especially boys. And treatment far too often is to go straight for the meds. And if they don't work, try a higher dose! It really is a sad state of affairs.
However, as someone who actually suffers from ADHD, I felt the need to comment on your post, because there is also a certain element of our society who thinks it is a completely made up disorder, and your post might be construed to convey that notion. I don't know if that was your intention or not, but I just want to point out that there are in fact children out there who do need medication to function at school and at life in general. The working theory is that there are measurable, structural differences in the ADHD brain, which studies have born out. I hate the misconception that you "grow out" of ADHD. You don't. If your kid grew out of it, your child was probably just a normal child who then grew up to develop the ability to focus at will. In cases like mine, I still require medication to do a lot of normal activities. Sure, I can get by without it, and I even do that intentionally from time to time (I hate taking amphetamines daily). But I am... off. I leave sinks running for hours after washing my hands (three times this month). I leave laundry in the washer soaking wet until the next day. I sometimes have trouble holding conversations with people because my head drowns out their speech with its own incessant noise. And my job performance (computational physics, requires detailed focus) suffers. It's not a lack of willpower. And it's not just sometimes (everyone can get distracted from time to time), it is a daily struggle to stay on task. It's a constant stream of noise in my head that doesn't allow me to focus on much of anything without great effort.
The problem with children is that the symptoms present as a hatred of homework and school, which is a common and not unreasonable reaction that boys have to school. And it's really hard to know what a child means when they say "I can't focus on my homework" because to children that probably means the same thing as "I don't want to focus on my homework"http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/07/03/1634215/common-medications-sway-moral-judgment#. A mature adult can more straightforwardly tell you, "I want/need to do task A, but I can't seem to focus on it or finish it and it drives me crazy." Better diagnostics are absolutely necessary, especially when we are talking about giving amphetamines to developing young brains. I won't do it to my children unless I am absolutely 100% sure of what it is. When the problem is bad, real, and affecting their grades and social development, and all other counselling approaches have failed. A few dirty pictures and a 'forgotten' homework assignment or two are not enough. Not even close.
I just had a most unpleasant experience with tech support which took the better part of a week to resolve, including many hangups. Why? Because there was water on my phone line. Not a problem with my equipment, but they wouldn't believe an IT professional that it was on their end.
Assuming everyone has a smartphone, eh? Well, I don't. I pay 12 bucks a month for basic cell service, no need to bump it to $50+ for the rare occasions it would help me chat with tech support.
I sent in an email once. I got an autoresponse that emails were lower priority than phone calls and that I would get a response within 7 business days. So... I call BS.
Also, the chat service doesn't work if your internet/phone is out. That is usually why I call, it's not like I just want to say hi or something.
What if it is a problem with the line itself? Or if you don't use their crappy modem/router, but instead have your own professional gear that they won't look at?
I had a problem with my connection after the recent rains here. My landline was occasionally noisy with static, and my internet would drop out around the same time, no explanation. It had never done anything like that before. I called tech support and told them I had water on the line and needed someone to come out. They told me it was just my cordless telephone, maybe the filter was broken or something, and that I should leave it unplugged for 24 hours and check my internet connection. I couldn't absolutely rule out their explanation, even though it seemed unlikely, given all the rain and the fact that I know what water on the line sounds like. So I followed their advice, and the next day my router logs unsurprisingly showed that it had cut out several times.
I call them back again, happy to let them know that it wasn't my phone, and expecting that they would send someone out. This time they told me it must be my modem, and that I should unplug my modem and let them know if my phone was still full of static. I told them that made no sense, and that furthermore, I wasn't going to sit on the phone for 2 hours listening for an intermittent static sound that happens for 5 minutes every two hours. I demanded that they send someone out to fix my line. They tried then to convince me that it was the wiring in my house, and they would fix it for me for a fee. I told them that there was no house wiring. The only wiring was a two foot long phone wire drilled directly through the wall and into the phone box outside. No other wiring. I got hung up repeatedly, and was more than once told that if it was so intermittent, it shouldn't be an issue. Nevermind that I often am working on servers from my home in many different parts of the world, and transferring data files that sometimes take a few hours to complete. THey actually tried to pass it off as acceptable. They also told me to move my phone outside and try to use it directly from the box and see if there was static. Again, I had to patiently explain that it was something that only happens every two hours or so and that I'm not going to sit out there to diagnose their problem for them. Nevermind that I already told them there was only two feet of wire from the box to the jack inside, and it was very unlikely the problem was there.
Long story short: After five days of repeatedly calling them, they finally acquiesced and sent out a guy to look at the line. It had a ground on it due to water in the line. I honestly don't know what I could have done to get them out sooner and fix it. They wanted me to buy a new modem at my expense to rule out modem issues before they would send someone out. I escalated almost every call, and got hung up on several times.
I agree that after taking out the loans, he should have done everything he could to get rid of them. He didn't. He was "above" taking a job, even for just a few years, to help him get rid of the loans. He also attended a private school, which was a bad decision if he couldn't afford it, both then and now. (Note: Some high-dollar private schools, like Harvard and Vanderbilt, will not allow you to take on debt. If you can't pay the tuition, they call it even as long as you keep your grades up and work in the cafeteria or something). He also doesn't say when he defaulted, which is really important since you can't get rid of student debt through bankruptcy anymore. Advising millenials to default is sentencing them to an entire lifetime of bad credit, not just 7 years of rebuilding. So yeah, I think he's an idiot, and he's doing more harm than good.
But he does have one thing in common with a lot of people getting themselves into trouble today: He was 17 when he first took out the money, and he was doing something that likely every adult had told him for his whole life: Go to college! Go to college! It's a good investment!
Flashforward to today, and kids still hear that. Is going to a $50k/year private school to study latin a good investment in your future? No, probably not. But the counterargument I hold is true: That it is a good investment for the public to enable that student to study Latin by creating a public university that is affordable. But nowadays, public universities are getting so expensive that even that is not a very good investment outside of STEM degrees because you will need to immediately start making payments of $1500/month.
I still find it hard to blame the students when they make decisions at 17 or 18 based on what the adults around them are telling them (go to college! Get any degree!). And judging by this thread, a lot of people are clueless as to the true costs of modern college. My financial advisor told me that at current rate of tuition inflation, I will need to have 150k saved to pay for for my child to go to college. At a public, in-state university. I have started saving early, and I can probably afford it, but most can't. And I find that reprehensible, considering it is supposed to be a public university.
Your public library is taxpayer-funded. Your statement is incoherent.
For what it's worth, I'm mainly referring to publicly funded schools. I agree that Harvard can charge whatever they want.
The cafeteria food is included in the "room and board" It's the "board" part. It's actually fairly cheap. $8700 for a place to stay and a guarantee you won't starve for a year.
No. I think education is a public good. Netflix is not. It really isn't that hard.
Ad hominem. I have zero debt and do quite well for myself. I could survive for a long time without changing a thing if I suddenly lost my job. I tend to think I'm fairly decent at it. I have been very poor in the past, though, and I have a semblance of empathy for people that are struggling. It is not nearly as easy as everyone makes it sound to pull yourself up.
Even removing these "luxuries", you still have to pay for room and board. That is not a luxury and costs more than the school itself. BOoks and room and board alone brings the four year cost to around $65k. That's if you live like a monk in your dorm room and eat exclusively cafeteria food. Realistically, we are talking $70-80k over 4 years.
WHere I live, in-state tuition is officially $6,664 for a resident. But then on the university's page, it also adds in 8700 for room/board, 1072 for books, and essentially 3800 for 'miscellaneous', because you might just occasionally want to go to a movie or drive a car. Granted, those are 'luxuries'. Still, the university recommends you have $20k/year. Which is $80k for a four year degree. Not $100k, but it is pushing towards it in a 'cheap' state. If you happen to have parents that will let you live at home and are nearby the school, you can do it for a lot cheaper. But not all people have that luxury. http://admissions.unm.edu/cost...
So tuition is not the whole story. Show me a UC website that says you realistically need less than $50k to go to school there....
I agree that this guy is a crappy messenger, and not exactly a poster-child for student debt reform. But it doesn't invalidate the point.
Public universities can still easily cost over $100k after 4 years. I am saying that we do a very poor job of subsidizing undergraduate education costs. And although graduate school costs are also quite high, I am really only talking about undergraduate costs. It should be as low-cost as possible. University of California was, in fact, free for in-state students for a long time.
Even if free, you still won't have any of your own money to spend and start a life. I doubt many people would choose a lifestyle of collecting 10 different undergraduate degrees as a career. Even so, I'd be fine with reducing or eliminating subsidies to students who already had a degree, if that makes you feel better. My point is that a basic undergraduate education should be available, and you don't need ten undergraduate degrees before you can claim you are finally "educated".
I agree with everything you said.
I honestly don't mean to create that dichotomy, and I applaud you on your efforts. In fact, I wish more people did things the way you are.
I just don't feel that a university education, for anything, should cost upwards of $100k for a PUBLIC school.
The author made some poor decisions, and went to a private school to boot. I have less sympathy for him than others, but I generally don't fault young people (who are prone to make mistakes) for going out and trying to get an education.
Nobody owes you a career... Absolutely 100% agreed.
But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with.
I don't buy it that we can't afford to educate our young people. It is absolutely an attainable goal. You handwave it away by saying the world isn't fair. I agree. But that does not mean we should lie down and accept things that are possible to change. University of California used to be free. Think about that. And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state. It doesn't have to be this way.
I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I do not fault anyone for trying to get an education.
I am not a socialist, or even very liberal, and I don't really follow how education equates to general wealth. I said that education should be available to all, not that everyone should be wealthy. Everyone should not and will not be wealthy. If you major in art history, be prepared to work at Starbucks. But there is absolutely no reason that someone should be shut out from learning about it because of money.
ALmost the only thing I do think the government ought to help enable is for anyone to get educated in whatever field they desire. It can only help lead to a educated populace which is more capable of critical thought.