There is no reason not to consider makeshift solutions. By consuming a more efficient food, we have less ground to cover on the limit population and consumption front.
When I first saw this I thought the premise would be to 'accidentally' text your parents from an unknown number or web service suggesting the drug deal, then seeing which parents try to take advantage of the opportunity to buy drugs.
But in the situation we are talking about here, taking the easiest classes doesn't get you your degree any faster. It just means that you can do fewer things.
I can't imagine that question being in line with the objectives of any course. Why would it be on a test?
It is standard operating procedure for standardized tests and AP tests.
There is also no reason to limit a test to sitting down and filling in some bubbles on a paper. Or a single day. A test can include practical labs and internships
Could it be a series of small assignments throughout a course that are graded, tallied up, and then factored into the final grade? It sounds to me like your definition of what constitutes an exam could include the grades that girls are performing better than the boys in.
Even if the test is bad, grades should reflect how well you are learning to pass the test not how well you will do after the test.
What's wrong with having grades that reflect how well you will do after the test? That seems really useful to me. How is that any more arbitrary than using a test to predict that? Better yet, why not use both and recognize that they both tell you useful information rather than insisting that one is flawed?
I'd say the vast majority use their grades to get a job which is where they really learn and their job performance generally has little correlation to their grades and only some correlation to their test scores. The correlation to test scores may well have more to do with ability to handle pressure than anything actually being tested.
And I would say their job performance generally has little correlation to their test scores and some correlation to their grades. The correlation to grades may well have more to do with ability to organize and mange one's work than any material being taught. However, we know that both of our statements don't have anything to back them up right?
Tests are not necessarily objective, there is the issue of sterotype threat . The gist of it is that if you remind girls that they are girls (by asking them to fill in a bubble for gender) before a math test they performed worse. When asked to fill in the bubble after the test, they performed equally.
Not to mention how anxiety (which can affect boys and girls) can cause bad performance on an exam, when that person may have gotten excellent grades all through the course and continue to retain and apply the information that they learned in the course long afterwards.
I'm not saying exams are not to be trusted, but I think you can get a better picture of how much someone got out of a course by considering more than just a single data point.
I agree with your sentiment that a tablet is a reasonable complement to the things to a child should interact with, but I'd like to point out that a "A learning device with no texture, fake 3d, no smell, taste, heat, or any other input for senses other than sight and hearing" could be used to describe a picture book (expect for the hearing part). Yet, no one is claiming that pictures books could be harmful for development.
That's pretty much the idea. If scientists contribute more to the overall economy than news reporters, then if you produce more scientists, the overall economy will be higher.
I don't think you can treat the economy or workforce like an individual farm where you try to maximize profit by only producing the single most profitable crop. We need a diverse workforce in order to have a strong economy just like we need a diverse landscape to produce the variety of crops we need, regardless of which one is most "valuable". As an added bonus, a diverse workforce is more resilient when there is a downturn in an individual sector.
Right. Some of us consider learning a fond personal experience. It is also difficult to go beyond the bare minimum of education if you are working a ton of hours at some unrelated job.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had quite a few disappointments with my two thinkpads, but every time I have needed a new part it was over-nighted to me from NC or GA.
"Low environmental impact"? Are you kidding me? So 1 billion people eating beef or 3 billion eating insects - what is the difference.
The difference is 2 billion people. Which is a pretty big difference regardless of if you are one of those people or not.
There is no reason not to consider makeshift solutions. By consuming a more efficient food, we have less ground to cover on the limit population and consumption front.
When I first saw this I thought the premise would be to 'accidentally' text your parents from an unknown number or web service suggesting the drug deal, then seeing which parents try to take advantage of the opportunity to buy drugs.
But in the situation we are talking about here, taking the easiest classes doesn't get you your degree any faster. It just means that you can do fewer things.
To be fair, they still technically have an air gap :)
I can't imagine that question being in line with the objectives of any course. Why would it be on a test?
It is standard operating procedure for standardized tests and AP tests.
There is also no reason to limit a test to sitting down and filling in some bubbles on a paper. Or a single day. A test can include practical labs and internships
Could it be a series of small assignments throughout a course that are graded, tallied up, and then factored into the final grade? It sounds to me like your definition of what constitutes an exam could include the grades that girls are performing better than the boys in.
Even if the test is bad, grades should reflect how well you are learning to pass the test not how well you will do after the test.
What's wrong with having grades that reflect how well you will do after the test? That seems really useful to me. How is that any more arbitrary than using a test to predict that? Better yet, why not use both and recognize that they both tell you useful information rather than insisting that one is flawed?
I'd say the vast majority use their grades to get a job which is where they really learn and their job performance generally has little correlation to their grades and only some correlation to their test scores. The correlation to test scores may well have more to do with ability to handle pressure than anything actually being tested.
And I would say their job performance generally has little correlation to their test scores and some correlation to their grades. The correlation to grades may well have more to do with ability to organize and mange one's work than any material being taught. However, we know that both of our statements don't have anything to back them up right?
Tests are not necessarily objective, there is the issue of sterotype threat . The gist of it is that if you remind girls that they are girls (by asking them to fill in a bubble for gender) before a math test they performed worse. When asked to fill in the bubble after the test, they performed equally.
Not to mention how anxiety (which can affect boys and girls) can cause bad performance on an exam, when that person may have gotten excellent grades all through the course and continue to retain and apply the information that they learned in the course long afterwards.
I'm not saying exams are not to be trusted, but I think you can get a better picture of how much someone got out of a course by considering more than just a single data point.
It does and is well documented. It's called the Sterotype threat .
Or there is a flaw in the test. It goes both ways.
I just assumed 100 Minnesotan pedestrians passed through each year.
I agree with your sentiment that a tablet is a reasonable complement to the things to a child should interact with, but I'd like to point out that a "A learning device with no texture, fake 3d, no smell, taste, heat, or any other input for senses other than sight and hearing" could be used to describe a picture book (expect for the hearing part). Yet, no one is claiming that pictures books could be harmful for development.
That is hard.
That's pretty much the idea. If scientists contribute more to the overall economy than news reporters, then if you produce more scientists, the overall economy will be higher.
I don't think you can treat the economy or workforce like an individual farm where you try to maximize profit by only producing the single most profitable crop. We need a diverse workforce in order to have a strong economy just like we need a diverse landscape to produce the variety of crops we need, regardless of which one is most "valuable". As an added bonus, a diverse workforce is more resilient when there is a downturn in an individual sector.
Right. Some of us consider learning a fond personal experience. It is also difficult to go beyond the bare minimum of education if you are working a ton of hours at some unrelated job.
Stargate SG-1 called; they want their ZPM back.
I think you mean "fewer".