My undergrad univ made all students take a competency exam for each degree they were seeking. Pass/fail never affected actually graduating, but it did reflect on your department. I think it even went into department ratings, both within the school & nationally. And given how important it is to graduate from a "good school" it is fairly important to do good. Plus, since department funding was allocated based on pass/fail %'s, professors were obligated to make sure that their students did well & not just pass out A's. That was not the case for cross department classes(ie general science classes for non-science majors).
Class rank is problematic though, for a couple of reasons:
-It doesn't make sense to compare GPAs across majors. The article points out that natural science professors already grade more stringently. Class rank across the entire university would only ensure natural science students looked poorly. (And vice versa for humanities students)
The easy fix for ranking is compare each to those within the program they belong. For example, only CS students would be ranked against other CS students. For that ranking only compare courses required by that degree, so those taking the humanities major vs those who take a math minor will be ranked the same. Double major? Double ranking, one for each major.
As for actual grading each course, I like the idea that one of my professors used. He graded each assignment & test with no curve, and only gave us raw scores. Then to determine the course grade he looked at the grouping of grades. There was always a break between the A's, B's, C's, etc, and that's how he determined who got what grade. I don't think he actually failed anyone(or gave less than a C) unless they simply were not trying(ie skipping class, not doing homework, etc). He was the Dean for the College of Science & this was a physics course, so nobody ever complained about the grade they got. I think most in physics department ended up doing something similar to this and it worked out really well.
The Right Wingers are at least smart enough to either not lie under oath or not get caught doing so. Or at least since Nixon. Or at least not that anybody has really noticed. Or...oh, whatever, they are both crooked.
Hmm, that's a bad idea, even if you hate Google. A win for IV in this case means that the horrible status quo of patent trolls can continue with a vengeance. As stated in TFA, a win could convince law makers to support IV in the latest round of IP revisals, and lead to even worse patent trolling.
And don't forget IV is owned by the even more anti-competitive Apple & Microsoft.
Did you actually even read the summary? They aren't saying, "Visa will magically allow us to train better STEM" or even that more STEM people will help train new ones at home. Instead, what they said was "Give us more H-1B Visa, but put the fees from them towards funding STEM education & activities like FIRST." In other words, allow companies more H-1B Visas to meet the immediate need while using the funds generated to train up locals to fill those gaps when the Visas run out.
Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence...
Tell that to those who fought in the American Civil War. The American Civil War is the greatest demonstration of the need to be able to bear arms. Yes, the confederacy lost, but the ideals fought over wouldn't have made an impact that they did had the rebels not been able to bear arms against what they believed was an improper government. And during that time it was not uncommon for local citizens to "rebel" against corrupt government officials, which would not have been possible had they not had the arms to do so.
But the thing is, this displacement isn't anything we haven't seen before. It's happened repeatedly since at least the Industrial Revolution. Think of all the hand picking farmers big tractors replaced. Or what about all the weavers the loom put out of work. Move forward a few more years & you have automated factories killing the job of the assembly line worker. And now computers are doing the work of millions of accountants & other book keepers. Even scientists, who are creating the next biggest thing, aren't immune to the displacing effects of technology. So how is this new?
But the US people will pay again for the arrogance of the government.
I, like the vast majority of the US, am neither a shareholder nor employee of Boeing. Explain to me how this costs me a lot of money.
You pay in a couple of ways. This hurts our entire economy. So any stocks you own(of which most retirement accounts are made up of) will lose value. There's the entire supply line that is now impacted, so further damage has been done(why else did so many support the auto bailout). You lose in that this lack of trust in one company means that the world might not trust another in which you are directly involved with, which will cost you. Don't think that a major country's petty BS that leads to them cancelling negotiations with a US company won't hurt you just because you have no vested interest in that company. The ripples are far bigger than you might think.
I'm trying to figure out when Fox News became a reliable news source. I was under the impression you only went to Fox News when you wanted to hear/see Right Wingers babbling like idiots, just the same for MSNBC for the Left.
Citations Please!
But to counter your argument with at least one of my own, Roundup Ready soybeans actually contain bacterial genes inserted via a cauliflower virus. No fish, no insect, or other animals. So while not exactly the same as cross breading, as that would mean there's a type of soybean that already produces the necessary proteins, it still is fairly close & almost as safe. Now the rest of the GMO producers' activities are atrocious, but at least their actual science isn't.
Just FYI, you could have said animals & covered both fish & insects. But I guess you missed that day in elementary science where they covered what's an animal or you are as ignorant of actual science as "creationists" are.
It seems that the filter is less aimed at general filtering of all websites & more towards just those that host the illicit images. The idea I got was that using these terms to search for images would return no results, but a general web search would still have results. And since this is done by a set of companies, one would hope that politics would not come into play in how the list of terms is managed. But in this day & age, I highly doubt it.
You realize this only works for cards consumers know about. Given that the average person only gets a new loan every few years, and hence only worries about their credit report at that frequency, they might not even know that someone has stolen their identity & now have fraudulent credit cards open in their name for years. And my understanding is that once the card is opened, it's now on the consumer to dispute everything about the card, which is no easy task. It's not like charges from 1/2 across the world suddenly appearing on a card only used at your local supermarket. The entire history of the card is fraudulent, which is immensely harder to prove. Now throw in the fact that the card has since gone into default, and you are screwed.
Yeah, but what isn't noted is that these same "researchers" & "scientists" are the same group of idiots that try to push public agricultural policy that benefits only those in the bread belt. And while protecting one of our largest agricultural centers is important, they are just 1. Unfortunately for them, they only produce 1 or 2 crops, which public opinion has turned against(people don't like corn & soy beans all that much anymore). These guys have some of the most narrow minded & self serving research, it's almost as if they are the ones behind intelligent design, anti-evolution, & other backwards science agendas.
While you are right, you over look the biggest problem in simply raising wages at the lower end of the spectrum: That wages will have to rise all across the spectrum. Why? Well, think about it. Most jobs that pay decent require one of a few things, education, skills, some egregious sacrifice, physical taxation, or knowing the right person. Usually, the more selective, demanding, or difficult it is to acquire these requirements, the higher the pay. So what happens when you raise the pay for jobs that require very little? You devaulate these requirements.
Look at it this way. Lets say you are currently making $50k/year at a job that required you to get a 4 year degree. One day you find a job that pays the same, but has no requirements, one you could have started 4 years earlier. If you had found that job before you started your degree, would you have taken it? What about if you had seen it before you got hired, would you have settled for a $50k/year job or tried for a $75k/year? Or now that you see this job, do you still think your degree is worth the time, effort & money you put into it?
I forgot to add, when ya'll give the federal government more than you receive, then you can come talk to us here in Texas. B/c w/out Google, Apple & the rest of Silicon Valley, y'all are WAY behind us economically. Heck, even our primary education is better. But I'll give you entertainment, y'all do beat us there.
Some of them, however, would require that the rest of the nation stop picking our pockets. It's not enough that we produce the food and the entertainment, you have to take our money as well and then spend it on things that even we can't have, like education or road maintenance?
What?!? While California might be the the #1 food producer, y'all don't even compare to the combined food production of the Mid-West. I'm pretty sure CA imports more food than the rest of the country, besides maybe the NY(and only b/c NYC is there). And there are other entertainment producers besides Hollywood, or did you forget places like Broadway & Time Square? And to top if off California, with 12% of the U.S. population, has one-third of the nation's welfare recipients. And it was only just recently that y'all had a balanced budget. So CA isn't carrying the weight of the rest of the Union.
The truth is that only California is serious about environmental protection, and the rest of you just want to rape the land and shit in your neighbor's mouths through the air.
Yeah, but y'all have gone too far. Now we can't even put in the tech that would prevent horrible emissions in the first place because it might displace some animal. Or did you forget about the tortoise that delayed the Mohave solar plant? And while I don't know if it is true, this isn't the 1st time the EPA shut something like this down, because I remember hearing about a gas station being shut down when they couldn't upgrade their storage tanks(to keep them from leaking fuel into the ground water) due to there being a lizard in the area that might be impacted.
the Taliban have zero resources to touch her with in the West
OK, I chuckled a bit when I read that. I guess you forgot about 9/11, the subway bombings in London, Hotel bombings in Mumbia, or the random idiots that do things like the Boston Marathon Bombing. Is she safer now? Yes, much more so. But don't think that she is any safer than Snowden.
I also guess that you forgot why she was targeted. It wasn't just because she was going to school. If that was the case, they would have just shot up the bus/van she was on & killed all of the girls with her. She was targeted because she spoke out about her desire for education & have her fellow young women have the same opportunities.
I just have a couple of questions for you. Where do you buy your tin foil? Do they fold it into hats for you or do you have to do that yourself? Is there a specific way that your hats are folded? I just want to make sure that you are well protected from the ebil gubment.
Do you really think that after Snowden exposed himself that there was any way any 3 letter agency could "off him" without major reprisal? The second he goes missing the US is in deep shit. We'd lose all credibility to condemn Russia, China & the Middle East for doing the same thing. Iran would have a field day if he was killed & then we tried to get them to release any political dissenters. Hell, they already are. Despite a bunch of tin foil hat wearers & fascist idiots, Snowden's life stopped being at risk the second he stepped out from behind the curtain.
Snowden claims he intentionally got a job where he could get secrets, actively violated the law and abused his privilege, left a job in Hawaii and pole-dancing girlfriend, and is now fleeing the very government that, as he damned well knows, has the ability to find him anywhere. He certainly is no free man at this point, and knew what he was getting into. That took far more courage than surviving a shooting.
Are you bloody kidding me?!?!? It's highly debatable if Snowden actually risked his life for what he did. Even if he did, it would be at the hands of a well organized state, so he would know the time, place and means. Malala didn't just "survive a shooting". She risked all sorts of hell. Or have you forgotten that the same people who tried to silence her are also responsible for throwing acid in these young girls faces, poisoning the water wells these schools use, and other horrid ways to terrify little girls. Malala doesn't just face death, she faces a life time of terror & fear for wanting to do nothing more than learn.
Snowden might have brought proof to what we all already knew and his actions could have a greater international impact, but Malala is fighting for what most take for granted, and in some places is guaranteed. She's fighting for the same thing that all disenfranchised have, even in the US. It starts with education, and will move on to suffrage and other civil rights. Oh, and she's doing this when most girls her age in the west are worrying about what Justin Bieber wore on his date with Selena Gomez.
It's not like you'd actually ask to be shot in the head to prove your worth.
No, but it takes a lot more guts to stand up to armed gunmen for what you believe in than run away where they can't get you. She might not have chosen to take a bullet to the head, but she did choose to confront the cowards & show the world what they truly are and risk her life doing so. Unlike what some would like, Snowden only risked life behind bars.
And if you are one of the many poor slobs whose health insurance is "go to the ER and hope they write off the check because I am in poverty and have no hope of paying it back"?
Most clinics are run by the same hospital systems that house your local ERs, so you get the same write off service there as you do going to an ER. And the ones that aren't are run usually run by companies that just won't see you without insurance or charities and have you pay as you can.
The thing about ERs is they have a much higher liability than clinics, and as such they must treat everything as a life or death situation & do EVERYTHING they can to make sure it isn't before they let you go, or have very good legal reason why they didn't. This is why going to an ER means getting a crap ton of medical tests & care that is totally unnecessary(ie general antibiotics for the flu) and extremely costly. Want to reduce medical costs? Get people out of going to the ER for everything.
Slashdot Mirror
My undergrad univ made all students take a competency exam for each degree they were seeking. Pass/fail never affected actually graduating, but it did reflect on your department. I think it even went into department ratings, both within the school & nationally. And given how important it is to graduate from a "good school" it is fairly important to do good. Plus, since department funding was allocated based on pass/fail %'s, professors were obligated to make sure that their students did well & not just pass out A's. That was not the case for cross department classes(ie general science classes for non-science majors).
Class rank is problematic though, for a couple of reasons: -It doesn't make sense to compare GPAs across majors. The article points out that natural science professors already grade more stringently. Class rank across the entire university would only ensure natural science students looked poorly. (And vice versa for humanities students)
The easy fix for ranking is compare each to those within the program they belong. For example, only CS students would be ranked against other CS students. For that ranking only compare courses required by that degree, so those taking the humanities major vs those who take a math minor will be ranked the same. Double major? Double ranking, one for each major.
As for actual grading each course, I like the idea that one of my professors used. He graded each assignment & test with no curve, and only gave us raw scores. Then to determine the course grade he looked at the grouping of grades. There was always a break between the A's, B's, C's, etc, and that's how he determined who got what grade. I don't think he actually failed anyone(or gave less than a C) unless they simply were not trying(ie skipping class, not doing homework, etc). He was the Dean for the College of Science & this was a physics course, so nobody ever complained about the grade they got. I think most in physics department ended up doing something similar to this and it worked out really well.
Oh, and he was able to mostly keep the Falcon in the skies.
Well, Chewbacca is worthy of a scholarship. Or did you forget his people were enslaved to build the Death Stars?
The Right Wingers are at least smart enough to either not lie under oath or not get caught doing so. Or at least since Nixon. Or at least not that anybody has really noticed. Or...oh, whatever, they are both crooked.
You're fabricating facts to suit your narrative.
Really? Because from TFA:
Microsoft and Apple were both early investors in Intellectual Ventures.
While they might not be "owners" now, but they are investors & profit from IV.
Hmm, that's a bad idea, even if you hate Google. A win for IV in this case means that the horrible status quo of patent trolls can continue with a vengeance. As stated in TFA, a win could convince law makers to support IV in the latest round of IP revisals, and lead to even worse patent trolling.
And don't forget IV is owned by the even more anti-competitive Apple & Microsoft.
Did you actually even read the summary? They aren't saying, "Visa will magically allow us to train better STEM" or even that more STEM people will help train new ones at home. Instead, what they said was "Give us more H-1B Visa, but put the fees from them towards funding STEM education & activities like FIRST." In other words, allow companies more H-1B Visas to meet the immediate need while using the funds generated to train up locals to fill those gaps when the Visas run out.
Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence...
Tell that to those who fought in the American Civil War. The American Civil War is the greatest demonstration of the need to be able to bear arms. Yes, the confederacy lost, but the ideals fought over wouldn't have made an impact that they did had the rebels not been able to bear arms against what they believed was an improper government. And during that time it was not uncommon for local citizens to "rebel" against corrupt government officials, which would not have been possible had they not had the arms to do so.
But the thing is, this displacement isn't anything we haven't seen before. It's happened repeatedly since at least the Industrial Revolution. Think of all the hand picking farmers big tractors replaced. Or what about all the weavers the loom put out of work. Move forward a few more years & you have automated factories killing the job of the assembly line worker. And now computers are doing the work of millions of accountants & other book keepers. Even scientists, who are creating the next biggest thing, aren't immune to the displacing effects of technology. So how is this new?
But the US people will pay again for the arrogance of the government.
I, like the vast majority of the US, am neither a shareholder nor employee of Boeing. Explain to me how this costs me a lot of money.
You pay in a couple of ways. This hurts our entire economy. So any stocks you own(of which most retirement accounts are made up of) will lose value. There's the entire supply line that is now impacted, so further damage has been done(why else did so many support the auto bailout). You lose in that this lack of trust in one company means that the world might not trust another in which you are directly involved with, which will cost you. Don't think that a major country's petty BS that leads to them cancelling negotiations with a US company won't hurt you just because you have no vested interest in that company. The ripples are far bigger than you might think.
I'm trying to figure out when Fox News became a reliable news source. I was under the impression you only went to Fox News when you wanted to hear/see Right Wingers babbling like idiots, just the same for MSNBC for the Left.
Citations Please!
But to counter your argument with at least one of my own, Roundup Ready soybeans actually contain bacterial genes inserted via a cauliflower virus. No fish, no insect, or other animals. So while not exactly the same as cross breading, as that would mean there's a type of soybean that already produces the necessary proteins, it still is fairly close & almost as safe. Now the rest of the GMO producers' activities are atrocious, but at least their actual science isn't.
Just FYI, you could have said animals & covered both fish & insects. But I guess you missed that day in elementary science where they covered what's an animal or you are as ignorant of actual science as "creationists" are.
It seems that the filter is less aimed at general filtering of all websites & more towards just those that host the illicit images. The idea I got was that using these terms to search for images would return no results, but a general web search would still have results.
And since this is done by a set of companies, one would hope that politics would not come into play in how the list of terms is managed. But in this day & age, I highly doubt it.
You realize this only works for cards consumers know about. Given that the average person only gets a new loan every few years, and hence only worries about their credit report at that frequency, they might not even know that someone has stolen their identity & now have fraudulent credit cards open in their name for years. And my understanding is that once the card is opened, it's now on the consumer to dispute everything about the card, which is no easy task. It's not like charges from 1/2 across the world suddenly appearing on a card only used at your local supermarket. The entire history of the card is fraudulent, which is immensely harder to prove. Now throw in the fact that the card has since gone into default, and you are screwed.
Yeah, but what isn't noted is that these same "researchers" & "scientists" are the same group of idiots that try to push public agricultural policy that benefits only those in the bread belt. And while protecting one of our largest agricultural centers is important, they are just 1. Unfortunately for them, they only produce 1 or 2 crops, which public opinion has turned against(people don't like corn & soy beans all that much anymore). These guys have some of the most narrow minded & self serving research, it's almost as if they are the ones behind intelligent design, anti-evolution, & other backwards science agendas.
While you are right, you over look the biggest problem in simply raising wages at the lower end of the spectrum: That wages will have to rise all across the spectrum. Why? Well, think about it. Most jobs that pay decent require one of a few things, education, skills, some egregious sacrifice, physical taxation, or knowing the right person. Usually, the more selective, demanding, or difficult it is to acquire these requirements, the higher the pay. So what happens when you raise the pay for jobs that require very little? You devaulate these requirements.
Look at it this way. Lets say you are currently making $50k/year at a job that required you to get a 4 year degree. One day you find a job that pays the same, but has no requirements, one you could have started 4 years earlier. If you had found that job before you started your degree, would you have taken it? What about if you had seen it before you got hired, would you have settled for a $50k/year job or tried for a $75k/year? Or now that you see this job, do you still think your degree is worth the time, effort & money you put into it?
I forgot to add, when ya'll give the federal government more than you receive, then you can come talk to us here in Texas. B/c w/out Google, Apple & the rest of Silicon Valley, y'all are WAY behind us economically. Heck, even our primary education is better. But I'll give you entertainment, y'all do beat us there.
Some of them, however, would require that the rest of the nation stop picking our pockets. It's not enough that we produce the food and the entertainment, you have to take our money as well and then spend it on things that even we can't have, like education or road maintenance?
What?!? While California might be the the #1 food producer, y'all don't even compare to the combined food production of the Mid-West. I'm pretty sure CA imports more food than the rest of the country, besides maybe the NY(and only b/c NYC is there). And there are other entertainment producers besides Hollywood, or did you forget places like Broadway & Time Square? And to top if off California, with 12% of the U.S. population, has one-third of the nation's welfare recipients. And it was only just recently that y'all had a balanced budget. So CA isn't carrying the weight of the rest of the Union.
The truth is that only California is serious about environmental protection, and the rest of you just want to rape the land and shit in your neighbor's mouths through the air.
Yeah, but y'all have gone too far. Now we can't even put in the tech that would prevent horrible emissions in the first place because it might displace some animal. Or did you forget about the tortoise that delayed the Mohave solar plant? And while I don't know if it is true, this isn't the 1st time the EPA shut something like this down, because I remember hearing about a gas station being shut down when they couldn't upgrade their storage tanks(to keep them from leaking fuel into the ground water) due to there being a lizard in the area that might be impacted.
the Taliban have zero resources to touch her with in the West
OK, I chuckled a bit when I read that. I guess you forgot about 9/11, the subway bombings in London, Hotel bombings in Mumbia, or the random idiots that do things like the Boston Marathon Bombing. Is she safer now? Yes, much more so. But don't think that she is any safer than Snowden.
I also guess that you forgot why she was targeted. It wasn't just because she was going to school. If that was the case, they would have just shot up the bus/van she was on & killed all of the girls with her. She was targeted because she spoke out about her desire for education & have her fellow young women have the same opportunities.
I just have a couple of questions for you. Where do you buy your tin foil? Do they fold it into hats for you or do you have to do that yourself? Is there a specific way that your hats are folded? I just want to make sure that you are well protected from the ebil gubment.
Do you really think that after Snowden exposed himself that there was any way any 3 letter agency could "off him" without major reprisal? The second he goes missing the US is in deep shit. We'd lose all credibility to condemn Russia, China & the Middle East for doing the same thing. Iran would have a field day if he was killed & then we tried to get them to release any political dissenters. Hell, they already are. Despite a bunch of tin foil hat wearers & fascist idiots, Snowden's life stopped being at risk the second he stepped out from behind the curtain.
Snowden claims he intentionally got a job where he could get secrets, actively violated the law and abused his privilege, left a job in Hawaii and pole-dancing girlfriend, and is now fleeing the very government that, as he damned well knows, has the ability to find him anywhere. He certainly is no free man at this point, and knew what he was getting into. That took far more courage than surviving a shooting.
Are you bloody kidding me?!?!? It's highly debatable if Snowden actually risked his life for what he did. Even if he did, it would be at the hands of a well organized state, so he would know the time, place and means. Malala didn't just "survive a shooting". She risked all sorts of hell. Or have you forgotten that the same people who tried to silence her are also responsible for throwing acid in these young girls faces, poisoning the water wells these schools use, and other horrid ways to terrify little girls. Malala doesn't just face death, she faces a life time of terror & fear for wanting to do nothing more than learn.
Snowden might have brought proof to what we all already knew and his actions could have a greater international impact, but Malala is fighting for what most take for granted, and in some places is guaranteed. She's fighting for the same thing that all disenfranchised have, even in the US. It starts with education, and will move on to suffrage and other civil rights. Oh, and she's doing this when most girls her age in the west are worrying about what Justin Bieber wore on his date with Selena Gomez.
It's not like you'd actually ask to be shot in the head to prove your worth.
No, but it takes a lot more guts to stand up to armed gunmen for what you believe in than run away where they can't get you. She might not have chosen to take a bullet to the head, but she did choose to confront the cowards & show the world what they truly are and risk her life doing so. Unlike what some would like, Snowden only risked life behind bars.
And if you are one of the many poor slobs whose health insurance is "go to the ER and hope they write off the check because I am in poverty and have no hope of paying it back"?
Most clinics are run by the same hospital systems that house your local ERs, so you get the same write off service there as you do going to an ER. And the ones that aren't are run usually run by companies that just won't see you without insurance or charities and have you pay as you can.
The thing about ERs is they have a much higher liability than clinics, and as such they must treat everything as a life or death situation & do EVERYTHING they can to make sure it isn't before they let you go, or have very good legal reason why they didn't. This is why going to an ER means getting a crap ton of medical tests & care that is totally unnecessary(ie general antibiotics for the flu) and extremely costly. Want to reduce medical costs? Get people out of going to the ER for everything.