Bush is president, in spite of having a majority against him, because the system allows it to be so.
I agree with your statement in general, but a small clarification:
The vote was split enough that Gore had a majority vote against him as well, so that matters little. For that matter, no president has gotten a true majority since Bush Sr. rode Reagan's coattails. That is to say, Clinton pulled a Daily Double while never receiveing 50.1% himself.
It's not inappropriate, if the homework grade is based on achievement and not on effort. But if you drop someone one letter grade because you don't think he tried hard enough, you are saying that on the report card that they achieve a certain level of mastery, when your own gradebook says they achieved a different one.
Your final grade is a sum measurement of achievement in a class. So the question you have to ask is whether trying harder equals achievement. For me, the answer is no.
What your 750 is worth varies from year to year, because it's measured against the performance of other test-takers. This is listed on your score sheet as the "percentile" score. Saying "I got a 750" actually gives less real information than "I scored at the 98th percentile".
I have no problem with homework assignments per se. I have a problem with homework assignments on which effort is a primary factor. The object of the class is to determine whether you know the material, not whether you are willing to try hard. So said EDUC 351 last semester. That we're discussing a higher institution of learning instead of K-12 should not change this.
By the way you have expressed the way those assignments were graded, even homework which is completely wrong receives points. This means that effort is a determining factor in the grade, not exclusively actual academic performance This is inappropriate.
This helps answer your first question, as well. Since homework is essentially an effort grade, not an earned academic grade, it is possible for a student to demonstrate achievement beyond a level of mastery in your class, yet earn below an "A" because he did not try hard enough. Two students demonstrating equal levels of knowledge receive different grades based on effort. This is unacceptable to me.
Then unless the grades are reweighted, the corollary to this is that it is possible to demonstrate during evaluations that you have learned everything in the class, yet you fail to receive an "A" due to effort.
This I have a problem with, because of exactly the way you phrased it. That it, instructors are not allowed to legally evaluate based on effort, so some disguise this in the form of evaluating homework. But if it is impossible to earn a "0" when turning in homework, then this may be a big no-no.
That depends on what you are basing your expectations against.
There are generally two forms of testing, norm and criterion. Norm is basing your score based on performance of others (like the SAT). Criterion is basing your score against the material you are expected to learn in the class.
What most college classes employ is Criterion-based testing. There's supposed to be a level of "mastery" of the content, at ~80%, and that's should earn you a "B" (barring 7 point scales). Above that is setting a mark beyond mastery and into excellence, the "A", and below that, varying levels of accomplishment like C, D, & F.
So, if a student does what is expected of him or her, and no more, a "B" is earned.
When people earn a "B", they should get a "B", without being penalized if everyone else in the class got it, too. Now, if you want to argue that the standard for what constitutes mastery of the material is often too low, that can be a different debate altogether.
Re:that makes no sense
on
Kazaa Fights Back
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Is the corollary to this that both sides will be willing to concede that there is no legal use for KaZaa lite? Both sides squeezing the middle out?
They're equally culpable, given the nature of some of the bugs. However, XP cost $100, while the kiddie got no money from me. So that kinda makes Bill G. the winner.
Doubtful. If the users are forced to run as a business, they then become more accountable for their actions. They can be tracked down and sued, as the dirty dealer a) is a business and b) has a business presence in your state. So the next time someone ruins your auction by bidding high and then backing off, you can them sue them in federal court and force them to appear or face judgement in absentia.
I'm not saying the lawsuit is a good thing, just that it would have that interesting side effect.
When the service provided by a service company becomes obsolete, they find a new service to provide.
One of the better known examples in the areas of my work is the March of Dimes. Millions upon millions of dollars were funneled into finding a cure for polio. Once the cure was found, they found another cause to latch on to: prevention of birth defects. I'm sure they thought they'd have a much longer lifespan with that. Unfortunately, if gene splicing gets big, they're either going to have to go heavily international or find yet another new cause.
I just realized that your domain doesn't exist and you're a troll. But I spent too long typing this not to go ahead and submit.
America doesn't run as a pure capitalist market. This is probably a good thing, as it would fail just as surely as a pure anything, since no matter what the anything is, it's inflexible.
It's important for you to understand that the music industry in America is a cartel. Just like a South American drug cartel, it consists of a group of companies that compete fiercely against each other, but band together to take on common opposition, and are led by a public face you can think of as a ringleader.
The RIAA cartel does not simply aggressively compete for your dollars against other music choices. They control the entire system, from radio payoffs to music video airtime, to ensure that their acts are the ones the public sees. Therefore the public is left to choose from a fast-food Chinese menu where every meal is a different combination of the same foods ("I'll have the U2 and some wonton soup.")
This is further enhanced by massive contributions to our Congress which are designed to persuade it to pass laws to further restrict our choices (See Bono, Sonny.) Most of believe that there is an equal representation system in Washington only in the sense that every dollar gets an equal voice.
Most of us over here believe in the idea that the best product should succeed. We're willing to make allowances for superior marketing and other quirks of the system that might influence that natural selection. We're not willing to accept the outright mutation of that order.
If googlefish is translating properly, the judge said one of the problems was that the site owner lost the right to claim it was unmoderated and that he was unaware of it when he participated in the slanderous discussion.
Basically:
"Your Honor, I knew nothing about this."
"So why did you reply to it?"
"Do you take a check?"
There really must me a different structure then. My point was that purchasing the 9700 Pro was unnecessary unless you want to be the early adopter.
The US$300 8500 (not LE) card I bought a year ago now streets for half of that, and the price will continue to drop further, collapsing once it becomes third tier sometime in the latter half of this year (the 7000 can be has for US$30 now).
While I accepted for a long time the nature of the pricing game with CPU's, making my purchases one or two levels below the top speed, I've spent some time buying the top video card, when the devaluation of the first year makes it a costly adoption. I've done that for the last time, though.
I've made the decision to treat my video purchases the same way as CPUs: buying a new one every 1-2 years, and staying one tier below the top. Besides, after a year, it's brutally clear which choice is the best, without debate, so I don't risk buyer's remorse.
Judicious purchasing means I never drop more than one product cycle behind, while paying less, where a person in the US using your strategy will probably fall 2-3 cycles behind before making a new video card purchase.
I suppose it's too late for you this time since you're already bought the card, but I recommend attempting to adopt that policy: hang onto the 9700 until it's two cycles old, then upgrade by one cycle. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You won't be "future-proof". You'll buy one year of life extension, paying $200 for this service. I propose something along the lines of your option #1:
Buy a 2nd tier card (a 9000 for example) for 1/3rd the price of a flagship card.
In 18 months, buy the 2nd tier card of that time (the 9700).
In 18 months more, do it again
At that point, you've spent about the same as your original proposed outlay, and you have a card that is one tier above the current flagship. You'll also have a 9000 and a 9700, which you can use on other systems or sell for profit.
Saxon Math is in some ways an epitome of the way we emphasize the wrong things in education. Our society has gone so gung-ho over high-stakes testing that we consider them the major measurement of learning. It follows then that we would assume that the program providing the highest scores on these tests is the best overall program. That program is usually Saxon Math.
Your daughter may be safe academically until she starts having to apply her arithmetic skills to other maths (such as algebra). That's when there starts being real trouble.
I certainly hope it'll improve somewhat on that one's track record. They gave token awards to Doom and the SimCity CD-Rom game, but other than that, it was pretty much an ass-kissing to an FMV title by the name of Voyeur. Eventually it was swallowed up by IDSA and integrated into E3's awards, a much better fate to be sure.
I agree with your stance in theory. Here's where we have a problem though:
This isn't about a lawyer taking an individual case. This is about Disney's lawyer. He's worked for Disney before, and will work for Disney again. So, he's familiar with the stance of his client from past interactions, and has decided by his continued involvment that it is acceptable to him. Therefore, he is now morally accountable.
Now, before someone counters with the suggestion that the guy inside the Mickey Mouse suit by the front gate should be held to the same standard, understand that there is a big difference. The lawyer has a hand in crafting and enforcing company policy. He is shaping the way Disney conducts business.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically this is gonna jack up my costs when I try to take the computerized version of the Praxis at a testing center.
Way to help out the teachers, guys!
n/t
Devil's Advocate:
The issue is not what might have been done during decent, but what might have been done undetected before the shuttle ever got off the ground.
Your final grade is a sum measurement of achievement in a class. So the question you have to ask is whether trying harder equals achievement. For me, the answer is no.
What your 750 is worth varies from year to year, because it's measured against the performance of other test-takers. This is listed on your score sheet as the "percentile" score. Saying "I got a 750" actually gives less real information than "I scored at the 98th percentile".
Let me rephrase:
I have no problem with homework assignments per se. I have a problem with homework assignments on which effort is a primary factor. The object of the class is to determine whether you know the material, not whether you are willing to try hard. So said EDUC 351 last semester. That we're discussing a higher institution of learning instead of K-12 should not change this.
By the way you have expressed the way those assignments were graded, even homework which is completely wrong receives points. This means that effort is a determining factor in the grade, not exclusively actual academic performance This is inappropriate.
This helps answer your first question, as well. Since homework is essentially an effort grade, not an earned academic grade, it is possible for a student to demonstrate achievement beyond a level of mastery in your class, yet earn below an "A" because he did not try hard enough. Two students demonstrating equal levels of knowledge receive different grades based on effort. This is unacceptable to me.
This I have a problem with, because of exactly the way you phrased it. That it, instructors are not allowed to legally evaluate based on effort, so some disguise this in the form of evaluating homework. But if it is impossible to earn a "0" when turning in homework, then this may be a big no-no.
There are generally two forms of testing, norm and criterion. Norm is basing your score based on performance of others (like the SAT). Criterion is basing your score against the material you are expected to learn in the class.
What most college classes employ is Criterion-based testing. There's supposed to be a level of "mastery" of the content, at ~80%, and that's should earn you a "B" (barring 7 point scales). Above that is setting a mark beyond mastery and into excellence, the "A", and below that, varying levels of accomplishment like C, D, & F.
So, if a student does what is expected of him or her, and no more, a "B" is earned.
When people earn a "B", they should get a "B", without being penalized if everyone else in the class got it, too. Now, if you want to argue that the standard for what constitutes mastery of the material is often too low, that can be a different debate altogether.
Is the corollary to this that both sides will be willing to concede that there is no legal use for KaZaa lite? Both sides squeezing the middle out?
They're equally culpable, given the nature of some of the bugs. However, XP cost $100, while the kiddie got no money from me. So that kinda makes Bill G. the winner.
Doubtful. If the users are forced to run as a business, they then become more accountable for their actions. They can be tracked down and sued, as the dirty dealer a) is a business and b) has a business presence in your state. So the next time someone ruins your auction by bidding high and then backing off, you can them sue them in federal court and force them to appear or face judgement in absentia.
I'm not saying the lawsuit is a good thing, just that it would have that interesting side effect.
When the service provided by a service company becomes obsolete, they find a new service to provide. One of the better known examples in the areas of my work is the March of Dimes. Millions upon millions of dollars were funneled into finding a cure for polio. Once the cure was found, they found another cause to latch on to: prevention of birth defects. I'm sure they thought they'd have a much longer lifespan with that. Unfortunately, if gene splicing gets big, they're either going to have to go heavily international or find yet another new cause.
I just realized that your domain doesn't exist and you're a troll. But I spent too long typing this not to go ahead and submit.
America doesn't run as a pure capitalist market. This is probably a good thing, as it would fail just as surely as a pure anything, since no matter what the anything is, it's inflexible.
It's important for you to understand that the music industry in America is a cartel. Just like a South American drug cartel, it consists of a group of companies that compete fiercely against each other, but band together to take on common opposition, and are led by a public face you can think of as a ringleader.
The RIAA cartel does not simply aggressively compete for your dollars against other music choices. They control the entire system, from radio payoffs to music video airtime, to ensure that their acts are the ones the public sees. Therefore the public is left to choose from a fast-food Chinese menu where every meal is a different combination of the same foods ("I'll have the U2 and some wonton soup.")
This is further enhanced by massive contributions to our Congress which are designed to persuade it to pass laws to further restrict our choices (See Bono, Sonny.) Most of believe that there is an equal representation system in Washington only in the sense that every dollar gets an equal voice.
Most of us over here believe in the idea that the best product should succeed. We're willing to make allowances for superior marketing and other quirks of the system that might influence that natural selection. We're not willing to accept the outright mutation of that order.
If googlefish is translating properly, the judge said one of the problems was that the site owner lost the right to claim it was unmoderated and that he was unaware of it when he participated in the slanderous discussion. Basically: "Your Honor, I knew nothing about this." "So why did you reply to it?" "Do you take a check?"
There really must me a different structure then. My point was that purchasing the 9700 Pro was unnecessary unless you want to be the early adopter.
The US$300 8500 (not LE) card I bought a year ago now streets for half of that, and the price will continue to drop further, collapsing once it becomes third tier sometime in the latter half of this year (the 7000 can be has for US$30 now).
While I accepted for a long time the nature of the pricing game with CPU's, making my purchases one or two levels below the top speed, I've spent some time buying the top video card, when the devaluation of the first year makes it a costly adoption. I've done that for the last time, though.
I've made the decision to treat my video purchases the same way as CPUs: buying a new one every 1-2 years, and staying one tier below the top. Besides, after a year, it's brutally clear which choice is the best, without debate, so I don't risk buyer's remorse.
Judicious purchasing means I never drop more than one product cycle behind, while paying less, where a person in the US using your strategy will probably fall 2-3 cycles behind before making a new video card purchase.
I suppose it's too late for you this time since you're already bought the card, but I recommend attempting to adopt that policy: hang onto the 9700 until it's two cycles old, then upgrade by one cycle. Lather, rinse, repeat.
- Buy a 2nd tier card (a 9000 for example) for 1/3rd the price of a flagship card.
- In 18 months, buy the 2nd tier card of that time (the 9700).
- In 18 months more, do it again
At that point, you've spent about the same as your original proposed outlay, and you have a card that is one tier above the current flagship. You'll also have a 9000 and a 9700, which you can use on other systems or sell for profit.Saxon Math is in some ways an epitome of the way we emphasize the wrong things in education. Our society has gone so gung-ho over high-stakes testing that we consider them the major measurement of learning. It follows then that we would assume that the program providing the highest scores on these tests is the best overall program. That program is usually Saxon Math. Your daughter may be safe academically until she starts having to apply her arithmetic skills to other maths (such as algebra). That's when there starts being real trouble.
What, you haven't installed XP yet?
I certainly hope it'll improve somewhat on that one's track record. They gave token awards to Doom and the SimCity CD-Rom game, but other than that, it was pretty much an ass-kissing to an FMV title by the name of Voyeur. Eventually it was swallowed up by IDSA and integrated into E3's awards, a much better fate to be sure.
That's great, but I'm entitled to give my burger's pickles to my friend if I don't want it. Try unbundling your XP to your neighbor.
I hope so. I'll bleed Microsoft dry for the time XP SP1 munged by system.
The small webcasters, right before the larger ones screwed them over.
I agree with your stance in theory. Here's where we have a problem though:
This isn't about a lawyer taking an individual case. This is about Disney's lawyer. He's worked for Disney before, and will work for Disney again. So, he's familiar with the stance of his client from past interactions, and has decided by his continued involvment that it is acceptable to him. Therefore, he is now morally accountable.
Now, before someone counters with the suggestion that the guy inside the Mickey Mouse suit by the front gate should be held to the same standard, understand that there is a big difference. The lawyer has a hand in crafting and enforcing company policy. He is shaping the way Disney conducts business.