Have you not heard the arguments for the past 20+ years from Republicans to shut down public schools.
I've heard of that, but it's difficult to tell exactly what is meant by those two terms without first asking.
perhaps you should do more research before you post your opinion on things you don't understand.
Even though I've heard those sorts of arguments, listening to a few nuts speak has little to do with understanding education.
They say that public schools is indoctrination into compliant citizens, and kills creativity and thought.
I'd say that's true, but I would also say the same about most private schools.
So, how do you compare the performance or education between a graduating student in KY and one in CA?
Mostly, you don't. People wanted simplistic, easy to understand numbers, and what they got was a lousy one-size-fits-all solution that does a poor job of actually providing people with an education. Similarly, certain people foolishly look to IQ scores when they want an easy way of seeing how 'intelligent' someone is, but none of this garbage ever works out.
Something just shot out of a bare bayerhole. Where? My sensors detect that the bayerhole that had something shoot out of it is located in my house. Whose asshole is it? It's mine, that's whose! What shot out of my asshole? A fart. That's all well and good, but who caused the fart to shoot out of my bare-as-fuck bayerhole extravaganza? An extra terrestrial in a distance galaxy? Who's the fuckin' culprit!? Well, after gathering the greatest minds in the world and performing thorough experimentation, a conclusion has been reached: I am the one who shot the fart out of my very own asshole.
What!? How!? How can such a thing be possible!? This is a thing of legend!
Which is because that is the point that I am attempting to convey!
But not what I'm talking about, and the guy who I originally replied to never got into specifics. The problem I have is that this line is reasoning is too simplistic.
If you only want to talk about the here-and-now, then you have a point.
Of course allowing them to die in prison isn't the same thing literally.
"End result is C) and D) are really the same thing. You're still dead at the hand of the justice system. Method is different."
Right, because saying they're the "same thing" means nothing. As I said, even the end result is different; it's only the same when you factor in only those things that are convenient for your argument (i.e. you leave out who killed the person and when they died).
Of course allowing them to die in prison isn't the same thing literally.
Indeed. Not even the result is the same (unless you only factor in "death," which would be odd), as I've pointed out numerous times. Lawyer 'logic' will not help you here. Telling me to study law will not help you, either; if you can't present a proper counterargument here and now, don't even bother spewing forth such garbage. If it wasn't clear, I did not find your 'logic' convincing.
Years from now you'll probably remember this and it will finally come to you.
You'll agree with me at some unspecified point in the future, so hang in there.
If you study law you find out why things are the way they are.
I'm not interested in newspeak, lawyer 'logic', or rationalizations; I'll pass.
By just throwing out TSA, NSA, Patriot act... you really shouldn't do that without a point. You come across as a nut.
A nut? For mentioning awful laws and organizations? You pretend to care about things such as freedom, but that does not seem to be the case.
NSA dates back many decades and they've done very good work.
And they're also filled with human garbage. They may have done a few things in the past that could be considered beneficial. What of it? Do you honestly think I care about that? The NSA is as it is now; I don't care about its past, and I was already well aware of that nonsense.
Turns out for good reason.
What is good to you is not necessarily good to me. The PATRIOT ACT is not good to me.
Or did you forget that, unlike you, I don't consider safety all-important? Don't pretend to care about freedom; you make those of us who actually do look bad.
What I'm getting at is it isn't as simple as people want it to be.
Maybe not the specifics, but greed, power, and control all factor into it.
You wouldn't want it to be all easy, would you?
Of course it's not easy; that's why every government in history has abused their powers in horrendous ways, including the US government. Why anyone would trust these thugs with anything more than the bare essentials is beyond me.
Lots of people really seem to hate things or people that are different, so probably.
Society decides that
Society hardly ever comes to unanimous decisions about anything. Furthermore, what about people who oppose 'unjust' laws that may be 'good' for society in the long run? You're only considering what the current society feels about them.
They are going so far from accepted arbitrary rules that with a consent analogy they are doing the equivalent of raping five year olds at gunpoint.
Those rules may be arbitrary, but they're also very logical.
You wanted to know why it's OK for a sixteen year old in some places and not in another
I did? I just said that it was arbitrary and silly.
the neighbours make it so
I don't think the neighbors can do any such thing.
That's why I thought the above was a good example
It should take far less restraint to not violate people's rights than to voluntarily sleep with someone under 18.
What I really objected to was the implication that to be a "good" member of society, you have to follow every single silly, arbitrary rule that exists within it, whether or not they're logical.
And you have to determine for yourself what the answer is. Usually there is not some dense third party who determines that your answer was wrong simply because it's not the answer that they like, depending on the result of your work. Furthermore, I would imagine that the 'correct' answer is spelled out right in front of you, like it is on these silly little tests...
Asking students subjective questions and then arbitrarily declaring some of them to be 'wrong' is just indoctrination; it takes no critical or innovative thinking to just mindlessly give the answer that the test makers want you to.
I'm on the pro-school side, but the anti-school people
Pro-school? Anti-school?
I just really don't think that such simplistic tests and questions are capable of determining whether someone truly understands something in a grand majority of cases. In other environments, questions aren't asked in a multiple choice fashion; how you go about solving the problem usually isn't conveniently spelled out on a piece of paper; and problems that require innovative thinking can't be solved merely by learned pattern recognition or a large repository of meaningless facts. These are really some of the largest problems with our tests; they don't test for understanding, innovative thinking, or any other such thing.
I honestly don't think that standardized testing (which is a one-size-fits-all solution) is a good thing in the long run.
Answering subjective questions "correctly" is the point of critical thinking.
I don't think it's critical thinking when all you're doing is answering how you believe others want you to answer; that's almost mindless as far as I'm concerned. It's not even close to innovative thinking.
Sure they can. Humans make up titles, and humans can give any title to a story that they feel like. Thesereplies give a more in-depth explanation of some of the problems I have with this sort of thing.
that would be a stupid title
Subjective.
B) The idea behind the question isn't about picking the perfect title
But that's what it boils down to. There are no objectively 'right' or 'wrong' titles, yet the ones who made the test insist that any answer they don't like is 'wrong.'
It is, however, pointless; as it doesn't actually require any real understanding of what's been read
Neither does hinting at what the story is about by giving it a title that the test creators approve of.
I don't know. The question could be asking how many apples there are in the entire universe; it doesn't specify where you're looking for apples.
And besides that, why does it say, "Bob gives 3 of his apples with Alice"? Are they giving apples to some mysterious third party? I guess it doesn't matter.
How many apples Bob has or Alice (or whether Alice is an idiot or not), has little to do with the problem at hand.
What?
Kids are seldom introduced to logic, theorems and proofs.
The real problem is that they never focus on trying to get people to understand why or how things work, not that there's a lack of theorems and proofs. This is a pretty good summary of the problem.
Because if you don't understand how that algorithm came to be, you will not be able to use it in real life.
It doesn't grant them an intuitive understanding of the material (e.g. why and how it works); it's mostly the same garbage as we've seen countless times.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about specifics!
Hence why I replied the way I did. That "good members of society" bit was nonsense, as far as I'm conconered.
I suggest reading a lot instead of being happy with the very poor hand you have been dealt.
Now what are you talking about?
If you can't understand how others think, you will fail at communicating
And if you support nonsense like this, then you don't want people to get actual educations; you just want to indoctrinate them.
It's not even that difficult to guess how they want you to answer; it's just useless.
Have you not heard the arguments for the past 20+ years from Republicans to shut down public schools.
I've heard of that, but it's difficult to tell exactly what is meant by those two terms without first asking.
perhaps you should do more research before you post your opinion on things you don't understand.
Even though I've heard those sorts of arguments, listening to a few nuts speak has little to do with understanding education.
They say that public schools is indoctrination into compliant citizens, and kills creativity and thought.
I'd say that's true, but I would also say the same about most private schools.
So, how do you compare the performance or education between a graduating student in KY and one in CA?
Mostly, you don't. People wanted simplistic, easy to understand numbers, and what they got was a lousy one-size-fits-all solution that does a poor job of actually providing people with an education. Similarly, certain people foolishly look to IQ scores when they want an easy way of seeing how 'intelligent' someone is, but none of this garbage ever works out.
Something just shot out of a bare bayerhole. Where? My sensors detect that the bayerhole that had something shoot out of it is located in my house. Whose asshole is it? It's mine, that's whose! What shot out of my asshole? A fart. That's all well and good, but who caused the fart to shoot out of my bare-as-fuck bayerhole extravaganza? An extra terrestrial in a distance galaxy? Who's the fuckin' culprit!? Well, after gathering the greatest minds in the world and performing thorough experimentation, a conclusion has been reached: I am the one who shot the fart out of my very own asshole.
What!? How!? How can such a thing be possible!? This is a thing of legend!
Which is because that is the point that I am attempting to convey!
But not what I'm talking about, and the guy who I originally replied to never got into specifics. The problem I have is that this line is reasoning is too simplistic.
If you only want to talk about the here-and-now, then you have a point.
Of course allowing them to die in prison isn't the same thing literally.
"End result is C) and D) are really the same thing. You're still dead at the hand of the justice system. Method is different."
Right, because saying they're the "same thing" means nothing. As I said, even the end result is different; it's only the same when you factor in only those things that are convenient for your argument (i.e. you leave out who killed the person and when they died).
Of course allowing them to die in prison isn't the same thing literally.
Indeed. Not even the result is the same (unless you only factor in "death," which would be odd), as I've pointed out numerous times. Lawyer 'logic' will not help you here. Telling me to study law will not help you, either; if you can't present a proper counterargument here and now, don't even bother spewing forth such garbage. If it wasn't clear, I did not find your 'logic' convincing.
Years from now you'll probably remember this and it will finally come to you.
You'll agree with me at some unspecified point in the future, so hang in there.
If you study law you find out why things are the way they are.
I'm not interested in newspeak, lawyer 'logic', or rationalizations; I'll pass.
By just throwing out TSA, NSA, Patriot act... you really shouldn't do that without a point. You come across as a nut.
A nut? For mentioning awful laws and organizations? You pretend to care about things such as freedom, but that does not seem to be the case.
NSA dates back many decades and they've done very good work.
And they're also filled with human garbage. They may have done a few things in the past that could be considered beneficial. What of it? Do you honestly think I care about that? The NSA is as it is now; I don't care about its past, and I was already well aware of that nonsense.
Turns out for good reason.
What is good to you is not necessarily good to me. The PATRIOT ACT is not good to me.
Or did you forget that, unlike you, I don't consider safety all-important? Don't pretend to care about freedom; you make those of us who actually do look bad.
What I'm getting at is it isn't as simple as people want it to be.
Maybe not the specifics, but greed, power, and control all factor into it.
You wouldn't want it to be all easy, would you?
Of course it's not easy; that's why every government in history has abused their powers in horrendous ways, including the US government. Why anyone would trust these thugs with anything more than the bare essentials is beyond me.
That's how you get outcasts
Lots of people really seem to hate things or people that are different, so probably.
Society decides that
Society hardly ever comes to unanimous decisions about anything. Furthermore, what about people who oppose 'unjust' laws that may be 'good' for society in the long run? You're only considering what the current society feels about them.
They are going so far from accepted arbitrary rules that with a consent analogy they are doing the equivalent of raping five year olds at gunpoint.
Those rules may be arbitrary, but they're also very logical.
Of course it does.
Stop going off on long, irrelevant tangents about things I never even said. I'm not going to read that.
Almost no-one in the first world truly lives in isolation.
That has little to do with violating people's rights/privacy, which is what I was referring to. I'm not sure what that tangent was about.
You can't compensate the dead
Because there's no one to compensate.
and with minimal intrusion into everyone's daily lives
Minimal? It still exists, then.
For that alone, it seems like an improvement on many previous ideas.
An idea has to sound good to me before I'll consider it. The fact that something is better than other ideas put forth rarely does anything for me.
You wanted to know why it's OK for a sixteen year old in some places and not in another
I did? I just said that it was arbitrary and silly.
the neighbours make it so
I don't think the neighbors can do any such thing.
That's why I thought the above was a good example
It should take far less restraint to not violate people's rights than to voluntarily sleep with someone under 18.
What I really objected to was the implication that to be a "good" member of society, you have to follow every single silly, arbitrary rule that exists within it, whether or not they're logical.
No, they can't.
They can't? So I'm incapable of creating a story and then giving it whatever title I want?
The problem is you're an idiot.
The problem, I think, is that some people do not understand the concept of subjectivity.
And you have to determine for yourself what the answer is. Usually there is not some dense third party who determines that your answer was wrong simply because it's not the answer that they like, depending on the result of your work. Furthermore, I would imagine that the 'correct' answer is spelled out right in front of you, like it is on these silly little tests...
Asking students subjective questions and then arbitrarily declaring some of them to be 'wrong' is just indoctrination; it takes no critical or innovative thinking to just mindlessly give the answer that the test makers want you to.
Not really.
Yes, really.
I'm on the pro-school side, but the anti-school people
Pro-school? Anti-school?
I just really don't think that such simplistic tests and questions are capable of determining whether someone truly understands something in a grand majority of cases. In other environments, questions aren't asked in a multiple choice fashion; how you go about solving the problem usually isn't conveniently spelled out on a piece of paper; and problems that require innovative thinking can't be solved merely by learned pattern recognition or a large repository of meaningless facts. These are really some of the largest problems with our tests; they don't test for understanding, innovative thinking, or any other such thing.
I honestly don't think that standardized testing (which is a one-size-fits-all solution) is a good thing in the long run.
Answering subjective questions "correctly" is the point of critical thinking.
I don't think it's critical thinking when all you're doing is answering how you believe others want you to answer; that's almost mindless as far as I'm concerned. It's not even close to innovative thinking.
There is no truly "correct" answer.
Question #1 is not really asking for an opinion.
It is.
It is asking that you evaluate the suggestions to see which is the best option.
That is completely subjective.
then he/she is indeed missing the ability to evaluate the story.
Or perhaps there is no objectively correct answer to such an ambiguous, subjective question.
They go beyond the wrote learning model
Nope. They're the same flawed multiple choice tests we've seen time and time again.
A) Titles cannot be just anything
Sure they can. Humans make up titles, and humans can give any title to a story that they feel like. These replies give a more in-depth explanation of some of the problems I have with this sort of thing.
that would be a stupid title
Subjective.
B) The idea behind the question isn't about picking the perfect title
But that's what it boils down to. There are no objectively 'right' or 'wrong' titles, yet the ones who made the test insist that any answer they don't like is 'wrong.'
It is, however, pointless; as it doesn't actually require any real understanding of what's been read
Neither does hinting at what the story is about by giving it a title that the test creators approve of.
Clearly, there are 5 apples.
I don't know. The question could be asking how many apples there are in the entire universe; it doesn't specify where you're looking for apples.
And besides that, why does it say, "Bob gives 3 of his apples with Alice"? Are they giving apples to some mysterious third party? I guess it doesn't matter.
How many apples Bob has or Alice (or whether Alice is an idiot or not), has little to do with the problem at hand.
What?
Kids are seldom introduced to logic, theorems and proofs.
The real problem is that they never focus on trying to get people to understand why or how things work, not that there's a lack of theorems and proofs. This is a pretty good summary of the problem.
There is nothing wrong with these test
Other than the fact that it's just another idiotic multiple choice test that doesn't actually test students for a deep understanding of the material.
Because if you don't understand how that algorithm came to be, you will not be able to use it in real life.
It doesn't grant them an intuitive understanding of the material (e.g. why and how it works); it's mostly the same garbage as we've seen countless times.
Question 1- a title is supposed to inform you on what the story is about.
Subjective. Titles can be anything.
That makes option (a) a bad choice.
Subjective.
Option (d) is also a bad choice, it would make a relatively unimportant part the theme.
Subjective.
Bob has 5 apples. Bob gives 3 of his apples with Alice. How many apples are there?
How many apples are there? There are five. Bob has two, and his idiot friend Alice has three.
Actually, since you didn't specify where we're looking, there's no way to even answer that.
More silly multiple choice tests that accomplish... absolutely nothing; much like all of our other tests.