It's like all those idiots that think that the government having the ability to, say, stop companies from dumping chemicals in rivers means that they'll be better able to oppress people in any significant way; ridiculous. Their powers ends at having the ability to prevent harm, and if the system is set up correctly, there will be all sorts of checks and balances (which should not be cast aside for convenience) along the way.
This means you're arguing philosophy. This is because shit that actually happens proves you wrong.
I like how you just decided the reason you think I'm arguing philosophy yourself, as if you can decide what I think.
Work ethic = ability to force yourself to do things you don't naturally want to do.
I have the ability, but I'm just not a mindless drone that does whatever he's told (unlike worker drones). I can see why this would be a highly desirable trait for schools and employers, but fortunately, I have a lot of leeway at my job. The point is, many employers and schools seem to think that everyone should be obedient worker drones, and again, that's the mentality I can't get behind.
These kinds of things won't make you the next Steve Jobs, but not having them (and not being brilliant) will probably have a large negative impact on your performance both in school and in the work force.
A grand majority of people are by no means brilliant, and yet they do fairly well (better than they should) in the work force and in school. Sad, but true.
This is because shit that actually happens proves you wrong.
Nothing that you listed proves me wrong. We have constitutional amendments for a reason, and I believe the constitution should be followed. Again, none of your examples show that ability to help people = direct ability to oppress innocents.
If you have private insurance (like most Americans) this increases their costs, so in order to protect their profit margins, they hike my premium. Same goes for life insurance; if you threaten their profits, they'll just charge everybody more.
The problem with this is that we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free and brave people sacrifice many things (safety and convenience, for instance) to be free. If we were to get rid of everything that has an indirect negative affect on people, we'd have to ban all sorts of activities. Not just drugs, but things like ice skating (you could get hurt, which costs money), mountain climbing for fun (same deal), 'bad' food (unhealthy people are costly), and pretty much everything else. I, for one, would gladly pay higher taxes and insurance costs if it meant fewer laws.
I'm not so sure. They are both bad. They are also not comparable.
What the other guy said about this.
I'm not from US, but why do you use the "I want to be free" argument to allow anybody do everything what they want ?
I don't, and that's a straw man. For instance, I think murder should be illegal, so obviously I don't want anarchy.
People tend to do stupid things with their body
Yeah? Their problem. There are few--if any--instances where the government should be controlling people like this. Freedom > safety.
but I guess we are now in a time where people believe that if it's not in the law, then it's legal.
Since things are legal by default (in any sane country), that is, of course, true.
Nope, I'm from France, and I don't understand why you are so US-centric.
Because I'm from the US and I know more about my own country than others, and I therefore have many real-world examples of how current governments can abuse their powers.
You think a six-year-old has the same decision making ability as an 20-year-old?
In most cases, yes. I have absolutely zero no confidence in most people's intelligence, and I see most of the population as overgrown children (not that being a child is a bad thing, but that they're not as superior as many claim).
Sure, there are some benefits using marijuana, but if it's useful only for a few terminally ill people and dangerous for most normal people
Far less so than alcohol.
I understand why it's regulated.
Regulated? In most places, it's outright illegal.
But hey, isn't the US supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave? If so, then why are people so readily willing to trade freedom for security? We let the government molest us at airports (TSA), spy on our communications en masse (NSA), harass us by making sure we're innocent and not driving drunk (DUI checkpoints), violate our rights at the borders (unfettered border searches), send off protestors to free speech zones, declare portions (huge portions) of the country as constitution-free zones, prevent people from harming themselves by consuming drugs, and generally violate the constitution in many ways. How can we be called free or brave if we let such things happen? If we're so brave, we wouldn't be trading freedom for security, and you're a freedom-hating coward for suggesting that it's okay for marijuana to be illegal.
makes me wonder if you have the symptoms of "belief of conspiracy".
Makes me wonder if you ignore history in favor of your pro-government nonsense. Isn't it about time for you to be molested by your precious government thugs at the nearest airport?
They should be required to be free of religion? At what age do they suddenly become capable of deciding for themselves, and who are you to decide that they're not capable of deciding at a certain age? Also, how do you expect to enforce this requirement without infringing about free speech and religious rights?
How are the exam's existing compositional components samplings of rote memorization?
Really, it's just following rules you memorized and writing how they want you to write.
Beyond knowing formulas, how are the computational components of the SAT tests of rote memorization?
That's just an example of applying the procedures they memorized.
What is it of a high school student that you want tested, exactly?
Whether or not they have a deep, intuitive understanding of the material (how and why it works).
U.S. students who score highly on "IQ" tests also perform highly on the SAT
Which might just mean people with high IQs are good test takers, not that they're intelligent, or that the SAT is a good test.
IQ is mere pseudoscience, anyway.
It certainly measures how quickly all of this can be done, given that it is a time-limited exam together with punishing incorrect answers (guesses).
And it's still just a ridiculous multiple choice test, with a few other things (essays) thrown in. Also, math is not a game of speed or memorization, and that time limit crap is garbage.
Something tells me the people who make these tests do not comprehend what math is about. They only care about whether or not you can compute the correct answers and follow their precious procedures, and whether or not you can do so quickly enough. I doubt they have a better view of other subjects.
Ah, I misunderstood. Still, I'm not so quick to dismiss it all as rote memorization. I mean, we took a differential equations class together; it wasn't just memorizing multiplication tables.
It doesn't really need to be memorization multiplication tables for it to be rote memorization; it could be the memorization of other facts, patterns, or procedures.
Dude. "The work force" isn't an artificial environment.
I didn't specifically say that it was. I was referring to schools and colleges.
"Work ethic" and "time management skills" are just as important there (if not more so) than in school.
"Work ethic" is vague. Some people seem to think it means being an obedient worker drone, and that's what I can't get behind. Time management skills are fine, but I prefer not to learn according to someone else's schedule, so formal education has never been for me.
Well, it was one of the options (rote memorization geniuses), at least. I didn't mean that their memories have to be amazing, but that they memorize the material without understanding it. I call the people (seemingly the majority) who manage to slip by all these classes and tests without understanding the material "rote memorization geniuses" or "Jeopardy! geniuses." I've seen a lot of those people, and many of them did work hard to accomplish what they were trying to do (memorize material).
Whereas I might actually have had more aptitude for memorizing facts than they did, they had a clearly superior work ethic and better time management skills: two things that strongly correlate with success in college (and the work force).
That's mediocrity for you; always concerned with the work force, success in artificial environments, and being obedient.
At my engineering-focused selective high school the kids who got the best grades were the ones that worked the hardest.
Working hard and understanding what you're doing are two different things. Most people work hard to memorize the information schools expect them to memorize, but they don't understand shit.
Like many Americans, your definition of "oppress" is way too weak.
Nope. It's oppression when the government is violating people's freedom; period.
China is four times our population, and I'm pretty sure every pro-Democracy activist in the country would trade their government for ours even if all your worst nightmares about it were 100% true.
X being worse than Y doesn't mean that Y isn't bad.
what word is left to describe the Chinese?
Oppression. Or, we could just focus on individual issues. This isn't hard, and words can be used in many ways; deal with it.
In practice if a government doesn't have the ability to be a huge pain in the ass to innocent people it can't nail the guilty.
In practice, that's false. That's why we have checks and balances and limited government.
But really, even if that were true, that would just mean it wouldn't be worth it to nail the guilty.
It is explicitly stated that patents are for a "limited time" for the benefit of society
As far as I know, patents last 20 years. Copyright is what lasts a truly ridiculous period of time, but it's still technically limited.
And that's the problem. While there are definitely many cases of the government violating the constitution, the constitution is poorly written and doesn't put enough limits on the government's power.
Honestly, it is not so much the government snooping that scares me as the private snooping does.
Why don't both scare you, especially when the government can easily get the data the corporations have? For what reason have you created this false dichotomy where you're either scared of one or the other?
And the government has plenty of power to ruin your life (Just ask the hundreds of millions of people who were murdered or abused throughout history by governments.), so they're no laughing matter.
The government can't afford to spy on us
The government *is* spying on us. Where have you been?
They were trying to show us how to figure things out ourselves
That doesn't seem to be working. Anyway, I'd say the goal is more to make people obedient worker drones and cheaply 'educate' people than it is to make them understand anything.
Basically, I haven't seen anything ("new math" included) or anyone that tries to fix these problems. Unless they're completely ignorant, I don't see how it's possible that they're genuinely trying to fix the rote memorization problem.
New math is good for those students
I'm not sure it is. I haven't really seen any positive changes to the education system, so this "new math" you talk about is unlikely to fix the problem.
Well, if the person does poorly, it might indicate that they don't understand the material and that they didn't memorize it. It fails to eliminate the majority of the people who pass the test who don't understand why anything works.
GPA is the single best predictor of performance.
GPA is the best predictor that you might have a rote memorization genius, an ass kisser, a rich kid, and/or someone who took lots of easy classes on your hands.
I don't know what "fair" means, but I really don't see where they're improving these tests so that they test for something other than rote memorization.
I never found myself interested, because none of it required higher level thinking skills. Even if it did, it would probably still be below me. Word problems and essays don't really qualify to me.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like all those idiots that think that the government having the ability to, say, stop companies from dumping chemicals in rivers means that they'll be better able to oppress people in any significant way; ridiculous. Their powers ends at having the ability to prevent harm, and if the system is set up correctly, there will be all sorts of checks and balances (which should not be cast aside for convenience) along the way.
This means you're arguing philosophy. This is because shit that actually happens proves you wrong.
I like how you just decided the reason you think I'm arguing philosophy yourself, as if you can decide what I think.
Work ethic = ability to force yourself to do things you don't naturally want to do.
I have the ability, but I'm just not a mindless drone that does whatever he's told (unlike worker drones). I can see why this would be a highly desirable trait for schools and employers, but fortunately, I have a lot of leeway at my job. The point is, many employers and schools seem to think that everyone should be obedient worker drones, and again, that's the mentality I can't get behind.
These kinds of things won't make you the next Steve Jobs, but not having them (and not being brilliant) will probably have a large negative impact on your performance both in school and in the work force.
A grand majority of people are by no means brilliant, and yet they do fairly well (better than they should) in the work force and in school. Sad, but true.
This is because shit that actually happens proves you wrong.
Nothing that you listed proves me wrong. We have constitutional amendments for a reason, and I believe the constitution should be followed. Again, none of your examples show that ability to help people = direct ability to oppress innocents.
Well, if you take it to a ridiculous extreme
You mean, if I apply the exact same logic to various other situations.
If you have private insurance (like most Americans) this increases their costs, so in order to protect their profit margins, they hike my premium. Same goes for life insurance; if you threaten their profits, they'll just charge everybody more.
The problem with this is that we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free and brave people sacrifice many things (safety and convenience, for instance) to be free. If we were to get rid of everything that has an indirect negative affect on people, we'd have to ban all sorts of activities. Not just drugs, but things like ice skating (you could get hurt, which costs money), mountain climbing for fun (same deal), 'bad' food (unhealthy people are costly), and pretty much everything else. I, for one, would gladly pay higher taxes and insurance costs if it meant fewer laws.
I'm not so sure. They are both bad. They are also not comparable.
What the other guy said about this.
I'm not from US, but why do you use the "I want to be free" argument to allow anybody do everything what they want ?
I don't, and that's a straw man. For instance, I think murder should be illegal, so obviously I don't want anarchy.
People tend to do stupid things with their body
Yeah? Their problem. There are few--if any--instances where the government should be controlling people like this. Freedom > safety.
but I guess we are now in a time where people believe that if it's not in the law, then it's legal.
Since things are legal by default (in any sane country), that is, of course, true.
Nope, I'm from France, and I don't understand why you are so US-centric.
Because I'm from the US and I know more about my own country than others, and I therefore have many real-world examples of how current governments can abuse their powers.
You think a six-year-old has the same decision making ability as an 20-year-old?
In most cases, yes. I have absolutely zero no confidence in most people's intelligence, and I see most of the population as overgrown children (not that being a child is a bad thing, but that they're not as superior as many claim).
Sure, there are some benefits using marijuana, but if it's useful only for a few terminally ill people and dangerous for most normal people
Far less so than alcohol.
I understand why it's regulated.
Regulated? In most places, it's outright illegal.
But hey, isn't the US supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave? If so, then why are people so readily willing to trade freedom for security? We let the government molest us at airports (TSA), spy on our communications en masse (NSA), harass us by making sure we're innocent and not driving drunk (DUI checkpoints), violate our rights at the borders (unfettered border searches), send off protestors to free speech zones, declare portions (huge portions) of the country as constitution-free zones, prevent people from harming themselves by consuming drugs, and generally violate the constitution in many ways. How can we be called free or brave if we let such things happen? If we're so brave, we wouldn't be trading freedom for security, and you're a freedom-hating coward for suggesting that it's okay for marijuana to be illegal.
makes me wonder if you have the symptoms of "belief of conspiracy".
Makes me wonder if you ignore history in favor of your pro-government nonsense. Isn't it about time for you to be molested by your precious government thugs at the nearest airport?
They should be required to be free of religion? At what age do they suddenly become capable of deciding for themselves, and who are you to decide that they're not capable of deciding at a certain age? Also, how do you expect to enforce this requirement without infringing about free speech and religious rights?
How are the exam's existing compositional components samplings of rote memorization?
Really, it's just following rules you memorized and writing how they want you to write.
Beyond knowing formulas, how are the computational components of the SAT tests of rote memorization?
That's just an example of applying the procedures they memorized.
What is it of a high school student that you want tested, exactly?
Whether or not they have a deep, intuitive understanding of the material (how and why it works).
U.S. students who score highly on "IQ" tests also perform highly on the SAT
Which might just mean people with high IQs are good test takers, not that they're intelligent, or that the SAT is a good test.
IQ is mere pseudoscience, anyway.
It certainly measures how quickly all of this can be done, given that it is a time-limited exam together with punishing incorrect answers (guesses).
And it's still just a ridiculous multiple choice test, with a few other things (essays) thrown in. Also, math is not a game of speed or memorization, and that time limit crap is garbage.
Something tells me the people who make these tests do not comprehend what math is about. They only care about whether or not you can compute the correct answers and follow their precious procedures, and whether or not you can do so quickly enough. I doubt they have a better view of other subjects.
Ah, I misunderstood. Still, I'm not so quick to dismiss it all as rote memorization. I mean, we took a differential equations class together; it wasn't just memorizing multiplication tables.
It doesn't really need to be memorization multiplication tables for it to be rote memorization; it could be the memorization of other facts, patterns, or procedures.
Dude. "The work force" isn't an artificial environment.
I didn't specifically say that it was. I was referring to schools and colleges.
"Work ethic" and "time management skills" are just as important there (if not more so) than in school.
"Work ethic" is vague. Some people seem to think it means being an obedient worker drone, and that's what I can't get behind. Time management skills are fine, but I prefer not to learn according to someone else's schedule, so formal education has never been for me.
Sure. But that's not what you originally said.
Well, it was one of the options (rote memorization geniuses), at least. I didn't mean that their memories have to be amazing, but that they memorize the material without understanding it. I call the people (seemingly the majority) who manage to slip by all these classes and tests without understanding the material "rote memorization geniuses" or "Jeopardy! geniuses." I've seen a lot of those people, and many of them did work hard to accomplish what they were trying to do (memorize material).
Whereas I might actually have had more aptitude for memorizing facts than they did, they had a clearly superior work ethic and better time management skills: two things that strongly correlate with success in college (and the work force).
That's mediocrity for you; always concerned with the work force, success in artificial environments, and being obedient.
At my engineering-focused selective high school the kids who got the best grades were the ones that worked the hardest.
Working hard and understanding what you're doing are two different things. Most people work hard to memorize the information schools expect them to memorize, but they don't understand shit.
Like many Americans, your definition of "oppress" is way too weak.
Nope. It's oppression when the government is violating people's freedom; period.
China is four times our population, and I'm pretty sure every pro-Democracy activist in the country would trade their government for ours even if all your worst nightmares about it were 100% true.
X being worse than Y doesn't mean that Y isn't bad.
what word is left to describe the Chinese?
Oppression. Or, we could just focus on individual issues. This isn't hard, and words can be used in many ways; deal with it.
In practice if a government doesn't have the ability to be a huge pain in the ass to innocent people it can't nail the guilty.
In practice, that's false. That's why we have checks and balances and limited government.
But really, even if that were true, that would just mean it wouldn't be worth it to nail the guilty.
It is explicitly stated that patents are for a "limited time" for the benefit of society
As far as I know, patents last 20 years. Copyright is what lasts a truly ridiculous period of time, but it's still technically limited.
And that's the problem. While there are definitely many cases of the government violating the constitution, the constitution is poorly written and doesn't put enough limits on the government's power.
1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years
Wrong. Read it. No limitations are listed. All this means is that the government is ignoring it, and has been for a long time.
Honestly, it is not so much the government snooping that scares me as the private snooping does.
Why don't both scare you, especially when the government can easily get the data the corporations have? For what reason have you created this false dichotomy where you're either scared of one or the other?
And the government has plenty of power to ruin your life (Just ask the hundreds of millions of people who were murdered or abused throughout history by governments.), so they're no laughing matter.
The government can't afford to spy on us
The government *is* spying on us. Where have you been?
We have intentionally created a Federal government that is too weak to oppress anyone.
But it's not. As we've seen with the NSA, TSA, etc., they'll just break the constitution as they please.
This means that it is too weak to stop our neighbors from oppressing each-other
The ability to stop others from oppressing each other is not necessarily the same as the ability to oppress.
So, it benefited your sister, so the premise of license plates is good overall. Okay.
The Fourth Amendment means that the database has to be incredibly useful for it to be legal
No, it doesn't.
I think 99% is a bit harsh.
I don't, and especially in subjects like math.
They were trying to show us how to figure things out ourselves
That doesn't seem to be working. Anyway, I'd say the goal is more to make people obedient worker drones and cheaply 'educate' people than it is to make them understand anything.
Basically, I haven't seen anything ("new math" included) or anyone that tries to fix these problems. Unless they're completely ignorant, I don't see how it's possible that they're genuinely trying to fix the rote memorization problem.
New math is good for those students
I'm not sure it is. I haven't really seen any positive changes to the education system, so this "new math" you talk about is unlikely to fix the problem.
The scores do mean *something,*
Well, if the person does poorly, it might indicate that they don't understand the material and that they didn't memorize it. It fails to eliminate the majority of the people who pass the test who don't understand why anything works.
GPA is the single best predictor of performance.
GPA is the best predictor that you might have a rote memorization genius, an ass kisser, a rich kid, and/or someone who took lots of easy classes on your hands.
I thought the goal of the SAT was to predict performance in college, not to gauge "important academic skills".
It sure wasn't meant to test your understanding of the material; rote memorization 'geniuses' (the majority) love that.
I don't know what "fair" means, but I really don't see where they're improving these tests so that they test for something other than rote memorization.
I never found myself interested, because none of it required higher level thinking skills. Even if it did, it would probably still be below me. Word problems and essays don't really qualify to me.