Well, anything you can learn in two years about software engineering can be learned without going to school in the first place.
You can teach yourself absolutely anything at all without going to school in the first place, the question is always how much and how quick. Schools should be offering you, the student, a one-stop-shop to the information you need to educate yourself, a curriculum to help you focus on the most significant subjects in the field, experts in the area for you to discuss questions and hone your investigation, and generally save you a lot of time in becoming competent.
To the industry they should, arguably, offer a certification that says so-and-so did learn this thing and did meet our criteria for basic competence. My opinion is that schools should NOT be doing this, that should be an independent entity outside of the school, so as to facilitate self-taught people, and also discourage the cheating-culture that is becoming more common.
But as for two years, the question is what is "enough"? The difference between what my child knows at 7 and when he was 5 is tremendous, and it will absolutely all stick. Of course at 18 the subject matter will be significantly more involved and detailed, but it's not necessary to master it to be useful to the industry.
Ain't nothing wrong with that, we need more of them, provided we don't set up a system where they bilk students out of N years of future income for a piece of paper.
You mean a competitive process that is left to anneal for a period of time?
producer of the orange already knows what inputs went into making that orange
He knows what he was able to invest that was sufficient to produce the orange. He does not have any idea, or concern, about whether his investment covered the costs from his suppliers (human, corporate or natural). Nor does he know for t>0 that his costs will be covered by the market price, it may happen he has to sell for a loss. He has some historic data about market prices for oranges that may or may not hold true leading him to believe that he can sell profitably (or he'd probably get out of the business), but at any time that can change arbitrarily. He will then be forced to sell for a loss.
All we know about economics for sure is right there. We look at markets of things based on sales prices, not any actual truth or concrete data.
Economics is a social "science". Because it involves money, it feels more quantitative and objective, like an actual science. But it is a social science, arbitrary numbers have been assigned to ill defined metrics, and a delusion is formed. Perhaps those arbitrary assignments are the result of a real competitive process, left to anneal for a period of time, but that's just a further level of self-deception. We cling to these things individually because it is the best we've got socially, but at no level in the universe can you establish the value of an orange at X resources/unit, it's therefore impossible to build any kind of universal truth around a system that is fundamentally based on that sort of value assignment.
So when the talking heads start talking about economics, and making predictions and saying the sky is falling if {such and such}, it is ok to laugh and walk away. We'll make it work or we won't and it'll change.
Exactly, it seems like if you have an employee who is incapable of not causing harm to your business and/or customers, he's more of a liability than an asset and you let him go. If you can keep him around but out of contact with female students, you can possibly still leverage what he brings to the table with minimal risk of damage assuming he can produce sufficient to compensate for losing him on the cash cow. If he is such a liability that no amount of brilliance can compensate, you must let him go and hope that whatever great advances he is capable of bringing, somehow happen in spite of what is almost certainly a ticking bomb. If not, someone else will, some other time. Nobody is so great an asset that immoral behavior can or should be tolerated, down that road lies a nightmare.
I don't really understand the comparisons with Feynman, what was (not entirely) acceptable in the 60s is totally not acceptable now, and hasn't been since I was a kid. And professors know it, I don't care how decrepit they are, there should be no debate. Perhaps Feynman should have been disciplined back then too, but I don't see the point in what-ifs that are impossible. If the culture then was the same as now, maybe numerous men would have exercised more restraint? If owning slaves was illegal in 1820, very likely very few would have owned slaves then too. It's not really a reasonable comparison.
it's "getting a bit old" still seems a little tone-deaf to me.
I think it amounts to "your arguments have been heard, logged, rejected, but you have the right to scream I told you so later", which is really where the incessant whining needs to end. I'm not convinced Wayland is famine, nor that systemd is pestilence. Unity certainly rode the pale horse, but the beauty of Linux is that we just fork around the offending software and carry on. Unlike when Microsoft or Apple do something reprehensible and we just have to suffer through it, with Linux we can just lob it off and replace it with something else.
When Ubuntu gets rid of Unity, I'll use Ubuntu again, until then there are plenty of good options. If systemd or Wayland make me cry, I'll do away with them. It's magic. Best, the people who like that sort of thing can keep having it, and not bother me in the slightest.
I bet if you pick two Intel CPUs with the same SKU you will probably not notice performance differences (because the clock rate will be fixed for you), but you will notice power draw differences. As you probably know, even silicon in the same process with the same mask set may exhibit significant power draw differences based on how the process was trending when that wafer came off the line. Most of the noticeable difference seems to be in static power dissipation, which is often mitigated by entirely shutting off sections of the chip. But apples to apples testing one will be higher than another. Then put those identical systems in different thermal environments and the differences will be even more exaggerated. Different voltage environments? Even MORE noticeable. Better: normally with different processes the core voltages will necessarily be different. Regardless, the point is that even identical silicon does not behave identically, which OCers already know. The whole art of binning even equal parts, is painful.
Power continues to be the least well controlled outcome. When it comes to core frequency, designers sweat every picosecond and may lose months optimizing paths to hit their target frequency. Power is treated more like a budget: you identify designs that are comparatively higher/lower power and decide if the tradeoffs for lower power are acceptable, then at the end if/when you are overbudget you look for the big hitters, cut them down to size. Once you're in budget you forget about it. Then you get real silicon and the power will be somewhere around what you estimated when you designed, but not exactly, and will vary from chip to chip. Some of those chips you will throw out as being outside of your design spec and not suitable, but you try to keep as many as you can because $.
While you may prefer to cherry pick the phone you get, I think you only have a right to complain if either variant of the phone does not meet advertised specifications, not that one phone is different from another.
There is absolutely nothing I envy about the city of Houston, it is easily my least favorite city in the United States and I have lived in many of them. In every category of relevance to me, Houston is horrifying.
- It is filthy - Much of it is falling apart - Traffic is bad, and the roads are perpetually under construction - The culture/people are really the worst combination of South-East combined with the worst combination of Texas, with no redemption whatever. Right to the bottom line every time, disregarding any sense of wonder or interest. - The rudeness in traffic makes even someone who lived in NYC for years cry.
I fortunately never have to spend more than a few hours near it, but I hate all those hours.
It's actually pretty common amongst system vendors to sell you two systems with identical model numbers and brand names, but that have different components popped. They will advertise the spec that is the union of the boards they sell you, so you can't argue that you were delivered something below expectations.
This is all a supply chain/vendor management thing, all qualified vendors are given a percentage of the market, not necessarily equal (i.e. those that deliver the lowest cost, typically get the larger share). It's not entirely a bad practice there are a number of good reasons that this happens that benefit customers and vendors alike. But there's always the chance that one implementation or another works better/faster/has a hidden feature, etc. Most of the time you never notice...one companies sensor chip may intentionally be designed to work and act like another's, and do you care if you have a panisonic 0402 1K 1% resistor or someone elses 0402 1k 1% resistor? Usually not . It does tend to become more visible on certain parts like LAN chips, audio chips, in the old days video chips, when the functionality is the selling feature, not the brand/model..
Which is how I have seen it done elsewhere. If your company follows the Jack Welch style "fire the bottom 10%" mandate, and you are the guy that refuses to stand up for things like principles, guess who is going to be related "below expectations"? It's not just speculation, this sort of thing really happens.
Then someone gets in trouble, they blame someone irrelevant, "fix" the problem (that was discovered) and drive on. Meanwhile massive cheating, lying or intentional ignorance continues to happen on other things.
The problem is not the existence of a boss, the problem is how bosses are selected (i.e. bosses boss) and then how the boss is driven to make decisions (keep bosses boss happy). It produces a culture where your boss spends 100% of his time managing his boss and peers and is entirely alienated from the people he manages such that he has entirely lost touch with his team and himself becomes something to be managed. The boss should be someone who is doing a the work, and simultaneously on the hook to deliver and to produce, such that he gets to feel all pain.
"No" boss is a myth, SOMEONE will become the boss, and that someone may simply be the strongest and most obnoxious personality present. That's probably the most likely best case, the probable case is all the cats will run in all directions and sometimes collide with others, sometimes collide with something the company needs and sometimes keep going and never be seen again.
someone thinks Linus is problematic for political reasons
More or less ensuring that people who would have to do real work on this, for free, probably aren't going to be interested for very long. Now if this project has extreme technical merit, there will no doubt be a push to get it merged back in the kernel once it proves itself out.
If this was the exact same service except for drivers instead of "people", I'm sure everyone would be saying this is the best thing since... campaign finance reform? Well, probably even better than that.
If it stored license plates, car make/models sure and could be integrated on to an overlay to be used that way rather than for rampant defamation, absolutely. But then you are channelling badanalogyguy. It's not the same thing.
The same is true with life. (paging badcaranalogy guy) There are plenty of toxic people running around out there, and the less time you manage to spend with them the better off you are.
You will end up avoiding a lot of good people and that can be really bad for those good people whoare being defamed. Mohammed Ahmed? I bet his peeple profile is going to be a RIOT. And he'll never be able to live down some goofy thing he did when he was 14. If I had every retarded thing I ever did at 14 dialoged on the internet I'd probably have a hard time getting employed at Walmart.
It doesn't matter what is true, it matters what you can substantiate or imply, and I can substantiate and imply a whole lot, none of it is strictly illegal nor will get kicked off by their rules but a whole lot of it is destructive.
[social network entrepreneurs] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should
This is truly a terrible idea that can serve no good end except to that segment of the population that judges itself on popularity through conformance. My HOA would love this. I can't wait until this starts being used on job interviews.
I for one intended to get out my personality pink plastic flamingos and get ready for the apocalypse.
If the tests are too easy, the kids aren't "gifted."
If they don't pass the test, then they aren't "gifted."
If the test uses words they don't understand, then what words would the researcher suggest the tests use that aren't "culturally biased?" Using three letter words well isn't a sign of ability.
No the entire program is bullshit designed to reduce funding and weed out people, all while being couched in terms of "special education". I am going to assume that Houston's school district is similar to where I live elsewhere in Texas, but possibly less well funded. First, to get your kid in "TAG" requires him to be "identified", this means a teacher or a parent must first request him to be tested. A teacher will almost never do this, almost every person who worked with my son, except his teacher told us about the program and said we need to get him in it, but his teachers never said a word, all while they were saying his math and reading were so high they could not "max him out". So as a parent you must get involved and make it happen, easier for me as a relatively high income person with a flexible job. Not easy if you have to work fixed hours.
Then, you have to know the TAG testing schedule, at least where I am that's November, meaning if you have a Kindergarten student you want in. It's not frequently well advertised and you have to know that "TAG" means "Talented and Gifted", which is not always as well known. If you miss the deadline your child is apparently not gifted. Then you have some questions to fill out, of the free-form variety, where you describe the ways in which your child is gifted. You have to use the proper words, taken from the paperwork, most of which consists of terms I am fairly certain psychology ditched decades ago. You see they want a "gifted child" not merely a child who "is hard working". You have to make it clear your child is gifted, even though, as far as I'm concerned if your hard working child looks and acts the same as a gifted one, what's the biggie? Also, by the way, once your child is in the program he IS in fact going to be put (after 2nd grade) on an accelerated program for Math & Science that will culminate in him being far ahead of his peers, and will have considerable extra project load some of which will involve parental involvement, so honestly he better be willing to work and stick to it. But hey, this is all just funding pillow talk baby, let's play the game. You must write free form prose, not so hard for well educated people, but it might be really hard if your own education is poor, definitely this favors those who work in certain environments or get lots of practice writing lengthy essays.
Then in January, children whose parents properly jumped hoops get to take a 4-day long test which allegedly assesses the child's giftedness in a way that can't be prepared for. Of course they don't really believe that either, so they don't tell you what test he will be taking, nor do you get to help prepare your possibly very gifted but also possibly immature child for a long ordeal. So now you send your little 5-yo in for a "nationally normed" standardized test which allegeldy assesses his IQ based on these topics: Math, Science, Reading/English & Social Studies. Now as far as I know, ones IQ is independent of academic subjects, but this is what they say the test will divine. Did I mention that there are private programs available for people with money to prepare kids for this test? There are, if you can afford it.
Then there is the selection phase. So you've done all this work, your child has taken a test whose results you never saw, and they decide whether to admit him or not. Good News: there are only X spots available per grade level, so while your child may be certifiably gifted there may not be enough space for him and thus he is not gifted anymore because he can't also be gifted along with the other gifted kids. He doesn't get in? Good news, you can take the test again every 2 years, because giftedness c
I think people on this site have plenty of reasons to hate Fiorina that it hardly matters if she's the right-wing candidate or simply putting her face in the news.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, anything you can learn in two years about software engineering can be learned without going to school in the first place.
You can teach yourself absolutely anything at all without going to school in the first place, the question is always how much and how quick. Schools should be offering you, the student, a one-stop-shop to the information you need to educate yourself, a curriculum to help you focus on the most significant subjects in the field, experts in the area for you to discuss questions and hone your investigation, and generally save you a lot of time in becoming competent.
To the industry they should, arguably, offer a certification that says so-and-so did learn this thing and did meet our criteria for basic competence. My opinion is that schools should NOT be doing this, that should be an independent entity outside of the school, so as to facilitate self-taught people, and also discourage the cheating-culture that is becoming more common.
But as for two years, the question is what is "enough"? The difference between what my child knows at 7 and when he was 5 is tremendous, and it will absolutely all stick. Of course at 18 the subject matter will be significantly more involved and detailed, but it's not necessary to master it to be useful to the industry.
Ain't nothing wrong with that, we need more of them, provided we don't set up a system where they bilk students out of N years of future income for a piece of paper.
Markets establish price for the orange
You mean a competitive process that is left to anneal for a period of time?
producer of the orange already knows what inputs went into making that orange
He knows what he was able to invest that was sufficient to produce the orange. He does not have any idea, or concern, about whether his investment covered the costs from his suppliers (human, corporate or natural). Nor does he know for t>0 that his costs will be covered by the market price, it may happen he has to sell for a loss. He has some historic data about market prices for oranges that may or may not hold true leading him to believe that he can sell profitably (or he'd probably get out of the business), but at any time that can change arbitrarily. He will then be forced to sell for a loss.
All we know about economics for sure is right there. We look at markets of things based on sales prices, not any actual truth or concrete data.
Economics is a social "science". Because it involves money, it feels more quantitative and objective, like an actual science. But it is a social science, arbitrary numbers have been assigned to ill defined metrics, and a delusion is formed. Perhaps those arbitrary assignments are the result of a real competitive process, left to anneal for a period of time, but that's just a further level of self-deception. We cling to these things individually because it is the best we've got socially, but at no level in the universe can you establish the value of an orange at X resources/unit, it's therefore impossible to build any kind of universal truth around a system that is fundamentally based on that sort of value assignment.
So when the talking heads start talking about economics, and making predictions and saying the sky is falling if {such and such}, it is ok to laugh and walk away. We'll make it work or we won't and it'll change.
Isn't that what a party does? They set the narrative (platform), you're on it or you're on your own?
Well you sure as hell wouldn't want to try to use it as an iTampon.
I will miss rare steaks most.
No. North America has a gender problem.
No, we have a statistics problem.
I found this comment titillating.
Who says that?
Total fucking retards.
Exactly, it seems like if you have an employee who is incapable of not causing harm to your business and/or customers, he's more of a liability than an asset and you let him go. If you can keep him around but out of contact with female students, you can possibly still leverage what he brings to the table with minimal risk of damage assuming he can produce sufficient to compensate for losing him on the cash cow. If he is such a liability that no amount of brilliance can compensate, you must let him go and hope that whatever great advances he is capable of bringing, somehow happen in spite of what is almost certainly a ticking bomb. If not, someone else will, some other time. Nobody is so great an asset that immoral behavior can or should be tolerated, down that road lies a nightmare.
I don't really understand the comparisons with Feynman, what was (not entirely) acceptable in the 60s is totally not acceptable now, and hasn't been since I was a kid. And professors know it, I don't care how decrepit they are, there should be no debate. Perhaps Feynman should have been disciplined back then too, but I don't see the point in what-ifs that are impossible. If the culture then was the same as now, maybe numerous men would have exercised more restraint? If owning slaves was illegal in 1820, very likely very few would have owned slaves then too. It's not really a reasonable comparison.
it's "getting a bit old" still seems a little tone-deaf to me.
I think it amounts to "your arguments have been heard, logged, rejected, but you have the right to scream I told you so later", which is really where the incessant whining needs to end. I'm not convinced Wayland is famine, nor that systemd is pestilence. Unity certainly rode the pale horse, but the beauty of Linux is that we just fork around the offending software and carry on. Unlike when Microsoft or Apple do something reprehensible and we just have to suffer through it, with Linux we can just lob it off and replace it with something else.
When Ubuntu gets rid of Unity, I'll use Ubuntu again, until then there are plenty of good options. If systemd or Wayland make me cry, I'll do away with them. It's magic. Best, the people who like that sort of thing can keep having it, and not bother me in the slightest.
I bet if you pick two Intel CPUs with the same SKU you will probably not notice performance differences (because the clock rate will be fixed for you), but you will notice power draw differences. As you probably know, even silicon in the same process with the same mask set may exhibit significant power draw differences based on how the process was trending when that wafer came off the line. Most of the noticeable difference seems to be in static power dissipation, which is often mitigated by entirely shutting off sections of the chip. But apples to apples testing one will be higher than another. Then put those identical systems in different thermal environments and the differences will be even more exaggerated. Different voltage environments? Even MORE noticeable. Better: normally with different processes the core voltages will necessarily be different. Regardless, the point is that even identical silicon does not behave identically, which OCers already know. The whole art of binning even equal parts, is painful.
Power continues to be the least well controlled outcome. When it comes to core frequency, designers sweat every picosecond and may lose months optimizing paths to hit their target frequency. Power is treated more like a budget: you identify designs that are comparatively higher/lower power and decide if the tradeoffs for lower power are acceptable, then at the end if/when you are overbudget you look for the big hitters, cut them down to size. Once you're in budget you forget about it. Then you get real silicon and the power will be somewhere around what you estimated when you designed, but not exactly, and will vary from chip to chip. Some of those chips you will throw out as being outside of your design spec and not suitable, but you try to keep as many as you can because $.
While you may prefer to cherry pick the phone you get, I think you only have a right to complain if either variant of the phone does not meet advertised specifications, not that one phone is different from another.
There is absolutely nothing I envy about the city of Houston, it is easily my least favorite city in the United States and I have lived in many of them. In every category of relevance to me, Houston is horrifying.
- It is filthy
- Much of it is falling apart
- Traffic is bad, and the roads are perpetually under construction
- The culture/people are really the worst combination of South-East combined with the worst combination of Texas, with no redemption whatever. Right to the bottom line every time, disregarding any sense of wonder or interest.
- The rudeness in traffic makes even someone who lived in NYC for years cry.
I fortunately never have to spend more than a few hours near it, but I hate all those hours.
It's actually pretty common amongst system vendors to sell you two systems with identical model numbers and brand names, but that have different components popped. They will advertise the spec that is the union of the boards they sell you, so you can't argue that you were delivered something below expectations.
This is all a supply chain/vendor management thing, all qualified vendors are given a percentage of the market, not necessarily equal (i.e. those that deliver the lowest cost, typically get the larger share). It's not entirely a bad practice there are a number of good reasons that this happens that benefit customers and vendors alike. But there's always the chance that one implementation or another works better/faster/has a hidden feature, etc. Most of the time you never notice...one companies sensor chip may intentionally be designed to work and act like another's, and do you care if you have a panisonic 0402 1K 1% resistor or someone elses 0402 1k 1% resistor? Usually not . It does tend to become more visible on certain parts like LAN chips, audio chips, in the old days video chips, when the functionality is the selling feature, not the brand/model..
Which is how I have seen it done elsewhere. If your company follows the Jack Welch style "fire the bottom 10%" mandate, and you are the guy that refuses to stand up for things like principles, guess who is going to be related "below expectations"? It's not just speculation, this sort of thing really happens.
Then someone gets in trouble, they blame someone irrelevant, "fix" the problem (that was discovered) and drive on. Meanwhile massive cheating, lying or intentional ignorance continues to happen on other things.
The problem is not the existence of a boss, the problem is how bosses are selected (i.e. bosses boss) and then how the boss is driven to make decisions (keep bosses boss happy). It produces a culture where your boss spends 100% of his time managing his boss and peers and is entirely alienated from the people he manages such that he has entirely lost touch with his team and himself becomes something to be managed. The boss should be someone who is doing a the work, and simultaneously on the hook to deliver and to produce, such that he gets to feel all pain.
"No" boss is a myth, SOMEONE will become the boss, and that someone may simply be the strongest and most obnoxious personality present. That's probably the most likely best case, the probable case is all the cats will run in all directions and sometimes collide with others, sometimes collide with something the company needs and sometimes keep going and never be seen again.
Well, I think we can safely assume solar doesn't have the potential Deuterium does for warp drive applications.
I seem to lack sufficient gold-pressed latinum for the warp drive, but the solar panel guys take cash, check and credit card.
someone thinks Linus is problematic for political reasons
More or less ensuring that people who would have to do real work on this, for free, probably aren't going to be interested for very long. Now if this project has extreme technical merit, there will no doubt be a push to get it merged back in the kernel once it proves itself out.
...or detroit has just been a rough place for a very long time...
If this was the exact same service except for drivers instead of "people", I'm sure everyone would be saying this is the best thing since... campaign finance reform? Well, probably even better than that.
If it stored license plates, car make/models sure and could be integrated on to an overlay to be used that way rather than for rampant defamation, absolutely. But then you are channelling badanalogyguy. It's not the same thing.
The same is true with life. (paging badcaranalogy guy) There are plenty of toxic people running around out there, and the less time you manage to spend with them the better off you are.
You will end up avoiding a lot of good people and that can be really bad for those good people whoare being defamed. Mohammed Ahmed? I bet his peeple profile is going to be a RIOT. And he'll never be able to live down some goofy thing he did when he was 14. If I had every retarded thing I ever did at 14 dialoged on the internet I'd probably have a hard time getting employed at Walmart.
It doesn't matter what is true, it matters what you can substantiate or imply, and I can substantiate and imply a whole lot, none of it is strictly illegal nor will get kicked off by their rules but a whole lot of it is destructive.
I predict that slander litigation will be a booming business for what were previously ambulance chasers.
[social network entrepreneurs] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should
This is truly a terrible idea that can serve no good end except to that segment of the population that judges itself on popularity through conformance. My HOA would love this. I can't wait until this starts being used on job interviews.
I for one intended to get out my personality pink plastic flamingos and get ready for the apocalypse.
If the tests are too easy, the kids aren't "gifted."
If they don't pass the test, then they aren't "gifted."
If the test uses words they don't understand, then what words would the researcher suggest the tests use that aren't "culturally biased?" Using three letter words well isn't a sign of ability.
No the entire program is bullshit designed to reduce funding and weed out people, all while being couched in terms of "special education". I am going to assume that Houston's school district is similar to where I live elsewhere in Texas, but possibly less well funded. First, to get your kid in "TAG" requires him to be "identified", this means a teacher or a parent must first request him to be tested. A teacher will almost never do this, almost every person who worked with my son, except his teacher told us about the program and said we need to get him in it, but his teachers never said a word, all while they were saying his math and reading were so high they could not "max him out". So as a parent you must get involved and make it happen, easier for me as a relatively high income person with a flexible job. Not easy if you have to work fixed hours.
Then, you have to know the TAG testing schedule, at least where I am that's November, meaning if you have a Kindergarten student you want in. It's not frequently well advertised and you have to know that "TAG" means "Talented and Gifted", which is not always as well known. If you miss the deadline your child is apparently not gifted. Then you have some questions to fill out, of the free-form variety, where you describe the ways in which your child is gifted. You have to use the proper words, taken from the paperwork, most of which consists of terms I am fairly certain psychology ditched decades ago. You see they want a "gifted child" not merely a child who "is hard working". You have to make it clear your child is gifted, even though, as far as I'm concerned if your hard working child looks and acts the same as a gifted one, what's the biggie? Also, by the way, once your child is in the program he IS in fact going to be put (after 2nd grade) on an accelerated program for Math & Science that will culminate in him being far ahead of his peers, and will have considerable extra project load some of which will involve parental involvement, so honestly he better be willing to work and stick to it. But hey, this is all just funding pillow talk baby, let's play the game. You must write free form prose, not so hard for well educated people, but it might be really hard if your own education is poor, definitely this favors those who work in certain environments or get lots of practice writing lengthy essays.
Then in January, children whose parents properly jumped hoops get to take a 4-day long test which allegedly assesses the child's giftedness in a way that can't be prepared for. Of course they don't really believe that either, so they don't tell you what test he will be taking, nor do you get to help prepare your possibly very gifted but also possibly immature child for a long ordeal. So now you send your little 5-yo in for a "nationally normed" standardized test which allegeldy assesses his IQ based on these topics: Math, Science, Reading/English & Social Studies. Now as far as I know, ones IQ is independent of academic subjects, but this is what they say the test will divine. Did I mention that there are private programs available for people with money to prepare kids for this test? There are, if you can afford it.
Then there is the selection phase. So you've done all this work, your child has taken a test whose results you never saw, and they decide whether to admit him or not. Good News: there are only X spots available per grade level, so while your child may be certifiably gifted there may not be enough space for him and thus he is not gifted anymore because he can't also be gifted along with the other gifted kids. He doesn't get in? Good news, you can take the test again every 2 years, because giftedness c
I think people on this site have plenty of reasons to hate Fiorina that it hardly matters if she's the right-wing candidate or simply putting her face in the news.