Does it count if the program refuses to answer the question the way those "gotcha human volunteers" want it to, and instead changes the subject to something else entirely?
Okay, a lot of the comments seem to be missing a few things. First off, 50% is still failing. Second, to achieve a passing grade, a student would need to get an 80 or better in their other semester. Most students who are failing and deserve to fail will fail, with this system; that's not changed at all. The vast majority of the time, a 30-80 point swing in a student's GPA is going to bear a very, *very* good reason, and frankly, "good student who's making it a point to coast by and is certain of their other semester's GPA" isn't really going to be the most common explanation, for a variety of reasons, including future-oreintation, and the fact that most kids smart enough to estimate their GPA in this manner and of guaranteeing an 80 for a given semester are also going to have a "coasting" GPA that's still *passing*.
The students who benefit from this most are those with things like family issues or health problems that create attendance problems, but are otherwise good students. Very little, short of massive gaps in attendance, are capable of earning a kid the lowest of low grades. When these students return from a lengthy illness or whatever else, they already face an uphill battle in terms of achievement; they've already missed substantial course material, and even if they've been following it at home, they're going to behind their peers. To further penalize a student for the home or personal problems that have already interfered with their education is pretty damn awful.
I've seen this happen to a number of peers of mine, and it sucks. Moreover, as it happens across the board, it's not a simple matter of doing summer school to take a class, or burning an elective- something that not every school offers, mind you- to make the class up. It involves having a line of failing grades on your transcript and needing to spend another year in high school. Certainly enough to severely hamper the chances of an otherwise solid B student.
Also, it's worth pointing out that NCLB tends to care a *lot* more about standardized test performance than GPAs, so I'm rather dubious that this sort of policy is an attempt to game the performance improvement mandates.
Of course, this raises the question of whether all views are equally valid, or should be given equal representation. This is pretty much the basis a lot of so-called 'controversies' out there today.
People complain about how 'both sides' of history aren't explored because most History professors in America are liberal. Others complain about how 'both sides' of scientific inquiry aren't explored by not giving creationism equal time in science classes and equal treatment as a valid scientific theory.
Some people even take this idea even further- something that occurs a lot on Wikipedia, and makes it less-than-desirable for factual information on any somewhat politically charged topic. Do the views of Holocaust deniers need to be equally represented alongside the views of everyone else? What about pedophiles? These are topics that are really only controversial to said Holocaust deniers and pedophiles. But, under the 'teach the controversy' flag, they can try to assert their own views above and beyond any understanding of NVOP. And, since they tend to be the most vocal editors on these topics, these topics unsurprisingly become biased in those directions. Just look at the edit history page and discussion page of any topic in one of these subjects, and you'll see it.
If the overpaid wait staff become fat and happy and lazy, what's to stop you, the employer, from hiring someone else? If you pay well and treat your employees well, then your job should be in-demand, relative to other jobs of a similar nature.
So, if your staff is fat and happy it would be just as easy to let them go- it's not as though these jobs have low turnover to begin with- and hire people who are willing to work harder. If they're lean and happy, though, they're going to be more willing to work hard to make sure they can keep that well-paying, competitive job.
The real question then becomes whether commercial researchers feel that it's worth their time and money to pursue this research.
Which they have traditionally declined, preferring drugs that treat common ailments over those that treat relatively rare ones.
It's only been in recent years that they've viewed it as possible to make a profit from less common, chronic conditions, where a patient will continue to need a (potentially expensive) drug for the remainder of their natural lives. This is also how funding for AIDS treatments took off in the pharmaceutical industry. It's also, as I understand it, a big part of the reason the public sector's heavily involved in the vaccine business.
I don't actually know where stem cells fall in this sense- medical people: are these patients only going to need a couple of treatments, or are stem cell treatments likely to be a life-long thing? In other words, is this the sort of thing that commercial researchers would ever seriously consider sinking funds into on their own? Or are we really depending on public backing to ever see an results from this?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I, for one, have created my greatest artistic works while sitting in the bathroom.
Does it count if the program refuses to answer the question the way those "gotcha human volunteers" want it to, and instead changes the subject to something else entirely?
Okay, a lot of the comments seem to be missing a few things. First off, 50% is still failing. Second, to achieve a passing grade, a student would need to get an 80 or better in their other semester. Most students who are failing and deserve to fail will fail, with this system; that's not changed at all. The vast majority of the time, a 30-80 point swing in a student's GPA is going to bear a very, *very* good reason, and frankly, "good student who's making it a point to coast by and is certain of their other semester's GPA" isn't really going to be the most common explanation, for a variety of reasons, including future-oreintation, and the fact that most kids smart enough to estimate their GPA in this manner and of guaranteeing an 80 for a given semester are also going to have a "coasting" GPA that's still *passing*.
The students who benefit from this most are those with things like family issues or health problems that create attendance problems, but are otherwise good students. Very little, short of massive gaps in attendance, are capable of earning a kid the lowest of low grades. When these students return from a lengthy illness or whatever else, they already face an uphill battle in terms of achievement; they've already missed substantial course material, and even if they've been following it at home, they're going to behind their peers. To further penalize a student for the home or personal problems that have already interfered with their education is pretty damn awful.
I've seen this happen to a number of peers of mine, and it sucks. Moreover, as it happens across the board, it's not a simple matter of doing summer school to take a class, or burning an elective- something that not every school offers, mind you- to make the class up. It involves having a line of failing grades on your transcript and needing to spend another year in high school. Certainly enough to severely hamper the chances of an otherwise solid B student.
Also, it's worth pointing out that NCLB tends to care a *lot* more about standardized test performance than GPAs, so I'm rather dubious that this sort of policy is an attempt to game the performance improvement mandates.
Of course, this raises the question of whether all views are equally valid, or should be given equal representation. This is pretty much the basis a lot of so-called 'controversies' out there today. People complain about how 'both sides' of history aren't explored because most History professors in America are liberal. Others complain about how 'both sides' of scientific inquiry aren't explored by not giving creationism equal time in science classes and equal treatment as a valid scientific theory. Some people even take this idea even further- something that occurs a lot on Wikipedia, and makes it less-than-desirable for factual information on any somewhat politically charged topic. Do the views of Holocaust deniers need to be equally represented alongside the views of everyone else? What about pedophiles? These are topics that are really only controversial to said Holocaust deniers and pedophiles. But, under the 'teach the controversy' flag, they can try to assert their own views above and beyond any understanding of NVOP. And, since they tend to be the most vocal editors on these topics, these topics unsurprisingly become biased in those directions. Just look at the edit history page and discussion page of any topic in one of these subjects, and you'll see it.
Umm, have you ever taken economics?
If the overpaid wait staff become fat and happy and lazy, what's to stop you, the employer, from hiring someone else? If you pay well and treat your employees well, then your job should be in-demand, relative to other jobs of a similar nature.
So, if your staff is fat and happy it would be just as easy to let them go- it's not as though these jobs have low turnover to begin with- and hire people who are willing to work harder. If they're lean and happy, though, they're going to be more willing to work hard to make sure they can keep that well-paying, competitive job.
Viola! you've just created an Efficiency Wage!
The real question then becomes whether commercial researchers feel that it's worth their time and money to pursue this research.
Which they have traditionally declined, preferring drugs that treat common ailments over those that treat relatively rare ones.
It's only been in recent years that they've viewed it as possible to make a profit from less common, chronic conditions, where a patient will continue to need a (potentially expensive) drug for the remainder of their natural lives. This is also how funding for AIDS treatments took off in the pharmaceutical industry. It's also, as I understand it, a big part of the reason the public sector's heavily involved in the vaccine business.
I don't actually know where stem cells fall in this sense- medical people: are these patients only going to need a couple of treatments, or are stem cell treatments likely to be a life-long thing? In other words, is this the sort of thing that commercial researchers would ever seriously consider sinking funds into on their own? Or are we really depending on public backing to ever see an results from this?