Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=tnff;60784572][quote=mitsguy2001;60783741]...
What I don't understand is, you seem to have had a lot of lousy teachers. Why is it that yolu oppose standardized tests, when they are basically the only system of checks land balances against a teacher's power?
Quote:
RamenAddict provides an excellent answer. Simply, standardized tests reinforce poor teaching rather provide a check and balance. You see it as a check on teachers who refuse to give good grades to students that deserve it. I have more details to add but will have to wait for after work to provide them.
Seems this would be better addressed at the local level rather than removing a useful tool at the national level for those for whom this was not a debilitating issue. Again, a standardized test like the SAT measures not just effective teaching, but also innate intelligence as an indicator for a higher probability the student will succeed in college (extract maximum knowledge and skills), where failure to do so has personal consequences as well as societal.
Otherwise, what is your proposal to better address this for national standardized assessment tests like the SAT - without creating negative unintended consequences for those unaffected.
...
What I don't understand is, you seem to have had a lot of lousy teachers. Why is it that yolu oppose standardized tests, when they are basically the only system of checks land balances against a teacher's power?
Seems this would be better addressed at the local level rather than removing a useful tool at the national level for those for whom this was not a debilitating issue. Again, a standardized test like the SAT measures not just effective teaching, but also innate intelligence as an indicator for a higher probability the student will succeed in college (extract maximum knowledge and skills), where failure to do so has personal consequences as well as societal.
Otherwise, what is your proposal to better address this for national standardized assessment tests like the SAT - without creating negative unintended consequences for those unaffected.
It is hard to address it at the local level, primarily because the issue is that it is hard to get teachers to stay at lower performing schools. If you have a school district that is just generally low performing across the board, teachers may leave to go to a higher performing district. If you have a district that varies but assigns teachers to schools, teachers consistently assigned to the lower performing schools may also elect to leave the district (I saw that happen all the time where I last lived, despite the fact that this district paid something like 50% higher wages than some adjacent districts). If a teacher just applies to a school directly within a varied district, then you still have the issue of the teachers moving to better schools once they get more experience.
What I don't understand is, you seem to have had a lot of lousy teachers. Why is it that yolu oppose standardized tests, when they are basically the only system of checks land balances against a teacher's power?
Seems this would be better addressed at the local level rather than removing a useful tool at the national level for those for whom this was not a debilitating issue. Again, a standardized test like the SAT measures not just effective teaching, but also innate intelligence as an indicator for a higher probability the student will succeed in college (extract maximum knowledge and skills), where failure to do so has personal consequences as well as societal.
Otherwise, what is your proposal to better address this for national standardized assessment tests like the SAT - without creating negative unintended consequences for those unaffected.
Are you asking me or tnff? The quotes somehow got screwed up, so I don't know who is replying to who anymore.
Last edited by mitsguy2001; 04-09-2021 at 10:04 AM..
Life isn't fair. That's what you tell students who get stuck with lousy teachers, so the same should apply to you.
So now you turn it into a racial issue.
So you clearly got your professorship due to affirmative action. This is what probably happened: you were in a mostly minority school district for high school, and you were a mediocre student. Since it was a mostly minority school district, the top students were likely also minorities. You were nothing special to the teachers, since you were not a great student, but you were not the worst student either, and you were probably the same race as most of the other students. In college, you were probably one of the few minorities in a mostly white college, and since colleges are ruled by liberals who believe that race and gender should take precedence over merit, you were given special treatment by your professors.
Different exams.
LOL! You want people to fit your grievance narratives and REALLY want to nurse that chip on your shoulder!
Except I am white and came from one of the landed and respected families in the area. Top students in my school district were white. Sorry I don't fit your affirmative action narrative.
I got my job by applying to every single job opening in the country I wanted and was halfway qualified for in all 50 states as well as some overseas. It was several hundred apps over a year and a half, after a while it became a numbers game and I got called by about 1 out every 8-12 apps I put out. I read books on job apps, job searching, interviewing, and took 2 classes on acting and improv. The research I did indicated that more charismatic and personable people are indeed more likely to get offered jobs after interviews.
Based on my experience hiring, few people do all that.
I've already stated my opinion: colleges should rely more on standardized tests, and less on grades given by teachers. If standardized tests absolutely cannot exist, then there needs to be more standardization in how teachers nationwide grade.
LOL! You want people to fit your grievance narratives and REALLY want to nurse that chip on your shoulder!
Except I am white and came from one of the landed and respected families in the area.
So that explains how you got your PhD and your professorship.
Quote:
Top students in my school district were white. Sorry I don't fit your affirmative action narrative.
In other words, you are white, your high school teachers were white, yet they were somehow racist against you? Makes no sense. Or, were they applying affirmative action, which you seem to support, but maybe not when it works against you?
Quote:
I got my job by applying to every single job opening in the country I wanted and was halfway qualified for in all 50 states as well as some overseas. It was several hundred apps over a year and a half, after a while it became a numbers game and I got called by about 1 out every 8-12 apps I put out. I read books on job apps, job searching, interviewing, and took 2 classes on acting and improv. The research I did indicated that more charismatic and personable people are indeed more likely to get offered jobs after interviews.
Based on my experience hiring, few people do all that.
In this context, charismatic and personable just mean good looking, and, in your case rich and well connected.
Since you seem to support affirmative action, how would you have felt if you didn't get your current job because you are a white male, and the job had to go to a woman or minority? And, instead of your cushy professorship, the only job you were able to get was digging ditches. I'm sure then you'd no longer support affirmative action, and you'd be arguing in favor of standardized tests that you call racist.
So that explains how you got your PhD and your professorship.
In other words, you are white, your high school teachers were white, yet they were somehow racist against you? Makes no sense. Or, were they applying affirmative action, which you seem to support, but maybe not when it works against you?
In this context, charismatic and personable just mean good looking, and, in your case rich and well connected.
Since you seem to support affirmative action, how would you have felt if you didn't get your current job because you are a white male, and the job had to go to a woman or minority? And, instead of your cushy professorship, the only job you were able to get was digging ditches. I'm sure then you'd no longer support affirmative action, and you'd be arguing in favor of standardized tests that you call racist.
Man, that chip is really deep.
My family didn't have connections in 50 states, LOL! Actually you want to know my real secret? Veteran's preference. My compromise with my family, who were determined I would go to college when I didn't want to at the time, was to do military reserves concurrently, which would also have the benefit of making myself financially independent of them. Had I known the "war on terror" was coming, I probably would have made a different compromise or at least joined a different branch. I would have just joined for 4 years had I foreseen I'd be doing repeated call-ups and deployments.
I served 6 years in the Army National Guard, and 2.5 of those years in our country's recent quagmire wars in middle eastern & central asian hellholes. A lot of states have incentives for private firms and requirements for public employers that qualified veterans who verify their service have to be given at least a phone interview. Ironically, blue states seem to have that more than red states. That foot in the door helped me a lot. That was most certainly an advantage, but I figure that the country owes me a solid for giving up years of my life and damage to my hearing for those worthless quagmire adventures. So I've maximized every veteran's benefit out there, which included things like free college courses and test prep.
Like I said, I never thought about racial issues much until I was older and long out of school, even though at the time growing up they were in my face. Looking back, I can see where the systemic bias was, and it surprises me now that I didn't think about it at the time. In fact I was quite anti-affirmative action as a teenager and young man. The advantage I had was a family could get me the help I needed and fewer roadblocks. But looking back I can see how someone without that advantage would have been completely demoralized by the school system I went through, and probably rejected it. I was demoralized enough by it myself even being part of the privileged group.
The racial issues are systemic problems, not individual ones, and you seem to not want to acknowledge that systems exist.
Last edited by redguard57; 04-09-2021 at 01:13 PM..
Like I said, I never thought about racial issues much until I was older and long out of school, even though at the time growing up they were in my face. Looking back, I can see where the systemic bias was, and it surprises me now that I didn't think about it at the time. In fact I was quite anti-affirmative action as a teenager and young man. The advantage I had was a family could get me the help I needed and fewer roadblocks. But looking back I can see how someone without that advantage would have been completely demoralized by the school system I went through, and probably rejected it. I was demoralized enough by it myself even being part of the privileged group.
Not all of us have that advantage, even if we are white males.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
