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.
It wasn't scientific research for publication, norecess. It was an attempt to see if that might work better.
Just like you decide maybe smaller classes might work better. Maybe using lots of visual aids might work better. Maybe setting up times when students can come in and study together might be beneficial. Educational institutions try out solutions all the time.
I understand it wasn't for research. I was mocking the other poster for calling it an experiment because it was clearly anti-scientific in its methodology and reasoning (trying to produce a desired outcome). Remember "hypothesis" from 5th grade science?
They can do anything and everything under the sun to increase scores. Not sure why that is desirable though.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,581 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50618
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan
if the math tests aren't getting harder each year, why does this new batch of students need more time when the prior ones didn't?
what does it say about the students they are admitting?
I think you missed the point.
The students aren't succeeding at a lower rate than in the past.
Historically, in general, women in the math program haven't earned the high grades the male students have.
Although obviously some women have been very successful.
Oxford was trying to clarify why the women students have historically, and to this day, not achieved success in the program as well as the male students have.
Education shouldn't be a contest. It should be to graduate the most capable well-educated students you can. By that, you need to address students who learn visually, students who are auditory learners, and students who learn best hands-on. You're not trying to keep those "down" who learn differently. You're trying to maximize the success of each individual student and not consider that is taking away from the others.
If you find out that introverted students do better in a classroom where they can do their work in a cubicle like environment, with some barriers between themselves and other students, it would be a good thing to set up a classroom where there are a few places like that so students who would benefit could use them.
Everything is a contest. People compete to not be worked out of their jobs, people compete to get better pay, promotion, to have relationships with preferred partners, to get loans, to buy property.
You could have the world's best whatever in a non-competitive setting, but they'd crash and burn in a real world working scenario.
This isn't going to change anytime soon, until humans evolve into whatever we become next, and probably not even then. So yes education should be competitive, because it already is, that's the whole point of exams and grades. Otherwise just attending would be sufficient to qualify, no? Thus making a certification meaningless.
Further, part of the whole education establishment is to identify key traits of candidates for employment. Employers then can sort candidates by their key traits and make easier selections. Once again the alternative is zero value qualifications because the employer has to identify those desired traits themselves.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,581 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Everything is a contest. People compete to not be worked out of their jobs, people compete to get better pay, promotion, to have relationships with preferred partners, to get loans, to buy property.
You could have the world's best whatever in a non-competitive setting, but they'd crash and burn in a real world working scenario.
This isn't going to change anytime soon, until humans evolve into whatever we become next, and probably not even then. So yes education should be competitive, because it already is, that's the whole point of exams and grades. Otherwise just attending would be sufficient to qualify, no? Thus making a certification meaningless.
Further, part of the whole education establishment is to identify key traits of candidates for employment. Employers then can sort candidates by their key traits and make easier selections. Once again the alternative is zero value qualifications because the employer has to identify those desired traits themselves.
The educational system has zero interest in fostering competition that might unfairly mask the abilities of their students. The individual who generally succeeds within the framework of the educational system has every interest in making sure the educational system doesn't explore other ways to uncover marketable talents in their peers that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.
For example, there are students who succeed very well in online classes or classes offered at a self-paced program, who in fact would do VERY WELL in a job where they are required to work independently. Much better in fact than students in a traditional classroom where students are instructed what to do every hour of the day and there is someone basically watching them and making sure they at least appear to be following instruction.
The community at large is greatly benefited by an educational system that allows those students in the above paragraph to graduate. The traditional students are kind of harmed by it, because they have rightful competition from the nontraditional students, who in ages past wouldn't have given them any competition at all - they'd be high school drop outs - although they are very employable and make excellent independent workers.
So yeah. The very traditional system of education isn't the best for educating and demonstrating the worth of all students.
Had I said automechanic you'd have questioned my credibility. Since I'm a Data Engineer your questioning how representative it is. To be honest outside of pure research my areas of expertise involve the most complex mathematical problems in existence, further we're often pushing ahead of, or publishing, research on data crunching of big data, and analytical patterns that can be derived.
Pure research has the advantage that someone else pays the bills, I have to justify my value to continue in a commercial venture, and my work has to pay it's own bills. Make if that what you will.
Actually I have great respect for good auto mechanics. But when they rush through a job they often create more problems just like any other job. Im just trying to understand exactly what profession or specific job where speed in solving a complex mathematical problem to get a job done within a rigid time frame is a higher priority than any other aspect of job performance. Where completion at a specific time holds more weight than taking an extra 15 minutes to recheck or have confidence that your equation or formula is correct.
Not buying it. Women are as capable of men and don't need special treatment in math class. Even more, Oxford is a respected university-they wouldn't enable a bigotted, discriminatory practice like this and ruin their reputation for excellence with such a stupid move. Must be satire.
Science disagrees.
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.
