Eduaction-

[Jessica Coconut]

GhostKomori said:

Yeah, but the problem with that is, it's hard to get people to support spending taxes on education, because not everyone cares. Everyone cares about medical insurance, or social security, because it effects everyone eventually. But education is only important to the ones who are in school, or who have children in school. No one else wants their hard-earned money to be spent on someone else's kids.

You know what? People are dumb. Really, really dumb. If that was the case, why would anyone up there spend any money on education at all? It's called concern for the human race. Someday, those guys at the top will be 100, and everyone else will be running the world. Those someones? Us. We will. And they'll still need us. If they want to send the world to the dogs by depriving people of a good education, they're saying they don't care about anything. NOTHING. Because nothing would exist without some form of learning. If we have even dumber idiots running the world in our generation, we can kiss life as we know it goodbye.

The main reason third world countries run themselves into big problems, and why women still don't have equal rights, why everyone runs into major diseases, is because of a lack of education. If you don't know that dirty water can make you ill, will you drink it? If you're thirsty, probably yes. And in a third world country, where the water probably is dirty, and you probably are thirsty, you are even more likely to drink it. But if you had some sort of education, you would try to clean it first, and with a better education, you would clean it better. You'd take advantage of your rights better, which means women would be allowed to vote everywhere, and they'd know about STD's and the like, and raping would be the crime, not being raped.

Without an education, what do you have? What can you have? You never learn what you're missing. Which is why we can't afford to have idiots running the world. Representing the people. And when idiots represent you, that says something about who they're representing.

Please, please try to ignore any insinuations you may have noticed.

Second-Thought: *cough* Yeah, like you haven't made any at all this whole year.

I'm serious, and I'm trying my best not to pick on any particular world leader. I am Canadian, and personally, I think our current PM isn't the best man for the job himself.

In case you haven't noticed, my biggest pet peeve happens to be idiots. They annoy me to no end. Stupidity. Utter stupidity.

Second-Thought: Ironic, considering you are one.

Shut up S-T!

Anyway, on topic, personally, I'm for grades, against standardized tests, against the outrageously high value of tests in general, and I think the only way to true learning is application.

Hear and I forget, see and I remember, do and I understand. - Unknown

Grades, as said, measure how well you passed. I put in effort, and I like to see something reflect that thank-you-very-much. Standarized tests are stupid. They could be done much better - they really are quite lame. I realise the government needs some sort of examination to see how well everyone's doing... but... alas. Tests are worth too much in comparison to application - being assignments, and particularly field studies and projects. Application shows true learning - if you can do and use what you learned.

[Crystal]

Coconut said:

You know what? People are dumb. Really, really dumb. If that was the case, why would anyone up there spend any money on education at all? It's called concern for the human race. Someday, those guys at the top will be 100, and everyone else will be running the world. Those someones? Us. We will. And they'll still need us. If they want to send the world to the dogs by depriving people of a good education, they're saying they don't care about anything. NOTHING. Because nothing would exist without some form of learning. If we have even dumber idiots running the world in our generation, we can kiss life as we know it goodbye.

The main reason third world countries run themselves into big problems, and why women still don't have equal rights, why everyone runs into major diseases, is because of a lack of education. If you don't know that dirty water can make you ill, will you drink it? If you're thirsty, probably yes. And in a third world country, where the water probably is dirty, and you probably are thirsty, you are even more likely to drink it. But if you had some sort of education, you would try to clean it first, and with a better education, you would clean it better. You'd take advantage of your rights better, which means women would be allowed to vote everywhere, and they'd know about STD's and the like, and raping would be the crime, not being raped.

Without an education, what do you have? What can you have? You never learn what you're missing. Which is why we can't afford to have idiots running the world. Representing the people. And when idiots represent you, that says something about who they're representing.

Please, please try to ignore any insinuations you may have noticed.

Second-Thought: *cough* Yeah, like you haven't made any at all this whole year.

I'm serious, and I'm trying my best not to pick on any particular world leader. I am Canadian, and personally, I think our current PM isn't the best man for the job himself.

In case you haven't noticed, my biggest pet peeve happens to be idiots. They annoy me to no end. Stupidity. Utter stupidity.

Second-Thought: Ironic, considering you are one.

Shut up S-T!

Anyway, on topic, personally, I'm for grades, against standardized tests, against the outrageously high value of tests in general, and I think the only way to true learning is application.

Hear and I forget, see and I remember, do and I understand. - Unknown

Grades, as said, measure how well you passed. I put in effort, and I like to see something reflect that thank-you-very-much. Standarized tests are stupid. They could be done much better - they really are quite lame. I realise the government needs some sort of examination to see how well everyone's doing... but... alas. Tests are worth too much in comparison to application - being assignments, and particularly field studies and projects. Application shows true learning - if you can do and use what you learned.

The intresting thing was that the contractor who built my house and only has a primary school education, drove by the other day in a BMW.

If you like grades and dislike standardized tests, how are you going to measure an ability? Assignments, field studies and projects are relatively hard to measure, especially for one teacher who probably has five classes of 40 kids each - and that's only one form. It's one or the other, I think.

And I happen to live in a third-world country, so I can safely assure you that yes, I DO filter my water before I drink it. My problem is getting a job. There are so many people taking Computer Science and Engineering that there's too few jobs to go around, and a great many of them are women.

[Buddy]

Crydal said:

The intresting thing was that the contractor who built my house and only has a primary school education, drove by the other day in a BMW.

A perfect example, to me, of why the whole weight placed on standardized tests is wrong. Accordingly, this man should be a bum. But he's not - he's driving around in a car far nicer than most people have. He made what he has because of hard work - not because of some standardized test.

If you like grades and dislike standardized tests, how are you going to measure an ability? Assignments, field studies and projects are relatively hard to measure, especially for one teacher who probably has five classes of 40 kids each - and that's only one form. It's one or the other, I think.

Crystal, what do you think grades are for? To measure a person's knowledge and ability on something. The difference is, grades are measurements taken over a longer periopd of time and averaged out to give a good median on what the person knows - a test is simply a measurement taken over a period of an hour or two (or however long it takes you to complete the test).

Now, tell me, which would be a more accurate measurement - the one taken over a period of time and then averaged, or the one taken over a period of an hour or two?

And I happen to live in a third-world country, so I can safely assure you that yes, I DO filter my water before I drink it. My problem is getting a job. There are so many people taking Computer Science and Engineering that there's too few jobs to go around, and a great many of them are women.

Maylaysia is a third-world country? I thought they had one of the best economys in the region! I find that hard to believe!

[mushroom]

Buddy said:

A perfect example, to me, of why the whole weight placed on standardized tests is wrong. Accordingly, this man should be a bum. But he's not - he's driving around in a car far nicer than most people have. He made what he has because of hard work - not because of some standardized test.

There are always going to be people who do well without an education. If a person has skill in something not being tested for, it doesn't matter what they do on the test; no one will refuse to buy grain from a farmer because that farmer never passed high school.

On the other hand, standardized tests *are* relevant for, for example, college--it definitely makes a difference whether or not Bob, who wants to go to a science-oriented college, can't even pass a standardized test on his desired field in his junior year of high school. It's not right for Bob to be denied the chance to ever possibly go to that college, or automatically decided against, but it's definitely a mark against him. Why *would* a college admit a student who has apparently never learned the standard materal for someone his age about a subject he's interested in? If he really deserves to go to that college, and works for it, a bad test isn't capable of keeping him from it.

Standardized tests are also also relevant as a measure of how well a school, or a state's school system, is doing. If Generic High's students, as a group, score badly on the biology portion of the tests, there's something wrong with Generic High's biology classes. If this is the case, it's important to find out as quickly as possible and rectify the problem.

Standardized tests don't measure whether or not a student *can* learn, but they do measure whether or not a student *has* learned, which can be relevant and necessary to find out. I've certainly never heard of any person's life being ruined because they did badly on a standardized test; while standardized tests are a hassle and sometimes an annoyance, and the results from standardized tests aren't always acted on intelligently, I don't think they're evil or overutilized.

[Jessica Coconut]

I'd like to apologize to Crydal, I seemed to have absentmindedly forgotten that there are people in third world countries that have perfectly fine educations. I'd been listening too hard in socials class, when our teacher's sending us on the guilt trips. You know, the "you're so lucky, you get to go to school, not have to work, when there are thousands of people in the world that wonder when they'll have their next meal" guilt trips.

When I said that education is the one thing that really helps a country, I meant as a whole. When the majority (or a large portion) is uneducated, you get big problems.

I was under the assumption that grades ARE a measure of education. I do realise that standardized tests are their to see how much you've learned on a scale that's equal to everyone else's in your country. But they shouldn't be given that much wait. I'm also under the assumption that everyone has an off day. I do. For whatever reason, I flop a test. Badly. Thankfully, one of the most critical ones, my math teacher, sees this also and will omit our worst mark of the year. Every term, the worst you've had so far is omitted. But if you have a worse one, that's omitted, and the other one comes back.

I agree with Buddy, an average of what you know taken over the term is a better measurement of your knowledge, particularly because of the "off day" factor.

[mushroom]

Coconut said:

I was under the assumption that grades ARE a measure of education. I do realise that standardized tests are their to see how much you've learned on a scale that's equal to everyone else's in your country. But they shouldn't be given that much wait. I'm also under the assumption that everyone has an off day. I do. For whatever reason, I flop a test. Badly. Thankfully, one of the most critical ones, my math teacher, sees this also and will omit our worst mark of the year. Every term, the worst you've had so far is omitted. But if you have a worse one, that's omitted, and the other one comes back.

I agree with Buddy, an average of what you know taken over the term is a better measurement of your knowledge, particularly because of the "off day" factor.

That's just life. *shrugs* On the only standardized tests that matter individually--the ACT, the SAT, and those sorts--you do have the opportunity to retake it several times. (That's how it is here, anyway--maybe things are different for some of the rest of you.) On the ones that matter for a school, it should even out--there're probably going to be as many students having a good day, and about the same thing at other schools. It's also possible to control off-days to some extent--get enough sleep, study enough, keep organized in general.

I don't think grades are a valid measure of education *except* within the class, or possibly within a grade (in which case the students ought to have had a lot of the same classes). Teachers grade things differently. An A in a class with a lenient teacher could be a low B in a class with a stricter teacher.

[Crystal]

Coconut said:

I'd like to apologize to Crydal, I seemed to have absentmindedly forgotten that there are people in third world countries that have perfectly fine educations. I'd been listening too hard in socials class, when our teacher's sending us on the guilt trips. You know, the "you're so lucky, you get to go to school, not have to work, when there are thousands of people in the world that wonder when they'll have their next meal" guilt trips.

You don't have to be so apologetic, Jessica. I very rarely get offended.

Buddy said:

Crystal, what do you think grades are for? To measure a person's knowledge and ability on something. The difference is, grades are measurements taken over a longer periopd of time and averaged out to give a good median on what the person knows - a test is simply a measurement taken over a period of an hour or two (or however long it takes you to complete the test).

Now, tell me, which would be a more accurate measurement - the one taken over a period of time and then averaged, or the one taken over a period of an hour or two?



Maylaysia is a third-world country? I thought they had one of the best economys in the region! I find that hard to believe!

A more accurate measurement? Hmm.... I honestly wouldn't know. Like KKM stated, some teachers are more lenient than others, or perhaps have favorites, etc.

The 'region' is all mostly third-world too. ^^;; Not to sure about Singapore though.


And... at the price of sounding terribly stupid here...

_{What's an off-day?}

[Buddy]

KKM said:

That's just life. *shrugs* On the only standardized tests that matter individually--the ACT, the SAT, and those sorts--you do have the opportunity to retake it several times. (That's how it is here, anyway--maybe things are different for some of the rest of you.) On the ones that matter for a school, it should even out--there're probably going to be as many students having a good day, and about the same thing at other schools. It's also possible to control off-days to some extent--get enough sleep, study enough, keep organized in general.

Yes, but the SATs and ACTs are redically different than the average standardized test. They don't affect whether or not you graduate. In fact, they have no bearing on your grades and schooling whatsoever - they're only there for colleges to look when deciding whether or not to admit you.

That's it.

They play no role in anything else. You could go your entire life without take the SATs once. Or, you could take it a hundred times. It doesn't matter - if you have good grades, you'll still graduate.

Some tests, on the other hand, aren't so leniant. Like I mentioned earlier - Florida's FCAT. If you fail the FCAT, you fail the grade, regardless of what you're grades might've been.

Crydal said:

And... at the price of sounding terribly stupid here...

_{What's an off-day?}

I think she just meant it as a day when you're not feeling up to your max (you're sick, tired, etc.).

[sollunaestrella]

Buddy said:

Some tests, on the other hand, aren't so leniant. Like I mentioned earlier - Florida's FCAT. If you fail the FCAT, you fail the grade, regardless of what you're grades might've been.

But grades don't show much except when compared to others in the school. You could get an A in a certain class, but that class may not teach you what you need to know - like getting an A in a Calculus class when you're only taught how to multiply. (Of course, it would never be quite that extreme, but that's the idea). That's why standardized tests are important. They make sure that students are learning what they should be learning in their classes. Besides, teachers grade differently - some more leniently, some not so leniently, and some teachers can grade unfairly, particularly in classes where things aren't so black and white, like in an English class. There is an English teacher at my school (I haven't had her, but my siblings all did) where she will mark your grade down if you oppose one of her own viewpoints in your essays, even if your points are strong and the essay well-constructed.

So that's where the tests come in. If you get good grades from good teachers in good classes, you should be able to pass a standardized test no problem. It's just reinforcement to show that you know what you need to know in order to graduate.

I'm lucky. Originally, I was in the first class that would have to pass the "Maine Learning Results" in order to graduate - things that include not only standardized tests but other "common assessments" (projects, other assignments, etc.). But they pushed it back a year in order to get some schools time to prepare to meet the standards. I'm glad I don't have to meet them (as anybody would), but I think that what they're doing is important anyway.

[Buddy]

SLE said:

But grades don't show much except when compared to others in the school. You could get an A in a certain class, but that class may not teach you what you need to know - like getting an A in a Calculus class when you're only taught how to multiply. (Of course, it would never be quite that extreme, but that's the idea). That's why standardized tests are important. They make sure that students are learning what they should be learning in their classes. Besides, teachers grade differently - some more leniently, some not so leniently, and some teachers can grade unfairly, particularly in classes where things aren't so black and white, like in an English class. There is an English teacher at my school (I haven't had her, but my siblings all did) where she will mark your grade down if you oppose one of her own viewpoints in your essays, even if your points are strong and the essay well-constructed.

So that's where the tests come in. If you get good grades from good teachers in good classes, you should be able to pass a standardized test no problem. It's just reinforcement to show that you know what you need to know in order to graduate.

I'm lucky. Originally, I was in the first class that would have to pass the "Maine Learning Results" in order to graduate - things that include not only standardized tests but other "common assessments" (projects, other assignments, etc.). But they pushed it back a year in order to get some schools time to prepare to meet the standards. I'm glad I don't have to meet them (as anybody would), but I think that what they're doing is important anyway.

As I said earlier in the thread, SLE, standardized tests are nessecary - the weight attatched to them is not.

Yes, I realize that some teachers may not grade fairly. And while I don't like to use this argument, I'll make an exception this time - that's life. Sometimes, people are going to grade you unfairly. Sometimes, teachers are going to be mean. Everyone has had their fair-share of horror stories from school of where teachers may not have been the nicest or the fairest or the best at teaching whatever they were supposed to teach.

And what can I say? Nothing. No, instead, I'll pose a question to you - if we cannot trust the majority of our teachers to teach and grade our students correctly and fairly, then why are we bothering to higher them at all?

Ultimately, no matter how many sucky teachers there may be out there - and trust me, I've known plenty in my time - there will be more than enough good ones. And we need to trust that teachers - in the end - will grade fairly and correctly.

No, not all teachers will grade the same - not all teachers teach the same. That's just a fact of like - called being human.

Yes, you're probably right - if you get good grades generally, then you should be able to pass a test generally. But you know, as long as a person's pass of failuer at a grade is detirmined by a single test - regarldess or what their grades in school might be - then there are cracks. And if there are cracks to be had, there are people who will fall through those cracks.

How many doesn't really matter - 1, 10, 20, 100 kids. That's not the point - the point is that cracks are there, and if we know of them, then they should be fixed. Pure and simple.

Afterall, what about the philosophy of "No Child Left Behind"?