 | | | | | |
In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
admission:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
Originally found on slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
Chris Busse
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
> admission:
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
>
> Originally found on slashdot:
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
Also on CNN. I read it from RTL.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/01/admissions.test.ap/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
> admission:
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
>
> Originally found on slashdot:
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
>
> Chris Busse
Today on the Rush Limbaugh Program Rush was talking about the above issue.
Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a college entry exam.
Details about the exam- Students are given a box of Lego. Then they are shown
a Lego robot for 1 minute and they have to build the robot to the best of
their ability. Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a
college entry exam, as am I. but "LEGO is a tool for 4 year olds" I was
offended! :) Gee imagine if that becomes the new national standard! :) I'd get
a scholarship to every school out there!!!! :)
-Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
< cross posted to off-topic-debate >
Rich,
Rich Manzo wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> > In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
> > admission:
> >
> > http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
> >
> > Originally found on slashdot:
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
> >
> > Chris Busse
>
> Today on the Rush Limbaugh Program Rush was talking about the above issue.
> Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a college entry exam.
> Details about the exam- Students are given a box of Lego. Then they are shown
> a Lego robot for 1 minute and they have to build the robot to the best of
> their ability. Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a
> college entry exam, as am I. but "LEGO is a tool for 4 year olds" I was
> offended! :)
Hmm... Being a Rush fan and a definite AFOL, I can see the logic of his
thinking. Testing people on the ability to build anything, regardless of
how good they might be, is a strange way of testing anyone. If you
noticed the CNN ( Communist News Network BTW IMO ) article:
"The nine schools in the pilot program will admit a total of 100
students. The students were chosen in December from a group of 700 New
York public high school seniors. Most in the pool were African Americans
and Hispanics who had modest grades and standardized test scores but
personal qualities that counselors believed would let them succeed at
selective colleges."
Denver Post:
" Instead of coloring in bubbles with a No. 2 pencil, selected high
school seniors are snapping together colorful Legos in hopes of
attending the prestigious private college in Colorado Springs.
The revolutionary test is designed to pinpoint students likely to
succeed at tough colleges despite below-average standardized
test scores. The Lego test helps identify initiative, leadership and
an ability to work in groups - qualities that hours-long ACT and
SAT tests never quite get at.
CC is participating in the national experiment with eight other
schools to recruit diverse students who probably wouldn't
otherwise qualify for admission. The stu dents will be admitted this
fall.
"This puts more emphasis on hard-tomeasure characteristics and
less on the standardized tests that frankly have been a stumbling
block for disadvantaged and minority students," said Terry
Swenson, CC's admissions dean.
With affirmative-action programs under legal fire, colleges and
universities are searching for minority admissions procedures that
can withstand allegations of unfair preferences."
Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
preformance, they are trying to skirt around recent rulings which say
affirmative action is unlawful, and are trying to find tests that get
around this issue. This is why the LEGO test is used. Going to college
has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
college is about as removed from reality as anything.
Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
their test scores.
Rush points out the hypocracy of these admissions, and I am glad someone
does. As for the four year old toys, I disagree, but that is another
debate, one we have addressed many times here and other places.
Scott S.
Gee imagine if that becomes the new national standard! :) I'd get
> a scholarship to every school out there!!!! :)
>
> -Rich
--
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> < cross posted to off-topic-debate >
>
> Rich,
>
> Rich Manzo wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> > > In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
> > > admission:
> > >
> > > http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
> > >
> > > Originally found on slashdot:
> > >
> > > http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
> > >
> > > Chris Busse
> >
> > Today on the Rush Limbaugh Program Rush was talking about the above issue.
> > Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a college entry exam.
> > Details about the exam- Students are given a box of Lego. Then they are shown
> > a Lego robot for 1 minute and they have to build the robot to the best of
> > their ability. Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a
> > college entry exam, as am I. but "LEGO is a tool for 4 year olds" I was
> > offended! :)
>
> Hmm... Being a Rush fan and a definite AFOL, I can see the logic of his
> thinking. Testing people on the ability to build anything, regardless of
> how good they might be, is a strange way of testing anyone. If you
> noticed the CNN ( Communist News Network BTW IMO ) article:
Being a Rush anti-fan (I think he's a bleeding moron), I don't agree (not just because he's
Rush, but because he's WRONG). Using Lego in this way is an excellent test of spatial
skills, pinpointing people with the right skills for many engineering careers.
> Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
> of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
> preformance,
Give...me...a...break. Standardized tests are ANYTHING but fair across the board. The
excuse of "they're all we've got" doesn't cut it, and these people are trying to actually DO
something about it.
> "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> in groups ".
BULL. You obviously never took a class where teams were graded, not individuals.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tom,
Tom Stangl wrote:
> Being a Rush anti-fan (I think he's a bleeding moron), I don't agree (not just because > he's
> Rush, but because he's WRONG). Using Lego in this way is an excellent test of spatial
> skills, pinpointing people with the right skills for many engineering careers.
It might be, but doesn't have anything to do with testing people to get
around affirmative action rulings.
> > Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
> > of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
> > preformance,
>
> Give...me...a...break. Standardized tests are ANYTHING but fair across the board. The
> excuse of "they're all we've got" doesn't cut it, and these people are trying to actually > DO
> something about it.
So, giving an unfair advantage to people is being fair?
>
> > "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> in groups ".
>
> BULL. You obviously never took a class where teams were graded, not individuals.
I took many classes over 5 years of going to college, Tom, and had many
team based projects. My grade depended on the ability of other people,
and for the most part, my grades were good. However, the team based
approach meant that if the people slacked off, I got a bad grade. I
somehow managed to get a 3.79 however.
This whole issue is a sidestep. Giving this test, as a way to try to get
around affirmative action rulings in recent years is wrong. I wish all
of my test were as easy as having other people imitate a LEGO model in
another room. If I ever have kids, I hope to God they never have to get
downgraded to this level to get into a college.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Tom Stangl wrote:
> > Being a Rush anti-fan (I think he's a bleeding moron), I don't agree (not just because > he's
> > Rush, but because he's WRONG). Using Lego in this way is an excellent test of spatial
> > skills, pinpointing people with the right skills for many engineering careers.
> It might be, but doesn't have anything to do with testing people to get
> around affirmative action rulings.
You're assuming that the entire reason for these tests is to get around these
court decisions. What if there was a larger, more important reason -- like
attempting to make testing the applicants more realistic and fair (see
below)? It is a sad truth, that many extremely intelligent and gifted
individuals never get their chance to shine. I'm all for any program that
will give folks just that opportunity.
And remember, this method of testing isn't policy; it's an *experiment*. In a
*private* college. I would hope that they can do whatever the hell they want
to with their admissions.
> > > Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
> > > of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
> > > preformance,
> > Give...me...a...break. Standardized tests are ANYTHING but fair across the board. The
> > excuse of "they're all we've got" doesn't cut it, and these people are trying to actually > DO
> > something about it.
Agreed, Tom. The PSAT, SAT, ACT, etc. only test the applicant's ability to
take tests (a skill rarely needed in the Real World). In my high school, we
were required to take classes to teach us how to take these tests. We learned
how to second-guess the answers based upon elimination, context, and cultural
biases. Surprise -- I got a 34 out of 36 on my ACT. My wife, who went to a
different school but whose knowledge and skills are about on par with mine,
got a much lower score.
IQ tests (and the concept of IQ for that matter) have pretty much been
discredited for the same reasons -- a dependence upon test-taking skills and
cultural biases. I never subscribed to someone else's "Standard" for these
so-called "Standardized Tests", but I was still judged by them. How is that
fair, or equal, or even realistic?
In fact, the Lego model of testing (pun intended :-) is much closer to a job
interview than it is to a college exam. It exposes *a lot* about a person's
problem-solving abilities.
> So, giving an unfair advantage to people is being fair?
Would you please explain why it *wouldn't* be fair, instead of claiming that
it isn't?
You've lived a very unfair life; i.e. life's been good for you. White,
middle-to-upper-class, male, educated, insured, connected, mobile, etc. There
aren't that many unfair strikes against you personally in the education or job
market. I wonder how different your attitude might be if you came from a
different ethnic background?
> I wish all
> of my test were as easy as having other people imitate a LEGO model in
> another room. If I ever have kids, I hope to God they never have to get
> downgraded to this level to get into a college.
Downgraded from where, Scott? The ACT and SAT tests are very degrading in and
of themselves, IMO. Besides, the test isn't to see whether they put the Lego
robot together, but the technical skills and interpersonal processes they
employed to do so.
Cheers,
- jsproat
p.s. Did anyone notice that the article referred to Legos as "Legos"? :-,
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
Change is good, but you can't keep it in your pockets forever.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jeremy,
Sproaticus wrote:
> You're assuming that the entire reason for these tests is to get around these
> court decisions.
"With affirmative action programs under legal fire, colleges and
universities are searching for minority admissions procedures that
can withstand allegations of unfair preferences."
I am not assuming anything, this is a quote from the article. If this
was a fair test, everyone should be tested, not just minorities. We go
back to the affirmative action debate.
> What if there was a larger, more important reason -- like
> attempting to make testing the applicants more realistic and fair (see
> below)? It is a sad truth, that many extremely intelligent and gifted
> individuals never get their chance to shine. I'm all for any program that
> will give folks just that opportunity.
See above.
> And remember, this method of testing isn't policy; it's an *experiment*. In a
> *private* college. I would hope that they can do whatever the hell they want
> to with their admissions.
The University of Michigan is a private college? I don't think so.
> Agreed, Tom. The PSAT, SAT, ACT, etc. only test the applicant's ability to
> take tests (a skill rarely needed in the Real World). In my high school, we
> were required to take classes to teach us how to take these tests. We learned
> how to second-guess the answers based upon elimination, context, and cultural
> biases. Surprise -- I got a 34 out of 36 on my ACT. My wife, who went to a
> different school but whose knowledge and skills are about on par with mine,
> got a much lower score.
But colleges use these tests, don't they? Why do people take them?
> IQ tests (and the concept of IQ for that matter) have pretty much been
> discredited for the same reasons -- a dependence upon test-taking skills and
> cultural biases. I never subscribed to someone else's "Standard" for these
> so-called "Standardized Tests", but I was still judged by them. How is that
> fair, or equal, or even realistic?
So a LEGO test, given to minorities, is fair?
> In fact, the Lego model of testing (pun intended :-) is much closer to a job
> interview than it is to a college exam. It exposes *a lot* about a person's
> problem-solving abilities.
Which has nothing to do in college, however. You don't apply to college
to get a job, you go there to learn. Big difference.
> > So, giving an unfair advantage to people is being fair?
>
> Would you please explain why it *wouldn't* be fair, instead of claiming that
> it isn't?
It is targeted to minorities who don't perform to the college standard
admissions. I would have loved to have tests like this to get in.
> You've lived a very unfair life;
Oh, yes, very unfair. >:( By whose standards? My parents raised me the
best they could, I did my work, got the good grades, earned every cent I
ever made, played by the rules, and got ahead in life, thank you. No one
gave me my life, I earned it. I competed, I played by the rules, and
succeeded. If you don't like it, tough.
> i.e. life's been good for you.
Yes, because my parents cared and loved me, and gave me the opportunity
and drove me to succeed.
> White • (Nothing to do with anything),
> middle-to-upper-class, • (Lower class, actually)
> male (Nothing to do with anything)
, educated,
(Another debate)
insured,
(Parents, my money, my jobs)
> connected,
(Myself)
> mobile, etc.
(Whatever this may mean)
> There
> aren't that many unfair strikes against you personally in the education or job
> market.
You know, Jeremy, I see this as the typical leftist jealousy ring, and I
don't need to sit here and here how unfair life has been. I have come
from a broken home, and had many ups and downs in life, but unlike
others, I made the right decisions, and came out ahead. If you don't
like it, I don't care. This is America, and anyone can succeed, if they
try.
> I wonder how different your attitude might be if you came from a
> different ethnic background?
You know, if I was a minority, I would be mad that I would get
downgraded simply because I am a minority. I would try to excel myself
as best as I can. This is just another example of elitists thinking
minorities can't do as well, so we need to make up silly tests for them
to get in.
>
> Downgraded from where, Scott? The ACT and SAT tests are very degrading in and
> of themselves, IMO.
IYO, maybe. But colleges still use them, so they have to have some
viability.
> Besides, the test isn't to see whether they put the Lego
> robot together, but the technical skills and interpersonal processes they
> employed to do so.
You don't got o college to get employed, you go there to learn, and say,
yes I have a piece of paper, therefore I am qualified. Just because you
are a college graduate, doesn't mean you are ready for employment. It
means I jumped through the hoops and got a piece of paper.
Scott S.
________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> You don't got o college to get employed, you go there to learn, and say,
> yes I have a piece of paper, therefore I am qualified. Just because you
> are a college graduate, doesn't mean you are ready for employment. It
> means I jumped through the hoops and got a piece of paper.
Boy oh boy, for the most part, you just hit the nail right on the head.
Anyone asserting that college isn't a learning experience is using too narrow
a definition. Almost invariably, one will learn about bureaucracy and
incompetence, form-filling and line-standing, as well as (one hopes) the
conventions of human interpersonal discourse. These, I think, are "real
world" skills much more so than Engineering, History, or Mathematics.
Don't get me wrong; these are profoundly important fields of knowledge, but
I think a real case can be made that the minutiae of college (ie, the nonsense
of everyday administrative dealings, et al.) are what much of what everyday
life seems to be about. The rest are professional skills (of widely varying
levels of lucrativity!).
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Dave,
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> Scott:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
>
> > You don't got o college to get employed, you go there to learn, and say,
> > yes I have a piece of paper, therefore I am qualified. Just because you
> > are a college graduate, doesn't mean you are ready for employment. It
> > means I jumped through the hoops and got a piece of paper.
>
> Boy oh boy, for the most part, you just hit the nail right on the head.
> Anyone asserting that college isn't a learning experience is using too narrow
> a definition.
College is a learning experience, just for the most part, not a pleasant
or an enlightening one.
> Almost invariably, one will learn about bureaucracy and
> incompetence, form-filling and line-standing, as well as (one hopes) the
> conventions of human interpersonal discourse. These, I think, are "real
> world" skills much more so than Engineering, History, or Mathematics.
Yes, to a point. Colleges are so bad in everything in terms of
paperwork, etc. It gave me a bad taste for inefficient, non consumer
friendly items.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
The snipper from heck strikes again...
Dave Schuler wrote:
> Boy oh boy, for the most part, you just hit the nail right on the head.
> Anyone asserting that college isn't a learning experience is using too narrow
> a definition. Almost invariably, one will learn about bureaucracy and
> incompetence, form-filling and line-standing, as well as (one hopes) the
> conventions of human interpersonal discourse.
You forgot advanced beer drinking, how to file previous year exams to
make them easy to find, why eggs are legal only at breakfast time, why
freshman lab students might want to jump their lab instructor, how to
chop the entire roof of a car off with a welding torch safely, why you
shouldn't move money into and out of bank accounts too many times in the
same week, how to tell if your brother has had too much to drink and
needs to be rushed to the hospital, which cruising routes are the most
scenic, teasing mynah birds for fun and profit, where the best bars in
your area are, how to make things out of slush, 3 uses for fire
extinguishers that have nothing to do with fire, 2 uses for corks that
have nothing to do with bottles, managing the finances of your
fraternity house, and fun things to do with chickens, among others...
:-)
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> The snipper from heck strikes again...
>
> Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > Boy oh boy, for the most part, you just hit the nail right on the head.
> > Anyone asserting that college isn't a learning experience is using too narrow
> > a definition. Almost invariably, one will learn about bureaucracy and
> > incompetence, form-filling and line-standing, as well as (one hopes) the
> > conventions of human interpersonal discourse.
>
> You forgot advanced beer drinking, how to file previous year exams to
> make them easy to find, why eggs are legal only at breakfast time, why
> freshman lab students might want to jump their lab instructor, how to
> chop the entire roof of a car off with a welding torch safely, why you
> shouldn't move money into and out of bank accounts too many times in the
> same week, how to tell if your brother has had too much to drink and
> needs to be rushed to the hospital, which cruising routes are the most
> scenic, teasing mynah birds for fun and profit, where the best bars in
> your area are, how to make things out of slush, 3 uses for fire
> extinguishers that have nothing to do with fire, 2 uses for corks that
> have nothing to do with bottles, managing the finances of your
> fraternity house, and fun things to do with chickens, among others...
Good points! I was pressed for time with my last post, so I didn't have the
chance to explore the subject further! 8^)
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > The snipper from heck strikes again...
> >
> > Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > > Boy oh boy, for the most part, you just hit the nail right on the head.
> > > Anyone asserting that college isn't a learning experience is using too narrow
> > > a definition. Almost invariably, one will learn about bureaucracy and
> > > incompetence, form-filling and line-standing, as well as (one hopes) the
> > > conventions of human interpersonal discourse.
> >
> > You forgot advanced beer drinking, how to file previous year exams to
> > make them easy to find, why eggs are legal only at breakfast time, why
> > freshman lab students might want to jump their lab instructor, how to
> > chop the entire roof of a car off with a welding torch safely, why you
> > shouldn't move money into and out of bank accounts too many times in the
> > same week, how to tell if your brother has had too much to drink and
> > needs to be rushed to the hospital, which cruising routes are the most
> > scenic, teasing mynah birds for fun and profit, where the best bars in
> > your area are, how to make things out of slush, 3 uses for fire
> > extinguishers that have nothing to do with fire, 2 uses for corks that
> > have nothing to do with bottles, managing the finances of your
> > fraternity house, and fun things to do with chickens, among others...
Hmm... I just went there for classes, not much else, especially those
mentioned above.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> Hmm... I just went there for classes, not much else, especially those
> mentioned above.
Well that explains a lot... no wonder you're not having as much fun in
later life!
Seriously, a lot of the stuff I mentioned happens at colleges where the
majority of the students are not commutters...
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
>
> > Hmm... I just went there for classes, not much else, especially those
> > mentioned above.
>
> Well that explains a lot... no wonder you're not having as much fun in
> later life!
>
> Seriously, a lot of the stuff I mentioned happens at colleges where the
> majority of the students are not commutters...
Did you tease mynah birds Larry? Where did the profit come in?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> Did you tease mynah birds Larry? Where did the profit come in?
There was a bar,(1) we went to when we went on Copper Country cruises.
Among the things they had in this bar were an amazing gun collection
hanging in the rafters (something like over 1000 guns including some
very rare machine guns and stuff), and a mynah bird.
This mynah bird would not speak unless you paid it. When you did, it
would swear a blue streak at you (no doubt influenced by previous
generations of miners and college students). But you first had to hold
up a coin that it would grasp in its beak and drop into the cage.
We discovered that if you went there after a rival fraternity had been
there, the bottom of the cage would be covered with quarters and dimes
(and with bird waste, but I digress). We also discovered that it liked
brand new shiny pennies better than quarters, and if you held up a shiny
penny, gleaming with that wonderful copper lustre, it would pick up a
quarter or dime and throw it out of the cage in order to entice you to
give it the penny. (this was a copper mining town, after all, it was
just showing loyalty to the home team metal, as it were)
Since Gay was a bit of a drive, we usually would have made a few stops
prior to getting there, and so this was tres amusing to us. (2) The
material on the quarter didn't usually bother us, we just used the
quarters to buy more beer so it was the bartenders problem. Besides the
bird usually picked the cleaner ones (first). So we always brought a
roll of brand new pennies with us. The bank loved us. Not.
Note carefully that while this is teasing for fun and profit, I really
don't think the bird got any deep psychological harm out of it, after
all, it got what it wanted more (copper) and we got what we wanted more
(drinking money), so that seems a fair and free exchange of value to me.
1 - the Gay bar. We always got a rise out of newbies (and parents) by
telling them we were taking them to the Gay bar... (3) Gay is a little
turn of the century mining town on the Keewenaw, maybe 100 people live
in it. it has one bar, named after the town, hence the Gay bar.
2 - for two reasons, first that we could get this bird to do that at
all, and second that it was the Tekes or Sig Eps money we were getting.
Apparently no Tekes ever figured it out. Ronald Reagan was a Teke, you
know...
3 - yes, rather neanderthal and non PC humor.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Sproaticus wrote:
> > You're assuming that the entire reason for these tests is to get around these
> > court decisions.
> "With affirmative action programs under legal fire, colleges and
> universities are searching for minority admissions procedures that
> can withstand allegations of unfair preferences."
> I am not assuming anything, this is a quote from the article. If this
> was a fair test, everyone should be tested, not just minorities. We go
> back to the affirmative action debate.
So what about that part which says "minority admissions procedures that can
withstand allegations of unfair preferences"? Sounds to me like they're vying
for a more fair environment, not necessarily within the restrictions of
affirmitave action.
You're just quoting the news article, not the actual source. And that's only
one point of view within the article. See the conversation with Terence Pell
near the end, for example. See also the part which says:
"The tests are seen as a way to help colleges maintain racial diversity even
if racial preferences are eventually banned."
Diversity is good. Say it times to yourself: "Diversity is good." Without
diversity, out society will ultimately stagnate and fester in its own pool of
self-centeredness.
> > And remember, this method of testing isn't policy; it's an *experiment*. In a
> > *private* college. I would hope that they can do whatever the hell they want
> > to with their admissions.
> The University of Michigan is a private college? I don't think so.
Given, and three other state schools as well. I was wrong about it being done
solely in private schools. However, it's still an experiment, and funded
largely by private concerns.
> > Agreed, Tom. The PSAT, SAT, ACT, etc. only test the applicant's ability to
> > take tests (a skill rarely needed in the Real World). In my high school, we
> > were required to take classes to teach us how to take these tests. We learned
> > how to second-guess the answers based upon elimination, context, and cultural
> > biases. Surprise -- I got a 34 out of 36 on my ACT. My wife, who went to a
> > different school but whose knowledge and skills are about on par with mine,
> > got a much lower score.
> But colleges use these tests, don't they? Why do people take them?
Colleges also sell the names of students to mass marketing companies, unfairly
enforce parking policies, and compete in the catering business. Colleges do a
lot of things that they shouldn't. Don't let it surprise you *now*.
Colleges require these tests because the philosophy behind these tests has a
lot of momentum. But even now, these tests are slowly being phased out.
> > IQ tests (and the concept of IQ for that matter) have pretty much been
> > discredited for the same reasons -- a dependence upon test-taking skills and
> > cultural biases. I never subscribed to someone else's "Standard" for these
> > so-called "Standardized Tests", but I was still judged by them. How is that
> > fair, or equal, or even realistic?
> So a LEGO test, given to minorities, is fair?
Nope. It's about as unfair as standardized tests, tho.
> > In fact, the Lego model of testing (pun intended :-) is much closer to a job
> > interview than it is to a college exam. It exposes *a lot* about a person's
> > problem-solving abilities.
> Which has nothing to do in college, however. You don't apply to college
> to get a job, you go there to learn. Big difference.
I don't know what your college required from you, but mine required me to
solve problems on a regular basis. And to work in teams. And to interact
with various people in the "command structure" from the teacher all the way to
the school president. And to show initiative. And to meet deadlines. It
kept me on my toes. Not that big of a difference from a job, really.
Now, if your school was little more than lecture hall and tests, then I can
see how you developed your point of view.
> > > So, giving an unfair advantage to people is being fair?
> > Would you please explain why it *wouldn't* be fair, instead of claiming that
> > it isn't?
> It is targeted to minorities who don't perform to the college standard
> admissions. I would have loved to have tests like this to get in.
So you're complaining because you didn't get this entry exam? I'm pretty
upset that I didn't too! I think the emotion is called "selfishness", though
it could be "envy".
> > You've lived a very unfair life;
> Oh, yes, very unfair. >:( By whose standards? My parents raised me the
> best they could, I did my work, got the good grades, earned every cent I
> ever made, played by the rules, and got ahead in life, thank you. No one
> gave me my life, I earned it. I competed, I played by the rules, and
> succeeded. If you don't like it, tough.
Okay...but then you immediately contradict yourself:
> > i.e. life's been good for you.
> Yes, because my parents cared and loved me, and gave me the opportunity
> and drove me to succeed.
You had *someone* who could give you opportunities. What if you didn't? What
if your parents couldn't have given you the environment you needed in which to
grow?
> > There
> > aren't that many unfair strikes against you personally in the education or job
> > market.
> You know, Jeremy, I see this as the typical leftist jealousy ring,
Curious; I don't often label myself as "leftist". Left of you perhaps.
I'm more of a centrist, a fence-sitter. If I see something that is waaaaay
off-balance, then I want it moved closer to the center. Standardized testing
is waaaaay off-balance.
> This is America, and anyone can succeed, if they try.
*IF* they get opportunity. Since when does living in the U.S. guarantee
opportunity?
> > I wonder how different your attitude might be if you came from a
> > different ethnic background?
> You know, if I was a minority, I would be mad that I would get
> downgraded simply because I am a minority. I would try to excel myself
> as best as I can. This is just another example of elitists thinking
> minorities can't do as well, so we need to make up silly tests for them
> to get in.
No, this is an example of realists thinking that majorities get more breaks in
an unfair fashion. They're just trying to level the playing field a bit.
If I were a minority, I'd do what I do now: take every loophole I could find.
> > Downgraded from where, Scott? The ACT and SAT tests are very degrading in and
> > of themselves, IMO.
> IYO, maybe. But colleges still use them, so they have to have some
> viability.
Heh heh ha ha ha! Oh my, thanks for the chuckle, Scott. I needed one!
The fact that a college does x doesn't mean that x is viable. (See above.)
To trust a college to make these kind of judgements for me, then to accept
their word as gospel, is asinine. Or, to paraphrase John Handey, "I think the
mistake a lot of us make is thinking the university is our friend." They're
in the business to collect tuition; they follow the business trends of their
competitors. A current-but-flawed business trend is to give credence to
standardized tests.
Fortunately, there are people employed in this industry who think out of the
box; they try to find broken trends, and to replace them whenever possible.
Change is good.
> > Besides, the test isn't to see whether they put the Lego
> > robot together, but the technical skills and interpersonal processes they
> > employed to do so.
> You don't got o college to get employed, you go there to learn, and say,
> yes I have a piece of paper, therefore I am qualified. Just because you
> are a college graduate, doesn't mean you are ready for employment. It
> means I jumped through the hoops and got a piece of paper.
Um, you use that piece of paper to get employed, right? I mean, it's not
required, but it sure helps a lot, right? I don't know about you, but I went
to college to get employed.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
The glass is half empty, rapidly evaporating,
and breeding bacteria which will chew your skin off.
- BLOOP
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Again, selectively snipping for the heck of it.
Sproaticus wrote:
> And remember, this method of testing isn't policy; it's an *experiment*. In a
> *private* college. I would hope that they can do whatever the hell they want
> to with their admissions.
I agree with you, private colleges *should* be able to. But it's a
forlorn hope. They provide public accomodations so they're stuck with
the same loony regulations as everyone else. Even if they avoid taking
any federal dollars (which is very very hard to do)...
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Again, selectively snipping for the heck of it.
Wow Lar your just lightin em up huh? LOL
I can see Mindstorms maybe a excuse for college application..
Because thats some serious Lego shtuff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> This whole issue is a sidestep. Giving this test, as a way to try to get
> around affirmative action rulings in recent years is wrong. I wish all
> of my test were as easy as having other people imitate a LEGO model in
> another room. If I ever have kids, I hope to God they never have to get
> downgraded to this level to get into a college.
To me there are two issues. The first is do we take people into college
who are not necessarily the most likely to succeed. The second issue is
how do you assure someone is most likely to succeed.
Since I believe it is impossible to come up with a perfect test which
satisfies the second issue, I think it is imperative that colleges take
a diversity of students, independant of the possible value of that
diversity from outside a pute "success". I think it is wrong to take
students, and then not work with them to help them succeed the best they
can. I think it is wrong to continue to take students using some "test"
who consistently fail. But if your "test" gives you a set of students
which mostly succeed, I'd say that's a good test. I also see nothing
wrong with using multiple tests.
As a totally seperate issue, a private university should be free to
chose their students however they please, and as we've been discussing
Libertopia, the government should get out of the buisiness of running
schools, which renders any constraints on how the government should
chose which students go to college meaningless.
And as far as learning non-traditional stuff in high school, I would say
that I got a LOT more usefull stuff out of the electronics and computer
stuff I did in my vocational high school than out of any traditional
classes (though there isn't much to be said for their "traditional"
classes, they didn't teach calculus before I came along). Actually, when
I look back at my schooling, from high school on through college, the
most valuable contribution to what I do for a living today was being
given the opportunity to experiment with computers in high school. I am
heavily a self taught programmer, and the skills of self teaching have
stood me quite well since I learn pretty quickly when I get a new job
assignment. I also value the practical experience in electronics which I
learned from my vocational studies (and even there I bucked the
curriculum, my sophmore year, I finished the "standard" curriculum
early, and instead of going on to the "advanced" curriculum like several
others in the class, I started working with the teacher and "played"
around [the other "advanced" students always complained about that],
well come final time, we had a 6 hour practical exam. I was the only
person who completed the problem on transistors, because in my "playing"
around, one of the things I did was test transistors, and so I had much
more understanding on how to figure out what was going on [I think part
of the problem was that the transistor supplied for the problem was
mislabeled as to what the base, emitter, and collector were], my senior
year, I spent a lot of time "playing" with the computers [teaching
myself 6502 assembler on an Apple II]. One day, I came back from
"playing" with the computer an hour or so before the end of the day, I
saw the students working on something which looked interesting, so I
asked what the assignment was, in the remaining hour, I accomplished
more on the problem than anyone else had all day). At least twice in
college courses, I used knowledge learned in high school. Once, we
needed to use some test equipment, no one else had the foggiest idea of
what we were using and how it might have worked (I think it was a logic
analyzer, one of our projects in high school was to build a circuit to
display 8 digital outputs on an osciliscope). Another time was when I
watched a student working on an infrared LED project. It wasn't working,
I looked at his circuit and asked where the resistors for the LEDs were.
When he said, what he said why do I need those, I told him to throw the
LED in the trash and add some current limiting resistors.
Another interesting one I self taught myself was multiple integration. I
had come up with this idea to come up with a formula to calculate the
actual radius of a D&D fireball when it went off in a closed area. It
was obvious to me that I needed to work with volumes, and I knew
integration of a curve gave you an area, so I set out to figure out how
to get a volume, and decided I needed to integrate twice. So I proved to
myself that I could get the volume of a sphere by integrating the
equation for a circle twice, and then set on my way. When we got to
multiple integration in calculus a few months later, I said, "oh, that's
what it's called." and went to sleep.
The only thing I regret from high school was skipping trigonometry. I
never learned all those half-angle and double-angle formulas, and that
hurt me some in college (despite that I learned how to do integrals
relating to those by integrating by parts).
I had a lot of fun with learning computer languages in college. They had
these big posters on the wall in the computer center telling you how to
compile a variety of languages. Seeing SNOBOL, I though to myself that
that just sounded neat, so I set off to see what this SNOBOL language
was all about. Interesting language, and very useful. I of course also
started playing with mainframe assembler before I took a class in it.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Frank Filz wrote:
> Another interesting one I self taught myself was multiple integration. I
> had come up with this idea to come up with a formula to calculate the
> actual radius of a D&D fireball when it went off in a closed area. It
> was obvious to me that I needed to work with volumes, and I knew
> integration of a curve gave you an area, so I set out to figure out how
> to get a volume, and decided I needed to integrate twice. So I proved to
> myself that I could get the volume of a sphere by integrating the
> equation for a circle twice, and then set on my way. When we got to
> multiple integration in calculus a few months later, I said, "oh, that's
> what it's called." and went to sleep.
LOL
I got into the most heated (pun intended) argument with a DM once because
someone lit a fireball in a long and skinny hallway; the people past the
"radius" of the fireball were still damaged. Unfortunately, I was arguing for
what the DM Guide said; I didn't want my character to burn and asphyxiate!
Can you guess who lit the fireball? :-,
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
The glass is half empty, rapidly evaporating,
and breeding bacteria which will chew your skin off.
- BLOOP
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> I got into the most heated (pun intended) argument with a DM once because
> someone lit a fireball in a long and skinny hallway; the people past the
> "radius" of the fireball were still damaged. Unfortunately, I was arguing for
> what the DM Guide said; I didn't want my character to burn and asphyxiate!
> Can you guess who lit the fireball? :-,
Must have been the first edition DMs Guide. I'm pretty sure the 2nd Edition
guide told you to expand the fireball to the full 33000 cubic feet.
Regards,
Steve Hodge
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom Stangl wrote:
> Being a Rush anti-fan (I think he's a bleeding moron),
I'm not sure I agree with this. At least not the part about bleeding.
For example, if there were a Satan, would he bleed? I don't think so.
Rush is certainly moronic, though.
In a good mood tonight because dubya got trounced in NH. Not that I like
McCain, mind you, but the thought of having Gore annointed this early
was making me ill.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
> of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
> preformance, they are trying to skirt around recent rulings which say
> affirmative action is unlawful, and are trying to find tests that get
> around this issue. This is why the LEGO test is used. Going to college
> has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> college is about as removed from reality as anything.
> Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
> admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
> admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
> with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
> rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
> their test scores.
What's so wrong about colleges looking for people with "initiative,
leadership and an ability to work in groups?" You yourself said that
those are real world issues. Why shouldn't colleges be preparing people
for the real world?
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Frank,
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> > Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
> > of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
> > preformance, they are trying to skirt around recent rulings which say
> > affirmative action is unlawful, and are trying to find tests that get
> > around this issue. This is why the LEGO test is used. Going to college
> > has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> > in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> > college is about as removed from reality as anything.
> > Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
> > admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
> > admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
> > with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
> > rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
> > their test scores.
>
> What's so wrong about colleges looking for people with "initiative,
> leadership and an ability to work in groups?" You yourself said that
> those are real world issues. Why shouldn't colleges be preparing people
> for the real world?
Yes, but I repeat myself many times: Since these people that are taking
these test, mostly Hispanics and African Americans that would not
normally get in due to the admission policies (I took this from the
article, BTW), they use this test to boost them into the college. I
think this is wrong. Everyone should be tested the same, regardless of
race, class, etc. I think this is what Rush is trying to say here. The
college is sidestepping this issue, and it is wrong, whether they use
LEGO elements or oranges.
Most colleges *don't* prepare most people for the real world. I have
seen this many times, my classes with professors that have never had a
real job in the profession they are teaching, etc. The closest I came to
the real world was the technical courses I took. All the other classes
were not.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Frank,
>
> Frank Filz wrote:
> >
> > Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> > > Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
> > > of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
> > > preformance, they are trying to skirt around recent rulings which say
> > > affirmative action is unlawful, and are trying to find tests that get
> > > around this issue. This is why the LEGO test is used. Going to college
> > > has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> > > in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> > > college is about as removed from reality as anything.
> > > Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
> > > admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
> > > admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
> > > with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
> > > rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
> > > their test scores.
> >
> > What's so wrong about colleges looking for people with "initiative,
> > leadership and an ability to work in groups?" You yourself said that
> > those are real world issues. Why shouldn't colleges be preparing people
> > for the real world?
>
> Yes, but I repeat myself many times: Since these people that are taking
> these test, mostly Hispanics and African Americans that would not
> normally get in due to the admission policies (I took this from the
> article, BTW), they use this test to boost them into the college. I
> think this is wrong. Everyone should be tested the same, regardless of
> race, class, etc. I think this is what Rush is trying to say here. The
> college is sidestepping this issue, and it is wrong, whether they use
> LEGO elements or oranges.
Show me a test that is fair across the board. You can't, they don't exist. Standardized
tests are "standardized" for the majority, and time after time have been proven to have
prejudices against those not taught to what the test makers thought was "standard".
I'm all for fair admissions (based on a fair criteria). Too bad they don't exist.
> Most colleges *don't* prepare most people for the real world.
Perhaps they SHOULD.
> I have
> seen this many times, my classes with professors that have never had a
> real job in the profession they are teaching, etc. The closest I came to
> the real world was the technical courses I took. All the other classes
> were not.
So admissions based on pure academia, having nothing to do with how truly
intelligent/creative the person is, is the right way to go, simply because colleges don't
prepare you for the real world? They should.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
> Frank Filz wrote:
> > What's so wrong about colleges looking for people with "initiative,
> > leadership and an ability to work in groups?" You yourself said that
> > those are real world issues. Why shouldn't colleges be preparing people
> > for the real world?
>
> Yes, but I repeat myself many times: Since these people that are taking
> these test, mostly Hispanics and African Americans that would not
> normally get in due to the admission policies (I took this from the
> article, BTW), they use this test to boost them into the college. I
> think this is wrong. Everyone should be tested the same, regardless of
> race, class, etc.
Why is that? Should the tests be designed to determine who has a good
chance of succeeding at college? I think so. What if research
indicates that testing 'white' people with the ACT is valid and testing
'black' people with a teamwork LEGO-based spatial test is valid? What
if?
My M.Ed. is in education - primarily testing. What if I told you that
the best correlation of success in college is different for males and
females. It is! With the data that I had to analyze, the ACT (not the
SAT) was best for the ~10000 men that I looked at and high school GPA
was best for the ~10000 women. So, now that we know that one assessment
is more valid for men and another is more valid for women, is it _fair_
or _right_ to force the same test on both groups?
As others (Jeremy and/or Frank?) have mentioned, the point is to get the
right people into college. A college is much better off admitting
someone who's going to stay for four (or better yet, six) years. All
that should matter is that people who can make use of a college
education are getting the chance to do so. As long as that is being
done in a supportable and valid way, I don't care what the uneducated
masses think of the 'fairness' of it.
> I think this is what Rush is trying to say here. The
> college is sidestepping this issue, and it is wrong, whether they use
> LEGO elements or oranges.
Affirmative action is a poor model for increasing minority education.
This may not be. Frankly, it is in all of our best interest for the
level of education between cultural and SES groups to normalize. We
don't want unbreakable chains of poverty and ignorance. At least I
don't. Maybe since you seem to believe that they don't exist, you can't
get to the point where you don't want them to continue.
> Most colleges *don't* prepare most people for the real world. I have
> seen this many times, my classes with professors that have never had a
> real job in the profession they are teaching, etc. The closest I came to
> the real world was the technical courses I took. All the other classes
> were not.
It is unclear whether you are saying that this is a good or bad thing.
Maybe you're just saying that since you got screwed out of adequate
preparation, everyone else should be too. I'm really not sure.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Chris,
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Why is that? Should the tests be designed to determine who has a good
> chance of succeeding at college? I think so. What if research
> indicates that testing 'white' people with the ACT is valid and testing
> 'black' people with a teamwork LEGO-based spatial test is valid? What
> if?
Because it sets up different standards, which segregate black and
whites, and other groups. There is something about not discriminating
because of race, sex, etc. Isn't there? Or should we? If we want a fair
society, race and sex and everything else should NOT be a factor. Just
because someone is black, we should not say, oh, since the rest of your
race doesn't do well, we will give you the LEGO portion instead of the
ACT, etc. That just blows my mind. If people can't qualify, too bad.
> My M.Ed. is in education - primarily testing.
That's great.
> What if I told you that
> the best correlation of success in college is different for males and
> females. It is! With the data that I had to analyze, the ACT (not the
> SAT) was best for the ~10000 men that I looked at and high school GPA
> was best for the ~10000 women. So, now that we know that one assessment
> is more valid for men and another is more valid for women, is it _fair_
> or _right_ to force the same test on both groups?
This is just more dividing and segregating, and should be struck down,
if it ever makes it to the court.
> As others (Jeremy and/or Frank?) have mentioned, the point is to get the
> right people into college. A college is much better off admitting
> someone who's going to stay for four (or better yet, six) years. All
> that should matter is that people who can make use of a college
> education are getting the chance to do so. As long as that is being
> done in a supportable and valid way, I don't care what the uneducated
> masses think of the 'fairness' of it.
> Affirmative action is a poor model for increasing minority education.
> This may not be. Frankly, it is in all of our best interest for the
> level of education between cultural and SES groups to normalize. We
> don't want unbreakable chains of poverty and ignorance. At least I
> don't. Maybe since you seem to believe that they don't exist, you can't
> get to the point where you don't want them to continue.
I want to keep people i poverty and ignorance, huh? Where did you get
that from?
> > Most colleges *don't* prepare most people for the real world. I have
> > seen this many times, my classes with professors that have never had a
> > real job in the profession they are teaching, etc. The closest I came to
> > the real world was the technical courses I took. All the other classes
> > were not.
>
> It is unclear whether you are saying that this is a good or bad thing.
> Maybe you're just saying that since you got screwed out of adequate
> preparation, everyone else should be too. I'm really not sure.
Chris, since you seem to be taking this totally on a tangent, I think I
am through trying to discuss this. I hope your test for every minority
and sex and orientation and class status do really well, or have society
collapse on itself.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> > What if I told you that
> > the best correlation of success in college is different for males and
> > females. It is! With the data that I had to analyze, the ACT (not the
> > SAT) was best for the ~10000 men that I looked at and high school GPA
> > was best for the ~10000 women. So, now that we know that one assessment
> > is more valid for men and another is more valid for women, is it _fair_
> > or _right_ to force the same test on both groups?
>
> This is just more dividing and segregating, and should be struck down,
> if it ever makes it to the court.
In that case, I think we should test ALL students at all levels on their
assembler coding skills. Hey, you think using different tests for
different people is not fair. Of course I'll start picking doctors who
went to school in some other country. Sure, my example is an extreme,
but sometimes extremes are worth looking at to see how your proposal
handles them. It looks to me like using the same test all the time
breaks. Therefore, there must be some validity to using different tests
for different people. Given that, show me why we shouldn't use the best
predictor of success for each group of people. Now I will agree that we
should perhaps require that the same measure of success be the qualifier
(thus if a 1300 SAT score for men produces a class which 70% of the
class is successefull, we should require the GPA for women to be that
GPA which produces a class with a 70% success rate). On the other hand,
since ultimately, colleges should be private, they should be able to
pick their students however they chose, and we have the responsibility
to set up colleges which will serve the minorities we want to see get
more college education (and for those who don't want to see more
minorities succeeding, well, they don't need to contribute to those
schools, and can choose to stop contributing to their alma mater if it
starts helping minorities they [the contributors] don't want to help).
> I want to keep people i poverty and ignorance, huh? Where did you get
> that from?
Because you seem opposed to anything which tries to give minorities an
opportunity. So long as certain populations live in grossly
underpriviledged circumstances, a large percentage of those people will
fail to achieve much (and I don't care if YOU rose above your situation,
some people do. All the more power to them, but I want the freedom to be
able to give a helping hand from those who are unable to raise
themselves, and honestly, I'm realizing that I can do that more
effectively in a Libertopia where I don't have to justify to you the
fairness of how I'm spending my money).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Why is that? Should the tests be designed to determine who has a good
> > chance of succeeding at college? I think so. What if research
> > indicates that testing 'white' people with the ACT is valid and testing
> > 'black' people with a teamwork LEGO-based spatial test is valid? What
> > if?
>
> Because it sets up different standards, which segregate black and
> whites, and other groups.
Making it so they all go to college together segregates them?
> There is something about not discriminating
> because of race, sex, etc. Isn't there? Or should we? If we want a fair
> society, race and sex and everything else should NOT be a factor.
Should not? What do you mean should? What if it does? Does matter,
whether or not you like it? What if (and I'm not saying this is so) one
'color' or 'race' of people tend to think differently than others? What
if they can all compete in college, but the standard methods of
assessment are not equally valid for both kinds of brains? How is it fair?
> Just
> because someone is black, we should not say, oh, since the rest of your
> race doesn't do well, we will give you the LEGO portion instead of the
> ACT, etc. That just blows my mind. If people can't qualify, too bad.
Let's imagine that black and white people have an equal chance of
success in college. If that's so, but the testing discriminates, and so
fewer black people are admitted, that's what you think is fair...simply
because they all took the same test, no matter how flawed that test is?
That appears to be what you are saying. I suppose that a chunk of your
stance is the assumption that the tests are not fatally flawed, but I
think that any serious analysis of them shows that they are.
When I was a kid, I first heard about these tests being supposedly
discriminatory. My reply was that they discriminated against people who
didn't know the answer. I even still believe that, but if you look at
why they don't know the answer - or more importantly, if knowing that
answer matters at all, you find that the test just are not fair across
the gulf between members of the low and high SES.
> > My M.Ed. is in education - primarily testing.
>
> That's great.
No, mostly it's useless, I'm just pointing out that in this case my
opinion is based on more than radical political philosophy. I have
genuinely spent serious time thinking and reading about these issues.
> > What if I told you that
> > the best correlation of success in college is different for males and
> > females. It is! With the data that I had to analyze, the ACT (not the
> > SAT) was best for the ~10000 men that I looked at and high school GPA
> > was best for the ~10000 women. So, now that we know that one assessment
> > is more valid for men and another is more valid for women, is it _fair_
> > or _right_ to force the same test on both groups?
>
> This is just more dividing and segregating, and should be struck down,
> if it ever makes it to the court.
What should be struck down? The statistics?
> > Affirmative action is a poor model for increasing minority education.
> > This may not be. Frankly, it is in all of our best interest for the
> > level of education between cultural and SES groups to normalize. We
> > don't want unbreakable chains of poverty and ignorance. At least I
> > don't. Maybe since you seem to believe that they don't exist, you can't
> > get to the point where you don't want them to continue.
>
> I want to keep people i poverty and ignorance, huh? Where did you get
> that from?
No, that's not what I said. I was suggesting that maybe the reason we
disagree is because you don't hold one of my premises valid. I contend
that some people are trapped through no fault of their own in poverty
and ignorance. You think that's not true...or at least you seem to when
you state
"This is America, and anyone can succeed, if they try."
What about people who have failure so deeply ingrained that they don't
know that success is possible? They don't know how to try. (Jeez, it's
only you that can make me (of all people!) sound liberal) What about a
child born homeless, never attending school, never learning to read?
What if that kid is very gifted, but disadvantaged? Imagine that she
goes to school for the first time at age 12 and begins remedial courses
in all subjects and get to the eighth grade level by the time she's
eighteen. She's done pretty well. She can't stay in high school
because that's not how they're set up. Should she go flip burgers, or
should she be tested differently and admitted to a college where she can
get extra help and maybe eventually go on to cure cancer? Or maybe even
just provide a role model of success through scholarship?
> > > Most colleges *don't* prepare most people for the real world. I have
> > > seen this many times, my classes with professors that have never had a
> > > real job in the profession they are teaching, etc. The closest I came to
> > > the real world was the technical courses I took. All the other classes
> > > were not.
> >
> > It is unclear whether you are saying that this is a good or bad thing.
> > Maybe you're just saying that since you got screwed out of adequate
> > preparation, everyone else should be too. I'm really not sure.
>
> Chris, since you seem to be taking this totally on a tangent, I think I
> am through trying to discuss this. I hope your test for every minority
> and sex and orientation and class status do really well, or have society
> collapse on itself.
I can see that you're frustrated with this, but I don't understand. I'm
serious when I don't follow whether you think it's a good thing that
colleges don't prepare students for the work world. I can see arguments
for both sides of this issue.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Heartlessly snipped, as usual
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> I can see that you're frustrated with this, but I don't understand. I'm
> serious when I don't follow whether you think it's a good thing that
> colleges don't prepare students for the work world. I can see arguments
> for both sides of this issue.
I guess I'm mostly with Chris on this one.
Scott, you raise some valid points about flaws in the current system.
But short of scrapping the whole notion of regulating how colleges admit
people, which is my solution, and which is something which, as a
conventional conservative, you'd presumably be against, I don't see
where you've offered any alternatives to fix things.
Since we're stuck with publicly funded schools for some time to come, I
guess I'd take a two track approach. Advocate abolishing them on one
track, yes, but on the other, try to do whatever fixing we can. Testing
kids in a variety of different ways, with the goal being to predict
whether they will do well in a school, said school having been realigned
to try to focus on what is important to learn to prepare for success in
future life, seems a good idea to me.
And if we trot out a battery of tests that all tell us more (and
different) things about students than the SAT does, that has to be good.
Now, what it means to prepare for success is a different question. The
classical liberal education arguably produces more well rounded citizens
than a 100% practically oriented "vocational" approach. Engineers need
to be able to write complete sentences, and literature majors need to
know a bit about how electricity works, in my opinion.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Now, what it means to prepare for success is a different question. The
> classical liberal education arguably produces more well rounded citizens
> than a 100% practically oriented "vocational" approach. Engineers need
> to be able to write complete sentences, and literature majors need to
> know a bit about how electricity works, in my opinion.
My college education (at the first "engineering" college in the US
(world?) - Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) certainly focused on a well
rounded education. We were required to effectively take one humanities
or social sciences class every semester, plus many engineering classes
put emphasis on writing papers (with proper spelling and grammar) and
giving presentations. They also started to implement a writing standard
(I took a writing test which I think for later classes was going to
determine if students needed to take an "english 101" class).
Oh, for those who think that industry would be unable to educate people
in a manner which would be more that just producing wage slaves, one
might look into the history of RPI. Stephen van Rensselaer set up
several schools to teach the locals.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry & all,
This whole set of posting is off from what I am arguing about, which is
affirmative action. I think discrimination, on anyone, is wrong, in the
context of jobs, education, etc. If we test people, shouldn't everyone
take the same tests? We should all be under the same rules. making
tests easier / different simply because of the pigment in your skin is
wrong. If minorities can't seem to handle a test like the ACT, then the
schools they go to are horrible, that is why I am for school choice, so
parents can decide the track their kids can go. I am all for education,
finding the best people, and helping out as many individuals as a market
friendly environment can.
However, this is not the issue here (And everyone has been jumping on me
because of these tests, etc.). This entire thread is getting me more
upset, and I am trying to avoid it. This whole testing thing, IMO, is
another way to go besides affirmative action, and I think it is wrong.
If you want to address this, fine, I am not going to debate testing
techniques because that isn't what my issue is.
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Heartlessly snipped, as usual
>
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> > I can see that you're frustrated with this, but I don't understand.
Nobody ever does, so why do I try?
> > I'm
> > serious when I don't follow whether you think it's a good thing that
> > colleges don't prepare students for the work world. I can see arguments
> > for both sides of this issue.
>
> I guess I'm mostly with Chris on this one.
>
> Scott, you raise some valid points about flaws in the current system.
>
> But short of scrapping the whole notion of regulating how colleges admit
> people, which is my solution,
Yes, mine as well, but does it matter? Maybe we should should all fall
lockstep with the left, because to suggest otherwise causes so many
problems, like this thread.
> and which is something which, as a
> conventional conservative,
I am NOT a conventional conservative. I am who I am.
> you'd presumably be against, I don't see
> where you've offered any alternatives to fix things.
No, I agreed with you, but I think everything is so flawed now, what
does it matter? Nothing is going to change outside of a revolution. My
alternative doesn't matter, because it will never happen, and everyone
thinks it is wrong anyhow.
> Since we're stuck with publicly funded schools for some time to come, I
> guess I'd take a two track approach. Advocate abolishing them on one
> track, yes, but on the other, try to do whatever fixing we can. Testing
> kids in a variety of different ways, with the goal being to predict
> whether they will do well in a school, said school having been realigned
> to try to focus on what is important to learn to prepare for success in
> future life, seems a good idea to me.
Yes, but the issue here isn't that, is it? It is adopting tests
targeting minorities to get them in, which is wrong IMO. If we want to
include leadership potential, etc. in tests to see if people can make
it, according to the college, fine. Everyone should take it, to get a
better idea of how people operate.
> And if we trot out a battery of tests that all tell us more (and
> different) things about students than the SAT does, that has to be good.
Yes. For everyone.
> Now, what it means to prepare for success is a different question. The
> classical liberal education arguably produces more well rounded citizens
> than a 100% practically oriented "vocational" approach. Engineers need
> to be able to write complete sentences, and literature majors need to
> know a bit about how electricity works, in my opinion.
I have nothing against a blending with a liberal arts and technical
areas. I don't know where this came from. From my experience, college
has been nothing more, outside of my technical and a few liberal arts,
to be a politically left indoctrination center, with classes so biased
it would make centralists blush.
As I have said before, my issue is not with testing, it is with
affirmative action, and the thought that minorities are too stupid to
take certain tests. I have a problem with that, simply because there are
stupid and smart people in every race, culture, etc.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> As I have said before, my issue is not with testing, it is with
> affirmative action, and the thought that minorities are too stupid to
> take certain tests. I have a problem with that, simply because there are
> stupid and smart people in every race, culture, etc.
Ok, if the only discussion is about affirmative action, tell me, do you
believe that currently blacks and women as general classes of people
have the same opportunities as white males as a general class of people?
If you do, then what is your explanation for why women and blacks get
paid less for the same jobs, and blacks in particular are
underrepresented in better paying jobs, as a percentage of blacks?
If the reason is that their families don't step up to the plate to
properly encourage them, what is your proposal to give the kids the
opportunities their parents don't?
Also, please explain how these minorities can overcome the long history
of being treated as less capable? I think this DOES have an impact. I
think the greatest indicator for success is the level of success of
one's parents. If one's parents (or their parents, or their parents)
were slaves (in the case of blacks), how do you expect to break the
chain WITHOUT doing something for them that you don't do for whites?
And don't just answer that affirmative action is bad. You need to
propose solutions, or explain how your world view results in a better
system, or explain why the problems of minorities aren't real.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> > As I have said before, my issue is not with testing, it is with
> > affirmative action, and the thought that minorities are too stupid to
> > take certain tests. I have a problem with that, simply because there are
> > stupid and smart people in every race, culture, etc.
>
> Ok, if the only discussion is about affirmative action, tell me, do you
> believe that currently blacks and women as general classes of people
> have the same opportunities as white males as a general class of people?
Some do and some don't, just like everyone else. It depends on their
life choices, etc.
> If you do, then what is your explanation for why women and blacks get
> paid less for the same jobs,
That is debatable, but if they get paid less, that's something for the
EEOC to look at.
> and blacks in particular are
> underrepresented in better paying jobs, as a percentage of blacks?
To who? Does every job category have to have x this, y that, etc.? What
do you want, Frank?
> If the reason is that their families don't step up to the plate to
> properly encourage them, what is your proposal to give the kids the
> opportunities their parents don't?
People that aren't responsible enough to raise their children should not
have children. I chose not to have kids.
> Also, please explain how these minorities can overcome the long history
> of being treated as less capable?
There are so many opportunities out there for everyone, I have seen it
time and time again. I don't treat anyone as less capable, I work with
minorities in many different jobs, so I know they are smart enough to do
anything. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of stupid white people
out there.
> I think this DOES have an impact.
Well, I can't change human behaviors, I can only act and influence
others. I don't, I think it is stupid for people to do that.
> I
> think the greatest indicator for success is the level of success of
> one's parents. If one's parents (or their parents, or their parents)
> were slaves (in the case of blacks), how do you expect to break the
> chain WITHOUT doing something for them that you don't do for whites?
Slavery ended, what, about 150 (give or take) ago? There are programs
out there, go to Flint, Michigan, and ask. I know there are. What do
suggest, BTW, Frank?
> And don't just answer that affirmative action is bad. You need to
> propose solutions, or explain how your world view results in a better
> system, or explain why the problems of minorities aren't real.
It is bad, it is racist, and goes against everything this country stands
for. What proposal could I provide that you would like, Frank? Nothing
matters here, if it goes against the leftist mentality, no one likes it.
I never said there are no problems for minorities, but there are
numerous problems that everyone, including minorities, that they do
themselves. Looking strictly at quotas and others, IMO, are bad, whether
you like it or not. Until we can really look at the problems and issues,
I will think that, I don't have a perfect solution, but I know one
thing. Affirmative action benefits mostly white females. We need to look
at the program, and decide what to do with it. Most court cases are
ruling against it, and I think it is a good thing. Racism, even against
"evil white males", is wrong, and should not be supported.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
>
> Frank Filz wrote:
> >
> > Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> > > As I have said before, my issue is not with testing, it is with
> > > affirmative action, and the thought that minorities are too stupid to
> > > take certain tests. I have a problem with that, simply because there are
> > > stupid and smart people in every race, culture, etc.
> >
> > Ok, if the only discussion is about affirmative action, tell me, do you
> > believe that currently blacks and women as general classes of people
> > have the same opportunities as white males as a general class of people?
>
> Some do and some don't, just like everyone else. It depends on their
> life choices, etc.
Your evading the question. I asked about "disadvantaged" minorities as
classes. I am quite aware that INDIVIDUALS of every "disadvantaged"
minority have been extremely successeful. My question is do you think
that blacks as a whole have the (roughly) same opportunities as white
males as a whole? Answer the question.
> > If you do, then what is your explanation for why women and blacks get
> > paid less for the same jobs,
>
> That is debatable, but if they get paid less, that's something for the
> EEOC to look at.
Of course from a Libertarian perspective the EEOC shouldn't exist, but
we aren't arguing what should happen in a Libertopia since in a
Libertopia, companies are free to chose their employees however they
wish to.
> > and blacks in particular are
> > underrepresented in better paying jobs, as a percentage of blacks?
>
> To who? Does every job category have to have x this, y that, etc.? What
> do you want, Frank?
No. I don't expect perfect equity, but until the current disadvantaged
minorities are mostly equally represented in all tiers of jobs,
individuals are going to have more problems than individual white males.
How often have you been stopped by a cop because he thought you didn't
belong where you are? How often does that happen to blacks (or do you
think they're just making up stories when they are surveyed and found to
ON AVERAGE have been stopped by a cop for no apparent reason)?
> > If the reason is that their families don't step up to the plate to
> > properly encourage them, what is your proposal to give the kids the
> > opportunities their parents don't?
>
> People that aren't responsible enough to raise their children should not
> have children. I chose not to have kids.
What do we do with the kids which do happen? Do we just consign them to
become criminals? Do you want to be spending as much money on prisons as
we do? Why are blacks overwhelmingly represented in prison?
> > Also, please explain how these minorities can overcome the long history
> > of being treated as less capable?
>
> There are so many opportunities out there for everyone, I have seen it
> time and time again. I don't treat anyone as less capable, I work with
> minorities in many different jobs, so I know they are smart enough to do
> anything. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of stupid white people
> out there.
>
> > I think this DOES have an impact.
>
> Well, I can't change human behaviors, I can only act and influence
> others. I don't, I think it is stupid for people to do that.
>
> > I
> > think the greatest indicator for success is the level of success of
> > one's parents. If one's parents (or their parents, or their parents)
> > were slaves (in the case of blacks), how do you expect to break the
> > chain WITHOUT doing something for them that you don't do for whites?
>
> Slavery ended, what, about 150 (give or take) ago? There are programs
> out there, go to Flint, Michigan, and ask. I know there are. What do
> suggest, BTW, Frank?
Of course things like the Jim Crow laws were only abolished 30-40 years
ago, so the majority of blacks who are in the job market, who grew up in
the south, have parents who were constrained by the Jim Crow laws.
What kind of "programs" are their in Flint MI, and what makes them ok,
and the alternate testing not ok?
> > And don't just answer that affirmative action is bad. You need to
> > propose solutions, or explain how your world view results in a better
> > system, or explain why the problems of minorities aren't real.
>
> It is bad, it is racist, and goes against everything this country stands
> for. What proposal could I provide that you would like, Frank? Nothing
> matters here, if it goes against the leftist mentality, no one likes it.
> I never said there are no problems for minorities, but there are
> numerous problems that everyone, including minorities, that they do
> themselves. Looking strictly at quotas and others, IMO, are bad, whether
> you like it or not. Until we can really look at the problems and issues,
> I will think that, I don't have a perfect solution, but I know one
> thing. Affirmative action benefits mostly white females. We need to look
> at the program, and decide what to do with it. Most court cases are
> ruling against it, and I think it is a good thing. Racism, even against
> "evil white males", is wrong, and should not be supported.
I happen to think quotas are bad also. I think looking at alternate ways
to determine if someone is qualified is good though. What colleges and
employers want is qualified people. If the system gives them qualified
people, what is wrong with it? If a given "test" gives an advantage to
white males (because it tests things that their background prepares them
for better), isn't that discriminatory also?
Yes, we do need to "really look at the problems". I see the colleges
doing so. I see most anti-affirmative action people sticking their head
in the sand.
And don't say that "...if it goes against the leftist mentality, no one
likes it." Look at the history of my debating here, and you will find
that I am not a "leftist" (unless having Libertarian ideals and
believing that the 2nd amendment does give individuals the right to own
guns [though I do happen to agree with some of the ideas of gun control,
I want something to try and assure that someone who owns a gun is
responsible] is leftist these days). Of course I guess I'm a liberal
Libertarian. As far as I see, a Libertopia does not infringe on MY right
to encourage liberal thinking, so long as I don't force you to pay for
my ideas. If liberals came to realize that, I think we would find
ourselves very quickly moving towards Libertopia.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> How often have you been stopped by a cop because he thought you didn't
> belong where you are? How often does that happen to blacks (or do you
> think they're just making up stories when they are surveyed and found to
> ON AVERAGE have been stopped by a cop for no apparent reason)?
Driving around with a black woman in my car sure revealed this. Suddenly I
started getting stopped for fix-it tickets. My favorite was when they noted a
broken light on the far side of the car that they couldn't see when they turned
on their lights. DWB: Driving While Black.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Frank Filz wrote:
> >
> > Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> > > As I have said before, my issue is not with testing, it is with
> > > affirmative action, and the thought that minorities are too stupid to
> > > take certain tests. I have a problem with that, simply because there are
> > > stupid and smart people in every race, culture, etc.
> >
> > Ok, if the only discussion is about affirmative action, tell me, do you
> > believe that currently blacks and women as general classes of people
> > have the same opportunities as white males as a general class of people?
>
> Some do and some don't, just like everyone else. It depends on their
> life choices, etc.
PURE BS there, Scott. Averaged across the board, women get paid less for the SAME work as
men (less at the higher end all the way do to minimum wage, the only equalizer). You are so
unbelievably wrong if you think it is the women's fault they get paid 60% of men's pay for
the same work.
Funny, women (and blacks) have to pay the same amount for their education as white males
(assuming at the same school of course, and ignoring any scholarships/grants), so why
shouldn't they be paid the same for the same position?
> > If you do, then what is your explanation for why women and blacks get
> > paid less for the same jobs,
>
> That is debatable, but if they get paid less, that's something for the
> EEOC to look at.
That is debatable?? You've been listening to Rush too long, bub.
> People that aren't responsible enough to raise their children should not
> have children. I chose not to have kids.
What a CROCK OF S$%&. You are being an unbelievable jerk with this statement. Unless you
are going to tell me you can see into the future and know your life situation EXACTLY in 10
years, I'm leaning more towards too much Rush here. People can be quite well off, have kids,
fall on hard times, and not have the resources to properly give those kids the preparation
for college. Is it their fault their environment changed beyond their control? I suppose if
you ever fall on hard times yourself, you will say it is all your fault, even if the cause
was totally beyond your control? I doubt it.
> > Also, please explain how these minorities can overcome the long history
> > of being treated as less capable?
>
> There are so many opportunities out there for everyone, I have seen it
> time and time again. I don't treat anyone as less capable, I work with
> minorities in many different jobs, so I know they are smart enough to do
> anything. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of stupid white people
> out there.
Agreed, and if society as a whole treated people equally, we wouldn't have this problem.
Guess what - it DOESN'T. You seem to think affirmative action is wrong because YOU treat
everyone equally, and gosh, doesn't that mean everyone else will too? Dream on. Too much
time has to pass, and transitions have to be made, before that will happen. And "the
oppressive RBAMs" (of which I am) are obviously not the only problem here. Let's imagine
that every single person in the world woke up tomorrow and treated everyone else equally no
matter their race. Pay was equalized for races/sexes. Hoorah, the world is all
equal!.....let me intrude with some reality in this dream - humans seem to thrive on "I'm
better than THEM, THEY'RE different". I'm quite sure (I'd be willing to bet money on it)
that the "new discrimination" would be religion or something else picked out of thin air. In
the current world, People (note the caps, as in People In General) NEED something to
differentiate themselves from others.
So until we transition to Enlightenment, there will ALWAYS be an imbalance of one group over
another (pick the Groups of the Month).
> > And don't just answer that affirmative action is bad. You need to
> > propose solutions, or explain how your world view results in a better
> > system, or explain why the problems of minorities aren't real.
>
> It is bad, it is racist, and goes against everything this country stands
> for. What proposal could I provide that you would like, Frank? Nothing
> matters here, if it goes against the leftist mentality, no one likes it.
> I never said there are no problems for minorities, but there are
> numerous problems that everyone, including minorities, that they do
> themselves. Looking strictly at quotas and others, IMO, are bad, whether
> you like it or not. Until we can really look at the problems and issues,
> I will think that, I don't have a perfect solution, but I know one
> thing. Affirmative action benefits mostly white females. We need to look
> at the program, and decide what to do with it. Most court cases are
> ruling against it, and I think it is a good thing. Racism, even against
> "evil white males", is wrong, and should not be supported.
BTW, even with all my disagreeing above, I will note that I also chose not to have kids (I
don't deem myself responsible enough to deal with kids for the rest of my life, and simply
don't have the temperament for them), and I think Affirmative Action is also a crock. But I
can't think of anything else to transition, except...
My fix? Even more scholarships to "the oppressed". Of course, the problem is that white
males are suing, screaming unfairness in minority only scholarships. I think that is a crock
too. They are scholarships, often privately funded, they should be able to have any rules
they want on them (even if that means I or someone I know misses/missed out on them).
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Frank raises some good points. But if I am careful I will find myself
disagreeing with him...
I think it would be naiive in the extreme to say that past history has
not seen injustice suffered by some groups at the hands of others. Name
an ethnicity/religious group/creed/you name it, and if you root around
you'll find some other group that oppressed them, and some other group
that they oppressed. No group can survive that scrutiny.
But, and I ask this question innocently, is there an obligation for us
to atone for the wrongs of our ancestors, across the board, without some
proof of direct culpability? I don't think that in general, that's the
case. (if my father robbed you personally, and I benefited from the
spoils even though it happened before I was born, it's legit to come
after me for redress, since I inherited everything when he died... but
don't ask me, a latecomer to this country, to make up for the 24 dollars
worth of beads deal that got Manhattan for the dutch, if you see what
I'm saying)
And that is the argument against affirmative action. Discrimination by
public facilities is wrong, and you can't fix it by discriminating in
the other direction later.
But Frank is right. To merely rail against AA without saying how you
would improve the lot of those that have been unjustly discriminated
against may not be the best way to argue against it.
So what can we offer in its stead?
We can offer the promise that we will not allow discrimination by public
facilities. Ever. Period.
We can offer the promise that we will not allow artificial barriers to
entry to arise that would prevent healthy competition from effectively
checking discrimination by private facilities.
We can offer the promise that we will not let public charity money, with
its stifling bureacracies, chase out good and healthy private charities
which successfully work to help people who currently are struggling to
better themselves.
We can offer the promise that we will allow lots of schools to flourish
without subsidising some at the expense of others.
We can offer the promise that we will enable lots of different
mechanisms to predict how well students will do in school, so that lots
of different schools can arise and use lots of different techniques to
reach children who may not come from the homogenised whitebread culture,
but who nevertheless have to figure out how to succeed in it.
And we can ensure that everyone is afforded equal protection under the
law. Justice must be blind.
Will that be enough? I believe so, but I might be wrong. Certainly what
we have now seems to be fostering a permanent underclass. We have lost
the Great Society War on Poverty, just as we have lost the War on Drugs.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
To all,
I am not the most articulate person in the world, but what Larry said
is dead on.
Scott S.
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Frank raises some good points. But if I am careful I will find myself
> disagreeing with him...
>
> I think it would be naiive in the extreme to say that past history has
> not seen injustice suffered by some groups at the hands of others. Name
> an ethnicity/religious group/creed/you name it, and if you root around
> you'll find some other group that oppressed them, and some other group
> that they oppressed. No group can survive that scrutiny.
>
> But, and I ask this question innocently, is there an obligation for us
> to atone for the wrongs of our ancestors, across the board, without some
> proof of direct culpability? I don't think that in general, that's the
> case. (if my father robbed you personally, and I benefited from the
> spoils even though it happened before I was born, it's legit to come
> after me for redress, since I inherited everything when he died... but
> don't ask me, a latecomer to this country, to make up for the 24 dollars
> worth of beads deal that got Manhattan for the dutch, if you see what
> I'm saying)
>
> And that is the argument against affirmative action. Discrimination by
> public facilities is wrong, and you can't fix it by discriminating in
> the other direction later.
>
> But Frank is right. To merely rail against AA without saying how you
> would improve the lot of those that have been unjustly discriminated
> against may not be the best way to argue against it.
>
> So what can we offer in its stead?
>
> We can offer the promise that we will not allow discrimination by public
> facilities. Ever. Period.
>
> We can offer the promise that we will not allow artificial barriers to
> entry to arise that would prevent healthy competition from effectively
> checking discrimination by private facilities.
>
> We can offer the promise that we will not let public charity money, with
> its stifling bureacracies, chase out good and healthy private charities
> which successfully work to help people who currently are struggling to
> better themselves.
>
> We can offer the promise that we will allow lots of schools to flourish
> without subsidising some at the expense of others.
>
> We can offer the promise that we will enable lots of different
> mechanisms to predict how well students will do in school, so that lots
> of different schools can arise and use lots of different techniques to
> reach children who may not come from the homogenised whitebread culture,
> but who nevertheless have to figure out how to succeed in it.
>
> And we can ensure that everyone is afforded equal protection under the
> law. Justice must be blind.
>
> Will that be enough? I believe so, but I might be wrong. Certainly what
> we have now seems to be fostering a permanent underclass. We have lost
> the Great Society War on Poverty, just as we have lost the War on Drugs.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
> http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
>
> To all,
>
> I am not the most articulate person in the world, but what Larry said
> is dead on.
So are you saying that in Libertopia, the LEGO test for some people and
the SAT for others is ok (Larry said that using different tests for
different people and different schools is ok, both implicitly in this
most recent post, and more explicitly in another, now perhaps he meant
that each school must only use one test, not one for some people and
another for other people, but that's not what I read), but in today's
system it isn't? What makes it ok in Libertopia, but not ok in today's
system (and is there a difference between public universities and
private)?
Just trying to clarify what we're actually arguing about. I'm not sure
that we aren't just arguing about how we get from here to Libertopia. If
that's the issue, I think it might actually be beneficial for us to
actually have different areas move towards Libertopia in different ways,
it might help prevent some people from accidentally falling off the road
(because some of the things that people have argued as problems with
Libertopia are I think possible hazzards of the road, but not hazzards
once we get there).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> (because some of the things that people have argued as problems with
> Libertopia are I think possible hazzards of the road, but not hazzards
> once we get there).
Certainly a lot of my concerns about it fall into this category, I just want to
make sure that the road isn't a suspension bridge during high wind, and that we
aren't travelling in a high-sided vehicle!
Richard
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Frank raises some good points. But if I am careful I will find myself
> disagreeing with him...
Well, for what it's worth, I don't disagree with any of what you say
below, though I suspect that in a Libertopia, we might find ourselves
supporting some different causes. That's fine with me, I don't expect
everyone to have the same interests as I do.
> But, and I ask this question innocently, is there an obligation for us
> to atone for the wrongs of our ancestors, across the board, without some
> proof of direct culpability? I don't think that in general, that's the
> case. (if my father robbed you personally, and I benefited from the
> spoils even though it happened before I was born, it's legit to come
> after me for redress, since I inherited everything when he died... but
> don't ask me, a latecomer to this country, to make up for the 24 dollars
> worth of beads deal that got Manhattan for the dutch, if you see what
> I'm saying)
I'm curious as to what we might do to address the situation of the
Native Americans who we repeatedly broke treaties with, and ignored our
own Supreme Court rulings to shove into the most undesireable corners in
the country (and then moved them again when suddenly gold or oil was
discovered on the land we "gave" to them). I have to admit that I'm at a
loss as to how to do something within the bounds of Libertarianism. It
seems to me something is due, but I can't see how to do it without
either opening up a boundless can of worms, or forcing people like your
family who arrived in this country after most of the damage was done, to
pay for it. Perhaps we could give them the National Parks or something.
Obviously the main thing would be to depend on individuals to decide
their on their own if they have some responsibility, and to donate money
to the cause.
*snip*
> Will that be enough? I believe so, but I might be wrong. Certainly what
> we have now seems to be fostering a permanent underclass. We have lost
> the Great Society War on Poverty, just as we have lost the War on Drugs.
Of course we will never eliminate the underclass. I do not believe ANY
society which can be remotely successeful will generate the same income
for everyone, and thus there will always be an underclass. There will
probably even always be a percentage of people who can never escape that
underclass. What I hope we can eventually achieve though is that that
underclass (with the exception of a small number of true slackers) will
be able to have a sufficiently good life that they don't become
criminals because they have so much more to gain than they have to
loose.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > Frank raises some good points. But if I am careful I will find myself
> > disagreeing with him...
>
> Well, for what it's worth, I don't disagree with any of what you say
> below, though I suspect that in a Libertopia, we might find ourselves
> supporting some different causes. That's fine with me, I don't expect
> everyone to have the same interests as I do.
Agreed. I expect Libertopia to be a GREAT place to start a commune, for
example. No pesky laws about how many unmarried people can live in the
same place to get in the way (although you may have to find a property
not already encumbered with deed covenants).
> > But, and I ask this question innocently, is there an obligation for us
> > to atone for the wrongs of our ancestors, across the board, without some
> > proof of direct culpability? I don't think that in general, that's the
> > case. (if my father robbed you personally, and I benefited from the
> > spoils even though it happened before I was born, it's legit to come
> > after me for redress, since I inherited everything when he died... but
> > don't ask me, a latecomer to this country, to make up for the 24 dollars
> > worth of beads deal that got Manhattan for the dutch, if you see what
> > I'm saying)
>
> I'm curious as to what we might do to address the situation of the
> Native Americans who we repeatedly broke treaties with, and ignored our
> own Supreme Court rulings to shove into the most undesireable corners in
> the country (and then moved them again when suddenly gold or oil was
> discovered on the land we "gave" to them). I have to admit that I'm at a
> loss as to how to do something within the bounds of Libertarianism. It
> seems to me something is due, but I can't see how to do it without
> either opening up a boundless can of worms, or forcing people like your
> family who arrived in this country after most of the damage was done, to
> pay for it. Perhaps we could give them the National Parks or something.
> Obviously the main thing would be to depend on individuals to decide
> their on their own if they have some responsibility, and to donate money
> to the cause.
Again, agreed. This IS a thorny problem. You'll recall that I previously
posed the question of how one could reconcile a desire to not have
entangling alliances and not be the world's policeman with the clear and
pressing need to put Hitler in his place that very justifiably saw us
participate in WW2. I didn't have an answer to that question and I don't
have an answer to the question of how to make it up to the Indians for
what we as a nation did. Clearly our current approach via the BIA isn't
working.
I would offer two things: first, we need to go and undo the most
egregious usurpations of property where we can untangle what was done,
and second, we need to allow Indian nations to BE soverign nations as we
promised. That means that if an Indian nation comes up with an
innovative way to raise money such as enabling casinos, selling cigs
free of tax or any one of a hundred other mechanisms, our current
approachs of allowing only some and regulating the rest must be replaced
with a hands off approach.
> *snip*
>
> > Will that be enough? I believe so, but I might be wrong. Certainly what
> > we have now seems to be fostering a permanent underclass. We have lost
> > the Great Society War on Poverty, just as we have lost the War on Drugs.
>
> Of course we will never eliminate the underclass. I do not believe ANY
> society which can be remotely successeful will generate the same income
> for everyone, and thus there will always be an underclass. There will
> probably even always be a percentage of people who can never escape that
> underclass. What I hope we can eventually achieve though is that that
> underclass (with the exception of a small number of true slackers) will
> be able to have a sufficiently good life that they don't become
> criminals because they have so much more to gain than they have to
> loose.
We will always have winners and losers. What we must strive to avoid are
*permanent* underclasses. Heirs must have the right to drink themselves
to poverty if they wish but when THEIR children come to their senses we
must not prevent them from working ther way back up.
Long term, if a society has a flux of people moving up and down, that's
OK. If it becomes stratified, that is not OK.
Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations, as the saying goes.
To Bruce: DWB is symptomatic of some of our current society's greatest
problems. The fact that racial profiling works (and it does work as a
statistical predictor... despite that, it's wrong anyway) means that we
have indeed created a permanent underclass who have almost no escape
available except for the drug trade... and who then get busted and put
in jail disproportionately. That stinks.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <389A0E53.92149830@voyager.net>...
> Again, agreed. This IS a thorny problem. You'll recall that I previously
> posed the question of how one could reconcile a desire to not have
> entangling alliances and not be the world's policeman with the clear and
> pressing need to put Hitler in his place that very justifiably saw us
> participate in WW2.
Of course to some extent, private enterprise would probably end up involving
itself if a another Hitler (oh well, we've lost the debate again) came along
and a Libertopia existed. I suspect enough corporations, individuals, and
other organizations would recognize that their own interests in the United
States of Libertopia were threatened that they would raise an army which
would kick butt (sidestepping the issue of whether anyone's butts were
saved) just as well as we did in WW II. In fact there were private
organizations involving themselves (there is an associated organization to
my religious denomination which got its start helping Jews and others escape
Nazi Germany). I also think that the level of our response when it became
clear that the nation needed to get involved is an example that the
involvement would happen (I'm sure there were dissenters, but I think far
fewer than in any war since, and the whole nation pulled together [for the
most part] to create a single economic machine which poured weapons and
supplies into the fray). I think this occured because we collectively
recognized that our basic freedoms were at stake. I think this happened to a
lesser extent with the Gulf War (while oil was a major part of why we
bothered to get involved, I think the average person supported the war
because it was clear that allowing one country to just up an annex another
country was ultimately a danger to us, and certainly not playing fair). I
also see nothing wrong with involving ourselves if imported goods which we
are dependant on get threatened, however the method of involvement probably
should not be a government issue (until it is clear that our national
sovereignity is at stake).
> I didn't have an answer to that question and I don't
> have an answer to the question of how to make it up to the Indians for
> what we as a nation did. Clearly our current approach via the BIA isn't
> working.
> I would offer two things: first, we need to go and undo the most
> egregious usurpations of property where we can untangle what was done,
> and second, we need to allow Indian nations to BE soverign nations as we
> promised. That means that if an Indian nation comes up with an
> innovative way to raise money such as enabling casinos, selling cigs
> free of tax or any one of a hundred other mechanisms, our current
> approachs of allowing only some and regulating the rest must be replaced
> with a hands off approach.
Of course in Libertopia, one would be able to run casinos, sell cigs, or
whatever without government regulation. I suspect many Native Americans
would end up chosing to be part of the US if we were a Libertopia.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Frank Filz wrote:
> > I would offer two things: first, we need to go and undo the most
> > egregious usurpations of property where we can untangle what was done,
> > and second, we need to allow Indian nations to BE soverign nations as we
> > promised. That means that if an Indian nation comes up with an
> > innovative way to raise money such as enabling casinos, selling cigs
> > free of tax or any one of a hundred other mechanisms, our current
> > approachs of allowing only some and regulating the rest must be replaced
> > with a hands off approach.
>
> Of course in Libertopia, one would be able to run casinos, sell cigs, or
> whatever without government regulation. I suspect many Native Americans
> would end up chosing to be part of the US if we were a Libertopia.
Maybe, and maybe not. If they wanted not to be that would be OK.
But in my paragraph above I was talking about things that we need to do
right now, and that we need to do whether or not we are transitioning
toward a libertopia or not... because we have really been jerks when it
comes to honoring our agreements with the sovereign nations on this
continent that we displaced.
That's my opinion, anyway.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> I think discrimination, on anyone, is wrong
So if the ACT is discriminatory in favor of wealth or whiteness, then
it's wrong? Fine. I agree.
What about the more complex situation where it's a fairly good predictor
of success for white males of middle class or greater, but not for
others? What's the solution when looking for fairness?
> If we test people, shouldn't everyone
> take the same tests?
No. Not if the single test is not a valid predictor for some groups.
> making
> tests easier / different simply because of the pigment in your skin is
> wrong.
Well, we're in luck because that's not what's happening. First, you
seem to be operating under the assumption that alternative testing is
easier. That is probably not so. I'd want to analyze some numbers to
be sure, but I bet that's not the goal at all. Second, the pigment in
skin is a non issue. Race is a make-believe construct. (For clarity,
sex is not.) It is almost impossible to plausibly correlate anything in
educational psychology to skin color. It is very easy to correlate
success, drive, education, etc to socio-economic status.
> If minorities can't seem to handle a test like the ACT, then the
> schools they go to are horrible,
I want to be sure that you are saying what I think you're saying. You
are certain that if minorities score worse than white males on the ACT,
that the only possible explanation is poor schooling? What about in
exemplary schools? What if the stats still hold true?
What if it's not just a matter of higher v. lower scores for certain
populations, but (as in reality) that the test is a good predictor of
success (that is, that it correlates well with college GPA) for some
identifiable groups, but not for others. It is just plain obvious that
it's a useful tool for those in the first group and a stupid tool for
the others.
I even agree with you (if this is what you think) that a single
instrument would be better than multiple ones if it were equally valid
for all subjects. It would certainly make the stats easier to analyze.
But no such universally valid instrument has come forward.
> that is why I am for school choice, so
> parents can decide the track their kids can go. I am all for education,
> finding the best people, and helping out as many individuals as a market
> friendly environment can.
Me too. It just seems that you're only in favor of finding and helping
people who have an affinity for one particular kind of assessment
instrument. Why? What philosophical justification exists for holding
the ACT (or any other test) above others. Or even for holding a single
testing method - when it is essentially proven that people think, learn,
and perform in substantially different mental methods - over multiple
testing methods?
> However, this is not the issue here (And everyone has been jumping on me
Actually it is. You can tell by the fact that this is the issue we're
arguing about.
> This whole testing thing, IMO, is
> another way to go besides affirmative action, and I think it is wrong.
What do you mean when you say "go besides?" To essentially have a
program of affirmative action, but hide in legal mumbo jumbo?
I don't think that's what is happening. All a college cares about is
finding people who will succeed and spend money at their school. And
advertising as an indirect form of the above.
> Yes, but the issue here isn't that, is it? It is adopting tests
> targeting minorities to get them in,
Which part of the article indicates that the purpose is to get
minorities admitted? I thought it was to select people missed by the
normal selection process.
> > And if we trot out a battery of tests that all tell us more (and
> > different) things about students than the SAT does, that has to be good.
>
> Yes. For everyone.
Yes, but the more we assess, the more it costs. And believe me, it
costs a great deal. For many people, a single simple instrument is
sufficient to determine that they'll succeed. For those for whom this
is not true, the extra expense may be justified. Would it satisfy you
if the opportunity to participate in the extra testing were open to
everyone - even if it weren't the default? That seems like it might
address both sides of the issue.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> Rich Manzo wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> > > In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for
> > > college admission:
> > >
> > > http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
> > >
> > > Originally found on slashdot:
> > >
> > > http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
(major snip)
> Going to college has NOTHING to do with "initiative,
> leadership and an ability to work in groups ". Working in the real
> world deals with these issues, and college is about as removed from
> reality as anything.
This is true, for the most part, and for most majors. However, for
CompSci, at least at my alma mater, there was a "team programming"
course where your grade depended on the output of your team. I think
the architectural students also might have had some team projects, but
I'm not sure.
No argument about the statement that college is far removed from
reality.
--
Susan Hoover
Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Susan Hoover wrote:
> Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
>
> > Rich Manzo wrote:
> > >
> > > In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> > > > In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for
> > > > college admission:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
> > > >
> > > > Originally found on slashdot:
> > > >
> > > > http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
>
>
> (major snip)
>
> > Going to college has NOTHING to do with "initiative,
> > leadership and an ability to work in groups ". Working in the real
> > world deals with these issues, and college is about as removed from
> > reality as anything.
>
> This is true, for the most part, and for most majors. However, for
> CompSci, at least at my alma mater, there was a "team programming"
> course where your grade depended on the output of your team. I think
> the architectural students also might have had some team projects, but
> I'm not sure.
The statement that initiative and leadership, etc., have nothing to do
with going to college is dead wrong. It's not exhibited in college as
often as it should be, and that's part of the reason for the search for
better processes. People who can work in groups while still showing
initiative "succeed" in college--but success in that case may not be
defined as "graduated with a B and got an entry-level job" but rather
"took honours and several other awards, and gained admission to a
top-level graduate school with full funding/attained an entry-level
executive position with multinational corporation X." Success is such a
slippery concept, and not only is it highly subjective but it's subjective
from many different directions at once. That's sort of like "reality,"
come to think of it.
[n.b.: Note also that "success" is being defined by the universities.
That's really the main subjection to consider here.]
> No argument about the statement that college is far removed from
> reality.
It depends on what you want your reality to be. For we academics, it *is*
reality--and I'd argue that institutions of higher learning are
instrumental to creating the realities that everyone says they're somehow
disconnected from. Granted, this is an opinion from inside the ivory
tower, so it's based upon a very self-serving definition of the collegiate
experience.
On the other hand, if you're referring to the actual lived Dionysian
existence of a vast number of undergraduates rather than the actual
purpose of attaining an education, that's a different matter...but that's
also not "college" writ large, in my book. Those things merely signify
extended adolescence and aren't dependent upon the academy.
best
Lindsay
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
<snip>
> Going to college
> has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> college is about as removed from reality as anything.
I have to totally disagree with you here... We work in groups in school
right now, You have to learn the team spirit and how to work in a group
in order to be productive in the REAL world.. Companys don't want people
who are only interested in themselves, they want people who are able to
work with a group to better the company. Maybe it's just my computer
programming/networking major. example... when you're writing a prg you
don't reinvent the wheel, you use other peoples code.. now.. you know
someone else has what you need, and they aren't a "team" player,
wouldn't you be a little more than upset that you have to rewrite that
code... besides the fact your employer wouldn't be to happy about you
taking the extra time... believe me.. that person wouldn't be there very
long.. In this world you're either a team player or you're not.. though
you better damn well learn how to be if you ever want to get anywhere...
and where's the best place to learn that? School.. at least they've
finally gotten one part of education right... Now if they'd just take
that algebra and shove it someplace I'd really be happy...
> Scott S.
>
> Gee imagine if that becomes the new national standard! :) I'd get
> > a scholarship to every school out there!!!! :)
> >
> > -Rich
I'm with ya there Rich! I could use a few of those scholarships!
Tamy
Tired and cranky tonight :(
--
Keep on Bricken'
-Tamy
Follow the bouncing boxes!
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mookie wrote:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Going to college
> > has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> > in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> > college is about as removed from reality as anything.
>
> I have to totally disagree with you here... We work in groups in school
> right now, You have to learn the team spirit and how to work in a group
> in order to be productive in the REAL world.. Companys don't want people
> who are only interested in themselves, they want people who are able to
> work with a group to better the company. Maybe it's just my computer
> programming/networking major. example... when you're writing a prg you
> don't reinvent the wheel, you use other peoples code.. now.. you know
> someone else has what you need, and they aren't a "team" player,
> wouldn't you be a little more than upset that you have to rewrite that
> code... besides the fact your employer wouldn't be to happy about you
> taking the extra time... believe me.. that person wouldn't be there very
> long.. In this world you're either a team player or you're not.. though
> you better damn well learn how to be if you ever want to get anywhere...
> and where's the best place to learn that? School.. at least they've
> finally gotten one part of education right... Now if they'd just take
> that algebra and shove it someplace I'd really be happy...
To underscore the importance of teamwork, I will also point out that
here at IBM, evaluation of teamwork is roughly 1/3 of our annual
appraisal.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
OK Scott. Somehow I knew that your conservativism would lead you to agree with Rush. I
suppose if Robert Bork said LEGO was a Danish commie plot, you would agree??
Gary Istok
P.S. :-) - Scott was the first AFOL that I ever met, and I like to tease him about his
conservative leanings (not slouching). Especially when I consider myself a political
independent with a "plague on both your houses" attitude about the Republicans and Democrats
(except I kinda like Arizona Republican John McCain). Hey, maybe we should start a LEGO
Political Action Committee (LEGO PAC). So as to promote the political aspirations of
pro-LEGO politicians. :-)
Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> < cross posted to off-topic-debate >
>
> Rich,
>
> Rich Manzo wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> > > In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
> > > admission:
> > >
> > > http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
> > >
> > > Originally found on slashdot:
> > >
> > > http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
> > >
> > > Chris Busse
> >
> > Today on the Rush Limbaugh Program Rush was talking about the above issue.
> > Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a college entry exam.
> > Details about the exam- Students are given a box of Lego. Then they are shown
> > a Lego robot for 1 minute and they have to build the robot to the best of
> > their ability. Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a
> > college entry exam, as am I. but "LEGO is a tool for 4 year olds" I was
> > offended! :)
>
> Hmm... Being a Rush fan and a definite AFOL, I can see the logic of his
> thinking. Testing people on the ability to build anything, regardless of
> how good they might be, is a strange way of testing anyone. If you
> noticed the CNN ( Communist News Network BTW IMO ) article:
>
> "The nine schools in the pilot program will admit a total of 100
> students. The students were chosen in December from a group of 700 New
> York public high school seniors. Most in the pool were African Americans
> and Hispanics who had modest grades and standardized test scores but
> personal qualities that counselors believed would let them succeed at
> selective colleges."
>
> Denver Post:
>
> " Instead of coloring in bubbles with a No. 2 pencil, selected high
> school seniors are snapping together colorful Legos in hopes of
> attending the prestigious private college in Colorado Springs.
>
> The revolutionary test is designed to pinpoint students likely to
> succeed at tough colleges despite below-average standardized
> test scores. The Lego test helps identify initiative, leadership and
> an ability to work in groups - qualities that hours-long ACT and
> SAT tests never quite get at.
>
> CC is participating in the national experiment with eight other
> schools to recruit diverse students who probably wouldn't
> otherwise qualify for admission. The stu dents will be admitted this
> fall.
>
> "This puts more emphasis on hard-tomeasure characteristics and
> less on the standardized tests that frankly have been a stumbling
> block for disadvantaged and minority students," said Terry
> Swenson, CC's admissions dean.
>
> With affirmative-action programs under legal fire, colleges and
> universities are searching for minority admissions procedures that
> can withstand allegations of unfair preferences."
>
> Now, based on these statements of both CNN and the Denver Post, instead
> of testing everyone equally, based on test scores and their high school
> preformance, they are trying to skirt around recent rulings which say
> affirmative action is unlawful, and are trying to find tests that get
> around this issue. This is why the LEGO test is used. Going to college
> has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> college is about as removed from reality as anything.
> Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
> admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
> admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
> with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
> rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
> their test scores.
>
> Rush points out the hypocracy of these admissions, and I am glad someone
> does. As for the four year old toys, I disagree, but that is another
> debate, one we have addressed many times here and other places.
>
> Scott S.
>
>
>
> Gee imagine if that becomes the new national standard! :) I'd get
> > a scholarship to every school out there!!!! :)
> >
> > -Rich
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________________________________
> Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
> Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
> LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
> Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
< cross posted to off-topic-debate and off-topic-fun, Lord knows where
else it should be, maybe off-topic.scott.rant.evil or something? >
Gary,
Gary Istok wrote:
>
> OK Scott. Somehow I knew that your conservativism would lead you to agree with Rush. I
> suppose if Robert Bork said LEGO was a Danish commie plot, you would agree??
I would hope not! I don't like supporting communists, that's for sure!
If it is, boy oh boy, I support them more than my UFCW mandatory
contribution! (1)
> P.S. :-) - Scott was the first AFOL that I ever met, and I like to tease him about his
> conservative leanings (not slouching). Especially when I consider myself a political
> independent with a "plague on both your houses" attitude about the Republicans and Democrats
> (except I kinda like Arizona Republican John McCain). Hey, maybe we should start a LEGO
> Political Action Committee (LEGO PAC). So as to promote the political aspirations of
> pro-LEGO politicians. :-)
Hey, I would support any pro-LEGO candidate, my hope would be a
Republican. LEGO PAC, I like the name of that! Of course, if Bill or Al
came out in favor of them, I might have to switch to Best-Lock or
something. (Shrudder!) ;)
Scott S.
(1) Not much into footnotes, but since I am in Michigan, I have to join
the UFCW for Meijer due to state law, and 99% of their political
contributions go to the DNC (Democratic National Committee). A big pile
of Barbara Streisand, to be sure!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > (except I kinda like Arizona Republican John McCain). Hey, maybe we should
> > start a LEGO
> > Political Action Committee (LEGO PAC). So as to promote the political
> > aspirations of
> > pro-LEGO politicians. :-)
>
> Hey, I would support any pro-LEGO candidate, my hope would be a
> Republican. LEGO PAC, I like the name of that! Of course, if Bill or Al
> came out in favor of them, I might have to switch to Best-Lock or
> something. (Shrudder!) ;)
I'm sure there would be some sort of scandal about the politician taking
money from Danish foreign interests...
...a scandal about LEGO sets being built in the White House...
...and then suddenly LEGO branches into the nuclear arms industry...
Rob
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
It's simple. Rush is very conservative. Conservatives in general do not
like the artistic or creative elements of society, which is what LEGO products
encourage. Conservatives in general also do not favor innovations
in education, (of which this would certainly qualify) dismissing them as
"watering down" without quantitative measurement of the results.
KL
In lugnet.general, Rich Manzo writes:
> In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> > In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
> > admission:
> >
> > http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
> >
> > Originally found on slashdot:
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
> >
> > Chris Busse
>
> Today on the Rush Limbaugh Program Rush was talking about the above issue.
> Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a college entry exam.
> Details about the exam- Students are given a box of Lego. Then they are shown
> a Lego robot for 1 minute and they have to build the robot to the best of
> their ability. Of corse Rush was disgusted that they were using Lego as a
> college entry exam, as am I. but "LEGO is a tool for 4 year olds" I was
> offended! :) Gee imagine if that becomes the new national standard! :) I'd get
> a scholarship to every school out there!!!! :)
>
> -Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin,
Kevin Loch wrote:
>
> It's simple. Rush is very conservative. Conservatives in general do not
> like the artistic or creative elements of society, which is what LEGO products
> encourage.
I am a conservative, and I love the brick. Stereotypes of any trait
don't do justice, one that has been used in debate too much, IMO.
> Conservatives in general also do not favor innovations
> in education, (of which this would certainly qualify) dismissing them as
> "watering down" without quantitative measurement of the results.
Avoiding the law and court ruling is not innovating, IMO. It is ducting
the real issues. "Innovations" of this kind we can do without.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > I am a conservative, and I love the brick. Stereotypes of any trait
> don't do justice, one that has been used in debate too much, IMO.
That's why I said "in general" Obviously there are exceptions, and you
would expect to find them here on LUGNET.
>
> Avoiding the law and court ruling is not innovating, IMO. It is ducting
> the real issues. "Innovations" of this kind we can do without.
I guess we would have to look at the motive. If the motive was in fact
to skirt the law then it's wrong, and probably not going to help anyone.
If however the motive was to select creative underachievers (which I was
in *school*), then it's a brilliant effort. Of course if they don't fix
the rest of the educational process, those creative folks will still
underachieve in class and I'm not sure what the point is.
BTW, my opinion is that the college entrance exams are a joke. Especially
when the average student can boost their scores significantly just by taking
a prep $$$ course. Then, most of the Freshman year is remedial classes
to cover High School material. Heck, the most useful class I took in
High School was *typing*.
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin,
Kevin Loch wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > I am a conservative, and I love the brick. Stereotypes of any trait
> > don't do justice, one that has been used in debate too much, IMO.
>
> That's why I said "in general" Obviously there are exceptions, and you
> would expect to find them here on LUGNET.
> > Avoiding the law and court ruling is not innovating, IMO. It is ducting
> > the real issues. "Innovations" of this kind we can do without.
> I guess we would have to look at the motive. If the motive was in fact
> to skirt the law then it's wrong, and probably not going to help anyone.
That's what the article said, which I mentioned in the quote earlier.
> If however the motive was to select creative underachievers (which I was
> in *school*), then it's a brilliant effort. Of course if they don't fix
> the rest of the educational process, those creative folks will still
> underachieve in class and I'm not sure what the point is.
> BTW, my opinion is that the college entrance exams are a joke. Especially
> when the average student can boost their scores significantly just by taking
> a prep $$$ course. Then, most of the Freshman year is remedial classes
> to cover High School material. Heck, the most useful class I took in
> High School was *typing*.
Mine was probably CAD and drafting classes, along with history.
Again, I think this is just a way to get around the recent court rulings
about affirmative action, that is targeted to Hispanics and African
Americans. Which is both racist, and demeaning to minorities. They
should be encouraged to do well in school, and study for the tests, and
try to aim for the top, rather than going around the issues, and using
tests like this, with other people, to try to get them in. I hope the
court rules these out as well.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
[SNIP]
>
> Again, I think this is just a way to get around the recent court rulings
> about affirmative action, that is targeted to Hispanics and African
> Americans. Which is both racist, and demeaning to minorities. They
> should be encouraged to do well in school, and study for the tests, and
> try to aim for the top, rather than going around the issues, and using
> tests like this, with other people, to try to get them in. I hope the
> court rules these out as well.
Once again, Limbaugh shows his vast ignorance.
These kinds of tests are routinely used by management consulting
firms to test employees to see how well they fit into an
organization.
I've seen them given using LEGO and K'NEX. Usually a model or
a diagram is shown to a group of 4-6 people. They are then given
a pile of parts and told to go to work.
It quickly becomes evident who has the leadership skills, who
can puzzle out the difficult details and subtle mechanisms,
who can spot repetitive patterns and organize the group such
that those patterns are created most effeciently, and, after the
model is ready for test, who is best at troubleshooting it.
It's an interesting and worthwhile approach and a good antidote
to that SAT crap (which, btw, I did pretty well on).
Of course, college isn't much like work and vice versa anyway....
as evah,
John C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
John Cromer wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > Again, I think this is just a way to get around the recent court rulings
> > about affirmative action, that is targeted to Hispanics and African
> > Americans. Which is both racist, and demeaning to minorities. They
> > should be encouraged to do well in school, and study for the tests, and
> > try to aim for the top, rather than going around the issues, and using
> > tests like this, with other people, to try to get them in. I hope the
> > court rules these out as well.
>
>
> Once again, Limbaugh shows his vast ignorance.
Or you are showing yours, but I digress...
> These kinds of tests are routinely used by management consulting
> firms to test employees to see how well they fit into an
> organization.
Yes, but what does that have to do with admitting minorities into a
college? Business and college are very different.
> I've seen them given using LEGO and K'NEX. Usually a model or
> a diagram is shown to a group of 4-6 people. They are then given
> a pile of parts and told to go to work.
Yes, see above..
> It quickly becomes evident who has the leadership skills, who
> can puzzle out the difficult details and subtle mechanisms,
> who can spot repetitive patterns and organize the group such
> that those patterns are created most effeciently, and, after the
> model is ready for test, who is best at troubleshooting it.
Yes, work again...
> It's an interesting and worthwhile approach and a good antidote
> to that SAT crap (which, btw, I did pretty well on).
>
> Of course, college isn't much like work and vice versa anyway....
My point exactly. Thank you!
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sorry, just a nitpick:
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Again, I think this is just a way to get around the recent court rulings
> about affirmative action, that is targeted to Hispanics and African
> Americans. Which is both racist, and demeaning to minorities. They
> should be encouraged to do well in school, and study for the tests, and
> try to aim for the top, rather than going around the issues, and using
> tests like this, with other people, to try to get them in. I hope the
> court rules these out as well.
I just want to point out that the single largest group that has benefited from Affirmative
Action and equal-hiring legislation is actually white females, both numerically and
qualitatively. What's to fear from adding a further litmus to the battery of identifiers
already available for college admissions, especially if the discipline in question needs
strong problem-solving and applied logic skills?
best,
Lindsay
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Lindsay, have you ever been passed up for a job because you were a white male?
"Sorry, even though you are the most qualified, and out of work, we hired this
Hispanic guy with no experience and a family to support because the government
will pay half of his wages."
-Cheese
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Sorry, just a nitpick:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> > Again, I think this is just a way to get around the recent court rulings
> > about affirmative action, that is targeted to Hispanics and African
> > Americans. Which is both racist, and demeaning to minorities. They
> > should be encouraged to do well in school, and study for the tests, and
> > try to aim for the top, rather than going around the issues, and using
> > tests like this, with other people, to try to get them in. I hope the
> > court rules these out as well.
>
> I just want to point out that the single largest group that has benefited • from Affirmative
> Action and equal-hiring legislation is actually white females, both • numerically and
> qualitatively. What's to fear from adding a further litmus to the battery of • identifiers
> already available for college admissions, especially if the discipline in • question needs
> strong problem-solving and applied logic skills?
>
> best,
>
> Lindsay
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Lindsay,
Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> Sorry, just a nitpick:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> > Again, I think this is just a way to get around the recent court rulings
> > about affirmative action, that is targeted to Hispanics and African
> > Americans. Which is both racist, and demeaning to minorities. They
> > should be encouraged to do well in school, and study for the tests, and
> > try to aim for the top, rather than going around the issues, and using
> > tests like this, with other people, to try to get them in. I hope the
> > court rules these out as well.
>
> I just want to point out that the single largest group that has benefited from Affirmative
> Action and equal-hiring legislation is actually white females, both numerically and
> qualitatively. What's to fear from adding a further litmus to the battery of identifiers
> already available for college admissions, especially if the discipline in question needs
> strong problem-solving and applied logic skills?
That's not what the article was about, or the intention of this and
other tests. Affirmative action is discrimination, and should not be
there period, whether whit females, pink elephants, or blue martians
benefit from it.
No one shall be discriminated on the basis of race, sex, etc. Or am I
missing something here?
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm just sort of picking tiny snippets to comment on...
Kevin Loch wrote:
> BTW, my opinion is that the college entrance exams are a joke.
I know for a fact from personal experience that a high SAT score is not
a perfect predictor of college success (at a good college, where good
study skills are important). Don't even ask me what my SAT score was,
you won't believe it. But it WAS NOT a good predictor. Not at all.
I'd say anything that gives additional data about how likely a student
is to perform well is a good thing, and it strikes me that using LEGO as
a way to measure creativity, problem solving, or spatial awareness (to
name 3 of many more traits that could be tested for) is a good thing.
I don't have the background so have no idea what was or wasn't being
circumvented, but the test, taken in isolation, seems like a good idea.
My knee jerk reaction to anything Rush says is to believe the opposite.
Not 100% accurate, of course, but it works well for me.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I know for a fact from personal experience that a high SAT score is not
> a perfect predictor of college success (at a good college, where good
No one claims that it is a perfect predictor. Not high schools, not
colleges, not even SAT.
> study skills are important). Don't even ask me what my SAT score was,
> you won't believe it. But it WAS NOT a good predictor. Not at all.
SAT is a pretty good predictor. It maybe didn't predict well for you,
but on average it does. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper for schools
and students to use than the LEGO exam would be.
> I'd say anything that gives additional data about how likely a student
> is to perform well is a good thing, and it strikes me that using LEGO as
> a way to measure creativity, problem solving, or spatial awareness (to
> name 3 of many more traits that could be tested for) is a good thing.
Yup, if not cost prohibitive.
> My knee jerk reaction to anything Rush says is to believe the opposite.
> Not 100% accurate, of course, but it works well for me.
If you take the word Lego out of the subject of this thread, you get a
much more accurate statement.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Loch writes:
> It's simple. Rush is very conservative. Conservatives in general do not
> like the artistic or creative elements of society, which is what LEGO products
> encourage. Conservatives in general also do not favor innovations
> in education, (of which this would certainly qualify) dismissing them as
> "watering down" without quantitative measurement of the results.
Note- Not all Conservatives do not favor innovations. I am VERY conservative
but I am also open to hear new ideas, and to see the results of those ideas.
-Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Note- Not all Conservatives do not favor innovations. I am VERY conservative
> but I am also open to hear new ideas, and to see the results of those ideas.
Rich, and every one else out there!...Conservative _IS_ exactly that, IE, not
all that forward looking. You are by definition if you look to new ideas _not_
a conservative.
It always strikes me as funny that here in Canada, one of the major political
parties is the _progressive_ conservatives, since to my mind, it is a
oximoronic statement...either you are progressive, or you are conservative.
(the party is so named because it was originally 2 different parties...)
James P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
James Powell wrote:
>
> > Note- Not all Conservatives do not favor innovations. I am VERY conservative
> > but I am also open to hear new ideas, and to see the results of those ideas.
>
> Rich, and every one else out there!...Conservative _IS_ exactly that, IE, not
> all that forward looking. You are by definition if you look to new ideas _not_
> a conservative.
Actually, most conservatives, in the US, are classical liberals, that do
want to change a lot of things. I think we are going into different
issues here.
> It always strikes me as funny that here in Canada, one of the major political
> parties is the _progressive_ conservatives, since to my mind, it is a
> oximoronic statement...either you are progressive, or you are conservative.
Just because you are a progressive, doesn't mean you look forward
either.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > Note- Not all Conservatives do not favor innovations. I am VERY • conservative
> > but I am also open to hear new ideas, and to see the results of those ideas.
>
> Rich, and every one else out there!...Conservative _IS_ exactly that, IE, not
> all that forward looking. You are by definition if you look to new ideas • _not_
> a conservative.
>
> It always strikes me as funny that here in Canada, one of the major political
> parties is the _progressive_ conservatives, since to my mind, it is a
> oximoronic statement...either you are progressive, or you are conservative.
>
> (the party is so named because it was originally 2 different parties...)
>
> James P
Conservative-1, Tending to conserve 2, Tending to preserve established
institutions: opposed to change. This is the definition of the
word "conservative" that is given in the Websters New World Dictionary. I am a
conservative. But I am open to hear new ideas. I may not agree with them but i
am open to them. And I believe that most conservatives are open to hear new
ideas, because if they were not we would still be living without many of the
things that we have today. Yes, Conservatives can be progressive. But one of
the differences between Conservative and Liberals is that we only want change
when it is essential.
I also agree that something must be done to the current college entry exams,(
see that was progressive :) ), but making the test how well you can remember
a Lego robot is not the solution. That just harms the more academically
intellgent people.
-Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> a Lego robot is not the solution. That just harms the more academically
> intellgent people.
What exactly is an "academically intelligent" person? Is that
a person that just knows how to get good grades? I remember
many excellent students that were not so intelligent. Especially in
High School, where there was a much more direct correlation to
one's parent's social class and grades than between intelligence and grades.
Fortunately that tended to change in College, but there is still a long
way to go.
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> > a Lego robot is not the solution. That just harms the more academically
> > intellgent people.
>
> What exactly is an "academically intelligent" person?
What I ment by "academicallly intelligent" person was somebody who excels in
the traditional areas of academics, reading, writing, history etc. Not someone
who can make the best duplicate of a Lego robot.
-Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> > > a Lego robot is not the solution. That just harms the more academically
> > > intellgent people.
> >
> > What exactly is an "academically intelligent" person?
>
> What I ment by "academicallly intelligent" person was somebody who excels in
> the traditional areas of academics, reading, writing, history etc. Not someone
> who can make the best duplicate of a Lego robot.
And a "academically intelligent" person is always the best person to solve a
problem?
This is the thing, the collages have to look outside the box (outside the top
5-10-33% of students _by marks_ or _by SAT_ or by any other method that is
solely reliant on "academic inteligence", because the best person to fill a
spot may _not_ be the person who scores 90% on every test, but it may be the
person who scores 60% on every test, and keeps at it.
We are eliminating a large pool of talent, and I think that it is a crying
shame. I also feel that (esp. in the US, but here in Canada too...)
the almighty $ is starting to drive a large portion of people away from
education, when they should be getting it.
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> > > > a Lego robot is not the solution. That just harms the more academically
> > > > intellgent people.
> > >
> > > What exactly is an "academically intelligent" person?
> >
> > What I ment by "academicallly intelligent" person was somebody who excels in
> > the traditional areas of academics, reading, writing, history etc. Not • someone
> > who can make the best duplicate of a Lego robot.
>
>
> And a "academically intelligent" person is always the best person to solve a
> problem?
What I was stating in the initial message was that a Lego robot test would
harm the acadamically intelligent student. And it would. As have stated before
that does not mean that I am content with the current system. I admit that
changes must be made, but a Lego robot test will not do anything to change it,
all it would do is lower standards.
-Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> I also agree that something must be done to the current college entry exams,(
> see that was progressive :) ), but making the test how well you can remember
> a Lego robot is not the solution. That just harms the more academically
> intellgent people.
I would _disagree_ with you that the test to see how well a group of you can
rebuild a lego robot is a poor test. I think that it is _just_ as valid a test
as a SAT or other "grade" test, it is _not_ the only thing that should be
tested for however.
This is a useful test, if used in the right context, however, it is just as
useless as a SAT or IQ test if used wrong.
I am _not_ in favor of quotas. It should be on the best first, worst last
system, however, on the other hand, you have to have some way to judge, and I
don't think that SATs on there own are the best way to test someone to see if
they are collage material. I don't even think that GPA's (high school marks)
are all that good of a test of the ability for someone to cope in collage.
I averaged around the 3.0 GPA (Sorry, but it was 74.5% up here!) in high
school. Now I am in University (The Marine Institute of Memorial University Of
Newfoundland to be exact), and getting around the same marks as what I did in
high school.
If you have ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintance", you may have
some idea of where a lot of my views as regards marks come from...I think that
they are a poor reflection on what someone _learns_ in a classroom at best.
Basing admitance to collage/university on marks or a single (accidemic) test
result to my mind is a false way of assigning where people should go.
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Rich, and every one else out there!...Conservative _IS_ exactly that, IE, not
> all that forward looking. You are by definition if you look to new ideas • _not_
> a conservative.
Generally when someone professes to be a conservative they are refering to
their belief in conservative values, i.e. God, family, rule of law, and
individual freedoms. The term conservative has nothing to do with foresight
or progressiveness. New ideas are to be embraced provided they do not violate
ones sense of morality or values, neither of which should be tossed aside
based upon current trends or fads.
The conservative view in question in this instance is the departure from
traditional educational values, and Rush's concern was mostly with the fact
that this was offered as a program suposedly to help more minorities qualify
for college.
>
> It always strikes me as funny that here in Canada, one of the major political
> parties is the _progressive_ conservatives, since to my mind, it is a
> oximoronic statement...either you are progressive, or you are conservative.
>
> (the party is so named because it was originally 2 different parties...)
>
> James P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
To this subiect, I did read a blurb about this subject, the LEGO testing, in th
current issue of National Review. i won't go into details regarding this,
simply because of the abuse I received in debate, but I will say it was
mentioned in two different areas. here is a url to he magazine, if you don't
know what it is:
http://www.nationalreview.com
(Followups to off-topic.debate, I won't follow, however)
Scott S.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> To this subiect, I did read a blurb about this subject, the LEGO testing, in • th
> current issue of National Review. i won't go into details regarding this,
> simply because of the abuse I received in debate, but I will say it was
> mentioned in two different areas. here is a url to he magazine, if you don't
> know what it is:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com
You could at least provide a hint as to which articles... It's a big magazine,
and some of us have no interest in digging through the American
political...stuff to find an obscure reference.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
James,
James Brown wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > To this subiect, I did read a blurb about this subject, the LEGO testing, in • th
> > current issue of National Review. i won't go into details regarding this,
> > simply because of the abuse I received in debate, but I will say it was
> > mentioned in two different areas. here is a url to he magazine, if you don't
> > know what it is:
> >
> > http://www.nationalreview.com
>
> You could at least provide a hint as to which articles... It's a big magazine,
> and some of us have no interest in digging through the American
> political...stuff to find an obscure reference.
Well, I will look it up tonight, it is at home. Stuff..... Hmm....
Scott
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> James,
>
> James Brown wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > > To this subiect, I did read a blurb about this subject, the LEGO testing,
> > > in the current issue of National Review. i won't go into details regarding
> > > this, simply because of the abuse I received in debate, but I will say it
> > > was
> > > mentioned in two different areas. here is a url to he magazine, if you
> > > don't know what it is:
> > >
> > > http://www.nationalreview.com
> >
> > You could at least provide a hint as to which articles... It's a big
> > magazine, and some of us have no interest in digging through the American
> > political...stuff to find an obscure reference.
>
> Well, I will look it up tonight, it is at home.
Thanks!
> Stuff..... Hmm....
Yup. American political stuff. Not to be confused with Canadian political
stuff, or European political stuff. Stuff is a great word. It can be used to
indicate distaste without being particularly harsh. :)
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Chris Busse writes:
> In Colorado they are testing using a LEGO building contest for college
> admission:
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0201c.htm
>
> Originally found on slashdot:
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/01/1135226.shtml
>
> Chris Busse
Rush was talking about this today on his show just before three o'clock. He
mocked it as ridiculous, saying that it was a toy for four year-olds. If you
know of sites or articles that speak of the value of Lego as an educational aid
e-mail it to rush@eibnet.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Going to college
> has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> college is about as removed from reality as anything.
This is changing. Businesses want people who know how to work together,
cooperate, and communicate. While a high grade student probably won't have
trouble getting a job, an average student from one school is more likely to
be passed over for a average student from a school known for producing
communicators and cooperators. The internet and telecommunications is
changing the way we work. Not only does that change require communication
skills, the jobs being performed are so complex that no one person can fill
a position. Work delegation and cooperation is more important than ever.
This is why our job market is so strong, companies need assistants.
> Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
> admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
> admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
> with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
> rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
> their test scores.
The idea here is that traditional SAT's really only test raw knowledge. They
test to see if you know the answer, or know enough to get the right answer.
The experimental testing is to try to test for traits and abilities that
cannot be found using multiple choice.
> Rush points out the hypocracy of these admissions, and I am glad someone
> does.
Before you just go agreeing with what Rush says, have a look at the original
article. The Lego portion is only 5% to 9% of the test.
"The Lego test [they have 10 minutes to build a robot] is one of a dozen
workshop activities over three hours... Other activities include public
speaking, conflict-resolution drills and personal interviews performed under
the watchful eye of high school principals, teachers, counselors and college
admissions deans who evaluate the college hopefuls."
If that's not pressure to perform, I don't know what is.
And on top of that...
"After the battery of exercises, evaluators conduct half-hour interviews
with each student to identify qualities such as a willingness to seek help
if they're struggling academically. The interviews account for one-third of
their total score."
So now the Lego test counts for potentially as little as 3 1/3%, at most
about 6% of their entrance exam.
I think the most important thing that Rush and yourself are overlooking is
that it's still experimental. The test is being tested!
"[Bial] will track the students throughout their college careers, comparing
retention, grades, graduation rates and contributions to their campus
communities with all other students at the schools, as well as with other
students with similar high school grades and standardized test scores.
If the pilot program succeeds, Bial plans to open centers to conduct the
tests on any student who wants them in urban areas across the country."
So your fears are addressed right here...
"The tests could probably withstand legal challenges as long as whites as
well as minorities take them, said Terence Pell, a lawyer at the Center of
Individual Rights, a Washington-based non-profit law group that has sued
colleges over affirmative action."
And how does this plan compare to...
"Universities across the country are adopting different strategies to get
around tightening legal restrictions on affirmative action. Florida
announced in November that state universities won't consider race when
making college admissions but instead will take the top 20 percent of the
graduating class from every state high school to maintain diversity. In
Texas, the top 10 percent are eligible for admission."
Now THAT'S skirting the issue!
I think this quote sums it up pretty well...
"The more selective a college is, the more it needs to be in tune to
measuring motivation, drive, perseverance and adaptability - the things that
really translate into college success."
As for the hoopla, someone else on Slashdot had a quote that sums that up
well...
"Naturally, the "Lego test" gets the headline because it sounds outrageous."
And yes, surprise, surprise, Rush is just out to spout off about something
that sounds outrageous.
Rob
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I am glad I read this whole thread before jumping in. I just want to say
that I agree with Robert.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
Robert Brunskill wrote in message ...
> > Going to college
> > has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> > in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> > college is about as removed from reality as anything.
>
> This is changing. Businesses want people who know how to work together,
> cooperate, and communicate. While a high grade student probably won't have
> trouble getting a job, an average student from one school is more likely to
> be passed over for a average student from a school known for producing
> communicators and cooperators. The internet and telecommunications is
> changing the way we work. Not only does that change require communication
> skills, the jobs being performed are so complex that no one person can fill
> a position. Work delegation and cooperation is more important than ever.
> This is why our job market is so strong, companies need assistants.
>
> > Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
> > admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
> > admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
> > with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
> > rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
> > their test scores.
>
> The idea here is that traditional SAT's really only test raw knowledge. • They
> test to see if you know the answer, or know enough to get the right answer.
> The experimental testing is to try to test for traits and abilities that
> cannot be found using multiple choice.
>
> > Rush points out the hypocracy of these admissions, and I am glad someone
> > does.
>
> Before you just go agreeing with what Rush says, have a look at the • original
> article. The Lego portion is only 5% to 9% of the test.
>
> "The Lego test [they have 10 minutes to build a robot] is one of a dozen
> workshop activities over three hours... Other activities include public
> speaking, conflict-resolution drills and personal interviews performed • under
> the watchful eye of high school principals, teachers, counselors and • college
> admissions deans who evaluate the college hopefuls."
>
> If that's not pressure to perform, I don't know what is.
>
> And on top of that...
>
> "After the battery of exercises, evaluators conduct half-hour interviews
> with each student to identify qualities such as a willingness to seek help
> if they're struggling academically. The interviews account for one-third of
> their total score."
>
> So now the Lego test counts for potentially as little as 3 1/3%, at most
> about 6% of their entrance exam.
>
> I think the most important thing that Rush and yourself are overlooking is
> that it's still experimental. The test is being tested!
>
> "[Bial] will track the students throughout their college careers, comparing
> retention, grades, graduation rates and contributions to their campus
> communities with all other students at the schools, as well as with other
> students with similar high school grades and standardized test scores.
>
> If the pilot program succeeds, Bial plans to open centers to conduct the
> tests on any student who wants them in urban areas across the country."
>
> So your fears are addressed right here...
>
> "The tests could probably withstand legal challenges as long as whites as
> well as minorities take them, said Terence Pell, a lawyer at the Center of
> Individual Rights, a Washington-based non-profit law group that has sued
> colleges over affirmative action."
>
> And how does this plan compare to...
>
> "Universities across the country are adopting different strategies to get
> around tightening legal restrictions on affirmative action. Florida
> announced in November that state universities won't consider race when
> making college admissions but instead will take the top 20 percent of the
> graduating class from every state high school to maintain diversity. In
> Texas, the top 10 percent are eligible for admission."
>
> Now THAT'S skirting the issue!
>
> I think this quote sums it up pretty well...
>
> "The more selective a college is, the more it needs to be in tune to
> measuring motivation, drive, perseverance and adaptability - the things • that
> really translate into college success."
>
> As for the hoopla, someone else on Slashdot had a quote that sums that up
> well...
>
> "Naturally, the "Lego test" gets the headline because it sounds • outrageous."
>
> And yes, surprise, surprise, Rush is just out to spout off about something
> that sounds outrageous.
>
>
> Rob
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
To All,
OK, folks, since nobody got the ideas posting on this subject,
especially from me, let's see if I can clear this up:
1) If this LEGO test to determine different skills was one of the
factors to determine certain characteristics that the colleges want,
fine. However, based on the the two articles that were posted, these
weren't for all, they were only for minorities, because they weren't
qualified otherwise. This is a sidestep to recent rulings on affirmative
action, which has been in the courts and is unconstitutional,
discriminating against anyone, including white people, is wrong. This is
what Rush was saying, and I agree with that. If you want to talk about
affirmative action, that is another debate, and I won't be joining it,
for I think it is wrong.
2)I am not against teamwork, folks. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here at
AEI, or at other jobs in my career. I think testing for teamwork for
freshman admission is questionable, however. Later, in the degree
specific classes, I think it would be more appropriate.
3) Most college curriculums are a joke, and a waste of money. I spent
over 10,000 alone on classes I had in high school, even though I passed
a majority of the placement tests. I spent well over 5,000 alone on PC
classes. That's 15,000 on PC and classes I already had. A joke.
Also, the first two years are basically regurgitation of what you took
in high school. You don't use teamwork on most of these classes, and as
far as I can remember, you don't take teamwork tests. Sometimes, the
prof made us work in groups, and the people I got stuck with, I had to
do their work in order to get the good grade, and sometimes, I could
not, and I got a bad grade. I hate having my grade depend on slackers.
That is stupid as well, because my loans were riding on my grades.
College, especially for the first two years, in not realistic. If
colleges are shifting more classes to real world issues, etc, that is
fine. I am glad for it, and hope that regular K-12 schools do so as
well. My best classes in my degree were the upper level design courses.
We did work in groups and the like, and it was more realistic, but I
spent a lot of money and time on things that didn't matter.
Anyway, see #1 if you still have questions regarding this subject, which
I think was off on a tangent, and no one really addressed it, and went
into the usual Rush is a moron string, which I grow tired of. There are
plenty of examples of morons in the world as it is, and I don't think
Rush is one of them.
This post is a classic example of addressing one point, going to
another, and never going back to what it was originally about. Then
again, that's off topic for you.
Scott S.
John DiRienzo wrote:
>
> I am glad I read this whole thread before jumping in. I just want to say
> that I agree with Robert.
>
> --
> Have fun!
> John
> The Legos you've been dreaming of...
> http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
> my weird Lego site:
> http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
> Robert Brunskill wrote in message ...
> > > Going to college
> > > has NOTHING to do with "initiative, leadership and an ability to work
> > > in groups ". Working in the real world deals with these issues, and
> > > college is about as removed from reality as anything.
> >
> > This is changing. Businesses want people who know how to work together,
> > cooperate, and communicate. While a high grade student probably won't have
> > trouble getting a job, an average student from one school is more likely to
> > be passed over for a average student from a school known for producing
> > communicators and cooperators. The internet and telecommunications is
> > changing the way we work. Not only does that change require communication
> > skills, the jobs being performed are so complex that no one person can fill
> > a position. Work delegation and cooperation is more important than ever.
> > This is why our job market is so strong, companies need assistants.
> >
> > > Testing for this ability to build LEGO's with other students as
> > > admission to college is plain wrong, and is rather distressing. College
> > > admission should be a combination of school work, and drive, and not
> > > with building a LEGO robot. This is a pitiful attempt on getting around
> > > rulings of law, instead of addressing the problems of minorities and
> > > their test scores.
> >
> > The idea here is that traditional SAT's really only test raw knowledge. • They
> > test to see if you know the answer, or know enough to get the right answer.
> > The experimental testing is to try to test for traits and abilities that
> > cannot be found using multiple choice.
> >
> > > Rush points out the hypocracy of these admissions, and I am glad someone
> > > does.
> >
> > Before you just go agreeing with what Rush says, have a look at the • original
> > article. The Lego portion is only 5% to 9% of the test.
> >
> > "The Lego test [they have 10 minutes to build a robot] is one of a dozen
> > workshop activities over three hours... Other activities include public
> > speaking, conflict-resolution drills and personal interviews performed • under
> > the watchful eye of high school principals, teachers, counselors and • college
> > admissions deans who evaluate the college hopefuls."
> >
> > If that's not pressure to perform, I don't know what is.
> >
> > And on top of that...
> >
> > "After the battery of exercises, evaluators conduct half-hour interviews
> > with each student to identify qualities such as a willingness to seek help
> > if they're struggling academically. The interviews account for one-third of
> > their total score."
> >
> > So now the Lego test counts for potentially as little as 3 1/3%, at most
> > about 6% of their entrance exam.
> >
> > I think the most important thing that Rush and yourself are overlooking is
> > that it's still experimental. The test is being tested!
> >
> > "[Bial] will track the students throughout their college careers, comparing
> > retention, grades, graduation rates and contributions to their campus
> > communities with all other students at the schools, as well as with other
> > students with similar high school grades and standardized test scores.
> >
> > If the pilot program succeeds, Bial plans to open centers to conduct the
> > tests on any student who wants them in urban areas across the country."
> >
> > So your fears are addressed right here...
> >
> > "The tests could probably withstand legal challenges as long as whites as
> > well as minorities take them, said Terence Pell, a lawyer at the Center of
> > Individual Rights, a Washington-based non-profit law group that has sued
> > colleges over affirmative action."
> >
> > And how does this plan compare to...
> >
> > "Universities across the country are adopting different strategies to get
> > around tightening legal restrictions on affirmative action. Florida
> > announced in November that state universities won't consider race when
> > making college admissions but instead will take the top 20 percent of the
> > graduating class from every state high school to maintain diversity. In
> > Texas, the top 10 percent are eligible for admission."
> >
> > Now THAT'S skirting the issue!
> >
> > I think this quote sums it up pretty well...
> >
> > "The more selective a college is, the more it needs to be in tune to
> > measuring motivation, drive, perseverance and adaptability - the things • that
> > really translate into college success."
> >
> > As for the hoopla, someone else on Slashdot had a quote that sums that up
> > well...
> >
> > "Naturally, the "Lego test" gets the headline because it sounds • outrageous."
> >
> > And yes, surprise, surprise, Rush is just out to spout off about something
> > that sounds outrageous.
> >
> >
> > Rob
--
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
To all,
I forgot, I disagree with Rush sometimes as well, with the LEGO quote,
but he wasn't addressing the LEGo item, he was talking about the
affirmative action issue. Now I don't need to tell a group the bias most
people have against s AFOL's, he is an example of that.
Scott S. "Yes, I am replying to myself"
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Also, the first two years are basically regurgitation of what you took
> in high school. You don't use teamwork on most of these classes, and as
> far as I can remember, you don't take teamwork tests. Sometimes, the
> prof made us work in groups, and the people I got stuck with, I had to
> do their work in order to get the good grade, and sometimes, I could
> not, and I got a bad grade. I hate having my grade depend on slackers.
> That is stupid as well, because my loans were riding on my grades.
Absolutely... although, in practice, when you are stuck with a poor
team, it's really best to *NOT* do their work for them - at least my
experience has shown this. Although it's possible that you could end up
getting a lower grade for the project, it's the slacker's grades that
ultimately suffer the most. Especially when the next project comes
around and the slackers are teamed up with somebody else and then that
team gets a poor grade. A good prof is going to notice that sort of
pattern. It's their job to notice that sort of pattern, IMO. Further,
why bother putting additional effort into improving another person's
grade when that that person isn't even motivated to help themself?
Anyways, it's actually not that difficult for a prof to see who did what
work in a project when there are people of highly differing ability or
motivation working together (perhaps not specifically by name, but he or
she will be able to see where one person stopped working and another
person started). If you can catch it soon enough (you should be able to
catch it pretty quickly if you are paying attention), you can inform the
prof that nobody else in your group is working. You may not be able to
get into another group, but at least the professor can take that into
consideration when your final project is submitted, and then he or she
can grade individually based on what parts of the work were well done
and what parts were not. All you need to do is make sure you have lots
of documentation on who did what (or who was supposed to do what) and
submit that as part of the project (i.e. how the assorted tasks in the
project were broken down and delegated to each person in the group -
which should be part of *ANY* team project's paperwork, IMHO). If the
prof is not inclined to grade fairly, even when he or she knows that
some people did far more work than others, adequate documentation may
provide the evidence needed to challenge the grade, should push come to
shove. I've never personally seen it come to that though. In my
experience, good documentation has always done the trick.
> > Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> 1) If this LEGO test to determine different skills was one of the
> factors to determine certain characteristics that the colleges want,
> fine.
Umm... I think that was the point! That colleges are looking for people with
leadership, teamwork skills, creativity, etc., and that traditional testing
doesn't seem to show this ability in people, so they're looking in to new ways
to test for these qualities. For years, it's been done with things like a
letter of recommendation from a teacher, an essay, and/or a personal interview
with the college applicant. What it seems to me like they're doing is seeing if
they can start getting a more quantitative handle on something that heretofore
has been more-or-less 100% qualitative (that being these 'special skills' in
question)
I think what colleges WANT is a good mix of both these special skills AND
things like the standard test-taking skills, and this test is attempting to be
a way to help in locating the former in potential students.
> However, based on the the two articles that were posted, these
> weren't for all, they were only for minorities, because they weren't
> qualified otherwise. This is a sidestep to recent rulings on affirmative
> action, which has been in the courts and is unconstitutional,
> discriminating against anyone, including white people, is wrong. This is
> what Rush was saying, and I agree with that. If you want to talk about
> affirmative action, that is another debate, and I won't be joining it,
> for I think it is wrong.
Hmmm... you say 'minorities' and refer to affirmative action, hence I'm
assuming that you're implying that the people being used for the test are
minorities in terms of their ethnicity? That MIGHT have something to do with
affirmative action, except that it sounds as if it were not the case. It was
apparantly left to chance-- the applicants were only selected because they
didn't score well using conventional methods, and assumedly because they showed
promise in other areas, and just didn't "test well". I could be wrong, but
that's the jist I got from the article. I don't think it has a single thing
whatsoever in any way to do with affirmative action, etc. But you're saying
it's only wrong insofar as it appears to be only helping minorities?
I think the greater danger that perhaps could be what you're saying (maybe you
and Rush mean it but aren't saying it) is that these people who don't test well
are suddenly being given another chance, and that potentially they don't
deserve that chance-- I.E. that a certain number of these people are 100%
guaranteed to get into a college that would have rejected them otherwise
INSTEAD of the people that "really" deserve it (based on SAT scores, etc).
In other words, let's say Happy College accepts 1000 applicants a year.
Normally, all 1000 of them have to achieve over X percent on their SAT's, etc.
But THIS year, 100 people are being tested using the "Lego" technique, and the
'bottom' 100 of the normally accepted 1000 are being rejected, even though they
SHOULD qualify, and THEY'RE not even being given the CHANCE to take the "Lego"
test. In essence, that not 100% of all the applicants are being judged on the
same scale, and that as a result, some people are suffering.
But assuming that this is not the case, and that THIS year, 1100 applicants are
being accepted, it's not really hurting anyone-- it really is just giving these
extra 100 a chance and seeing how they do. You COULD argue the nitpickity
argument and say that the other 1000 are being hurt by bringing down attention
time from professors, needing to pay extra tuition since the 100 are assumedly
there on scholorship, etc, but IMHO that's not really the issue at hand. I
don't think that has anything to do with it.
Anyway, the real issue I think is making sure to judge everyone by the same
standards. If I were conducting the experiment, I would NEVER have limited
myself to ONLY students who score low on SAT's, etc. That's plain dumb. It
assumes that we know how the high scoring SAT takers would do in the "Lego"
test. Or, to be more specific, it assumes NOTHING about them. By restricting
the test to only low-end test takers, they've left out the vital "control
group" from the situation. It's a badly formed experiment.
For example, let's say that hypothetically all the people who do well on their
SAT's etc ALL do better than the people that DON'T do well on SAT's etc-- then
we've only proven that the test is no better than the SAT's to begin with. Of
course I don't think that's at all likely. I think that in general, the results
of the "Lego" tests would vary a lot (being that they show more personality
traits) between good test takers and bad test takers. What the colleges REALLY
ought to know in that case is how valuable these personality traits are to
them, and in the real world, vs. the "test-taking" traits that we usually think
of colleges going by.
The long and the short of it is it's just a test. That's what it's for. If it
works, GREAT! (I'd LOVE helping my future kids get ready for college if that's
the case!) If it doesn't work, oh well. And as to theories as to whether or not
it will work well, THAT'S the real tangent, I think-- DO these qualities REALLY
matter in college or not? Not to get into it (at least not yet), I think that
it SHOULD matter, but it doesn't really at present. Again, I think Bial's
methods are questionable-- she's going to follow up on the students through
their college career, not through their job-career... if they don't do well in
high school, I don't think they'll do well in college... it's a lot of the same
things all over again (with occasional exceptions)... it's not until they hit
the job market that they'll see how well the person really does in life. And
that's what college SHOULD prepare you for... but that's another story...
My lengthy $.02,
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Sometimes, the
> prof made us work in groups, and the people I got stuck with, I had to
> do their work in order to get the good grade, and sometimes, I could
> not, and I got a bad grade. I hate having my grade depend on slackers.
> That is stupid as well, because my loans were riding on my grades.
When I was a sophomore in college I had to work with a group of five
other people to write a 40ish page paper. We met over several weeks and
it became more and more evident that this group simply didn't have the
dynamic to make it happen. I asked my professor if I could split off
and do it alone. I couldn't. Part of our grade was to see how we could
make group effort work. I did it all. At the time I was bugged that
they all got my 'B' for doing no work, but I got something so much
better. I was the only sophomore that I knew who had written a forty
page paper. From then on, I knew that I could write something of
length. Maybe I should have been able to do that earlier - I have since
met people who did it in high school - but that wasn't the norm. And I
knew that even though I was kind of a slacker, when push came to shove,
I could perform.
That group project was very good for me. Even if I did resent it at the time.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Chris,
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> > Sometimes, the
> > prof made us work in groups, and the people I got stuck with, I had to
> > do their work in order to get the good grade, and sometimes, I could
> > not, and I got a bad grade. I hate having my grade depend on slackers.
> > That is stupid as well, because my loans were riding on my grades.
>
> When I was a sophomore in college I had to work with a group of five
> other people to write a 40ish page paper. We met over several weeks and
> it became more and more evident that this group simply didn't have the
> dynamic to make it happen. I asked my professor if I could split off
> and do it alone. I couldn't. Part of our grade was to see how we could
> make group effort work. I did it all. At the time I was bugged that
> they all got my 'B' for doing no work, but I got something so much
> better. I was the only sophomore that I knew who had written a forty
> page paper. From then on, I knew that I could write something of
> length. Maybe I should have been able to do that earlier - I have since
> met people who did it in high school - but that wasn't the norm. And I
> knew that even though I was kind of a slacker, when push came to shove,
> I could perform.
>
> That group project was very good for me. Even if I did resent it at the time.
I still resent it, simply because others dragged my grade down. I work
with people all day, every day. My performance reviews and my salary
depend on it. However, in school, it is not a real situation (See above
posts), and me having spent thousands of dollars to go there, I have to
depend on people that aren't motivated. It stinks, and I think it is a
bad place to go.
Scott S.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
After looking at the article again my interpretation of what was said is
different from yours. No students were selected for the program because they
were black or Hispanic. It was an option given to students with average
grade performance whose counselors thought they 'had what it took' to make
it in college. It just happens that a number of those students were
minorities, but it was not a deciding factor. The test was open to all
qualified applicants. I don't see how this is discrimination?
The lawyer involved in the court case that ended affirmative action even
stated that there was nothing inherently preferential about the test, as
long as it was open to any student who wanted to take it. I saw nothing in
the article that indicated that white students were not allowed to take the
test.
The SATs come out sounding more biased as one of the people interviewed, the
admissions dean for the college, pointed out that you can easily predict
SAT/ACT performance using the student's social and economic background as a
basis, and that the SAT/ACT is a poor indicator of actual ability to perform
in college.
Rob
> From: "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net>
> 1) If this LEGO test to determine different skills was one of the
> factors to determine certain characteristics that the colleges want,
> fine. However, based on the the two articles that were posted, these
> weren't for all, they were only for minorities, because they weren't
> qualified otherwise. This is a sidestep to recent rulings on affirmative
> action, which has been in the courts and is unconstitutional,
> discriminating against anyone, including white people, is wrong. This is
> what Rush was saying, and I agree with that. If you want to talk about
> affirmative action, that is another debate, and I won't be joining it,
> for I think it is wrong.
| | | | | | |
