Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:20:08 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@io.com[IHateSpam]
|
Viewed:
|
676 times
|
| |
|
|
"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.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Jeremy, (...) "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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Again, selectively snipping for the heck of it. (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Tom, (...) It might be, but doesn't have anything to do with testing people to get around affirmative action rulings. (...) So, giving an unfair advantage to people is being fair? (...) I took many classes over 5 years of going to college, Tom, and (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
