 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
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? (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
Heartlessly snipped, as usual (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote: > Why is that? Should the tests be designed to determine who has a good (...) Making it so they all go to college together segregates them? (...) Should not? What do you mean should? What if it does? Does matter, whether or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
