Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:10:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
750 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) 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? (25 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
|
|
|
|
