Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:45:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
862 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Scott: (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
