Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:03:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
839 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Chris, (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
