3 ms·

Making a mountain out of a molehill. As others have said, the further up the chain you go the harder the decision you have to make. The wording of the question

Making a mountain out of a molehill. As others have said, the further up the chain you go the harder the decision you have to make. The wording of the question is careful to avoid the outrage that people are stirring up. If you believed the narrative people are pushing on Twitter you would think Eton are training young people to commit atrocities and get away with it. It's pathetic and it's tiring. Side note: How awful is the design of the https://www.indy100.com https://www.indy100.com website?

dehrmann 7y ago
And it's not like the rubric was also posted. Maybe a speech sarcastically praising Tiananmen Square and Kent State would do well.
- IceCreamGondola 7y ago
  Exactly, this type of question is to appraise the student's critical thinking and how well they can defend an action. Not an assessment of morality. It reminds me of Religious Education GCSE exams where they give a statement such as (from my GCSE): "Women should be allowed in front-line roles in the army. State your opinion and explain why." They weren't looking for a "right" answer but were assessing critical thinking and the ability to defend your belief.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Given the setting 20 years in the future and the situation provided, and the task the students were asked to perform, it's entirely possible they'd at least tolerate, if not reward, some reasonable and restrained invention of future events and situations on the part of the students. Not creating some full-on sci fi world or whatever (though hell, depending on the reviewer and the quality of the work, maybe) but some plausible light world-building to support the speech. On something like this the speculative component is rarely strictly limited to the question asker, within the bounds of taste, reason, and necessity. [EDIT] which is to say I wouldn't bet that writing the answer from a point of view even more abhorrent than the student may already find the lower bound for the situation would disqualify the student, and, done well, it might help them stand out from the ones who write theirs straight and conservatively. Cribbing patterns of argument from various tyrants and autocrats might be entirely appropriate, even if intended as an implicit indictment of this hypothetical future-UK government.

dehrmann 7y ago

And it's not like the rubric was also posted. Maybe a speech sarcastically praising Tiananmen Square and Kent State would do well.

IceCreamGondola 7y ago
Exactly, this type of question is to appraise the student's critical thinking and how well they can defend an action. Not an assessment of morality. It reminds me of Religious Education GCSE exams where they give a statement such as (from my GCSE): "Women should be allowed in front-line roles in the army. State your opinion and explain why." They weren't looking for a "right" answer but were assessing critical thinking and the ability to defend your belief.
- shantly 7y ago
  Given the setting 20 years in the future and the situation provided, and the task the students were asked to perform, it's entirely possible they'd at least tolerate, if not reward, some reasonable and restrained invention of future events and situations on the part of the students. Not creating some full-on sci fi world or whatever (though hell, depending on the reviewer and the quality of the work, maybe) but some plausible light world-building to support the speech. On something like this the speculative component is rarely strictly limited to the question asker, within the bounds of taste, reason, and necessity. [EDIT] which is to say I wouldn't bet that writing the answer from a point of view even more abhorrent than the student may already find the lower bound for the situation would disqualify the student, and, done well, it might help them stand out from the ones who write theirs straight and conservatively. Cribbing patterns of argument from various tyrants and autocrats might be entirely appropriate, even if intended as an implicit indictment of this hypothetical future-UK government.