11 ms·

Reminds me of a story that made it onto HN some months (years maybe? how time flies) back about an entrance exam prompt to some British university program requi

Reminds me of a story that made it onto HN some months (years maybe? how time flies) back about an entrance exam prompt to some British university program requiring the candidate to craft a message defending some unsavory deed on the part of the UK government. That kind of "gaming" is super-common and very valuable in (for example) political science circles, so wasn't, per se, a bit weird or bad or even unusual, but was made to seem so for a headline. [EDIT] specifically I think the prompt was something like "It's 10 years in the future, such-and-such party has control of government and can be assumed to hold policy positions basically the same as they do now. General world situation is X. The government has just violently put down mass protests over [something]. Craft a statement for the prime minister defending these actions as necessary for the preservation of the government and protection of general welfare." Which is a completely normal—if simple—sort of poli-sci exercise.

arethuza 6y ago
It was about Eton, a private high school, and the "unsavory deed" shooting by the Army of protestors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21628900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21628900
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Yeah, that's the one. Fake "controversy" playing on ignorance.
  - NicolasGorden 6y ago
    I though school entrance exams, particularly at the high school level, should be selecting for meritocratic principles such as competence and intelligence. The reason it's controversial to some of us is that currently schools seem to be moving more and more toward selecting for obedience. This creates a feedback loop where the system selects for those that will not want to change it, but instead will play along. It seems that when a system declares a purpose for an exam and then doesn't comply with that purpose, reasonable people would question it. It also seems the feedback loops can be so intense the system selects those so willing and desirous to submit to authorities that they categorize anyone even questioning the system as 'ignorant' without any irony. Unfortunately Chomsky is mostly ignored by people who would need to understand his point the most: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM
    - nradov 6y ago
      Bill Deresiewicz made a similar point in his book Excellent Sheep. Students are rewarded for conforming and following the designated educational path. But is that really what we want? https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/ https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/
    - karatestomp 6y ago
      I'll continue to take the assumption that asking a (prospective) student to conduct an exercise involving a thought experiment implies support of the premises of the exercise on the part of those asking it, an expectation that the student supports them, or an attempt to shape the student to support them, as a sign of ignorance within at least the confines of what those sorts of questions are used and useful for. That the position the student is asked to assume is a bit uncomfortable is very likely part of the point. Seeing what they make of it—the tone, the message, what they choose to add or leave out, how and whether they fill in the gaps in the prompt WRT the events, circumstances, the state of mind of the prime minister, the mood of the people, and so on, which are numerous, how and whether they balance all this with the particular limitations and goals of the message itself, or hell, whether they reject the prompt and walk out in a huff (bad) or do something else by ignoring all or part of the prompt and its explicit and implied constraints (potentially very good if done just right)—can all be useful, and in ways "craft a message about how awful this was and why it should never happen again" wouldn't be.
      - NicolasGorden 6y ago
        Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments. There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use as an ironmanning example for an entrance exam. This seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. So it makes sense it raises eye brows. If there was no such trend, you'd have more of a point. BTW, I'm not saying it was 100% that, I don't know the specific case, just that it falls within certain patterns that people have every reason to be cautious towards. The question could have been asked to ironman a racist, pedophile or abusive parent. The whole point of ironmanning is an exercise in reasoning, empathy and ability to see other's points even when wrong. So the less reasonable arguments exist, the more the exercise is being applied. You can ask to ironman any argument, I'm not against that, it's actually something I practice. Just because I don't agree with this doesn't mean I'm ignorant or don't understand things. You assume much, which is ironic for someone talking about ignorance.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- iso1631 6y ago
  That seems a very odd take from the paper "So Eton appears to have asked young boys how to justify police brutality against the general public…" This is for an entrance exam, Eton expects people to already be able to justify it before they even get to Eton.

arethuza 6y ago

It was about Eton, a private high school, and the "unsavory deed" shooting by the Army of protestors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21628900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21628900

karatestomp 6y ago
Yeah, that's the one. Fake "controversy" playing on ignorance.
- NicolasGorden 6y ago
  I though school entrance exams, particularly at the high school level, should be selecting for meritocratic principles such as competence and intelligence. The reason it's controversial to some of us is that currently schools seem to be moving more and more toward selecting for obedience. This creates a feedback loop where the system selects for those that will not want to change it, but instead will play along. It seems that when a system declares a purpose for an exam and then doesn't comply with that purpose, reasonable people would question it. It also seems the feedback loops can be so intense the system selects those so willing and desirous to submit to authorities that they categorize anyone even questioning the system as 'ignorant' without any irony. Unfortunately Chomsky is mostly ignored by people who would need to understand his point the most: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM
  - nradov 6y ago
    Bill Deresiewicz made a similar point in his book Excellent Sheep. Students are rewarded for conforming and following the designated educational path. But is that really what we want? https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/ https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    I'll continue to take the assumption that asking a (prospective) student to conduct an exercise involving a thought experiment implies support of the premises of the exercise on the part of those asking it, an expectation that the student supports them, or an attempt to shape the student to support them, as a sign of ignorance within at least the confines of what those sorts of questions are used and useful for. That the position the student is asked to assume is a bit uncomfortable is very likely part of the point. Seeing what they make of it—the tone, the message, what they choose to add or leave out, how and whether they fill in the gaps in the prompt WRT the events, circumstances, the state of mind of the prime minister, the mood of the people, and so on, which are numerous, how and whether they balance all this with the particular limitations and goals of the message itself, or hell, whether they reject the prompt and walk out in a huff (bad) or do something else by ignoring all or part of the prompt and its explicit and implied constraints (potentially very good if done just right)—can all be useful, and in ways "craft a message about how awful this was and why it should never happen again" wouldn't be.
    - NicolasGorden 6y ago
      Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments. There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use as an ironmanning example for an entrance exam. This seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. So it makes sense it raises eye brows. If there was no such trend, you'd have more of a point. BTW, I'm not saying it was 100% that, I don't know the specific case, just that it falls within certain patterns that people have every reason to be cautious towards. The question could have been asked to ironman a racist, pedophile or abusive parent. The whole point of ironmanning is an exercise in reasoning, empathy and ability to see other's points even when wrong. So the less reasonable arguments exist, the more the exercise is being applied. You can ask to ironman any argument, I'm not against that, it's actually something I practice. Just because I don't agree with this doesn't mean I'm ignorant or don't understand things. You assume much, which is ironic for someone talking about ignorance.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
iso1631 6y ago
That seems a very odd take from the paper "So Eton appears to have asked young boys how to justify police brutality against the general public…" This is for an entrance exam, Eton expects people to already be able to justify it before they even get to Eton.