3 ms·
Interesting that my childhood evaluation systems in India are resistant to this new development. 100% scores from in-person exams, no loss of dynamic range thro
by arjie 2y ago
Interesting that my childhood evaluation systems in India are resistant to this new development. 100% scores from in-person exams, no loss of dynamic range through grading (i.e. 97% score > 96% score), zero score to homework. I imagine that the primary constraint in the US is labour cost since you need what you call a proctor and what we call an invigilator, and perhaps the substantial student power (a student and their parents can overrule teachers).
I like the relative mobility in the Indian system since anyone can swot to the test, but clearly the US system is much more enjoyable for a wider variety of students and they have a wider range of skills.
I think I'd like for my children to have a composite of the two. I dislike neverending homework and love tests because spiky activity allows for lots of self-directed exploration and the tests allow for evaluation. Though it's like that this is because I, personally, am quite capable with tests: I operate very well under time pressure and have an exceptional memory.
- samarthr1 2y agoIs the relative mobility a good thing though? (Not strictly on topic, so apologies) I would argue that for the exams that actually matter (the JEE, say) PCM scores are very poor indicators of success in the chosen branch, and are an arbitrary selection criteria, and not very removed from a lottery. A better system may include psychometric pairing for branch of engineering opted? My argument is essentially that if I like (say) Civil engineering more, then I would have demonstrated some additional knowledge in parts of the desired branch, so testing that should in theory give better civil engineering graduates, instead of people who joined it for the tag of the institute and not for the branch? But again, I am a _bit_ salty about the 12th standard exam treadmill in india.
- arjie 2y agoYes, it's practically a lottery with a skill floor. And I think that's a pretty good way of doing things. The purpose of these technical institutes is to reliably train people into a bunch of skills, not to get people who have the skills already and stamp them. The purpose of an entrance exam is to have a method that: - demonstrates a floor of intelligence and skill - is demonstrably fair - has high dynamic range - can be trained against by the conscientious I think the JEE behaves well against these criteria. In addition, affirmative action is explicitly handled by quotas. This gives a predictable system with known constraints. When participating, you know your targets. Personally, if I know my constraints ahead of time, and I can optimize to them by studying, and the studying is directionally useful to education, that is sufficient to me. If I fail, it's on me and I can accept that.
- samarthr1 2y agoNot saying it is good or bad, but is someone who loves a subject more deserving of a seat in that subject, than someone who is looking to minmax their salary package at the end? I have batch mates who hate CS, but chose it simply for the placements, and wholeheartedly believe that they are a wasted seat, because they are not interested in learning the subject.
- arjie 2y agoIt's too hard to pick the deserving. It's probably better at the societal level to pick something that is clear and easy for candidates to follow and optimize against. And I think Indian selection systems are far better at that than the US. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. If you pick EE/Mech and come to the US for a CS Master's you'll be fine. I can't speak for India itself.