4 ms·

1.The focus should be on creating a conducive studying environment , where knowledge retention and skill demonstration via projects is given more importance tha

1.The focus should be on creating a conducive studying environment , where knowledge retention and skill demonstration via projects is given more importance than a score on a paper. Let's face it , every newspaper you open is flooded with an add of the mother being thankful to a coaching class for a good education. (Not a school or a teacher) commercialization of a students future and dream is what needs to be tackled. Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score

1337biz 13y ago
* Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score* Unfortunately we are moving exactly in the opposite direction: other companies request them {SAT Scores} even for senior sales and management hires, eliciting scores from job candidates in their 40s and 50s. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579395220334268350 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230363640...
yummyfajitas 13y ago
How do you scale that up? Say you implement your system. Now the output of the system is a Map[Student,List[Project]] rather than a Map[Student,Int]. How do I compare schools, determine whether a school is doing it's job, or do the same thing for students? Ultimately all consistent objective decisionmaking processes [1] must come down to a single number - that's a simple exercise in undergrad topology. Anything else will be either subjective or inconsistent (i.e., we prefer A to B, and B to C, but prefer C to A). So what are you proposing? A different format/syllabus for standardized tests, a subjective testing procedure, or an inconsistent one? [1] On a countable set of choices. Things get weird on uncountable sets.
- xamuel 13y ago
  >"Ultimately all consistent objective decisionmaking processes [1] must come down to a single number" Look up Campbell's law. Here, I'll even do it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- pizza234 13y ago
  It's very arguable that every decisionmaking process must come down to a number, as we're talking about people and not cattle. In this perspective, having people working on projects would be an appreciation of the "multidimensional" nature of people. After all, contemporarily, psychology started to think of multiple intelligences rather than a single one. If we assume this is true, what's the sense of assigning a single number to a person? Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them. Then, let's start to assign 10 numbers instead of one. I don't say that single-dimensional ratings are inherently wrong, but just that they're too narrow minded. "Scaling up" such procedures would mean scale up something wrong and inefficient; it's not real scaling up. I would propose to throw standardized tests in the garbage, and try novel approaches in the evaluation processes of people; I find hard to believe that assigning a number to a person is the only possible (and practical) perspective.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    It's very arguable that every decisionmaking process must come down to a number, as we're talking about people and not cattle. It's not debatable if you believe in the axiom of induction (or the axiom of choice for countably infinite sets). Theorem: If there is a total order (a consistent decisionmaking process) on the set of people (or any countable set), then there exists an order preserving function f: People->Real numbers. Sketch of proof: Start with an arbitrary person A. Define the ranking function f(A)=0. Choose an arbitrary person besides A, call them B. If B > A then f(B)=1, else if B = a then f(B)=0 else f(B) = -1. Choose a third person C, different from A and B. If C > max(A,B) define F(C) = f(max(A,B))+1. If A < C < B or B < C < A define f(C)=0.5x(f(A)+f(B)). If C < min(A,B) then f(C) = f(min(A,B))-1. Continue ad nauseum. Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them. Multiple intelligences probably don't exist. But even supposing they do, claiming that the domain of a function is multidimensional does not disagree with my claim that the range is one dimensional. Background: A total order is a way of saying "person A is at least as good as person B" which obeys all the obvious laws. Person B can be either a real person or a standard of achievement (e.g. "passing"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/metrics_manifesto.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/metrics_manifesto.htm...
mythealias 13y ago
Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score I can bet that it won't happen. As long as people need to complete, they will try to cheat.

1337biz 13y ago

* Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score* Unfortunately we are moving exactly in the opposite direction: other companies request them {SAT Scores} even for senior sales and management hires, eliciting scores from job candidates in their 40s and 50s. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579395220334268350 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230363640...

yummyfajitas 13y ago

How do you scale that up? Say you implement your system. Now the output of the system is a Map[Student,List[Project]] rather than a Map[Student,Int]. How do I compare schools, determine whether a school is doing it's job, or do the same thing for students? Ultimately all consistent objective decisionmaking processes [1] must come down to a single number - that's a simple exercise in undergrad topology. Anything else will be either subjective or inconsistent (i.e., we prefer A to B, and B to C, but prefer C to A). So what are you proposing? A different format/syllabus for standardized tests, a subjective testing procedure, or an inconsistent one? [1] On a countable set of choices. Things get weird on uncountable sets.

xamuel 13y ago
>"Ultimately all consistent objective decisionmaking processes [1] must come down to a single number" Look up Campbell's law. Here, I'll even do it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
pizza234 13y ago
It's very arguable that every decisionmaking process must come down to a number, as we're talking about people and not cattle. In this perspective, having people working on projects would be an appreciation of the "multidimensional" nature of people. After all, contemporarily, psychology started to think of multiple intelligences rather than a single one. If we assume this is true, what's the sense of assigning a single number to a person? Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them. Then, let's start to assign 10 numbers instead of one. I don't say that single-dimensional ratings are inherently wrong, but just that they're too narrow minded. "Scaling up" such procedures would mean scale up something wrong and inefficient; it's not real scaling up. I would propose to throw standardized tests in the garbage, and try novel approaches in the evaluation processes of people; I find hard to believe that assigning a number to a person is the only possible (and practical) perspective.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  It's very arguable that every decisionmaking process must come down to a number, as we're talking about people and not cattle. It's not debatable if you believe in the axiom of induction (or the axiom of choice for countably infinite sets). Theorem: If there is a total order (a consistent decisionmaking process) on the set of people (or any countable set), then there exists an order preserving function f: People->Real numbers. Sketch of proof: Start with an arbitrary person A. Define the ranking function f(A)=0. Choose an arbitrary person besides A, call them B. If B > A then f(B)=1, else if B = a then f(B)=0 else f(B) = -1. Choose a third person C, different from A and B. If C > max(A,B) define F(C) = f(max(A,B))+1. If A < C < B or B < C < A define f(C)=0.5x(f(A)+f(B)). If C < min(A,B) then f(C) = f(min(A,B))-1. Continue ad nauseum. Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them. Multiple intelligences probably don't exist. But even supposing they do, claiming that the domain of a function is multidimensional does not disagree with my claim that the range is one dimensional. Background: A total order is a way of saying "person A is at least as good as person B" which obeys all the obvious laws. Person B can be either a real person or a standard of achievement (e.g. "passing"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/metrics_manifesto.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/metrics_manifesto.htm...

mythealias 13y ago

Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score I can bet that it won't happen. As long as people need to complete, they will try to cheat.