gmonkey42

[Error: unknown template qotd]I think a big problem is going to be that everyone's biased based on how they themselves performed on the tests. I did pretty well on the SAT (1440) and really quite well on the GRE (710 math, 800 verbal, 5.5 analytical writing). I think standardized tests should be one of many criteria college admissions offices use. But would I have a different opinion if I hadn't done well on the tests? Some of the traits that helped my performance on the test - being self-motivated and hard-working, reading a lot, having a commitment to lifelong learning - also help me produce better work in school and a career.

I know studies have shown that standardized test scores are a poor predictor of performance. I can see how people who do well in real life have test-taking anxiety and their test score is an underestimate their true abilities. And I know lazy, ignorant people can pay thousands of dollars to take a test-prep course and improve their score from "abysmal" to "acceptable." There are many factors that determine someone's score on a test and a lot of those factors have nothing to do with how well they'll do in real life. But that doesn't mean the test is completely useless; there are some factors that test-taking and real-world-productivity have in common, as I said above. I think it's good to have standardized test scores available because it's the only measure that's consistent across the board - someone could have a really high GPA and glowing recommendations but not actually be very bright if they went to a high school that had low standards. We need a valid, fair way to compare students who went to different schools.


On the other hand, I think the tests required by No Child Left Behind are stupid. A nationwide high school exit exam is a good idea in principle but they're doing it wrong. One big problem with nationally imposed standards for curriculum (which is sort of on a tangent, I know, but the standards are in place because of the test) is that it takes a long time for something like that to be updated, there's a lot of bureaucracy to get through and a lot of different interests all competing with each other. The result is we're forced to cover a watered down, out-of-date version of everything; this is especially a problem in science education.

As seen via StumbleUpon:

A bunch of lazy assholes who don't deserve to graduate! :D

"My average class size is 115" "18% of my teachers know my name"
CRY MORE
College students should not require a class with no more than 14 other students and a teacher who's going to hold their hand and make sure they get their homework done and care about their feelings. If you want the instructors to know your name then freaking show up for office hours.

"I Facebook through most of my classes" "I buy hundred dollar textbooks that I never open" "I will read 8 books this year"
I have zero sympathy. These things are all fully under the students' control.

I worked my ass off on my double major and I'm incensed that these entitlement-complex-having students think their poor performance means school needs to be made easier for them. That somehow the fact that they do a half-assed job or don't show up at all is the school's fault.

Yes, debt from student loans is a big problem but that was only mentioned very briefly. The message of this video seems to be that a college environment where you actually have to try hard and learn things doesn't work for lazy bastards, and we need to do a better job of catering to the lazy bastard demographic.

Naturally, they don't propose or even hint at any solutions. Just have a bunch of sullen-faced - and 100% white, I couldn't help noticing - college kids hold up self-pitying, pithy little handwritten signs. That'll solve everything!