(Don't get a JD unless set on a particular practice because the field is overflowing. Consider MD or DDS first.)
The average additional expenditure per pupil for magnet schools is $200/year out of $12.5k.
Why were teachers biased against you?
Universities in the UK use A-level results (which are mostly based on standardised tests), but will sometimes compensate (lower) the required grade based on a students school and background. Which IMO works out fairer in practice.
Neither SAT nor ACT is measured in "grades".
This doesn't somewhat improve college performance. It creates a markedly different brain and habits. An effect that declines as entrance into such a school system becomes later. Middle school being exceptionally late. High school being so late so as to have a marginal effect if any. Kindergarten being optimal.
Prep schools, generally speaking, only give basic test instruction for college entrance exams. Other standardized testing is the same or even less than normal schools. Cram-course style instruction is generally private and paid for privately by any given family. In my experience, the vast majority of prep school students don't seek it. This is in the United States.
Not if they go to a school that doesn't have the prerequisites for college/university. Not if the school is so poorly-resourced that they don't have access to the study material, or even access to take the standardized tests they need. Not if the teachers are jerks. Go luck getting into a university science program if your highschool didn't teach science.
(Yes, that is a thing even in the US. Many religious schools do not teach what we who read HN would call "science", which makes university applications tricky.)
It helps to have some familiarity with the test, so test prep has some value, but some rich kids can’t test their way out of a paper bag. The one thing they could do is hire a ringer to take the test for them, otherwise it is a valuable form of downward mobility which presents a “barrier” to them hoarding opportunity from someone more able.
Thr proper terminology is Sovial Mobility
> arbitrary things like sex or race can’t work
They work as a litmus test-> if you are massively excluding someome, probably something in the process is fucked.
As for litmus test, again sure. But accounting for cultural and biological differences matters. There’s a reason Asians are over represented in certain things due to a culture that values education. Or men tending to distribute differently than women. And many other things. It would be naive to believe any difference in outcomes is purely discriminatory. Although of course that can be a factor.
This could mean different things to different people
Lets imagine we have a perfectly objective, merit based hiring/admissions process. We could still have proffeshions with 1% women, or 1% blacks, etc.
This could be caused by culture, say no women want to be bricklayers or software developers. Or men spent insane amount of effort, like more than is logical.
There is still a valid debate, what do we do about this. Maybe you should not just 'let it play out'.
Like we should hypothetically reward people that work hard.
But recently we had some poor intern at Goldman literally die from overwork. He worked himself to death, died for like £30K salary, what a waste.
Should we really reward that? Should the company face some consequences if this keeps happening?
Obviouslt we kniw 'Back in the day' culture for women was such, that they would not be prepared, in skills and in attitude, to compete with men in education or employment.
If we never went for cultural change, it would still be that way.
It think it's really important that at early stages in life more people are given a chance to change course. That's what educational institutions are for.
The claim is that they are trying to give the kid from East New York a shot but the reality is that this is all about the Dalton parents not wanting their little precious to have to go head to head on a fair playing field against a Stuyvesant kid.
Their goal is to make all desirable institutions look like Dalton—-very wealthy students with an appropriate sprinkling of diversity make everyone feel great about open minded and progressive they are.
I went to a shitty rural high school - high scores on my ACT made a huge difference as anyone who could read got out of that school with a 3.7.
Does this mean that today's IQ tests have racial bias?
> There’s also a historical association with IQ assessment and eugenics.
Does this mean that today's IQ tests have racial bias?
The big debate in academic psychology is the extent to which factors like SES (and factors downstream of SES, like general health) confound the measurement of some kind of general intelligence. The evidence we have right now pretty clearly points to an effect, so it's down to what the size of that effect is.
Imagine a test to measure the resistance of various materials. Is the test biased because it shows that concrete is stronger than rotten wood? No, it just measures the resistance of different materials. If the measurement error (not the measurement itself) was significantly different for different materials then yes you could say the test is biased.
You are just saying that SES affects intelligence, which is most likely true and immediately prompts the question of what affects SES.
A poor kid may score worse than they would have scored if they weren't poor, but if we want to know whether they're ready for MIT or a course above their grade level, it might do them a disservice to confound our perceptions of their actual current level with our personal indignation over socioeconomic inequalities and our hopes in the potential they'd realize if those inequalities were eliminated.
What is the true value in this case? Is it the counterfactual performance a person would have if their SES were not low? Would that be the "right" true value in all applications? Might it not be the case that, in some contexts, the "right" true value is the person's actual current ability level and not some counterfactual of how they would do in other circumstances that were perhaps more just and fair? For example, what if you are trying to give them the learning opportunity best suited to their actual current ability level, not trying to rank people and only give the top-ranked some special status or credential?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
and given that standard variants of the test have 60 items anybody who is capable of learning a script could memorize them and get a perfect score. I imagine there is one psychologist who coaches you then you go see another psychologist across the street who administers the test.
> IQ has been determined to be have racial and other biases.
Citation needed
Schools can do affirmative action for African Americans without making standardized testing optional, they have been for decades. What’s harder for them to do without getting rid of such tests is discriminating against Asians (and middle class whites) in favor of rich whites.
It’s no coincidence that this is happening in the wake of the Harvard lawsuit. What these schools want is a class made up entirely of diversity, athlete, and development admits. The first generation Asian-American kid isn’t taking a seat away from a black kid, he’s taking it from the son of the CFO of a Fortune 500 company.
I think these are complex issues and there’s no scenario where everyone is happy. As a society we’d be better off to tone down the fawning over Ivy League schools.
The majority of rich kids, whose parents are serious about college, are tracked through prep schools beginning with kindergarten.
Its more rare than not that such a kid underperforms enough to be excluded from elite University admission. Especially once one includes the many elite liberal arts colleges that are generally off of the radar of poors.
I do agree about the value of standardized testing, but for the reason that it enables positive filtering of underprivileged kids who otherwise wouldn't be looked at. I don't believe that a downward pull on rich kids is all that significant. To politely disagree with the reasoning of an otherwise well intentioned post.
I attended prep school as a poor. One of the most egregious things that I've ever witnessed, in terms of admissions, is a truly stupid poor being admitted to an Ivy because his Father networked enough as the a prep school's soccer coach (soccer being why his son was at the prep school, but not why he was admitted to the Ivy). I knew this kid from when we attended Catholic school together before the prep school.
This would not apply to everyone else. Only to kids with an unidentified disability. Which will be more in the underprivileged group, but it is still a minuscule group.
Especially taken in the context of elite University admissions, for which we are actually speaking of the even rarer child that is "twice exceptional'. That is, gifted with a disability.
But what about if instead the elevated rate is a result of fraud? In other areas of life (e.g. service animals and medical pot) it’s pretty clear that there are medical professionals out there are selling their letterhead to the highest bidder.
Why should we believe that’s not happening here?
Conversely I've seen people from hardscrabble backgrounds who are obviously disabled (a friend with no diagnosis but who so thought disordered that even though she are addicted to cigarettes it would take hours for her to get it together enough to smoke her first cigarette even with help) who would struggle to deal with the paperwork to get food stamps and TAANF, never mind the much more difficult and adversarial process to get SSI or SSDI.
Let alone at a significant rate.
Why is this wild conjecture worth a discussion?
Give me a break.
As a clinician that evaluates disabilities, it is very difficult to fake one. They tend to be diagnosed at an early age, and not at "test time" in high school. In fact, as a person ages they are much less likely to receive a diagnosis. There has to be early-age evidence even if the diagnoses is later in life.
The disability rate in elite / prep schools exists but is low. These kids tend to be more on the spectrum than anything else.
Underperforming kids who don't have a disability, and might be prone to cheat by one means or another, and who aren't sports recruits tend to transfer to easier schools.
If a kid wants to go through the process of being fraudulently diagnosed by an independent psychologist with ADHD, for the purpose of accommodations, then the same process is discoverable by literally anyone with an internet connection. That is, by everyone.
And from what I know, this has much less to do with clinician corruption than it does with the individual faking symptoms. There's few to zero people risking their licenses to hand out fake diagnoses for scheduled medications that are under heavy scrutiny at all times by the States and the Feds. The liability alone is off of the charts.
Schools are only likely to accept the diagnoses if a thorough clinical evaluation is undertaken. The result of which is not able to be faked.
We see in medical malpractice cases that there’s always two expert witnesses and their respective testimonies always line up with the interests of the side that’s paying them. Why aren’t those clinicians worried about losing their licenses?
I almost dropped the dime on him because one of his patients was a severely disturbed friend of mine who did not have a proper diagnosis (I'd conjecture today she had schizoaffective disorder) and I think would have benefited from a change in medication -- but we never found out because she took her own life. I'm pretty sure somebody else dropped the dime on him.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/h...
It's not a "wild conjecture".
It happens more than you might think, but only because you don't have the money or desire to use such a service.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...
There have been many scandals, relatively recently. This was just one of many many links that are very easy to find.
The thing is, attempts to measure the effect of test prep show they have little effect. According to these studies, SAT test prep courses might add ~30 points to your score: https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
If someone's high school math skills aren't ready at all then that's a much bigger issue than any kind of bonus prep.
Total education and intelligence are largely what determines one's score. Beyond basic studying that literally everyone can and should do, no one is going to cram-course their way to a 250 point difference. Which when I took the test, was often the difference between say a successful Ivy applicant and a successful Duke applicant. Lesser private and public school applicants dropping from there.
quoting the penultimate paragraph (why are the relevant bits always buried?)
> Analyzing a 2008 survey conducted by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, he noted that one-third of respondents described a jump from 750 to 770 on the math portion of the SAT as having a significant effect on a student’s chances of admissions, and this was true among counselors at more and less selective schools alike. Even a minor score improvement for a high-achieving student, then—and one that falls within the standard measurement error for the test—can make a real difference.
Your link literally says: - test prep improves scores - most conservative possible study suggests ~25 point bump in score - college admission stats show this matters for many applicants
???
the fact that the piece ALSO says, later on:
> students who have a mean score on the math portion of the SAT around 450. According to the same admissions counselor survey, a 20-point improvement to a score in this range would have no practical meaning for students who are trying to get into more selective schools
and no kidding. 450 on either section is clearly not suitable for a college experience at a "selective school." You're expected to do multivariable calc during MIT's freshman year, regardless of major. 450 on math SAT means you can't do algebra.
This view ironically makes schools and education irrelevant. Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student?
For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure.
That these schools serve both sets of demand is a problem: Sure hand out the elite status tokens to favored groups, they dont matter much anyways. But if society actually believes that there are pressing problems that need to be solved (global warming perhaps etc) training resources should be aimed at those who can best go on to make use of them.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.
The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related.
Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students to participate in college extra-curriculars too.
The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.
Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots.
> The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.
> Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates.
I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?
I'm unsure how you arrived at that conclusion. I'll chalk it up to me being unintentionally unclear.
What I am saying is that its largely a fallacy that Universities are commonly put to the decision of a more social candidate versus a more academically talented candidate.
The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation.
At least within a deviation of academic and social metrics that is meaningful.
Selectivity of admissions allows for selectivity of curriculum. Selectivity of curriculum allows for better trained / educated students.
As well as tailoring of education to meet a student's ability, both on the high and lesser ends.
You may as well ask what the purpose of special education or gifted programs are. To put in in the terminology of those commonly concerned with the plight of haves and have nots, the answer is educational justice.
Last, maximizing the education of elite academic performers tends to maximize results for the nation in the real world in a manner that raises the living standards for have nots.
> The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation.
I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluous, with the combination of grades and extra-curriculars adequately measuring what the colleges want to measure?
> You may as well ask what the purpose of special education or gifted programs are... the answer is educational justice.
I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words that sound nice.
(I was in a gifted program in junior high school, by the way. In retrospect, it's not clear to me what purpose it served, other than to separate us socially from other students. Maybe it wasn't a very good gifted program, but I did live in a fairly well-off school district, so I don't think that was from lack of funding. In high school we had Advanced Placements courses, which are obviously more practically useful, though I wouldn't place them under the category of "educational justice".)
> in a manner that raises the living standards for have nots.
That's the issue. It sounds nice, reminiscent of the Rawlsian difference principle, but empirically I'm not seeing it in the world. What I see is largely self-enrichment of the minority, without much regard for everyone else.
>I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words that sound nice.
It's a developmental clinician's perceptive (myself) that has its root in the long standing educational and clinical view that curriculums should be tailored to meet student ability. The most obvious every-day example being in the special education classroom (which enjoys the protection of hefty federal law), and which is also mirrored in the less obvious gifted programs.
>I was in a gifted program in junior high school, by the way. In retrospect, it's not clear to me what purpose it served, other than to separate us socially from other students. Maybe it wasn't a very good gifted program, but I did live in a fairly well-off school district, so I don't think that was from lack of funding. In high school we had Advanced Placements courses, which are obviously more practically useful, though I wouldn't place them under the category of "educational justice".
You can't see the purpose of a child with a 150 IQ having a unique curriculum apart from other students? That may or may not be you, but it doesn't mean that it isn't someone. Controlling for any lack in your specific gifted program.
Unless highly organized and driven, the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon.
There is an ethical parallel to providing these individuals with a unique curriculum and providing one to special education students.
>That's the issue. It sounds nice, reminiscent of the Rawlsian difference principle, but empirically I'm not seeing it in the world. What I see is largely self-enrichment of the minority, without much regard for everyone else.
That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty.
> having a unique curriculum apart from other students
I agree wholeheartedly. However, our school system doesn't provide that. Our system isn't even remotely in the vicinity of that. We still rely mostly on social promotion based on geography and age, with age groups sometimes divided into 2 or 3 rough subgroups. I'm not impressed. I think it's questionable how much if any value that provides. It's classism rather than individualism.
> the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon.
"likely"? Is that just your speculation, or do you have empirical evidence? I know that IQ tests are not required for admission.
I'm not a fan of the notion of "IQ". I consider it a kind of pseudoscience. I don't think I've ever taken an IQ test myself, though I don't recall exactly the criteria for admission to the aforementioned gifted program.
> That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty.
Mmmkay, thanks for playing. I'm done here now. Congrats on the smugness, hope you enjoy it.
That hardly makes the school “irrelevant”.
Because the tests measure knowledge, and schools are intended to impart knowledge.
As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?" If my local gym is really trash or I can't afford one, I can still do pushups on my own or go for runs, but nobody would argue based on that that gyms are worthless.
Likewise, schools are (or should be) built for students to learn. Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests.
The fact that other means of learning exists, though, doesn't mean that schools aren't important or useful.
This isn't a good analogy. A gym is a mere building. I wasn't referring to schools as mere buildings, the walls, the halls, the roofs. I was referring to schools as the places where the students meet the teachers.
> Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests.
How successful do you expect most children would be with entirely self-directed learning? No teachers, no tutors, not even parents. That's what I meant. I wouldn't expect that to work well, with only rare exceptions. Students — who by definition and nature lack experience, lack knowledge, are ignorant — need guidance, and thus the quality of the schools, the quality of the teaching is crucial. Nothing is totally in the control of the student, nor should it be, for the student's own good.
> I was referring to schools as the places where the students meet the teachers.
I think for any gym with personal trainers, this is still a pretty one-to-one analogy.
> How successful do you expect most children would be with entirely self-directed learning? No teachers, no tutors, not even parents. That's what I meant.
Ah, I think I might have been missing your point here -- essentially does it boil down to "If tests are all that we're measuring, what's the point of all the grading and process that schools go through", to which the answer is presumably "Tests aren't all that matters"? If that's the case, we probably agree here (in that learning is the thing that matters, and schools might perform a lot of functions which don't map to test scores, but might map to better learning).
LMK if this is still off base, though.
Thankfully they also have standardized test scores, which both have a much more transparent scoring method and seem a much better match for the children's competency. It's not that standardized tests are perfect, but removing them makes things extremely capricious, and often very unfair.
Even if they had the time, there seems to be very little interest in advanced students across the board, and few if any programs put in place to meet their needs.
Secondly, there aren't many opportunities for students to demonstrate that they exceed the standards. Getting a class test entirely correct demonstrates that they know what is being taught, but nothing more. One thing I like about the standardized tests they're given now is that the computer will adjust and ask more advanced problems if the students get answers correct.
Grading in certain subjects is just laughable. Can you objectively evaluate English essays so that 97/100 is "better" than 96/100? Why not add more significant digits: 96983/100000!
The only K-12 school in which my children have been enrolled that has never reported standardized test scores to student's parents also happened to be a private school. I suspect the school's motive is a combination of not wanting to give leverage to parents whose children do well, and not wanting to piss off the wealthy parents. We are in the first group and thankfully my children weren't at that school for very long due to COVID lockdowns.
I love it that you make your candidates go through binary trees questions on a whiteboard AND are totally dismissive of it at the same time. That's totally not a waste of everyone's time.
I’m S Asian, scored 99th percentile 17x, but my GPA was around 3.3 because I think college is a joke when it involves homework. I had never gotten less than a A on midterms and finals, but what I’m trying to say is that GPA and race matters much more.
There was a law school acceptance calculator. With my scores and my Asian background, the T14 were either out of reach or I had somewhat of a chance at a lower rank of those schools.
Law school is probably the most atrocious when it comes to race based acceptance. Changed my race on the calculator and my chances became green across the board basically.
Being Asian is hard enough. We have to succeed because our parents and in some cases like me know what life is like without running water or electricity, genocide every few years, etc.
It sucks that no school ever looks at that. I grew up without running water nor a toilet, and multiple people living in a home that was barely 400sq ft. Yet nobody cares about that because I’m Asian, the wrong minority.
Yes I don’t give a shit about homework, I understand the material which is why I’m slaying each test. I hated that about college. We are adults. I’m paying to get an education, why the fuck is homework 20% of the grade? It’s practice, for people who don’t get the material.
Education is a joke. when I see a fellow asian person from a top uni I know they had to be actually extraordinary to get in and come out.
What discipline did you study in undergrad?
In many majors - or even just in well-taught classes - work outside of lecture or recitation is designed to complement what you are learning. It _is_ the education you're paying for. It isn't high school where it's a bunch of repetition of the same concept (although I'd vigorously defend that, too) intended as practice. Problem sets ought to be the application of the material you're introduced to in lecture, done so in a way that forces you to grapple with and connect core concepts to other material in your major.
For example, in grad school I TA'ed an upper-level undergraduate course that would typically have 15-20 students. The problem sets I created with the professor I worked for had problems split across two themes. The first was discover; we'd take something that seemed ho-hum or rote from class, and apply it to an oddball setting which yielded surprising results. Sure, that straightforward equation works - but why does it go so weird in this curated example we're providing? There's extraordinary opportunity for learning there.
The second theme was connection across disciplines. Introduce a mathematics, computer science, or other concept and use it to extend something from lecture in an interesting way. These problems were intended t be challenging. We referred students to other textbooks and invited them to work together or come to office hours to fill in gaps in their background, because (a) this is a _vital_ skill to learn, and (b) it led to really cool and interesting problems and solutions.
There simply is not time in lecture or recitation to cover the stuff we introduced in these homework assignments. That's why the course credit hours tallied up to 3x the amount of time spent in lecture. I'll also note that while challenging, we did not allow poor marks on or incomplete problem sets derail a student's grade. If in lecture/recitation participation and on exams they clearly knew the core content, we'd work with the students to ensure they got a high grade. But if someone shirked off the homework entirely but aced the exams? Well, the exams aren't testing everything we're teaching you in this course, so you better believe they'd get poor grades at the end of the term.
So your perspective seems warped. If you weren't doing the homework, then you didn't get the education you paid for, and that's on you - not the university.
Like I mentioned to the other poster, there are people who do all the homework and still fail the class.
I aced every single project, midterm, and final. I can understand most topics the first or second time I learn them, and when I don’t I will do some homework. But for the most part I personally didn’t need it and I got penalized. I also worked during college so I could afford to not commute, so i was glad I didn’t need to do the homework to do well in everything else.
So explain that to me. I recall students who did homework would still fail and then the professor would do some last saving grace move where you do some BS work to get an extra five percent.
Someone who understands the material would ace the exams. In my experience most people did not ace the exams and in fact would hate on me and some others who would “kill the curve”.
Finally fwiw I went to a lower ranked state college not some MIT tier place. They were the only college who offered the most financial aid so I was able to graduate with under 7k owed while affording to live on campus.
Paid off my debt in the first months paycheck lol.
You're special. Congratulations! You have a unique capability to absorb knowledge. In my experience, this means one of two things: either (1) you truly are brilliant and will exceed at anything you apply to, or (2) at some point you will run into something that you _don't_ understand after the first or second try, and you'll be entirely unequipped and unprepared to deal with that. Also in my experience, (2) is far more common than (1).
Bashing your head against difficult things in a low-stakes environment where folks are literally paid to help you navigate failure is a great way to extend the runway until (2) hits. Again - you're _paying_ for this opportunity in college.
> ... then the professor would do some last saving grace move where you do some BS work to get an extra five percent.
Maybe it's not BS work? Maybe there's something to creating relationships with the people you work with, and creating alternative avenues for them to help you, since it's literally their job?
I had an undergrad once who did reasonable on their homework problem sets, but just could not get it together in the written exams. Turns out their was an anxiety issue involved. But they came to my office hours for help, and put in the effort, so I was more than happy to see what I could do to ensure that not only would they learn the material to the best of their ability, but that we could soften the blow of a less-than-perfect final mark in the course. I wouldn't go to such lengths for a name on a paper who I saw in lecture but otherwise had no interaction with... how do I know they actually put in the effort and knew the material?
> Someone who understands the material would ace the exams. In my experience most people did not ace the exams and in fact would hate on me and some others who would “kill the curve”.
Depends entirely on the exam. I've taken exams for coursework that I truly thought I had mastery over and utterly bombed them. I've also taken exams for courses that I was convinced I was going to fail, and done well, too.
In my experience, it's actually very difficult to write an in-person exam that rewards mastery over course material. I've encountered very few such exams in my life that didn't resort to gimmicks or "gotchas" in the material. It's much easier in a timed, in-person setting to write busy work that has tricks built in so things simplify away and get rid of a lot of the manual work.
It’s just that I’m seeing all these so called solutions to problems in education like removing SAT while students who need to be well equipped to learn like a sponge and retain that knowledge are imo/ime just left to the side.
It’s cool that you seem really invested in helping people succeed. That wasn’t my experience, because I recall my professor calling me out all the time because I was late to his class. Like bro I’m sorry no disrespect meant but I’m doing my best and it’s not like I am failing your class. Unless you make it so I do because you grade stuff like showing up on time.
Again education is a paid for expense. It isn’t a charity, and I’m paying to learn. Not do charades.
And IRL you are either getting paid to do a job or busting to make a dollar. Totally different world imo.
If I could do it over again, I’d probably have taken that 200k risk and gone to the best school I got into but didn’t offer any fin aid. And I’d probably have studied CS and Math instead of business because I ended up teaching myself software engineering.. it just sucks that education isn’t tailored to the student, and people want to do all the things except grade people on what they can demonstrate (tests/material).
I firmly believe that the final exam is what shows whether a student understands the material. When graded on anything besides that, I personally don’t care anymore. That’s just my opinion. Otherwise just remove grading completely and do pass/fail. Or just pass everyone for giving them the check each semester.
So what you're admitting is that you are willing to not to do required parts of your job because you don't feel they're important. If you go out into the workforce and become a lawyer, what parts of your job are equally willing to blow off because you don't like them? Billing clients properly? Procedural stuff like filing answers properly?
You're basically arguing that your unwillingness to do the assigned tasks not be held against you.
Besides I worked the entire time in college to pay for college. Being penalized because I don’t have time to do homework without which I can’t pay for school helps nobody. I don’t think I ever got anything lower than a B on an exam, and nothing lower than A on a final/midterm/project.
And yeah, homework is for people who need it. Work and school are totally different one you’re learning the other you’re utilizing what you learned. Having homework be worth anything more than maybe 5% is stupid. I’m not getting paid to do homework, in fact I am paying to even learn.
People do homework and still fail. So what’s the point of homework?
Want to be a lawyer but are not sure about law school and do ot know any lawyers? Look to the LSAT. Do well and where you went to university/highschool doesnt matter. Do really well and scholarships will appear. That is the freedom of good standardized testing.