How do you feel about standardized tests? Do you think they accurately indicate a student's knowledge or ability?
10000 "THERE ARE MANY KINDS OF INTELLIGENCE AND THE TESTS TEST NONE LOL!!!!" later and I'm fucking angry.
The reason standardized tests fail you morons is because the bar is set so incredibly low and even if you miss the bar the first time you often have three or four chances to recover. It'd be like if I set up a genius test and the only question was "can you zip up your fly without getting your dick caught? You only have 15 attempts to do this" and if you can guess what? You're a genius!
Why bother at that point? It compounds when the schools that are tested the most are often the worst schools so yeah, take away valuable instruction time to see if they can spell the word "hoping" (hint: it's not 'hopeing' and "hopping" is a different word idiots) which they couldn't two days ago so I'm guessing a miracle didn't occur between then and now.
Whew. Anyway, on to our blog.
Her response:
Of course not! There are seven different types of intelligences and standardized tests accurately test none of them. They don't help a student show true understanding of subject matter, only that 1 out of 4 times, he can guess correctly. They are loathsome and I believe I heard somewhere that around the time they were introduced and leaned upon heavily, ADD prescriptions went up.
Wow, you heard somewhere ADD prescriptions went up. I'm sold! Don't bother citing anything just, you know, make up shit as you go along.
But here's the underlying problem with standardized tests: Knowledge, intelligence, education and the learning process are not easy concepts. Taking a person and helping him through the steps to learn new skills, understand parallels in literature or use the scientific method is a highly personal journey. Each person learns a little differently and takes a different amount of time to learn different things.
BECAUSE WE
ARE ALL LIKE SNOWFLAKES.
Oh my God I don't have the stamina today to put up with this.
Standardized tests seek to make us all the same. They take this rich tapestry of life and reduce it to "Do you know this fact? Y/N"
So how would you fix it? Everyone hates these standardized tests but I have yet to hear one plausible alternative to them.
Here's some sort of block of colors that's supposed to tell me about her personality. I have no idea how to read this so I'm just going to assume it's calling her a cunt and move on.
I just took the quiz that generates these blocks of color (I have nothing better to do with my life)
and mine featured more earth tones and grays while hers was just a corona of contradictory color so I guess it nailed something correctly.
Ghosts never seem to have problems walking through walls or people, but why doesn't anyone have issues with floors? If you're so insubstantial that you have literally no effect on your surroundings, why aren't you always falling through the floor?
... Because ghosts fly?
You've never noticed how they float, really?
It occurs to me that some people could be upset by a commonality in video games for the default of the player avatar to be male, as though the gender of the avatar affects the enjoyment of the game.
Most people prefer to play a character that looks like them, yes.
I, on the other hand, can never make a character badass enough to encapsulate how awesome I am so might as well make a girl.
Now, I am the first person to flail with glee when the main character is by default a woman instead of a man and doubly so when the game isn't a 'girly game', but I've never been particularly bothered by this occurrence.
>Default female avatar
>not girly
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I've been playing video games for nigh on 18 years, let's see how many examples of that I can come up with.
The Metroid series--
Arguably Final Fantasy 6--
Uhhh-- Bayonetta I guess--
So less than 20 games, great.
I used to poke fun of it when I first had my Pokemon Yellow game, but I was never really offended. Maybe it is just long years of conditioning that I expect myself to default to male in a game, but I think it is more that I am extremely comfortable playing a male character.
You do realize Pokemon Yellow is based on a cartoon with a male main character, yeah?
And that you've been able to pick a female lead since Ruby and Sapphire?
Something that makes me squee with delight is when a female avatar seduces a female NPC in a game that was obviously made for men to play. I'm not sure why, but it makes me happy to see lesbianism (Female homosexuality? Is this the PC term? Do we even have one yet?) in any game. I feel it is highly underrepresented and would love to see more of it about.
Do you play video games? There are lesbians all over the place.
Consider your primary audience~
Maybe I'm a little bit crazy, but hearing a knock at my door is possibly one of the most terrifying noises I ever experience.
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'
Yeah when you try to rip off an idea from someone make sure you pick someone a little more obscure than EDGAR ALLAN POE.
People still can't follow basic directions:
How would you describe the last decade in one sentence?
Her response:
Oh. Fuck.
>two periods
>neither word constitutes a sentence
Today has been one of the most frustrating days ever. This morning, it was difficult to wake up Doryen, so I was awake a little longer. Then it took me forever to find a razor that wasn't dull.
... To shave your legs, right?
RIGHT?
Has anyone else noticed that sometimes when you add the word 'my' to a slightly intimate sentence, it suddenly becomes uncomfortably personal? For example:
I always feel like a canary when I wear yellow underpants.
I always feel like a canary when I wear my yellow underpants.
Can't say I even know what you're talking about.
I usually whine about useless drivel on this journal and I'm certain that this will be no different, especially since it's nearly one in the morning as I write this. Let me begin with a qualification: I love my boyfriend. I adore him. He is a perfect gentleman to me, but isn't stupid enough to believe that I can't take the harsh realities of life (though he has yet to learn where my pain tolerance lies).
I'm reading that last part a lot of different ways.
He is exhausted all the time, and I can't blame him because he works overtime all day, then goes to class at night, Monday through Thursday. Normally, this might not be a problem except that he has been living with me for the past three weeks and I'm horny out of my mind. I don't want masturbation, it feels hollow and unsatisfactory, I want his *hands* on my *body*, his heat burning my skin. I want him to *want* me.
I think I suddenly understand what you mean about the whole "my" thing.
Especially considering I'm sure you're both morbidly obese.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Here's a cute story about how she met her boyfriend online.
So cute I can't even be bothered to copy and paste it here, I mean fuck off, goddamn.
Watching movies online together is like 18 levels of pathetic.
Therefore what you need to do, instead of appealing to your demographic's logos (that's Greek for logic and not their corporate symbol)
Oh is it Greek? Thank you for that.
Why is it that when you look at a pair of men together, you instantly believe that they are both fully homosexual and when you see a pair of women together, you think that they're probably closer to bisexual?
Because having spoken to many women and men women are far, far more likely to claim to be bisexual in some sort of petty attempt to attract men than gay men, who are typically gay?
I'd wager if you asked online you could find more people claiming to be bisexual women than heterosexual women.
Attention everyone!
I got my hood pierced =D
Your what?
Oh!
Oh...
Great.
It has a shiney, light blue jewel now.
Yeah, great. Any time I see people with genital piercings (which happens far more often than it should for those of you about to say "well how often does that happen, really?") my immediate thought is "mental illness".
A few thoughts on modern management of big businesses and that really should be done to fix their broken code of morality
>business
>morality
no.
Moving on from this post, in fact~
Now here's a post entitled "statistics and why I think they're bullshit" and this should be interesting.
I take as my primary (and really only) example, Deal or no Deal. Everyone probably knows the premise of the game- the contestant picks one of 30 odd suitcases, each with an amount of money on the inside and for the duration of the game, picks the other suitcases to see what was inside them until he or she finally gets to see which one was theirs.
>everyone knows the premise of this game
>let me explain it to you
Great thanks for this.
The player makes two choices, and two choices only: the suitcase he picks at the beginning and at the very end where he decides whether or not to switch cases at the end. All of the crap in the middle? Filler. No, his statistics aren't actually changing because he's not making any new choices.
Oh is that right?
There are 30 cases, the object of the game is to get the case with a million dollars in it. Assuming you do not know what is contained in your case, your odds of initially picking the case with a million dollars are 1:30, the same as picking a case with any discreet amount of money in it.
If you open a case and it does not contain a million dollars your odds increase to 1:29 because you have successfully eliminated a case in the wild, thereby increasing the odds the case you picked is the right one.
The situation you described would require you to never initially pick a case and just eliminate them at random, in which case your odds still increase as you pick successive cases but overall your odds are 1:30.
GIRLS AND STATISTICS, AM I RIGHT GUYS?
But this is my inherent complaint with statistics- I still think it's mostly bullshit. Yes, you can predict fairly accurately what card is going to come up next or, if you talk to a large enough group of people, what someone's preferences are going to be but in the end, it's still a 1 to 52 chance that you're going to pull a 3 of spades out of a pristine deck. Yes, it *is* less likely that after you pull out a spade that you'll pull out another spade, but I think the acknowledged margin of error proves my point just fine.
No it doesn't you stupid cow. A margin of error takes place only over the course of thousands of trial runs.
That'd be like flipping a coin once, getting heads and concluding that coin can only get heads because it happened one time.
Ever heard of a confidence interval?
Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, I would make an awful Deal or no Deal contestant. I would pick my case completely at random and open the rest of the cases in descending order, exhibiting little to no emotion as each was opened.
That would be part of the absolute best strategy, yes, but you came up with it for the entirely wrong reason. Your goal is to pick cases in any discreet pattern and then switch cases at the end when it comes down to 1:2 because of a statistical principle I'm not going to explain because this entry has already gone on too long.
If there are any mathematicians or statisticians, I would be interested to hear your opinions on the matter, but please only address what I've said here because I won't understand much more.
It is actually impossible to fully disprove you with the information you've provided because your knowledge of statistics is so scant I can't even invoke basic Statistics 101 principles.
You're probably someone who thinks the odds of getting tails on a coin flip approaches 1 with each successive flip of "heads".
Uuuuuuuuuuuh fuck. Anyway my head is swimmin' so I'm going to go do something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment