Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by phantoms, Sep 2, 2020.
Honestly if you can pay for the school assuming its public no one should be denied.
They do not have unlimited capacity. For instance, Georgia Tech admits only 20% of applicants. If they took the other 80%, they would not have the capacity to provide them an education, and most of them would not make it four years, anyway.
Under your rule, everybody would simply go to the best school, even if they did not deserve to get in by merit. Most of them would fail and simply be a disruption to the ones who deserve to be there and can actually take advantage of the education. Of course, then there would be protests, and activist judges like the one above would declare that the best schools now have to accommodate lower IQ and less hard working students . . .
What people shouldn't be denied is actual, practical vocational training; this notion of "everyone needs a college degree" is one of the worst cultural developments which has occurred the the USA in the past 50 years. For one thing, it's coincided with the death of manufacturing in this country (and consequently the vanishing of the middle class).
As for standardized testing, the day it all goes away will be good riddance indeed. The only reason it's needed is that EVERYONE feels like they need to attend a four-year college, so the colleges get a glut of applications. So many people would be so much happier learning a skilled trade, leaving college to those who actually desire careers as knowledge workers.
(My default recommendation to young men these days is to get into welding, because it pays well across multiple industries and it's portable - you can get welding work anywhere on Earth. Get into underwater welding and you're pulling in lawyer/doctor money!)
I wonder how different this country would be if we had mandatory military service for, say, two years after high school, during which everyone learns a trade (welding, mechanic, etc). After that, they can go on as a professional soldier, go start a career in manufacturing or other skilled trade, or go on to college... there's no harm being a Comparative Literature scholar who can fix a helicopter engine!
I agree with everything you said except the quoted language. standardized testing has its drawbacks, but even if we adopted everything you suggested, there still will be competition among people wanting to get into college. There has to be some means of evaluating applicants on a universal scale. If not standardized testing, then what?
That's the issue in a nutshell, isn't it? Universal health care, in all it's variants, also assumes unlimited availability of healthcare resources. Then when the reality hits the road, the resources that are available don't go all the way around, and some people continue to do without, just like some did before.
For a little background, I have in the past owned a business which operated in the education "vertical", in particular where standardized testing and college admissions are concerned.
First, standardized tests are maybe 30% of a college admissions decision, so it's not as though it allows a "blind", objective selection. It really just sets a threshold or limit, so admissions staff can scrape off the upper group and then begin sorting them according to interviews, race or ethnicity, gender, "solvency" (ability to pay), and so on. It gets pretty subjective pretty quickly.
At some level, a critic might even call standardized testing "merit theater". Worse, grade schools are *consumed* by it, teaching to the test and so on. My own daughter attends a private K-12 school, in part because they don't have (1) a "gifted" program and (2) they do the minimum amount of testing to maintain State compliance for accreditation. The school is a major "Ivy League + Stanford" funnels, so it works... teach actual reading, writing, and arithmetic! Who knew the power of real learning!
One could write a book on what colleges *should* do, but for starters, I think it just has to be understood by all the players that "selection" is a human activity, and there's going to be an element of subjectivity. Choosing a school that's "the right fit" is half the battle. But I should clarify that my criticism about standardized testing is less as a selection criterion for college admissions and more about the toxic effect it has on primary and secondary education.
PS. The WSJ had an excellent essay on selection process at competitive colleges in last Saturday's edition, linked here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secrets-of-elite-college-admissions-11598626784?st=q3f1eqzr11s1f8j
I disagree they do have unlimited capacity most schools have online classes. And even if a specific class was in person only then a prerequisite class could be required for admittance into that..
Online classes is missing the primary value of college, which is beginning to build your professional network. That's where the value lies.
Why take an online Calculus class from Georgia Tech when you can just take one from, I don't know, Clayton State or West Georgia? Calculus is calculus. The benefit of a more competitive school (like Tech) is *being around other people who got into a competitive school*.
I went to Tech in the 80s (when it was MUCH harder, BTW! ), and the group of nerds I hung with when I was there have pretty much gone on to become CEOs, tech entrepreneurs, investors, etc. The first two companies I took a big investment position in were startups by friends at Tech, and I also got into Mindspring early because of its Tech origins. Did I have an awesome organic chemistry professor at Tech? Yes, absolutely, the best (Patrick McDougall, recently retired from Reed College), but I could have learned it just as well from anywhere online... but I wouldn't have gotten to personally *know* Pat McDougall, who introduced me to people who gave me opportunities later on.
*That* is what college is all about, and it only works *on site* and *in person*. You just can't develop the same kind of social and professional ties starting from an online connection.
I'ze happie to see dat deeze skools of high edjamacation be not discriminatin' on peeps like me who diddin get no right learnin in mah nayborhud skools.
Ain't none fault-a mine dat my old teechers be uceless ho's.
I gots lots of culchur and die vurcity of life expierence to bring to the tabel.
Bein wit me in colleje in Cali gonna lite up the lifes of thems smart kids.
Sounds rather racially insensitive to my way of reading.
This is the issue that affects more people than those wanting to get into the prestigious college of their choice.
Doing away with Act and Sat is big mistake and the results of that aren't far from post #10.
Again, I agree with most of what you said, and even the quoted sentence, but my conclusion is that primary and secondary education have issues, not that standardized testing should be abolished.
And my experience is that public schools teach to the standardized tests used to evaluate public schools, not to SATs and ACTs.
How does having a prerequisite address the limitation? And, are you talking about creating a prerequisite that's not needed for pedagogical purposes? I would really resent that as a student (or as a teacher who had to teach it).
Picking a college experience is a very individual choice, but I did not pick a college or take organic chemistry for the purpose of networking with my professors.
Oh, I didn't either, but (fortunately) it happened anyway; I didn't even think about it at the time! It's only in hindsight that I understand the value. I don't exactly come from "college folks", so my parents never really understood anything beyond "college is the ultimate achievement". Fortunately, I *now* understand deeply and I can pass the wisdom along to my daughter - build that network!
(I went to Tech because I was poor and I got a free ride (scholarship covering everything, tuition, books, room & board)... my other "top" option was the US Naval Academy. Buddy Darden hooked me up! Sometimes I regret not going, but end of the day, I am *not* a good "chain of command" kind of guy. Might not have ended well!)
Everybody has a purpose. It's benefits all when you end up in the one you're good at.
Seems we have a lot of "internet influencers" on the site these days.
"Good luggage of knowledge?" What the hell does that even mean? TROLL.