Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#151

Post by thaumasiotes »

pksebben wrote: post #146
thaumasiotes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two main purposes: 1. You can't look for information if you don't know it exists. 2. Most standardized tests aren't used in the expectation that the testee's knowledge will matter in the future. Instead, the idea is that people who score higher will be generally more competent at whatever it is you want them to do.

>2. Most standardized tests aren't used in the expectation that the testee's knowledge will matter in the future. Instead, the idea is that people who score higher will be generally more competent at whatever it is you want them to do. I fail to see how information retention maps to skill in this case. I guess it could be a vague indicator of the amount of practice done, but some folks memorize so easily, it makes th…

> I fail to see how information retention maps to skill in this case.

It doesn't really matter if you understand why it works; the facts are what they are.

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#154

Post by necovek »

janekm wrote: post #132
necovek wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In university, I was notoriously bad at "remembering" things (iow, I was lazy to learn things by heart). I was pretty good at making connections, and I could prove theorems from only knowing a couple of definitions and simpler theorems in advanced math courses. I generally scored average in tests, but I rarely failed (though I occasionally had "original" solutions that teachers commended on even though I failed to re…

Well... I have deeply explored a scientific field (in computer science, not math) the way you are talking about. By reading other's research papers, implementing what they proposed, trying to improve upon it, coming up with novel solutions etc etc. Very little of what I used on a day-to-day basis came from rote learning, a lot came from the deeper understanding that I got from actually actively engaging with the conc…

> Very little of what I used on a day-to-day basis came from rote learning

The question is not how much non-rote learning is required to adequately perform any task, but whether rote learning is a necessary component of it.

By engaging with research papers (often requiring multiple readings), you "accidentally" also memorize a lot of the material (even if not for ever and ever), which makes it possible for you to "try to improve it" etc.

So all I am saying is that rote learning is a necessary component of applying any suitably advanced material. Whether that happens organically by engaging with the material deeply enough or on purpose by simply rote-learning is orthogonal to the need for that knowledge to be there.

At issue here in this thread is whether testing for such knowledge is signalling anything of value. I still believe it is because you'll have that knowledge with either approach, even if only one of those approaches will gain you more functional knowledge: basically, such a test is a proxy for you having engaged in the material.

Which is why I suggest a mixed approach in a sibling comment: test for knowledge of "factoids" to simplify test development and application of such knowledge where you are required to manipulate "learned" concepts (so only part of the test is hard to create and keep consistently hard/easy).

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#155

Post by epgui »

sam0x17 wrote: post #149
tester756 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But still, there's "minimal required knowledge".

Like how to use google

Underestimating the amount of knowledge required or of importance to know (yes, even when google exists) is just another form of the infamous Dunning-Kruger.

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#156

Post by newbie2020 »

wolframhempel wrote: post #72

This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…

It’s faster to look stuff up in the brain if it’s already there . Also having knowledge in the brain let’s it make connections you wouldn’t expect

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#157

Post by newbie2020 »

pksebben wrote: post #146
thaumasiotes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two main purposes: 1. You can't look for information if you don't know it exists. 2. Most standardized tests aren't used in the expectation that the testee's knowledge will matter in the future. Instead, the idea is that people who score higher will be generally more competent at whatever it is you want them to do.

>2. Most standardized tests aren't used in the expectation that the testee's knowledge will matter in the future. Instead, the idea is that people who score higher will be generally more competent at whatever it is you want them to do. I fail to see how information retention maps to skill in this case. I guess it could be a vague indicator of the amount of practice done, but some folks memorize so easily, it makes th…

From my experience, people who score extremely well on standardized tests do amazingly well in professional/knowledge-based fields. Of the top scorers in my high school class, many are not just doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business-people… but they are _top_ doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business-people. When I hear about those students through the vine, it is like “of course they’re successful - I would be surprised if they weren’t” sort of feeling.

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#158

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

> two hours before a General Chemistry II test [...] Mr. Ogletree replied that there were confidential documents, including 1099 forms, in the bedroom where he was taking his test and that he would not be able to secure them before the exam.

This policy is stupid for a variety of reasons, including that it seems completely incapable of preventing cheating, but using "confidential documents I can't move" or "medications" as an excuse just seems silly to me.

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#159

Post by sha256sum »

sam0x17 wrote: post #149
tester756 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But still, there's "minimal required knowledge".

Like how to use google

Google’s search mechanisms and rankings have changed a lot over my lifetime. I don’t usually trust it to find the right answers to problems in my field unless it’s a very well supported technology. I don’t agree that “knowing how to Google” is a skill in its own right for this reason. Hell they even claimed not long ago they would fix quote searches but they seem worse than ever.

Re: Remote scan of student’s room before test violated his privacy, judge rules

#160

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

janekm wrote: post #132
necovek wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In university, I was notoriously bad at "remembering" things (iow, I was lazy to learn things by heart). I was pretty good at making connections, and I could prove theorems from only knowing a couple of definitions and simpler theorems in advanced math courses. I generally scored average in tests, but I rarely failed (though I occasionally had "original" solutions that teachers commended on even though I failed to re…

Well... I have deeply explored a scientific field (in computer science, not math) the way you are talking about. By reading other's research papers, implementing what they proposed, trying to improve upon it, coming up with novel solutions etc etc. Very little of what I used on a day-to-day basis came from rote learning, a lot came from the deeper understanding that I got from actually actively engaging with the conc…

thinking from first principles, it's needed to be good at math.
Post reply on HN