371–380 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you compare raw intelligence or cross schools? That kind of calibration and opportunity for smart students who had other reasons to not focus or care about high school and other remedial grades is really important.
If the goal is just to test intelligence, why are we even pretending doing something else and not just giving IQ tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Classrooms are not built equal. The grading is highly subjective based on the teacher and there is a strong incentive to make it seem like kids are doing better than they really are. Nothing can replace a standardized test that puts everyone on an objectively measurable plane.
If there were a common tool for integrating assessment into instruction, it would be possible to continue to rank/sort students regardless of their educational context. Understanding the rigor of the course itself would necessarily be quantifiable as well. Think of it more like "we do a standardized test every lesson/week/month" instead of once a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CA here. The eye charts are a joke. They’re visible at all times so you could easily memorize them during your long wait (even with appointment); and the specific line they have you read is huge. I’ve never looked into it but I suspect it’s just to show you can read a sign on the highway.
Your comment seems odd. If the vision test is enough to show you can read a sign on the highway, why does that make it a joke? Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't have a license if their vision is not correctable to 20/20, even if it's good enough for all essential driving tasks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also no testing or vision rechecking requirement, so there are just a lot of people on the roads who should probably have their license taken away.
I'm curious as to the states involved. Michigan takes car culture seriously. You have to parallel park on the drivers test, and the Secretary of State offices (there is no DMV, because what a waste of taxpayer funds...) have eye charts when you renew your license.
WA also allows transferring of drivers licenses without additional testing. To me, this is the most problematic part, because different states have different rules around priority, proper usage of the left lane, etc. and WA is a transplant destination, and the resulting mix of driver backgrounds is chaotic. As a general example, in WA pedestrians have priority at all intersections, including where there is no visibly marked crosswalk, but this is not true in all states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Physically, one is a subset of the other. It's only "mutually exclusive" from a specific (misleading) angle.
What angle? I'm talking about the definitions of the words. Pandemic: occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population; characterized by very widespread growth or extent Endemic: characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment; a disease or outbreak of disease that is typically present in a pa…
How does it not fit the dictionary definition of pandemic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Young people have more accidents because they have less experience driving. Raising the driving age doesn't help with that. If anything it should be lowered so that more of the learning period occurs when people are still under parental supervision.
It's also because younger people are more impulsive. If the driving age were raised to 25 there would be fewer accidents among beginner drivers. Of course it would be terrible in so many other ways, but the point is the accidents are not just about lack of experience. I agree that having more of a supervised learning period would be a good idea.
This is more of a stereotype than a universal constant, and you could just as easily say things like "younger people have faster reflexes and better eyesight" etc.
The question isn't whether some group in the aggregate has different statistical properties, it's whether we're willing to discriminate against an entire class of people, including the ones who aren't the cause of it, because of that statistical correlation.
Which is the same reason people saying things like "people over 65 should have their license taken away" are just as wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual drivers license (the one you can get at 18yo) does require road test in most states. The learner's permit that one can get at 14yo does not require road test, but when you apply for full driver's license at 18yo you will have to take it.
Do you mean 16? I don't think there are any states where you have to wait until 18 to get a license.
The "adult" driver's license can be acquired at 18.
The online SAT was much easier than the written version, because (1) You don't have to read big essays anymore in the reading part, and (2) both math sections have the Desmos graphing calculator, with absolutely no features taken out. Desmos is far more convenient to use than a TI-84 for many things, so it made all the problems, especially the hard ones, much easier. Also, in my opinion, their Bluebook testing softwa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canonical? As in the company that makes Ubuntu? Those guys?
Yeah they're (in)famous for their onerous hiring process, and specifically for asking lots about high school. See for example this Reddit thread posted by a rejected candidate (and note Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth is in the comments!) https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/15kj845/can... or this HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34507640
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also because younger people are more impulsive. If the driving age were raised to 25 there would be fewer accidents among beginner drivers. Of course it would be terrible in so many other ways, but the point is the accidents are not just about lack of experience. I agree that having more of a supervised learning period would be a good idea.
> It's also because younger people are more impulsive. This is more of a stereotype than a universal constant, and you could just as easily say things like "younger people have faster reflexes and better eyesight" etc. The question isn't whether some group in the aggregate has different statistical properties, it's whether we're willing to discriminate against an entire class of people, including the ones who aren't…
It's a well-known fact.
You may also observe how prisons are full of young people. Brains that are still developing are far more likely to make really stupid decisions without regard for consequences.
If I were to pick qualities for a driver, and had to choose between 'Makes good decisions' versus 'Faster reflexes', I'd pick the former any day.
Note that we don't let 12 year-olds drive. We have arbitrary age cutoffs that have nothing to do with quantifiable capability.