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

Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

dailyprincetonian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 662 posts

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#651

Post by meroes »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #641
meroes wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egalitarian? Let me explain healthcare right now. To get into a radiation tech program, there are 260 applicants, almost all with all As, for 20 slots at my local community college. Maybe in the very first instant you’d think it’s merit based. But, EVERYONE is playing the game. Getting homework and tests from friends who already took the class, taking classes at several different schools to get the easier teachers, p…

Just out of curiosity, where do all those hyper-competitive 260 applicants expect to work after graduating "radiation tech program" in a community college? And how much approximately do they expect to get paid for it?

Rad tech is like $130k+ per year in the Bay Area. And if you specialize even more. I know one in a hospital in Marin making $150k+.

That much pay for a 2 year program is very hard to beat.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#652

Post by FireBeyond »

rayiner wrote: post #617
FireBeyond wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replying to your dead comment: Why is multiple county and school district-wide segregation policies "personal racism" but as soon as it goes to a university it becomes "institutional"?

There were no “county and school district wide policies.” The segregated proms you’re talking about were planned by parents and held on private property. That’s a bad thing to do, but it’s not illegal. The schools had nothing to do with them—which would be illegal. Your story, by contrast, is about a school enforcing honor codes in a discriminatory way. That’s something schools face tremendous Title VI liability over…

> The segregated proms you’re talking about were planned by parents and held on private property.

... specifically because their school districts specifically voted to drop school sponsorship of proms because of desegregation, to legally insulate the schools and districts. Rather ignoring the concept of cause and effect.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#654

Post by [deleted] »

FireBeyond wrote: post #652
rayiner wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were no “county and school district wide policies.” The segregated proms you’re talking about were planned by parents and held on private property. That’s a bad thing to do, but it’s not illegal. The schools had nothing to do with them—which would be illegal. Your story, by contrast, is about a school enforcing honor codes in a discriminatory way. That’s something schools face tremendous Title VI liability over…

> The segregated proms you’re talking about were planned by parents and held on private property. ... specifically because their school districts specifically voted to drop school sponsorship of proms because of desegregation, to legally insulate the schools and districts. Rather ignoring the concept of cause and effect.

[deleted]

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#655

Post by hammock »

danaris wrote: post #648
hammock wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that really worth expelling a student over? What do you mean by this. What is the cost of one university expelling a liar? There is only benefit. I am talking about a school like Princeton here. Not a for-profit degree mill. The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs. How much cheating is acceptable, from your w…

> What is the cost of one university expelling a liar? What is the cost to the student ? And you seem to have immediately glossed over the part where not all of these students are, in fact, lying, or cheating. > The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs. Where on earth do you get that idea? No one in the corporate w…

> What is the cost to the student?

Just about everything. That is honor and dishonor. It’s a fall from polite society. It’s not a reprimand.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#656

Post by array_key_first »

newfriend wrote: post #404
array_key_first wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is most definitely disputable that it destroy social cohesion. The US was cohesive after WWII, by that point we already had a LOT of non-white people. Also black Americans have been here since the start.

Wrong. 1950 Census --------------------------------------------- Race Percentage of Total Population --------------------------------------------- White 89.5% Black 10.0% Other Races 0.5% Keep in mind the black population was essentially segregated at this point.

I think it's important to note that our understanding of whiteness has changed over time. And, during that time, there was division amongst even what we consider today as white people. Polish and Italian immigrants often faced discrimination, for example.

If you get rid of race it doesn't fix anything because the underlying cause was never race - it was, and remains, humanities perverse desire for hierarchy and prejudice.

The white people will just then find some other irrelevant bullshit to be mad at each other about and will then segment themselves more. They will literally invent new races and ethnic groups, if they have to, to distinguish themselves from others.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#657

Post by throwaway2037 »

meroes wrote: post #615
throwaway2037 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real question: If people are that good at grinding (it is a legit skill), why don't they go for something better, like a 4-year university degree in STEM or medicine? They can make much more money. Also, how do they decide which students to pick? And I would love to know the gender ratio.

One reason is rad tech and similar are all over Tik Tok. Another reason is these people know how to grind, but can’t afford a 4 year program.

    > but can’t afford a 4 year program
I thought there has been a huge increase in need-based scholarships for US university fees in the last 15 years. More than just rich schools. Many state universities also offer quite good need-based scholarships based upon your own income + net worth and that of your parents.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#658

Post by meroes »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #657
meroes wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason is rad tech and similar are all over Tik Tok. Another reason is these people know how to grind, but can’t afford a 4 year program.

> but can’t afford a 4 year program I thought there has been a huge increase in need-based scholarships for US university fees in the last 15 years. More than just rich schools. Many state universities also offer quite good need-based scholarships based upon your own income + net worth and that of your parents.

Yes state schools are. That’s why it’s so competitive as well. $4-$6k at the state school vs $50K+ at private.

There’s one state school for my program within 100 miles of me (physical therapy assistant)

And a four year program is still 2 extra years of tuition even at the subsidized amount, and most would work fewer hours if at all because they need high GPAs.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#659

Post by jackvalentine »

morkalork wrote: post #382
recroad wrote: post #309

You mean currently exams aren't proctored?! I went to the University of Toronto and can't recall a single exam which wasn't.

It's weird, right? The US is just hands down strange in some regards to little procedural things that are important but also easy to implement, and yet for whatever reason don't do and make a big deal over it when it's a complete non-affaire in other countries. Like voter ID. It's not some partisan issue. None of the political parties are fighting Elections Canada over it and its been around my whole life. Its just n…

Come really, really far south (to Australia) and you’ll find we don’t require voter ID.

Frankly it’s easy to dunk on the U.S. for a lot of things and it’s very short term gratifying to do so but don’t let yourself fall in to the trap of assuming your ‘little procedural important thing’ is universally accepted and it’s just those silly Americans who don’t get it.

Post reply on HN