951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet the USA's intentional murder rate per 100k population is 6.383 while the UK's is 1.148 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
So it would be reasonable to assume there are other factors at play?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not wasteful if: the student "values" the credential but not the learning. Some people have no appetite for philosophy or the perspective of notable authors on death. He will probably learn something though. Your characterization of an adult child does not seem fair. What makes someone an adult? If it's academic discourse, then why is it valuable? I mean, if you're into it, more power to you. Go nuts with finall…
Hmm, I could try repeating the value argument from the other end, but lets approach it differently. You mention a credential itself being a value, which is not an unreasonable position to take, which is part of the reason I am not dismissing it outright. But what is a credential? Oracle that is Google defines it as "a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when use…
> If so, that credential is not only wasteful, it is also worthless.
I think "worth" is a synonym for "value".
> Frankly, at its core, nothing is inherently valuable, because any value is the value we ascribe to things.
I can't reconcile these two statements of yours.
> as we established in previous paragraph, it is a learning institution in name only ( used only for credential )
I've never been, but I imagine there is actually more to it, but some people may not participate in the true learning part. Like the combo meal has fries. I'm just choosing not to eat them.
> The point of education at Harvard ( or other notable names ) is not spend your parents money parking your keister for 4 years while waiting for that credential.
Perhaps Harvard wishes that were not the case, and some of the time it probably isn't. But I find it hard to believe that no one pays tuition for that purpose.
There probably is an objective reality for all know. I even refer to it sometimes. But all I have to work with are these five senses, and this faulty brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
let us ban knives then... got a license for that mate?
It would be a miracle if the US experienced mass shootings at the rate the UK experiences mass stabbings.
It would indeed be a miracle as the US would drastically have to reduce their number of shootings to get down to the number of UK mass stabbings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_stabbings_in_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Such as? We need an answer now because students are being assessed now. When I was in university (Humanities degree), we had to do lots of mandatory essays throughout the year but they counted little towards your overall mark, maybe 10% iirc. The majority of marks came from mid-year & end-of-year exams. A simple change to negate AI is to not award any points for work outside exams — make it an optional chance to ge…
> make it an optional chance to get feedback from lecturers. My sense is that if writing was entirely optional, it would be too easy for students to let it slide; having 10% count toward your grade is a good "nudge" to get honest students to actually do the work. I'd just give a little admonition at the beginning saying that I'm not going to bother checking if you use LLMs, but if you do you're an idiot, because you'…
University students should be capable enough for that, different at secondary level
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you asked people who cheat if it was ethically wrong, they would admit it cheating is indeed unethical. But we are really great about rationalizing away ethical issues. I suspect is a good grade is worth more than a personal sense of ethics. As much as a med school wants ethical students, they want students with 4.0s more.
Then we are lost. Someone willing to cheat to get good grades will cheat in many other ways.
Cheating in school is just an easier or more assured way to get a better result. When you find a way to do things better in non-academic settings, you get rewarded.
Things that are truly unfair are regulated and tested for with steep penalties.
I think most people would admit the academy is a bizarre place with rules that don't really apply in other contexts. In school it matters that _you_ came up with a solution. In most other contexts, it just matters that you have a solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This really can't be emphasized enough. Universities and the initial hiring process really optimize for a score and not for learning. Those could be, and sometimes are, correlated, but it isn't necessarily the case. Really focusing on stretching yourself necessarily means lower grades. Why is that penalized? TBH, in software engineering a lot of people with lower grades tutor the ones with 4.0 averages. The skillsets…
> Really focusing on stretching yourself necessarily means lower grades. I'm reminded of a saying/trope (whatever) I've seen in reference to surgeons and lawyers (I'm sure it's also been used in TV and movies). But the trope is that someone is looking for an expert and will be talking to a bunch of hotshots (let's say lawyers). They'll be bragging and then asked if they've ever lost a case, to which they proudly decl…
My personal anecdote is a professor who was incomprehensible (complete failure on the teaching side; required class), but meticulous in pointing out all the important equations. I came to the proctored exam with the allowed one sheet of paper with all the "important equations", and solved the problems "expert system style", applying equations in whatever way appeared to solve the puzzles. And got a perfect grade while the rest of the class failed spectacularly. This was all according to the rules and I got the grade I wanted but complete wasted time as to learning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard, and interviewing is better suited to answering "nope, not you!" questions than "yes, you'll be a good fit." Onsite interviews with a range of approaches seem to be the best I've found over the years. As much as it pains me, things like fizzbuzz are still useful, because people still lie about their ability to program in languages. If you claim to know C very well and can't knock that out in 5 minutes, and…
> If you claim to know C very well and can't knock that out in 5 minutes, and it takes you 45 minutes of prompting, well, you don't know C usefully. I recently had an interview and a "skill test" in C. It was proctored by the interviewer in-person. I had so many questions about the questions. It was like, what is the output of "some code" and while obvious, there were some questions where specific CPU architecture ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are now several generations in on telling people the way to get a good job is to get a college degree. So everybody is there to get the piece of paper, not to actually learn things they are interested in.
Since it costs $50-$200,000 per year, I wouldn't really expect many people to go there just because they were "interested".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but nobody uses "cursive" writing. People barely write once they leave education - they type. When they do write it's legible separate characters or it's unreadable scrawl.
Aren’t you still required to write out a statement in cursive when you take the SAT?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person above you teaches higher ed, and yet cannot articulate what you just did. Cheating isn't the problem, the system is.
Can't or didn't? I had a different message to convey. You can't understand that. Or perhaps, you didn't understand that. Can't or didn't? I reiterate: But even requiring in person proctored exams is not the full solution. Students are not used to doing the necessary work to learn. They are used to doing the necessary work to pass. And that work is increasingly cheating. It’s a clusterfuck. I have calculus students wh…
And rather than reiterate, I shall elaborate on my original remark: you had stated "students are not used to doing the necessary work". You want a "system that prevents cheating" which is again full of backwards presuppositions and implicitly value laden dependency on a narrow-minded perspective. What you don't realize is how loaded such statements are, you had zero problem making those utterances. You might as well be a 60 year old centrist Boomer to say something like that so casually. It is completely oblivious to contemporary social problems. You surely have seen how racists and misogynists behave when they unwittingly say things that reveal their casual bigotry? So, I can know your mind, which is that of a typical professoriate who doesn't stay in their lane when their sociology, education, and related departments actually have something to truthful to offer in understanding this issue--the neoliberalizatiom of academia--while you are just talking out your prejudiced ass.
Finally, that other commenter said it a lot better than you. That's why I was replying to them and not you.