0 users browsing Discussion. | 4 guests | 20 bots
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-19, 12:00
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #302 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Posted by Screwtape I know, I was talking about the article's poorly hidden praise for grades over SAT: A movement to establish test-optional admissions among colleges has gained steam as critics have asked why grades are not a good enough indicator of academic potential. As always, when a newspaper article contains phrases like "critics say," "according to observers," or "has been widely questioned," but without actually telling who these critics/observers/questioners are, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to put your own views in someone else's mouth. Short of cheating (which is feasible to prevent), SAT is 100% fair. If somebody's not academically inclined, college probably isn't for them. If somebody's poor but smart, well, scholarships are a thing, but even without a scholarship college is a good excuse for someone to get out of the environment that's holding them back. Yeah, but the claim seems to be that poor but smart people somehow score poorly (no pun intended) on the SAT and that's why it has to be abolished. How do you mean America's student loan system makes tertiary education far less effective? Perverse incentives, like? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Broseph |
Posted on 19-05-21, 04:04 (revision 1)
|
 Post: #85 of 166 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1568 days Last view: 1245 days |
Posted by sureanem Ah, so it's basically like one of those online privilege test. |
| talbain |
Posted on 19-05-24, 13:46
|
 Post: #12 of 14 Since: 11-15-18 Last post: 1963 days Last view: 1191 days |
There's plenty of problems with standardized testing, and there's nothing that's all that "fair" about them, aside from the fact that most take / receive them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-24, 21:55
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #316 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
SAT isn't the same as standardized testing for specific subjects, which is what the video is about. The SAT is a well-recognized psychometric test used for entry into university run by a non-profit, standardized testing for specific subjects (in common parlance, "standardized testing") is a uniquely American type of fraud run by private companies. Many European countries do have tests which happen to be standardized, and they don't have these problems. Likewise, the SAT is a standardized test ("test which is standardized"), but it's not a Standardized Test as referred to in the video. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| wareya |
Posted on 19-05-26, 18:50
|
 Post: #64 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1789 days Last view: 1354 days |
Posted by sureanem 1) Run by a not-for-profit. 2) Being run by non-profit or not-for-profit organizations is completely meaningless. In fact you can assume that if something like this is run by a not-for-profit or non-profit organization, then it's going to be more corrupt than if it were privately- or government- run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Board#Sale_of_student_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Testing_Service#Criticism |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-26, 19:24
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #321 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Posted by wareya What's the difference? 2) Being run by non-profit or not-for-profit organizations is completely meaningless. In fact you can assume that if something like this is run by a not-for-profit or non-profit organization, then it's going to be more corrupt than if it were privately- or government- run. I don't know. They're sure a lot less corrupt than the people in the video talbain posted. Selling data seems like a non-issue (it's public record where I live anyway), and the other stuff doesn't really pertain to the SAT. The military definitely should have access to that kind of stuff anyway, if anything it's a travesty they have to pay for it. But more importantly, this doesn't really have anything to do with the predictive validity of the test. It could be run by the Russian mafia for all I care, and it would still be a reliable and accurate test. I've yet to see any substantive criticism against it. People like to throw around words like 'biased against minorities' and 'test prep', but it's all a giant fraud, probably intended to strong-arm colleges into switching over to essays or "adversity scores". There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-29, 15:06
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #335 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Every passing day, the threat of a Chinese takeover seems more and more imminent. And every passing day, the prospect of a Chinese takeover seems less and less threatening. https://twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1133215940936650754 How long until we get IRL crime coefficients? They did manage to identify criminals with neural networks, and other research suggests you can identify political leanings, so it should only be a matter of time. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| KoiMaxx |
Posted on 19-05-29, 23:45
|
 Post: #79 of 159 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 213 days Last view: 9 hours |
Posted by sureanemSo, uhm... do I get my own Dominator? I still have no idea what I'm talking about. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-30, 22:23
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #341 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Sure, but it only works on Uyghurs and it feels kind of cheap and plastic. https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2019/05/02/china-how-mass-surveillance-works-xinjiang Bruce Schneier's blog has interesting comments. China shills make surprisingly good points; it's their country and their Muslims, so they can pretty much do whatever they want. FWIW, it'll be over before the US starts caring. And since the Chinese won't talk about it, it more or less will not have happened. He who controls the present, and so on and so forth. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-06-06, 08:45
|
|
Full mod
 Post: #268 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1108 days Last view: 179 days |
Posted by sureanem Fair enough. Short of cheating (which is feasible to prevent), SAT is 100% fair. What is "fair", though? An ideal test would be a function "subject skill -> score", but in practice these kinds of tests are usually functions like "available study time -> study effectiveness -> teaching effectiveness -> encouragement -> question comprehension -> ability to handle stress -> subject skill -> score", and each of *those* inputs are themselves functions of other things; for example, a student's ability to understand a question can depend on their physical ability to read (is the printing too small?) and their ability to understand the language (what if the question uses a weird word or grammatical structure only native speakers would be familiar with?) as well as their knowledge of whatever subject the test is testing. In particular, poor people often score poorly on "available study time", "study effectiveness", "teaching effectiveness", and "encouragement", the combination of which can drown out the contribution of factors like "subject skill". At the end of the day, the SAT (and tests like it) can only really measure how good a person is at doing that specific test. It's often unclear how well that particular measurement correlates with things we actually care about, like "how will this student fare at college". And in situations where we know the correlation isn't strong, the easiest, most straight-forward fixes just try to spread the problem more evenly rather than fixing it. How do you mean America's student loan system makes tertiary education far less effective? Perverse incentives, like? Traditionally (and I realise this varies wildly over time and between cultures), universities are centres for education and research, rather than (say) for amassing political or financial power, and so you have traditions like "scholarships" where people who have great potential are literally given money so that they can spend energy on education and research instead of earning money. However, there's always more talented students than rich philanthropists funding scholarships, and a lot of economic potential is wasted. Some countries go to the other extreme, and use tax money to pay for scholarships for everybody that wants one. This is obviously expensive, but new inventions and technologies can make a country vastly more prosperous, and some people feel the potential payoff is worth the risk. As I understand it, America is in the middle. The government has organised for student loans to be available to everyone, and guarantees those loans, so the tax-payer has to pay for it all. However, students are required to repay the loans, and student loan debt cannot be discharged, even through bankruptcy, so these loans don't actually provide the "concentrate on your studies, not your finances" benefit that is the whole point of a scholarship, and so the only people who take out student loans are the ones who were already 90% sure they could afford to go to college. That is, America has done most of the work for a fraction of the benefit. Posted by sureanem On one hand, sure, that's what it means to be a sovereign state. On the other hand, just because a thing is legal doesn't make it right. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-06-06, 10:53
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #500 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 70 days Last view: 8 hours |
Also, american higher educatien costs have risen far faster than inflation. So the amount of debt you take on in student loans is highly burdensome. And since said loans are exempt from the debtors' financial relif options, if your degree does not result in the income you expected(spoilers: it doesn't because you were lied to), you're just fucked over for life. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-06, 17:03
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #365 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Posted by Screwtape Not sure about your point with the native speakers. Who else is it going to test? An exchange student who'd wish to study in America would still have to speak English, even if he's just going to study engineering or something like that. I don't think the SAT has too odd wording. I could understand it fine as an ESL speaker. The verbal parts do, obviously, but that's the whole point of them. It does introduce a somewhat undesirable correlation, but since they usually just use the average it shouldn't make that much of a difference in practice. Dyslexics kind of have the same issue. What could be done? Where I went to school, they'd get all their tests in yellow with slightly bigger letters, and a bit more test time. And I suppose that might help. But the increased testing time reduces the predictive validity. If they have 90 seconds per question instead of 60, that increases their score despite not reflecting a higher skill, and obviously they won't take their whole degree at 67% pace. So unless their condition makes them read slower so that the test takes exactly 1.5x more time, it's just an unfair advantage. It sucks, but there's no way around it other than institutionalized cheating. At the end of the day, all that can be done fairly is slight adjustments that maybe helps a tiny bit (more readable tests). Short of these kinds of edge cases, I maintain that it's 100% fair. It has a very strong correlation to IQ, far stronger than to grades or socio-economic status. In particular, poor people often score poorly on "available study time", "study effectiveness", "teaching effectiveness", and "encouragement", the combination of which can drown out the contribution of factors like "subject skill". It's true that teaching affects your mathematical abilities. But those SHOULD be tested. Say you have a student with good innate abilities who has never went to school. Would it really be a good idea to let him into university? I mean, he does lack the basic prerequisites. And you can't really say, "sure, he can't hack it, but he's also poor so it evens out," now can you? Whatever knowledge he has going into the test, that is the knowledge which will be used both at university and during the test. And you might say some people know less about, say, maths. But they'd also do worse in college. And you might say they could brush up on the maths they're missing out on between taking the SAT and going to college. But then why couldn't they do it before taking the SAT? At the end of the day, the SAT (and tests like it) can only really measure how good a person is at doing that specific test. It's often unclear how well that particular measurement correlates with things we actually care about, like "how will this student fare at college". And in situations where we know the correlation isn't strong, the easiest, most straight-forward fixes just try to spread the problem more evenly rather than fixing it. You can. It's trivial to measure graduation rates vs. SAT score/GPA, and then determine a correlation ("predictive value"). Unfortunately, I can't find any English studies breaking it down by major. But it appears as if grades have a slightly higher predictive value, varying by major. I would guess this is because they reflect conscientiousness, while the SAT reflects intelligence. In other words, the SAT is closer to your ideal subject skill -> score test. This doesn't make the SAT unfair though. It's a far better measure of intelligence than GPA is of conscientiousness, and it was never designed to measure the latter. That schools in many cases might not want to measure the former is another story, and hardly the SAT's fault. As I understand it, America is in the middle. The government has organised for student loans to be available to everyone, and guarantees those loans, so the tax-payer has to pay for it all. However, students are required to repay the loans, and student loan debt cannot be discharged, even through bankruptcy, so these loans don't actually provide the "concentrate on your studies, not your finances" benefit that is the whole point of a scholarship, and so the only people who take out student loans are the ones who were already 90% sure they could afford to go to college. That is, America has done most of the work for a fraction of the benefit. Posted by CaptainJistuce America does have scholarships too. And most European countries still require students to pay their costs of living, for which the state gives them loans. But yes, it's an inefficient system. It punishes failure too harshly, and thus incentivizes the schools to have low standards ("if you get in, you'll get out") and high entrance requirements. Entrance requirements which because of politics are sub-optimal. The colleges are also far more expensive than elsewhere because of this. To study abroad as a foreigner and pay their tuition fees is often cheaper than studying in your home state, which seems completely insane to me. The optimal might be to have education be completely free and have no entrance requirements whatsoever other than citizenship, and then fill the first year with extremely cheap and hard courses so that 90% or something drop out ("fail fast"). This would stratify for the exact same traits that would be important later on, while having absolutely no undesirable political implications. Of course, then people would complain about little Timmy not getting his degree, so it'd never happen either unless there already was such a tradition and anyone complaining would get mocked for their perceived incompetence. You do have weed-out courses already, but it could be made far more And most of the other solutions break in countries that have minorities, which are pretty much all of them considering women usually can go to university in most countries. For instance, the Soviet Union had oral exams. Completely impossible to cheat on. But biased against Jews, because the professors didn't like them. So if you have Jews, you can't do that. (Also sub-optimal, because it's quite expensive and doesn't screen for conscientiousness) Or you could assign people devilishly difficult take-home tasks. For instance, "learn these 1000 words in a non-Indo-European language in a month". But then a detailed analysis might find that men/women/Blacks/Asians/Jews score higher/lower on this task, and back into the rubbish it goes, together with the SAT. You could also argue that since while intelligence is immutable, conscientiousness is mutable, and if the former be much more important for producing important research, schools should try to reduce the importance of the latter, for instance by trying to train it. But this would be very hard to implement in practice, and of dubious value. On one hand, sure, that's what it means to be a sovereign state. Well, there's a up- and downside to everything. The upside is that when they're done, they'll have more or less 100% homogeneous country with a tremendous degree of social stability, which will be great for the economy and also for the people. I mean, America does mass surveillance and mass incarceration too. China just merges the two and gets a far higher efficiency (in terms of units of repression per unit of social stability) doing so. One might point out that such a policy still would be very repressive, but only socially unstable countries tend to need such repression in the first place. Japan and Switzerland are very stable and have extremely high degrees of privacy. So if it is achieved, odds are the total repression would eventually go down. The downside is of course that it might be considered genocide, which is generally considered quite unpleasant to be on the receiving side of, and which also might garner sanctions for the perpetrators. On the other hand, what's done is done, and a sufficiently dedicated government, having performed a cost-benefit analysis, could just stall and then sacrifice a few officials to the UN/ICC when finished. YMMV, I guess, depending on whether you're Chinese or Uyghur. On the other hand, all the Uyghurs which are left will be considered Chinese and thus be positive of what has happened, so the approval rating of it would tend towards 100%. It's definitely a complex issue though, I'll give you that. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-06, 19:24
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #368 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Also, I forgot to add:Traditionally (and I realise this varies wildly over time and between cultures), universities are centres for education and research, rather than (say) for amassing political or financial power, and so you have traditions like "scholarships" where people who have great potential are literally given money so that they can spend energy on education and research instead of earning money. However, there's always more talented students than rich philanthropists funding scholarships, and a lot of economic potential is wasted. Due to assortative mating, this is not as big of an issue one might think. Since intelligence causes socio-economic status, and intelligence (and by extension, SES) is strongly heritable, the people who would make great contributions to science are to a greater extent found within the upper classes. In other words, the potential loss from talented students who can't afford college is commonly overestimated, and in particular when considering social class rather than direct socio-economic status. America furnishes for a good example: despite students generally having to finance their own education, they are still world-leading in research. (as well as PISA testing, after disconsidering ethnic minorities) This is not to say that it's not an inefficiency, but it's smaller than commonly thought and exaggerated by media. Also, since college education is mostly ceremonial, the inequality conferred by the loss of access to it isn't that great - with sufficient dedication (e.g. conscientiousness), anyone could download the relevant textbooks off of libgen/piratebay and look up whatever they're missing out on online. They could then sit the exams only and thus test out of the degree. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-06-06, 23:09
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #502 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 70 days Last view: 8 hours |
Oh lord. Just ... wow. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| wareya |
Posted on 19-06-07, 07:33
|
|
Post: #67 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1789 days Last view: 1354 days |
That's some grade A classist bullshit right there. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-06-07, 08:01
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #503 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 70 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by wareyaSocial darwinism at it's finest, to be sure. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| DonJon |
Posted on 19-06-07, 12:49
|
 Post: #55 of 88 Since: 11-04-18 Last post: 1889 days Last view: 1889 days |
Posted by CaptainJistuce indeed.had to double-check i didn't stumble upon 4chan or something... |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-07, 13:47
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #371 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Posted by wareya It might be grade A classist, but it isn't bullshit. Many studies have been done about the impact of IQ on SES and vice versa. They have found that IQ causes SES and is heritable (genetic, mostly). From this it ought to follow that, predicting IQ from SES, higher average values will be found among the upper classes and that these will be genetic, no? Here's an interesting essay on the matter: https://www.gwern.net/Everything Of relevance to this particular discussion is the graph from Hill et al 2018, which shows intelligence to have a genetic correlation of 82% with household income. Posted by CaptainJistuce I don't see what's so Social Darwinist about it. I think that colleges should have more weed-out courses. I don't think this is a very controversial view, and at any rate hardly a classist one. It would in fact be slightly beneficial for the lower classes and for society as a whole. It is slightly Darwinist, I'll give you that, but not more than the ordinary weed-out courses already are. I also claim that "the people who would make great contributions to science are to a greater extent found within the upper classes," but I've never advocated for any selection pressure to be applied just because of this. I don't even think it's a good idea that the student gets (directly) charged to go to college, just that the inefficiency is smaller than it might appear at first glance. To be clear here, it is still an inefficiency, and the whole American student loan system seems like a complete disaster. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-07, 22:16 (revision 1)
|
|
Post: #40 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 162 days Last view: 1 day |
Posted by sureanem This is true, to some extent. But there is a thing called learning on the job. If I start out as a web developer and then slowly learn how to program 2D games, my knowledge of vector graphics and some Calculus will come naturally - albeit slow. Posted by sureanem A lot of different reasons. For instance, it is proven that the oldest child of a family often takes a disproportionate amount of responsibility in raising their younger siblings. Especially if one or both parents are unable to step up - which is very common in poor families who often see all kinds of abuse and addictions of some sort, be it cocaine, gambling or video games. As the child grows up to an adult, they may have a second chance. Posted by sureanem You are aware IQ is a very, very poor measure of anything, correct? Unprepared they may tell a persons ability to reason logically, but IQ tests do not do much of anything. I took a test once, think I scored around 130 or so. You can absolutely game these tests though, and by the third time I took it I raised it to 190. If you have 60 seconds to answer a question, and one person gets it wrong in 45 seconds and the other gets it right in 90 seconds, which one is the better student? Learning is all about making mistakes, and the earlier you make them, the better. Not to mention, in most countries as education has risen, so has the IQ score of those countries. Talent does not an athlete make. Talent, combined with practice and even MORE practice, that makes an athlete. Posted by sureanem U.S. system - Take a loan. It's only $500 000, covers only tuition, and we'll even be generous and let you pay off your loan within fifteen years, plus interest of course. That'll be $3000 a month. Swedish system - Take a loan. It's only $50 000, covers living expenses, and we'll let you pay off your loan within 25 years, at a very low interest. That will be $150 a month. This results in US loans being extremely, extremely high with many people taking a side job while in college, while Swedes only need to work if they want some extra spare cash to pursue some hobby or make travel plans. From my perspective, it's completely broken. But then there are nuances I'm probably missing here. :) In closing, I think the U.S. school system is heavily skewed towards the already rich getting educated and the more unfortunate ones being left in the dust, which is sad because that means Ivy League universities will eventually lose out on the geniuses born into the working class. It will take decades for this to be apparent, however. SATs in general though? Should only be used to ensure baselines are kept and little else. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-08, 21:58
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #374 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1770 days Last view: 1768 days |
Posted by wertigon SATs in general though? Should only be used to ensure baselines are kept and little else. That's only true under the assumption that the SAT tests for actual skills. It doesn't. The questions are very basic, and are just used as a politically correct proxy for IQ. This is also why you have limited time to complete them. Say you have the following question, for instance: 27 = 3*((14 - x)^2 - 7); solve for x a) x = -10 b) x = -6 c) x = 6 d) x = 10 Given unlimited time, you could just try all the possible answers even without knowing algebra, or double-check your work until you're content there are no errors. Thus, it's imperative that the time restrictions are strict. With tight enough time restrictions, even the best of the best will inevitably make some errors, which will make it possible to set a meaningful score. If anyone with half-decent mathematical abilities is to ace the test, like in the school's tests, then it would start to clip quite rapidly, in effect making it into a simple pass/fail test. The ideal test would of course never clip, although this would make it pointlessly arduous for the >99.9% of students who were not at risk for that anyway. Case in point: the SAT's perfect score (1600) doesn't correspond to an actual perfect score; a whopping 1 in 1430 students get the former, while only a handful of students a year (no exact numbers, but at most a few dozen) would get perfect raw scores. [Why couldn't they brush up on maths before taking the SAT?] There's no limit to the amount of times you could take it, though. Replacing it with grades would make this issue far worse, since for those you do have to go to school, and can't retake once you're done. You are aware IQ is a very, very poor measure of anything, correct? Unprepared they may tell a persons ability to reason logically, but IQ tests do not do much of anything. I took a test once, think I scored around 130 or so. You can absolutely game these tests though, and by the third time I took it I raised it to 190. No, I am not. IQ is a very good predictor of life outcomes, not only in matters of education and money but also of health and relationships. You probably took an online test, which are widely considered to be extremely poor estimates. IQs have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. If you would have scored 190 on such a test, that would put you +6s above the population - approximately one in a billion, or one of the seven smartest people on Earth. As you might imagine, gathering a billion people to make norms for an IQ test would be prohibitively expensive, to not say impossible, why you could not have received this score from a legitimate IQ test. I believe the WAIS-IV has a cut-off at 145 or thereabouts, for instance. It's true that Matrix Reasoning, the most common elements of these on-line tests, to some extent is a teachable skill, but this does not hold true for all the other fifteen tasks. Learning is all about making mistakes, and the earlier you make them, the better. Not to mention, in most countries as education has risen, so has the IQ score of those countries. It's true that it's important to make mistakes while learning. It is however discouraged to attempt to learn the subject matter while taking the tests. While making mistakes while learning is good, making them on the tests is not, since by then you're supposed to know the subject matter. It's also true that IQ scores have risen slightly (Flynn effect), but this is better explained by better nutrition, healthcare, etc decreasing the amount of children whose developing brains get harmed. The average scores of high scorers have not risen by much: Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Rise_in_IQ It's also true that talent alone doesn't make an athlete. But talent is a prerequisite for becoming an athlete. Someone with a low prenatal testosterone exposure, for instance, simply does not have the ability to become a (good) athlete, and no amount of practice can compensate for this innate gap in ability. U.S. system - Take a loan. It's only $500 000, covers only tuition, and we'll even be generous and let you pay off your loan within fifteen years, plus interest of course. That'll be $3000 a month. I don't know how you arrive at this figure. If they study for four years, that's $125k a year. I don't even think Ivy League costs this much. The average tuition for a regular university over there is something like $30k a year, less if you study in your home state. This results in US loans being extremely, extremely high with many people taking a side job while in college, while Swedes only need to work if they want some extra spare cash to pursue some hobby or make travel plans. From my perspective, it's completely broken. But then there are nuances I'm probably missing here. :) Well, the US has incredibly high tuition costs for reasons unknown (the botched loan system, I would think). If an American goes to Stockholm to study, he'll have to shell out SEK 90,000 to 140,000 SEK a year, $9.6k-$14.9k. The tuition fees as well as costs of living in other parts of the world are far lower. In closing, I think the U.S. school system is heavily skewed towards the already rich getting educated and the more unfortunate ones being left in the dust, which is sad because that means Ivy League universities will eventually lose out on the geniuses born into the working class. It will take decades for this to be apparent, however. Yes, at least in theory. But as I explained, this is not such a big deal in practice, simply because there aren't so many geniuses born into the lower classes. "The working class" usually refers to middle-class people, and they tend to be able to afford college. I agree that it's still an inefficiency, but it's a far smaller inefficiency than other issues with the American school system. For instance, the devaluation of objective and strongly predictive measures like the SAT in favor of far worse measures with abysmal predictive value (legacy, essays), which is done to "improve" the representation of ethnic minorities. It would be far more honest to find accurate measures (e.g. straight IQ tests), and then just norm both entrance and course exams based on protected class and write this on the degree. Then, by definition, the representation of protected classes would be exactly equal to that in the general population, and so would the average grades. It's true that this would transform the schools into diploma mills for some combinations of protected classes and degrees, but it would also mean that the schools would be free to select objective and predictive measures without ever having to take disparate racial impacts into account, which probably would make it worth it. American students usually score within the top 5 on PISA rankings after disconsidering ethnic minorities, so there is a tremendous untapped potential. Employers who wished to be politically correct and ensure a correct representation of ethnic minorities could then choose to not apply the norms in reverse to get back the real GPA. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
[Your ad here? Why not!]