Also worth pointing out that if AP Seminar is appropriate for high school freshmen, no school should be awarding $600 worth of college credit for the course. Conversely, our colleges should not be charging $600 for what is essentially a high school English class. And while I don't think either of those is the case, they aren't too far off.
Instead of AP we simply have a very small building attached to the high school with 4 rooms that acts as a branch of a local community college. As far as I know, the only class offered there for non high school students was a night course for remedial algebra that is no longer taught. I don't know the details, but there is some tom foolery going on with funding. My extremely limited understanding is that we get some sort of credit for each student enrolled in a college course. So we just offer our higher level electives like Calc and government through the college. These courses act as dual credit courses that count as both high school and college credit. The courses that aren't dual credit are online courses the students take during off blocks in the library. The teachers do have to walk next door to teach the class, so the classes are at least in a different building. Fun fact, I'm an adjunct professor through a technicality despite only teaching high school content. I don't even have to walk to another building since my class is in the computer lab.
We push all our kids to get as many college credits as possible while in high school. We even have a reasonable number of students graduate with associate degrees. On one hand, it's bullshit that we are sending students to college with their gen eds all knocked out in high school expecting them to be prepared for higher level college courses. On the other hand, it's even more bullshit that they will probably be just fine because we as a country are sending students to college without the basic skills they need and charging them 2 years worth of tuition to retake high school level courses. The students we send with associate degrees tend to be very motivated so I'm sure they will be fine. This gets more frustrating in the context of ever rising tuition rates, the burden of student debt, and proposals to make college free.
It might have just been the high school I went to, but it didn't feel to me like the courses I took in college were that much of a significant step up in inherent difficulty from the high school ones.
It might have just been the high school I went to, but it didn't feel to me like the courses I took in college were that much of a significant step up in inherent difficulty from the high school ones.
A lot of first year courses are refreshers to make sure you actually learned the stuff you were supposed to, and also for people coming back to schooling after a long absence
It might have just been the high school I went to, but it didn't feel to me like the courses I took in college were that much of a significant step up in inherent difficulty from the high school ones.
A lot of first year courses are refreshers to make sure you actually learned the stuff you were supposed to, and also for people coming back to schooling after a long absence
My first year courses were mostly all new material, but the university also offered courses that were essentially retreads of high school since a lot of courses weren't mandatory for hs graduation. You should probably be able to find high school equivalent courses for basically every subject offered at most places I would imagine
I loved my AP English lit and AP English language classes even though both of them weren't accepted at my college and I had to take 2 phony literature courses
With a score of 5?
I got 5s in all my AP classes, but I learned that actually just one of my English classes counted, then none in my fourth year of college, so I had to take a freshman English course in my last semester. I didn't care at all at that point
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I had to retake English Comp in college after getting a 4 in the AP. My school's English comp was rolled into a freshman seminar that all students had to take, regardless of anything else. Getting a 5 wouldn't have done anything.
Honestly, that school should have been upfront about what was happening. I was poor*( qualified for free school lunches) in high school, but my parents were able to afford AP tests. I bet some students could have raised the funds, and they could have at least been more transparent about who got paid for and why. If I took the class, didn't get a real test, and was only told after, I'd have been pissed
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
It might have just been the high school I went to, but it didn't feel to me like the courses I took in college were that much of a significant step up in inherent difficulty from the high school ones.
There's a definite change in expectations depending on one's high school experience. I never studied, did homework, or really put in any effort at all in high school. I failed at college spectacularly in my first attempt since I couldn't just knock out assignments in class.
It might have just been the high school I went to, but it didn't feel to me like the courses I took in college were that much of a significant step up in inherent difficulty from the high school ones.
That's by design, in most cases. Universities don't want to traumatize incoming students who are going through a ton of other transitional stress and come from diverse educational backgrounds, and departments know that they are advertising for majors in survey courses, so they generally aren't trying to weed people out. Those courses come later, usually in the sophomore year.
Also worth pointing out that if AP Seminar is appropriate for high school freshmen, no school should be awarding $600 worth of college credit for the course. Conversely, our colleges should not be charging $600 for what is essentially a high school English class. And while I don't think either of those is the case, they aren't too far off.
You're treating all students as if they are the same, which isn't true. Some students are smarter or better able to learn than others, and it is generally only the people at the top of the curve that are able to take and pass AP (Advanced Placement) classes and the testing to obtain college credits.
This is like saying that colleges shouldn't offer Algebra classes since you can take that in high school (or even junior high). The reality is that many students entering college may not have had access to algebra in high school, or if they did it may not have been robust enough for college level work.
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
Meh. This is probably a sign we kids in poorer communities need better mental health care, better support for learning disabilities, better advocates their interactions with the education system, and a cultural change where these sort of issues are not things which need to be hidden.
I don't see an incentive for more and more open mental health care as perverse. Only that this is another aspect of privilege which disproportionately harms the not wealthy.
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
Meh. This is probably a sign we kids in poorer communities need better mental health care, better support for learning disabilities, better advocates their interactions with the education system, and a cultural change where these sort of issues are not things which need to be hidden.
I don't see an incentive for more and more open mental health care as perverse. Only that this is another aspect of privilege which disproportionately harms the not wealthy.
Timed tests, in general, hit a lot of different students hard who otherwise have command of the material. In a traditional classroom, good teachers can prepare students for this by moderating the lengths of tests and having everyone on the same page when it comes to what material will be covered.
In standardized testing, that's a lot harder. And due to some of the nature of how tests are prepared (test questions are generally created by freelancers working toward a rubric), professional test prep can help students who can pay by having them internalize those rubics, because understanding the structure of the questions and answers goes a long way toward eliminated stock "wrong" answers while narrowing down the legitimate possibilities.
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
Meh. This is probably a sign we kids in poorer communities need better mental health care, better support for learning disabilities, better advocates their interactions with the education system, and a cultural change where these sort of issues are not things which need to be hidden.
Yeah, when my kid had difficulty at Kindergarten my husband and I went into action like a rocket on getting her accommodations and help. That's not because we were dreaming of extra time at the SATs when she is in High School, but because we have the privileges of being well-off people in a good school district.
+3
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
When you create systems with perverse incentives you really shouldn't be surprised when the inevitable happens.
...that's not a perverse incentive.
Clearly the problem is that people's needs are being accommodated.
I think the original response was poorly worded, while what was meant is that the problem is that the rich can afford to go quack shopping to find a doc who'll give them whatever diagnosis they want, while especially the poor are hard pressed to get any sort of assitance at all for actual, legitimate issues.
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
When you create systems with perverse incentives you really shouldn't be surprised when the inevitable happens.
...that's not a perverse incentive.
Clearly the problem is that people's needs are being accommodated.
I think the original response was poorly worded, while what was meant is that the problem is that the rich can afford to go quack shopping to find a doc who'll give them whatever diagnosis they want, while especially the poor are hard pressed to get any sort of assitance at all for actual, legitimate issues.
The problem is that standardized testing exists. That getting a high number on a specific test that doesn't correlate at all to how you will need to use knowledge in the real world is more important than learning the material. The only way to game the system should be to learn more.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
When you create systems with perverse incentives you really shouldn't be surprised when the inevitable happens.
...that's not a perverse incentive.
Clearly the problem is that people's needs are being accommodated.
I think the original response was poorly worded, while what was meant is that the problem is that the rich can afford to go quack shopping to find a doc who'll give them whatever diagnosis they want, while especially the poor are hard pressed to get any sort of assitance at all for actual, legitimate issues.
The problem is that standardized testing exists. That getting a high number on a specific test that doesn't correlate at all to how you will need to use knowledge in the real world is more important than learning the material. The only way to game the system should be to learn more.
SAT etc aren't going away, they can't. There is something like 5 million incoming freshman every year in the US, most of whom applied to multiple colleges. Without coarse tools, like SAT(which can be gamed) or GPA(same) or Class Rank (likewise), there is just no way schools can winnow through that number of applicants. Especially the flagship state schools, where you see ~20% acceptance rates and income classes of 10,000+.
And while there are some legit criticisms of the SAT and standardized test, the idea that there is some truer test of "learning" that wouldn't advantage the rich is wrong. All the same advantages that give rich kids a leg up in education in general will always give them a leg up in college admissions. The schools they attend are fundamentally better than poorer schools. Their parents can afford to give them tutors, prep classes, extracurricular opportunities.
If anything the biggest issue with the these tests is that they are designed with the intention that time is actually limiting for many takers. I'm not sure what the design decision to make getting 19 out of the 20 questions you answered giving you a worse score than getting 40 out of the 60 total questions is intended to do.
As an individual with a disability I can tell you there are a few things happening here.
-Rich parents do have the means to either get a diagnosis if their kid legitimately has a disability or if they are looking to game the system, shop for an unethical piece of shit to give them a diagnosis that lets them game the system. The latter one really pisses me off because it helps feed the perception that anyone who seems high functioning, that doesn't have a physically obvious disability (deaf, blind, mute or mobility issues), must be faking it and it causes issues at the higher education level. The person in charge of helping individuals with disabilities at ODU a decade back flat out didn't even read my file and just assumed I was full of shit and that perception essentially screwed me over. My family wasn't rich at all, they just happened to get lucky because my old man was working for a university and that just happened to put them in contact with the right people to get my auditory processing disorder diagnosed fairly early.
-At the public school level, a ton of shitty localities only do diagnoses for stuff that will let them claim funding, while still be able to warehouse those kids. Ones with race issues will figure out how to get a ton of minority students labelled as having autism or some other disability that they can justify shunting them away to a special needs classroom. They will actively fight back against anything that shows a student has a disability, that needs accommodations, that they aren't allowed to warehouse. They'll also fight hard against any accommodations that cost money because they really aren't interested in actually accommodations, they just want the label on people for the extra funding. No Child Left Behind probably made the whole shit show worse, given I think the standards are a little more lax with special needs students. Poor parents aren't able to fight this shit because they often lack the time, knowledge and money to get a second opinion. IIRC the school has to pay for that evaluation if you opt for the second opinion, but that means transporting your child to a specialist (also most parents in poverty probably don't have the time or resources to figure out which specialists are worth a damn) and not everyone can afford to take the time for that. Schools also don't disclose that little tidbit either. If more parents knew the school had to fund the second opinion diagnosis and had the time to get their kid there, they'd having an easy time getting the school's diagnosis thrown out because often, the person doing the evaluations on the school's behalf aren't actually specialists and probably aren't really qualified to give a diagnosis.
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone that came to age in central VA, where are school systems are garbage and the school system I went to was barely considered rural, I think it might easily be considered suburban at this point in time. So mileage is probably going to vary, but from what my mom got out of various other parents in various support groups, my experience wasn't out of the norm compared to money other areas.
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
When you create systems with perverse incentives you really shouldn't be surprised when the inevitable happens.
...that's not a perverse incentive.
Clearly the problem is that people's needs are being accommodated.
I think the original response was poorly worded, while what was meant is that the problem is that the rich can afford to go quack shopping to find a doc who'll give them whatever diagnosis they want, while especially the poor are hard pressed to get any sort of assitance at all for actual, legitimate issues.
The problem is that standardized testing exists. That getting a high number on a specific test that doesn't correlate at all to how you will need to use knowledge in the real world is more important than learning the material. The only way to game the system should be to learn more.
SAT etc aren't going away, they can't. There is something like 5 million incoming freshman every year in the US, most of whom applied to multiple colleges. Without coarse tools, like SAT(which can be gamed) or GPA(same) or Class Rank (likewise), there is just no way schools can winnow through that number of applicants. Especially the flagship state schools, where you see ~20% acceptance rates and income classes of 10,000+.
And while there are some legit criticisms of the SAT and standardized test, the idea that there is some truer test of "learning" that wouldn't advantage the rich is wrong. All the same advantages that give rich kids a leg up in education in general will always give them a leg up in college admissions. The schools they attend are fundamentally better than poorer schools. Their parents can afford to give them tutors, prep classes, extracurricular opportunities.
If anything the biggest issue with the these tests is that they are designed with the intention that time is actually limiting for many takers. I'm not sure what the design decision to make getting 19 out of the 20 questions you answered giving you a worse score than getting 40 out of the 60 total questions is intended to do.
The trend is snowballing more quickly at the graduate level, since GRE scores are a huge barrier in getting older students to enroll, but the equity issues are pushing more and more colleges to at least offer an admissions path that doesn't include standardized scores. I wouldn't be shocked to see standardized tests becoming a K-12 phenomenon as more colleges drop the requirements.
That's without the essay. They still look at the SAT math/reading sections.
Wait they’re getting rid of the essay again? Didn’t they just implement that like ten years ago?
Colleges are ignoring it, because it's not included with the free test that kids (especially in poor districts like mine) are given in school nowadays.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That listing is a bit deceptive, as it includes a lot of "score not used if you're in top X% or X.XX GPA" or require their own specific test instead of the SAT. And that list includes relatively few top tier schools. Even in states where the state system over all is fairly present, its almost all non-flagship schools, or only the 2 year feeder schools not 4 year colleges.
Outside of the pure parents competing through their children, without a doubt a strong motivation, most these parents aren't going through all this trouble to goose their kids chances of getting into The University of Michigan - Flint.
That listing is a bit deceptive, as it includes a lot of "score not used if you're in top X% or X.XX GPA" or require their own specific test instead of the SAT. And that list includes relatively few top tier schools. Even in states where the state system over all is fairly percent, its almost all non-flagship schools, or only the 2 year feeder schools not 4 year colleges.
Outside of the pure parents competing through their children, without a doubt a strong motivation, most these parents aren't going through all this trouble to goose their kids chances of getting into The University of Michigan - Flint.
I used to work at a graduate school which dropped the GREs. In the context of making that decision, I listened to tons of presentations listing how the higher education world is questioning and increasingly moving away from standardized testing. It's a real trend, and it is growing out of a number of issues including equity, the prevalence of prep academies, and a growing body of data that the tests aren't particularly useful for assessing incoming student success compared to other measures.
The alternative is usually to test incoming freshmen using internal measures. Even accounting for educational differences between schools, GPA is typically a good measure that a student has the commitment to succeed at university courses as long as they aren't dropped into courses where they lack preparation.
On Thursday, the AP reported that the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has opened an investigation into Connecticut’s equal treatment of transgender athletes. The agency is responding to a complaint filed by the anti-LGBTQ law firm Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of three cisgender high school girls in Connecticut. ADF alleges that, by allowing transgender athletes to compete with cisgender students, the state is violating Title IX, which forbids discrimination in any federally funded “education program or activity … on the basis of sex.”
I... what... I can't even begin to make sense of that.
(Yes, I know there's no sense to be made beyond bigotry)
That's exactly it - it's bigotry. They tried it with bathrooms, but it turned out that they couldn't prove harm. They're hoping that with this, they can prove harm.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
It seems like a fairly effective play on their part. Much better shot at working then the same kind of argument re: bathrooms.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
That assumes they can't convince the court of that. I would not be so sure. As a legal strategy, it makes sense and has a shot at working.
In terms of school sports, it doesn't matter a damn if transgender girls have an advantage and transgender boys have a disadvantage, because it's basically all just for fun anyway. Or should be.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
That assumes they can't convince the court of that. I would not be so sure. As a legal strategy, it makes sense and has a shot at working.
Yeah, reality doesn't matter. Just how close it "feels" like it could be true.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
That assumes they can't convince the court of that. I would not be so sure. As a legal strategy, it makes sense and has a shot at working.
It has a "shot" because people are told lies about transgender individuals. It makes "sense" because popular media has created a false image of women's sports.
In terms of school sports, it doesn't matter a damn if transgender girls have an advantage and transgender boys have a disadvantage, because it's basically all just for fun anyway. Or should be.
Given the existence of athletic scholarships, I suspect this argument won't fly. Proving harm shouldn't be that hard if you can establish an advantage is my guess.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
That assumes they can't convince the court of that. I would not be so sure. As a legal strategy, it makes sense and has a shot at working.
It has a "shot" because people are told lies about transgender individuals. It makes "sense" because popular media has created a false image of women's sports.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
Also it opens a can of worms since it seems to me you can make a fair argument that separate mens and womens sports are a violation.
It makes a good amount of sense as an argument, if that's the goal you are going for. From what I can tell the argument is basically that by allowing trans-girls into girls sports, you are discriminating against the cisgender athletes by forcing them to compete against unfairly advantaged students.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
That assumes they can't convince the court of that. I would not be so sure. As a legal strategy, it makes sense and has a shot at working.
It has a "shot" because people are told lies about transgender individuals. It makes "sense" because popular media has created a false image of women's sports.
I don't think shryke is disagreeing with this.
Yeah, the point isn't "It's not bigoted", the point is "It's a coherent and potentially successful legal strategy if your goal is to push transgender athletes out of sports. Which is why they are pursuing the case."
Posts
Instead of AP we simply have a very small building attached to the high school with 4 rooms that acts as a branch of a local community college. As far as I know, the only class offered there for non high school students was a night course for remedial algebra that is no longer taught. I don't know the details, but there is some tom foolery going on with funding. My extremely limited understanding is that we get some sort of credit for each student enrolled in a college course. So we just offer our higher level electives like Calc and government through the college. These courses act as dual credit courses that count as both high school and college credit. The courses that aren't dual credit are online courses the students take during off blocks in the library. The teachers do have to walk next door to teach the class, so the classes are at least in a different building. Fun fact, I'm an adjunct professor through a technicality despite only teaching high school content. I don't even have to walk to another building since my class is in the computer lab.
We push all our kids to get as many college credits as possible while in high school. We even have a reasonable number of students graduate with associate degrees. On one hand, it's bullshit that we are sending students to college with their gen eds all knocked out in high school expecting them to be prepared for higher level college courses. On the other hand, it's even more bullshit that they will probably be just fine because we as a country are sending students to college without the basic skills they need and charging them 2 years worth of tuition to retake high school level courses. The students we send with associate degrees tend to be very motivated so I'm sure they will be fine. This gets more frustrating in the context of ever rising tuition rates, the burden of student debt, and proposals to make college free.
A lot of first year courses are refreshers to make sure you actually learned the stuff you were supposed to, and also for people coming back to schooling after a long absence
My first year courses were mostly all new material, but the university also offered courses that were essentially retreads of high school since a lot of courses weren't mandatory for hs graduation. You should probably be able to find high school equivalent courses for basically every subject offered at most places I would imagine
I got 5s in all my AP classes, but I learned that actually just one of my English classes counted, then none in my fourth year of college, so I had to take a freshman English course in my last semester. I didn't care at all at that point
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Honestly, that school should have been upfront about what was happening. I was poor*( qualified for free school lunches) in high school, but my parents were able to afford AP tests. I bet some students could have raised the funds, and they could have at least been more transparent about who got paid for and why. If I took the class, didn't get a real test, and was only told after, I'd have been pissed
There's a definite change in expectations depending on one's high school experience. I never studied, did homework, or really put in any effort at all in high school. I failed at college spectacularly in my first attempt since I couldn't just knock out assignments in class.
That's by design, in most cases. Universities don't want to traumatize incoming students who are going through a ton of other transitional stress and come from diverse educational backgrounds, and departments know that they are advertising for majors in survey courses, so they generally aren't trying to weed people out. Those courses come later, usually in the sophomore year.
Admittedly, not a new thing, Veronica Mars had an episode about this in like, 2005.
When you create systems with perverse incentives you really shouldn't be surprised when the inevitable happens.
You're treating all students as if they are the same, which isn't true. Some students are smarter or better able to learn than others, and it is generally only the people at the top of the curve that are able to take and pass AP (Advanced Placement) classes and the testing to obtain college credits.
This is like saying that colleges shouldn't offer Algebra classes since you can take that in high school (or even junior high). The reality is that many students entering college may not have had access to algebra in high school, or if they did it may not have been robust enough for college level work.
Meh. This is probably a sign we kids in poorer communities need better mental health care, better support for learning disabilities, better advocates their interactions with the education system, and a cultural change where these sort of issues are not things which need to be hidden.
I don't see an incentive for more and more open mental health care as perverse. Only that this is another aspect of privilege which disproportionately harms the not wealthy.
...that's not a perverse incentive.
Clearly the problem is that people's needs are being accommodated.
Timed tests, in general, hit a lot of different students hard who otherwise have command of the material. In a traditional classroom, good teachers can prepare students for this by moderating the lengths of tests and having everyone on the same page when it comes to what material will be covered.
In standardized testing, that's a lot harder. And due to some of the nature of how tests are prepared (test questions are generally created by freelancers working toward a rubric), professional test prep can help students who can pay by having them internalize those rubics, because understanding the structure of the questions and answers goes a long way toward eliminated stock "wrong" answers while narrowing down the legitimate possibilities.
Yeah, when my kid had difficulty at Kindergarten my husband and I went into action like a rocket on getting her accommodations and help. That's not because we were dreaming of extra time at the SATs when she is in High School, but because we have the privileges of being well-off people in a good school district.
I think the original response was poorly worded, while what was meant is that the problem is that the rich can afford to go quack shopping to find a doc who'll give them whatever diagnosis they want, while especially the poor are hard pressed to get any sort of assitance at all for actual, legitimate issues.
The problem is that standardized testing exists. That getting a high number on a specific test that doesn't correlate at all to how you will need to use knowledge in the real world is more important than learning the material. The only way to game the system should be to learn more.
SAT etc aren't going away, they can't. There is something like 5 million incoming freshman every year in the US, most of whom applied to multiple colleges. Without coarse tools, like SAT(which can be gamed) or GPA(same) or Class Rank (likewise), there is just no way schools can winnow through that number of applicants. Especially the flagship state schools, where you see ~20% acceptance rates and income classes of 10,000+.
And while there are some legit criticisms of the SAT and standardized test, the idea that there is some truer test of "learning" that wouldn't advantage the rich is wrong. All the same advantages that give rich kids a leg up in education in general will always give them a leg up in college admissions. The schools they attend are fundamentally better than poorer schools. Their parents can afford to give them tutors, prep classes, extracurricular opportunities.
If anything the biggest issue with the these tests is that they are designed with the intention that time is actually limiting for many takers. I'm not sure what the design decision to make getting 19 out of the 20 questions you answered giving you a worse score than getting 40 out of the 60 total questions is intended to do.
-Rich parents do have the means to either get a diagnosis if their kid legitimately has a disability or if they are looking to game the system, shop for an unethical piece of shit to give them a diagnosis that lets them game the system. The latter one really pisses me off because it helps feed the perception that anyone who seems high functioning, that doesn't have a physically obvious disability (deaf, blind, mute or mobility issues), must be faking it and it causes issues at the higher education level. The person in charge of helping individuals with disabilities at ODU a decade back flat out didn't even read my file and just assumed I was full of shit and that perception essentially screwed me over. My family wasn't rich at all, they just happened to get lucky because my old man was working for a university and that just happened to put them in contact with the right people to get my auditory processing disorder diagnosed fairly early.
-At the public school level, a ton of shitty localities only do diagnoses for stuff that will let them claim funding, while still be able to warehouse those kids. Ones with race issues will figure out how to get a ton of minority students labelled as having autism or some other disability that they can justify shunting them away to a special needs classroom. They will actively fight back against anything that shows a student has a disability, that needs accommodations, that they aren't allowed to warehouse. They'll also fight hard against any accommodations that cost money because they really aren't interested in actually accommodations, they just want the label on people for the extra funding. No Child Left Behind probably made the whole shit show worse, given I think the standards are a little more lax with special needs students. Poor parents aren't able to fight this shit because they often lack the time, knowledge and money to get a second opinion. IIRC the school has to pay for that evaluation if you opt for the second opinion, but that means transporting your child to a specialist (also most parents in poverty probably don't have the time or resources to figure out which specialists are worth a damn) and not everyone can afford to take the time for that. Schools also don't disclose that little tidbit either. If more parents knew the school had to fund the second opinion diagnosis and had the time to get their kid there, they'd having an easy time getting the school's diagnosis thrown out because often, the person doing the evaluations on the school's behalf aren't actually specialists and probably aren't really qualified to give a diagnosis.
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone that came to age in central VA, where are school systems are garbage and the school system I went to was barely considered rural, I think it might easily be considered suburban at this point in time. So mileage is probably going to vary, but from what my mom got out of various other parents in various support groups, my experience wasn't out of the norm compared to money other areas.
The SAT and GRE are going away, though. A growing number of major colleges are offering admissions without them, including Brown, the California Institute of Technology, Duke, Princeton, Stanfordand the University of Michigan—Ann Arbor.
The trend is snowballing more quickly at the graduate level, since GRE scores are a huge barrier in getting older students to enroll, but the equity issues are pushing more and more colleges to at least offer an admissions path that doesn't include standardized scores. I wouldn't be shocked to see standardized tests becoming a K-12 phenomenon as more colleges drop the requirements.
Wait they’re getting rid of the essay again? Didn’t they just implement that like ten years ago?
It was a poor choice of article, but the trend is to forego the test entirely.
Colleges are ignoring it, because it's not included with the free test that kids (especially in poor districts like mine) are given in school nowadays.
That listing is a bit deceptive, as it includes a lot of "score not used if you're in top X% or X.XX GPA" or require their own specific test instead of the SAT. And that list includes relatively few top tier schools. Even in states where the state system over all is fairly present, its almost all non-flagship schools, or only the 2 year feeder schools not 4 year colleges.
Outside of the pure parents competing through their children, without a doubt a strong motivation, most these parents aren't going through all this trouble to goose their kids chances of getting into The University of Michigan - Flint.
I used to work at a graduate school which dropped the GREs. In the context of making that decision, I listened to tons of presentations listing how the higher education world is questioning and increasingly moving away from standardized testing. It's a real trend, and it is growing out of a number of issues including equity, the prevalence of prep academies, and a growing body of data that the tests aren't particularly useful for assessing incoming student success compared to other measures.
The alternative is usually to test incoming freshmen using internal measures. Even accounting for educational differences between schools, GPA is typically a good measure that a student has the commitment to succeed at university courses as long as they aren't dropped into courses where they lack preparation.
(Yes, I know there's no sense to be made beyond bigotry)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That's exactly it - it's bigotry. They tried it with bathrooms, but it turned out that they couldn't prove harm. They're hoping that with this, they can prove harm.
More or less your case goes:
- transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls in sports
- therefore allowing them to compete against cisgender girls discriminates against cisgender girls
- therefore transgender girls should not be allowed to compete in girl's sports
It seems like a fairly effective play on their part. Much better shot at working then the same kind of argument re: bathrooms.
Except that it doesn't, because there's no evidence that a transgender girl has an advantage in sports. Without that prior, the whole argument falls apart.
That assumes they can't convince the court of that. I would not be so sure. As a legal strategy, it makes sense and has a shot at working.
Yeah, reality doesn't matter. Just how close it "feels" like it could be true.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It has a "shot" because people are told lies about transgender individuals. It makes "sense" because popular media has created a false image of women's sports.
Given the existence of athletic scholarships, I suspect this argument won't fly. Proving harm shouldn't be that hard if you can establish an advantage is my guess.
I don't think shryke is disagreeing with this.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Also it opens a can of worms since it seems to me you can make a fair argument that separate mens and womens sports are a violation.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yeah, the point isn't "It's not bigoted", the point is "It's a coherent and potentially successful legal strategy if your goal is to push transgender athletes out of sports. Which is why they are pursuing the case."