There is a difference between an instance of an individual person sharing a true idea to convince others, and an organization which claims to report the news but selectively reports true news for propagandistic purposes.
Hardly. The point I'm making is that any platform with user supplied content must have moderation of some speech. No platform can exist totally unmoderated at Twitter's scale.
So then the discussion is about where you draw the line, what speech you permit and what speech you prohibit. Apparently, there is a community of folks who believe Twitter should allow racism on the platform, despite it currently being disallowed. I think it's more than fair to say, "if you are allowing speech most people would find offensive and was previously banned, how far are you willing to push that needle?" Bigotry is one thing, but what else is on the table?
Elon Musk has repeatedly indicated he believes in free speech and the marketplace of ideas. I think it's more than fair to ask what his limits are.
In my own experience as the beneficiary of such a system of education - the barrier is having to pass admission exams that are meant to ensure that available spaces are offered to those academically inclined to succeed.
In my personal circle of acquaintances all who were interested in securing the spot were able to do so.
But in an event you fail, you have an option to work on your shortcomings and take the admission exams again.
If we closed down the paper mills and handed out those pieces of paper only to students with genuine academic talent... it practically would guarantee a job, as it once did!
Question is whether they should get a degree. Is the investment worth the return? Not to mention bringing down the value of a genuinely good person because now there’s someone cheaper on the market.
That's why my company is looking for investors who are interested in being at the forefront of the data revolution, using our data rowboat that will allow you to proactively leverage your data synergies to break down organizational data silos and use analytics to address your core competencies in order to leverage a strategic advantage to become the platform of choice in a holistic environment.
Tell me if this sounds familiar, your company has tons of data but it is spread out all over the place and you can't seem to get good info, you end up hounding engineers to get your reports and provide you information so you can look like you are making data driven decisions. Maybe you've implemented a data lake but now have no idea how to use it. We've got you covered with our patent pending data rowboat solution.
This will allow you to impressive everyone else in the mid level staff meetings by allowing you to say you are doing something around the "data revolution" in your org. The best part is that every implementation will come with a team of our in house consultants that will allow the project to drag on forever so that you always have something to report on in staff meetings and make you look good to your higher ups.
Now you may be an engineer looking to revolutionize your career and get involved in the next step of the glorious October data revolution. Well we've got you covered for a very reasonable price you can enroll in our "data rowboat boot camp", where you will spend hours locked in a room where someone who barely speaks English will read documentation to you.
But act quick otherwise you'll end up as one of the data kulaks as the new data rowboat revolution proceeds into a glorious future with our 5 year plan.
Brb, running to trademark every nautical data metaphor I can get my hands on.
What happens when your data rowboat runs ashore? Introducing Data Tugboat™, your single pane of glass solution for shoring up undocumented ETLs and reeling your data lineage safely into harbor.
Sir, I'm sorry, but a rowboat just won't scale, my needs are too vast. What I'm proposing is the next level of data extraction. You've heard of data mining? Well meet the aquatic equivalent, the Data Trawler. To find out more, contact our solution consultants today!
We are currently living in a time when many people feel the need to dispute that rigorous education can have any meaningful impact on a child's abilities.
Every chance to record and shares true facts, we should.
> Every chance to record and shares true facts, we should.
Sure, but it seems to me that we should do so in a controlled and rigorous fashion. A few questions:
- Are we sure that the tests are exactly the same difficulty each year? If not, what is the falloff?
- Who decides the difficulty?
- How do we think about tradeoffs between grasping concepts correctly versus doing test prep?
- Do the increased test scores from 2003 to 2020 actually translate into meaningfully better further education or quality of life on average?
If you are making confident statements about "test scores dropped and this is bad for children", you should know the answers to all these questions.
I feel like most parents handwave this sort of stuff away when it comes to children's test scores and always assume that it's perfect – but would start asking this kind of stuff very quickly, for example, if they were asked to, say, do a similar test as adults to determine what their bonus for last year should be.
> We are currently living in a time when many people feel the need to dispute that rigorous education can have any meaningful impact on a child's abilities.
That doesn't sound right to me. My perception is that the value of a rigorous education is actually nearly universally valued, but how/whether children should have access to that education equitably is quite disputed.
Thoughts on the current backlash against the SAT/ACT/other standardized college entrance exams?
The liberal refrain is "High-scorers just had rich parents to hire them a tutor!", as if the tutor's instruction didn't actually uplift the children and make them stronger.
Standardized test scores are correlated with race, but schools want to admit a more diverse set of students. If they consider test scores and still try for more diversity, it looks a lot like discrimination against groups with high scorers, like Asians. I think the SCOTUS has agreed to take a case against Harvard pertaining to this.
My own institution did not require standardized tests for a couple of years, mostly because of Covid, and it's been a bit of a mess. Test scores turn out to be good for placement in math classes.
Thomas Sowell has a point on this, affirmative action allows in students that cannot reasonably do the work and it results in higher failure rates for students that got in with affirmative action.
His point is that they got in and feel like a failure when they could have gone to a different school and done just fine and not felt that way. And that, as such, affirmative action was actually having a negative effect on minorities.
I see how that could happen, and probably has. But, for example, I can also see how the top x black applicants to Harvard would be capable of doing very well at Harvard even if those applicants are not in the top 4.6% of SAT scorers who apply to Harvard. (where x is maybe 14% of entering class size to be proportional to US population, and 4.6% is I think the Harvard acceptance rate.)
Anyhow, it's a tough problem and I don't know the right answer and don't envy anyone having to set admission policies.
I can guarantee you that SAT tutoring is not uplifting anyone. They teach very specifically to the test, it's an extremely inefficient way to try to develop intellectually.
I think the anti-SAT argument is indeed misguided though. As it stands, the SAT is actually the best way for a poor kid from a bad school district to stand out - you can't take the grades at face value, and academic extracurriculars are substantially more expensive.
Despite the handwringing and poopooing from "liberals" there isa correlation between test performance and performance in college. Why would you send a student with sub 1000 SATs to Harvard when they likely won't be able to pass a single course?
Why would you? Because you want them to get the most rigorous education possible I presume. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it doesn't seem like anyone in the scenario doubts the value of education.
That makes sense, but I was under the impression that some(many?) of the most elite colleges had actually done away with the SAT requirements. I wonder if it has affected their graduation rate?
Absent test scores all you have is GPA which can be gamed and is impossible to compare against other applicants and extracurriculars which will be dominated by wealthy kids with engaged parents. so that smart kid from a poor family in West Virginia has no way to show they can compete with the kid from Greenwich on the Lacrosse, Sailing and Model UN teams.
