Harvard drops standardized test requirement through 2026

Discussion in 'Education' started by Lil Mike, Dec 19, 2021.

  1. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,114
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All you have done is again state subjective biases with no data. Your subjective observations only shows you have preconceived biases. Period. Of course your biases allow for only the conclusions your biases want to reinforce. All you did was illustrate self serving selective bias. Thank you but I reject your subjective biases because I think it is absurd to generalize and try portray the left as " white middle class infiltrated".

    Common sense alone would lend anyone to understand how such an opinion is a bigoted subjective generalization.

    Next your theory for "dumbing down the masses" is a conspiracy theory. Thank you. The entire premises of this argument would have us believe standardized testing assured an increase in intellectual levels at universities.

    Rather than engage in racist generalizations and unsubstantiated subjective generalizations and theories, can you back up what you say with any data? Please show me data that shows intellectual capacity in universities increased as a result of standardized testing and where it wasn't used, universities were "dumber".

    You make a lot of assumptions with no basis for them.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/article...est-scores-dont-translate-to-better-cognition
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2021
  2. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,114
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  3. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This seems to be a side rant which has nothing to do with the points I made. IOW .. that commitment to education (and the academic success which usually results) is entirely free, and available to anyone who wants it. There is nothing stopping, even the poorest single parent, from choosing to put their child's education first - and sacrificing their own comfort/sleep/whatever to support that. The only thing which can stop them is their own disinclination to make those sacrifices. Your highlighting the fact that certain cultural groups do this automatically, just reinforces this truth.

    In the meantime, your side rant about the cost of university demands a response. Student loans are in fact the ONLY access that poor kids have to the tools needed for escaping poverty, so they're incredibly important. They offer access to high value degrees which would otherwise be out of reach. Degrees which not only make repaying those loans easy (due to high starting salaries), but which will keep the individual in well paid, stable work for life. To want to deny poor and working class kids that opportunity, is a very bloody minded thing, and your motivation for wanting that is something for you and your conscience to contend with.

    Moving on .. student loans are a self-policing system, so rescue is not required. Caveat Emptor and common sense means that poor kids are not going to borrow money on degrees which will not allow them to repay the debt. At least not unless they want to remain in or enter poverty - in which case they've made a free and clear choice, thus declaring themselves not in need of rescue.

    As for the morality of paying for a university education - I'm personally in favour of it being free for all courses which lead directly to full-time employment in the field of study. What those courses are will change with the times naturally, but in this century it means engineering, medicine, nursing, teaching, agricultural science, food science, computer science, etc etc. Any courses without that direct access to gainful employment should not qualify, because they are not going to help young people escape or avoid poverty. These non-vocational courses should attract full (and much higher) fees. These higher fees would offset the cost of the free vocational courses.
     
  4. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,114
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In fact I did not rant you did and do with your subjective moral judgements and unsubstantiated subjective generalizations. I have merely responded directly to them pointing out their lack of objective foundation.

    You make a lot of nonsensical generalizations such as, "Student loans are in fact the ONLY access that poor kids have to the tools needed for escaping poverty." No that is not a fact. Students can escape poverty by getting part and full time jobs, engaging in crime, getting bursaries and scholarships. You render your statements pointless with your continuous simplistic overstatements.

    You stated and I quote, "student loans are a self-policing system, so rescue is not required. Again you make sweeping judgemental subjective statements with no basis or data and here are just two examples showing the lack fo accuracy in what you say:.

    Student loan fraud and defaults requires more than self policing:

    https://www.canadapolicereport.ca/2021/11/02/charges-laid-in-elaborate-student-loan-fraud-scheme/

    https://www.bloombergquint.com/onwe...ith-itself-on-policing-student-loan-companies

    Students do argue whether you agree with it or not that they need rescuing

    https://www.actionnews5.com/2021/12...dering-whether-forgiveness-is-still-possible/

    You then made yet another sweeping moral judgement arguing that education should only be paid for if it and I quote, "lead directly to full-time employment in the field of study. What those courses are will change with the times naturally"

    Do you give any thought to what you trot out as an axiom/ How does one continually redefine what education courses will be paid for? Do you plan every year to review what jobs are needed? You have any idea how quickly the economic markets change and what professions may or may not be required?

    What an absurd statement. First off most education is not career or vocation specific. Once it becomes research or vocation specific and a student commits to a certain career track or vocation will you shut them off in the middle of their studies if there is unemployment in their field meaning they wasted the free money you did give them and you then just throw them out?

    You clearly gave no thought to the complexity of education and its role. You clearly can't fathom that education may not lead directly to a job in its field but might lead to a career or job in another field. You also can't fathom that education simply limited to jobs is problematic for many reasons. In your system you don't even identify the gatekeepers of the economy you want to limit what we can learn.

    You also made a truly absurd statement when you said: "These non-vocational courses should attract full (and much higher) fees. These higher fees would offset the cost of the free vocational courses."

    Now it appears you want students studying subjects you feel won't get them jobs to pay for students who study areas you think will get them jobs. You give no thought to the ethical and legal issues involved with that.

    In fact all you did in your response to me is deflect your previous illogical unsubstantiated subjective opinions full of moral judgement against others and replace them with new proclamations or declarations based on your elitist views, i.e.,disdain for others you think are not in a category you approve of. That is in fact the essence of ranting and I would and you show no ability to engage in critical reasoning-you repeat scripts or edicts. That I suspect reflects your religious and cultural upbringing which advocates obedience to a central authority that determines our place in society, not individual choices mixed with other factors.

    You sound like you are chanting. What direction to you chant in, Harvard?

    Tell you what, save the rest of your proclamations for someone else. I am moving on. Your lack of respect for others who are different than you and do not fit in your world speaks for itself. NOT INTERESTED and thank you ignore button.
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me simplify it for you:

    1) Student loans are currently the only access poor kids have to UNIVERSITY COURSES of high value.

    2) Vocational colleges constantly research and consider what trades are currently needed, and project what will be needed in the future. Universities can do the same, just as easily.

    3) Whether some individuals choose to work in entirely different fields to that of their qualifications, is entirely irrelevant. Given the numbers involved, we must go with the higher likelihood - which is people training for a field they plan to work in.

    4) Yes, all post-high school education is vocational - unless you're very very rich. How can it be otherwise? Or are you suggesting that some impecunious people (those who wilfully choose university degrees which won't allow them to repay their debts) are so selfish that they're prepared to risk burdening the welfare system?

    5) Student loan defaults are simply a reflection of that self-policing. When low income people borrow money for a course which won't earn them any money, they're making a free and clear choice to remain in poverty. No one forced them to make that choice, it was done entirely voluntarily. There is no moral position in this observation - it's pure logic. Any moral posturing is added by you, in choosing to ignore the logic.

    6) There's nothing ethical about people choosing to borrow money they know they won't be able to repay.
     
  6. unkotare

    unkotare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because they are not. And the ACT is not the same as the SAT.
     
  7. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,114
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never argued the Sat and Act tests are the same. You clearly did not read what I responded with and why.

    What I in fact stated was that both the Act and Sat test a combination of IQ and learned information which necessarily makes them tests of intelligence.

    I stated that the fact that the Sat and Act test how people remember and apply learned information necessarily makes them types of intelligence testing. The fact they do not test IQ level specifically does not mean they do not measure intelligence in other ways. That is what I said.

    The SAT and ACT are tests of reading, writing, and mathematical abilities. Of course intelligence is correlated with these things to a certain degree. No I never stated the SAT or ACT test was an IQ test.

    IQ tests are supposed to quantify general reasoning ability, verbal, perceptual, and other cognitive areas depending on what kind of IQ test i and to what degree or method it measures memory and processing speed.

    Sats and Acts are supposed to test acquired intellectual skills and predict potential probability of success for those asked to study in academic settings.

    IQ tests would measure an existing ability rather than acquired skills and that is precisely why IQ tests require a very minimal amount of acquired skills and are not used by universities as a criteria of admission because they do not predict how well someone might do in an academic setting. The higher the IQ the more likely (although not always) the student might find it hard to deal with social interaction in an academic setting, i.e., debating, engaging in public speaking, working with others, taking instructions as to how to do things, working to deadlines dealing with certain rules and regulations, obsessing over detail and analysis that might not be germane to what is being asked.

    The fact they are NOT the same thing does not mean they do not both measure intelligence. They just do it differently and for different reasons or perspectives.

    I have never stated they do the same thing or can even be correlated.

    So read what I actually wrote before you try resurrect a dead threat and attribute opinions or statements to me I never stated.Clearly you did not.

    One other thing-I stated and I state again, I am not a fan of aptitude tests of any kind. My concerns and issues with psychometric testing were explained and unless you want to start a new thread discussing psychometric testing and its pros and cons move on please because coming into a thread late and not understanding what I actually was debating is pointless.

    A very simple and quick summary of my concerns can be found here:

    https://www.theselfemployed.com/11-problems-with-psychometric-tests/

    Actually I am more concerned about what is going on in Ukraine. You want to pick a bone go into a Ukraine thread and defend Putin and I can assure you I will debate you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2022
  8. unkotare

    unkotare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This has been a long time coming.
     

Share This Page