Surely you read what you post before clicking reply, right?
Anyway, doing a search on your name, in this thread, w/ the phrases ‘the Right’ and ‘the Left’ shows an obvious bias on your part. Hell, over half of the mentions of ‘the right’ in your posts are either quotes of other people who used those two words, or occurances of the structure ‘the right to…’ (as in ‘the right to bear arms’), whereas all mentions of ‘the Left’ by you tend to be derogatory in nature.
I mean, this Board is searchable. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway, to be honest, feel free to respond but I’m not going to hang around debating the obvious. Thanks.
I probably read a good twenty or more books a year throughout primary school, so I consider myself an outlier. For example I read the entire Harry Potter series (5 books at the time) in the summer between second and third grade. Then the following school year just from off the top of my head I read four or so Hardy Boys books, a couple Animorphs books, The Sound and the Fury (at my father’s request), plus the two or three books we would read as a class (I believe one was Hoot that year, another was… Frindle?). I think I may have read Captain Underpants that year.
Every book in our school library had a number assigned to it according to difficulty, and a test that could award up to that many “reading points”. In third grade only books worth five or more points would count, whereas Magic School Bus books were worth maybe one or two points and thus only counted for younger students. Students were required to acquire a certain number of reading points to pass the grade, and if you got 100 points before the end of the semester the teacher would take you out to a picnic. (I never made “picnic club” but many kids did.)
Okay, so it’s not what I believe, or what policies I support, but who I criticise. Thanks for your answer.
ETA: This reminds me that I followed someone on Twitter whose political views I wasn’t at all clear on. Turns out he’s a conservative who spends all his time criticising the Republicans.
Yes, it was a private school. Those kids in Kindergarten or first grade still having trouble reading would be assigned an older student to help them read / read to them. Our class was small enough (<20) that nobody I know of had any major disorder affecting their reading.
I switched to the public school system three years into secondary school. At the public school libraries, I would have to dust off books. In public school we didn’t use the Accelerated Reader Points. There were one or two books required in English class (including two Shakespearean plays in year 8 and 10), plus we sometimes had to do one book report over summer break. According to friends that was the deal in public primary schools too. My public secondary schools required reading more pages from textbooks than novels.
Ah, that makes sense. I don’t think my primary school required reading any books, certainly not on our own time, but it was a long time ago. Once I learnt to read (which happened very suddenly) I just read to myself while the teacher helped my classmates, something I certainly had no objection to.
Sounds about right. We did Shakespeare in years 9 and 11, but I think that’s actually the same age.
I don’t think the vocabulary of the internet usually includes words like “velocipede” or “regatta”, notwithstanding their occurrence on this particular webpage. “Velociraptor” and “ragù”, perhaps.
Full disclosure, I had no idea what velocipede or regatta meant (or even that they were words) before today. (In central Florida we have airboats and canoes, not many yachts.)
I dunno, I may have learned ‘velocipede’ online. One of my daughter’s books (she’s almost 18 months) has ‘velociraptor’ in it: “Velociraptor is very fast, she screeches as she hurries past. Screech! Screech!”
Apparently they took out the obscure word part anyway.
I believe so, and I disagree with your objection. If “holistic admissions” uses a wide variety of information on student applications as admissions criteria
—and AFAIK all the information in student applications may be used in making admissions decisions, that’s why the information is required on the application form in the first place—
and they find that standardized test scores are essentially just mirroring other data that the “holistic review” already takes into consideration,
then including the standardized test scores separately in the weighting of the admissions decision is basically just double-counting that other data.
Here are a couple things that I think you may be misunderstanding about the process:
Admissions eligibility criteria and admissions decision-making are not the same thing. The report that ITD and you cited noted that standardized test scores could validly affect whether an applicant is considered eligible for admission, even if they don’t do much to predict outcome differences among eligible applicants.
Admissions decisions in most US colleges, as I said, tend not to be particularly metrological or algorithmic. The school is looking for a student body of solid academic achievers with a huge variety of other talents and characteristics, not for the top X% of academic achievers among their applicants.
So once they’ve decided where the cutoff is for admissions eligibility, they are not required to rank the applicants with the best grades or highest scores above all others.
Let me try to explain again. Take the example of parental education level: it is included in the application form, and it is known to be positively correlated with SAT scores. But a high SAT score would be a positive factor in the holistic review, whereas high parental education level would be a neutral or even negative one. Far from double counting, the two pieces of information counteract each other in the weighting. So this is not a good justification for removing the SAT scores from consideration.
I understood that part.
They chose to make this argument that the SAT does not add useful predictive power, and that is what I am critiquing right now, not any other arguments they might make.
They’re saying specifically that the genetic influence showing in the study is due to dyslexia.
we argue that, given the stability of reading over time, it is unlikely that later levels of print exposure could account for future growth in reading, or override the powerful g-e correlation that manifest itself in dyslexic readers choosing literary activities less.
– and other references to dyslexia through the paper.
Says who? Where exactly are you getting that claim? I see nothing in the linked report stating any rule for the evaluation of parental education level in holistic review of applications.
I do see a reference to using parental education level in the process of identifying applicant “strivers” who have overcome severe disadvantages. But that’s nothing like a general algorithm for defining parental education level as a “factor”.
Not very persuasively, AFAICT. If the predictive power of application information without SAT scores is not substantially different from the predictive power of application information with SAT scores, which is what the cited studies seem to have found, then that is strong evidence that SAT scores per se are not adding useful predictive power.
Are you seriously arguing that the holistic review process might give a higher score to a student for having parents have higher degrees, and a lower one to those whose parents only have a high school education?
That would be obviously unfair and contrary to their stated goal of helping disadvantaged students.
The only reference to using it is the ‘strivers’, where it is indeed used in the opposite sense - lower parental education level elevates the student’s score.
Just when I thought I had dealt with peak stupidity with Gigo someone has to raise the bar. Look, the hive should be banned from using the word fascist since it thinks it means anyone to the right of their boy Stalin. Earth to the hive! It doesn’t.
The ghosts of over 100 million dead at the hands of leftists in the 20th century definitely were not and are not made of straw. That would be approximately 1.6 decaholocausts.
