Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Going to get modded down as sexist for this, bu (Score 1) 690

by Ryan101 (#42481641) Attached to: Why Girls Do Better At School

I can't imagine that question being in line with the objectives of any course. Why would it be on a test?

It is standard operating procedure for standardized tests and AP tests.

There is also no reason to limit a test to sitting down and filling in some bubbles on a paper. Or a single day. A test can include practical labs and internships

Could it be a series of small assignments throughout a course that are graded, tallied up, and then factored into the final grade? It sounds to me like your definition of what constitutes an exam could include the grades that girls are performing better than the boys in.

Even if the test is bad, grades should reflect how well you are learning to pass the test not how well you will do after the test.

What's wrong with having grades that reflect how well you will do after the test? That seems really useful to me. How is that any more arbitrary than using a test to predict that? Better yet, why not use both and recognize that they both tell you useful information rather than insisting that one is flawed?

I'd say the vast majority use their grades to get a job which is where they really learn and their job performance generally has little correlation to their grades and only some correlation to their test scores. The correlation to test scores may well have more to do with ability to handle pressure than anything actually being tested.

And I would say their job performance generally has little correlation to their test scores and some correlation to their grades. The correlation to grades may well have more to do with ability to organize and mange one's work than any material being taught. However, we know that both of our statements don't have anything to back them up right?

Comment: Re:Going to get modded down as sexist for this, bu (Score 1) 690

by Ryan101 (#42480441) Attached to: Why Girls Do Better At School
Tests are not necessarily objective, there is the issue of sterotype threat . The gist of it is that if you remind girls that they are girls (by asking them to fill in a bubble for gender) before a math test they performed worse. When asked to fill in the bubble after the test, they performed equally.

Not to mention how anxiety (which can affect boys and girls) can cause bad performance on an exam, when that person may have gotten excellent grades all through the course and continue to retain and apply the information that they learned in the course long afterwards.

I'm not saying exams are not to be trusted, but I think you can get a better picture of how much someone got out of a course by considering more than just a single data point.

Comment: Re:Learning (Score 1) 311

by Ryan101 (#42389251) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Android Apps For Kids Under 12 Months?
I agree with your sentiment that a tablet is a reasonable complement to the things to a child should interact with, but I'd like to point out that a "A learning device with no texture, fake 3d, no smell, taste, heat, or any other input for senses other than sight and hearing" could be used to describe a picture book (expect for the hearing part). Yet, no one is claiming that pictures books could be harmful for development.

Comment: Re:Grants? Scholarships? (Score 1) 457

by Ryan101 (#41908905) Attached to: Tuition Should Be Lower For Science Majors, Says Florida Task Force

That's pretty much the idea. If scientists contribute more to the overall economy than news reporters, then if you produce more scientists, the overall economy will be higher.

I don't think you can treat the economy or workforce like an individual farm where you try to maximize profit by only producing the single most profitable crop. We need a diverse workforce in order to have a strong economy just like we need a diverse landscape to produce the variety of crops we need, regardless of which one is most "valuable". As an added bonus, a diverse workforce is more resilient when there is a downturn in an individual sector.

"Success covers a multitude of blunders." -- George Bernard Shaw