"Low environmental impact"? Are you kidding me? So 1 billion people eating beef or 3 billion eating insects - what is the difference.
The difference is 2 billion people. Which is a pretty big difference regardless of if you are one of those people or not.
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?
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.
Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?