The Weird, Random, and Interesting things that Fit Nowhere Else Thread

[Hiro Protagonist]

With the exception of the dodgy shower scene, I found this interesting. I can empathise with both the unfit and fit people shown here. I know what it's like to lose a lot of weight and get back into shape, what it feels like when you plateau for a week or two and feel disappointed with putting in so much hard work and not seeing the scales move, but then sticking through it and seeing it eventually come off.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA5hKombXVI

 

I can also understand where the fit people are coming from as well. After my training finished three weeks ago, I've been feeling lazy, tired and wanting to get back into it again. Just lethargic. Good thing is my training starts up next week and can't wait to get back into it again.

 

Also, I train with some of the people in the video below. While I've never done a 75K survival run, I'm going to compete in some long distance runs this year.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0_ozneo0eE

[Gfted1]

Chilean officials can’t identify a strange IR signal seen by its Navy.

[Gfted1]

Live Saturday: SpaceX will attempt a return to flight.

 

I always dig watching the landings.

[Hurlshort]

Poet cannot answer standardized test questions about her own work

 

This is pretty hilarious, but also a great reason why the majority of teachers hate standardized testing. It's a ridiculous way to assess student learning.

[Raithe]

[Gorth]

From the 'weird world' category I suppose (and because I don't feel like creating a new politics thread)

 

Worlds largest communist economy argues for free trade, worlds largest capitalist country wants to tear up free trade agreements

 

The leader of the world's largest Communist Party will take to the stage at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in the Swiss ski resort arguing for globalisation and the wonders of free trade.

 

At the same time as the US - the home of capitalism - has a new president saying that the present free trade rules need to be ripped up.

[Amentep]

Poet cannot answer standardized test questions about her own work

 

This is pretty hilarious, but also a great reason why the majority of teachers hate standardized testing. It's a ridiculous way to assess student learning.

 

While I think that standardized testing is horribly misused and the actual meaning of the result horribly stretched to meet conclusions they could hardly support (or to bolster data that no one wants to admit exists by looking at how income and other demographic data show the same kind of success rates), I think the poet is wrong here:

 

 

 

My final reflection is this: any test that questions the motivations of the author without asking the author is a big baloney sandwich.

 

Most educational institutions still use the provision that the author is dead with respect to interpretations of their work.  I do find this to be a weird artifact of the move to try to move to contemporary authors as educational resources and how they may object to interpretations of their work.

[Gromnir]

Poet cannot answer standardized test questions about her own work

 

This is pretty hilarious, but also a great reason why the majority of teachers hate standardized testing. It's a ridiculous way to assess student learning.

am thinking the problem with standardized testing is more 'bout how, as implemented, the system influences the teaching o' subject matter. few teachers will admit, but there is significant pressure, at multiple levels, to teach the test. schools don't meet benchmarks and they suffer. teachers don't meet benchmarks and they suffer.  for any number o' subjects, standardized testing is an imperfect measure o' student learning, but it is objective and far more useful than many teachers would wanna admit. 

 

literature and poetry?  *sigh* fiction is rare crafted like an essay and yet we ask for similar analysis from students.  different authors have different process. nevertheless, even if an author is a compulsive outliner, rare does a finished work take us where the author had original intended us to be. for many, writing is 'bout achieving a state wherein the author believes himself to be a conduit for the story or characters or poem or whatnot.  ask what an author's intent is/was will be doomed 'cause author, if honest, frequent don't know complete and certain why they described __________ as ___________.  ask an author ten years removed from writing and you might even get a different answer.  such subject matter is not gonna lend itself to standardized testing.

 

the thing is, much education nowadays is complete bass ackwards. particular with access to the internet, knowing facts is less impressive than it once were.  'course the internet also makes it more difficult for kids to genuine learn to learn.  learn How to learn is the most important skill, and yet the internet has a tendency to stifle the growth o' such ability.  before internet access, one could ask students to look for symbolism and extended metaphor in moby **** and then compare and contrast to mary shelly's frankenstein. even if your high school student were finding much on such subjects in a local school library, being able to compare/contrast shelly and melville woulda' required individual analysis by the student. today? rather detailed analysis is gonna be available for any work an instructor is likely to have access to.  internet has also made such subjective analysis less so.  get enough internet sources repeating a specific conclusion 'bout frankenstein and what were once an interpretation becomes the interpretation. teaching lit 20 years ago to high school students were less 'bout making sure students knew the answers, but rather it were 'bout the process o' a student discovering and creating answers to questions w/o a genuine answer.  nowadays, kids will, in a matter o' nanoseconds, have access to even the most esoteric knowledge. no sweat. no toil. no uncertainty. no new pathways created in the brain as the child tries to puzzle  and problem solve.  

 

teach kids how to learn should be #1 goal. standardized tests measure what a kid has learned.  is a disconnect.  is nothing wrong with the standardized.  unfortunate, far less effort is going into teaching kids how to learn.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

for any number o' subjects, standardized testing is an imperfect measure o' student learning, but it is objective and far more useful than many teachers would wanna admit.

Strange but true (from the examinations on the subject I've read) - even with acknowledging grade inflation, High School GPA is a better predictor of Freshman college success than SAT/ACT scores.  That's the reason a lot of colleges have been slowly been moving to a "multiple measures" system to evaluate admissions and placement decisions because the standardized scores work better when applied to a context (like HS GPA) than they do alone.

[Gromnir]

 

for any number o' subjects, standardized testing is an imperfect measure o' student learning, but it is objective and far more useful than many teachers would wanna admit.

Strange but true (from the examinations on the subject I've read) - even with acknowledging grade inflation, High School GPA is a better predictor of Freshman college success than SAT/ACT scores.  

have seen the opposite. sure, there is an oft cited study from 2014 which claims gpa is more important, but the methodology has been called into question. understandable. 3.5 gpa at Grumm Public High School in hoboken is a far different thing than a 3.5 from St. Thomas Aquinas Private Academy.  hurl is a teacher, and so too is his wife, no?  she works with a less privileged cross-section o' the student demographic, no?  is a B awarded for same level achievement at her school as is at hurl's?  doubt it.  lord knows the high school we attended were a joke.  show up to class and don't get busted for drug or weapon possession would result in starting point o' a C.  heck, we had to pass through a metal detector to get into our school. would be silly to assume we were getting same level o' education and being awarded similar indicative grades as the kids going to Exeter. 

 

am thinking most important is recent studies show how in spite o' the 2014 study, universities still value sat/act most.  why? 'cause universities actual must place students and counsel students and fail students. universities got the actual experience o' dealing with those incoming freshman.

 

and personal, we loved the sat.  were impersonal. were bloodless. were fair.  go ahead and assume Gromnir don't belong and only got into Cal 'cause of affirmative action if you want to, but be sure to compare your sat to ours 'fore you get all uppity and self-righteous.  we honest considered getting our sat and lsat scores tattooed on our bicep, but we suspected our grandmother woulda' been mighty disappointed. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

we honest considered getting our sat and lsat scores tattooed on our bicep, but we suspected our grandmother woulda' been mighty disappointed.

Good thing I already finished my coffee!

[Gfted1]

Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

 

*rages*

[Amentep]

have seen the opposite. sure, there is an oft cited study from 2014 which claims gpa is more important, but the methodology has been called into question. understandable. 3.5 gpa at Grumm Public High School in hoboken is a far different thing than a 3.5 from St. Thomas Aquinas Private Academy.  hurl is a teacher, and so too is his wife, no?  she works with a less privileged cross-section o' the student demographic, no?  is a B awarded for same level achievement at her school as is at hurl's?  doubt it.  lord knows the high school we attended were a joke.  show up to class and don't get busted for drug or weapon possession would result in starting point o' a C.  heck, we had to pass through a metal detector to get into our school. would be silly to assume we were getting same level o' education and being awarded similar indicative grades as the kids going to Exeter. 

 

am thinking most important is recent studies show how in spite o' the 2014 study, universities still value sat/act most.  why? 'cause universities actual must place students and counsel students and fail students. universities got the actual experience o' dealing with those incoming freshman.

 

I love the SAT and ACT. I do think the results of the tests are horribly misused, but that's neither here nor there.

 

That said the beginning of moving away from strictly using SAT/ACT dates to earlier than 2014; Blefield and Crosta had an article “Predicting Success in College: The Importance of Placement Tests and High School Grades” in 2012 that that indicated HS GPA was a better predictor. 

 

I'm pretty sure that Complete College America supports using multiple measures w/HS GPA and is part of why the trend has been sweeping through the states. The entire university system in this state has moved in that direction for all ~30 institutions.  The "best" data for freshmen is considered to be HS GPA and SAT (then HS GPA and ACT), in both cases the formula that derives the composite score is weighted more towards the GPA.  Because the studies¹ have been indicating that persistence (even the "I got a 'C' for not being busted with a weapon and showing up') was a better predictor of continued persistence than standardized test scores.

 

¹Of course there is, it should be pointed out, stated concern that the studies haven't been run long enough to get an accurate perception over time, which has been a cause for concern for faculty.  Unfortunately the obsession over increasing graduates because college graduation = job ready work force has made a lot of places jump in with both feet.

[Raithe]

The Narrative of Normalisation

 

 

 

If you are still trying to convince yourself that a Trump presidency will not be that bad, here is (some of) the cognitive dissonance that exists within that narrative of normalization:

• That a presidential nominee who you praised for not being a typical politician (one who goes back on their promises) will go back on their promises…..but only the ones you don’t like (like cutting YOUR government support or maybe that Muslim registry that DID sound kind of scary). The ones you liked he’ll do. Absolutely.
• That nearly every person who has either lived through or studied Hitler’s rise to power suddenly, all at once, decided to become melodramatic and overwrought. For no reason.
• That he says what he means and you like that. Except for the stuff that you swear you weren’t okay with him saying. You’re not a racist or anything. That was just bluster. But the stuff you agree with wasn’t just bluster; it was totally sincere. You are able to tell exactly which things are bluster and exactly which things he has high integrity about.
• That a guy who lies almost every time his mouth is open was totally telling the truth to you. Totally. And sure he lies all the time, but he’s right about all the stuff you agree with him about. Yep.
• That a presidential nominee who bragged during nationally televised debates about scamming freelance workers and spent twenty-five million to settle a fraud lawsuit can be trusted to know exactly where the water’s edge of “conflict of interest” is between his personal investments and US interests and doesn’t need the slightest oversight.
• That a presidential nominee who bragged during nationally televised debates about scamming freelance workers and spent twenty-five million to settle a fraud lawsuit totally wasn’t saying anything he had to to win so he could defraud YOU.
• That these appointments aren’t terrifying at all. Breathtaking cronyism in a historically uneducated and inexperienced cabinet with a bent towards white supremacy and anti-LGBTQ+ policy is only alarming because everyone on the left is a sore loser.
• That Republican paranoia about **** that Obama never said he would do (like taking away your guns) was justified, but our fear of explicit campaign promises is blowing things out of proportion.
• That Russia hasn’t ever done anything enemy-ish, is absolutely blameless, would never do such a thing, and you should mock everyone who thinks otherwise. Even those seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies. Because what did they ever do.
• That nothig bad ever happened when a president decided not to pay attention to an intelligence report. *cough9/11cough*
• That your vote was all about economics. Not even a teensie weensie bit about race or bigotry. (Even though those “identity politics PC folks” sure had it coming!) Despite the fact that Trump’s tax plan very clearly spelled out that your taxes would be (and will be) going up unless you are a business or in the top 1%. But let’s go with the economy. Absolutely.
• That intelligence agencies are somehow only trustworthy if they are accusing Hillary Clinton of a crime.
• That someone who has called American citizens of the opposition party his “enemies” in a taunt that a twelve year old 4channer would find petulant egged on by a mainstream constituency that is delighted at how much pain and suffering “those ****ing coastal elites” are about to endure is somehow going to heal the divisions of our country.
• That the party that once used “pinko commie” as an insult to the left to insinuate that they were in league with Russia is now darned cool with those guys and their curious blend of anti-LGBT, one party, imperialistic oppression.
• That after enduring eight years of birther crap, racism, faux lynchings, literal burning effigies, the rhetoric of taking the country “back,” watching the Tea party rise as a Koch brothers astroturf movement involving a bunch of white dudes in revolutionary war costumes calling the administration of a right leaning Democrat (with an infuriating penchant for compromise) “tyranny,” as well as an unprecedented obstructionism at every single level of government, liberals should just “get over it” because “He won.”
• That the REAL problem is that a group who is trying to get everyone the same rights, achieve equality, listen to others’ lived experiences, and empower those pushed to the margins of our society is lacking empathy. If only we’d learn to build a bridge.
• That in a country where the status quo is already violently unjust towards certain people, an administration that has openly voiced hostility towards these people will make things better.
• That a head of state who chooses not only to ignore a foreign attack by our enemies, but also mocks the sitting president who retaliated with sanctions….then turns around and PRAISES the foreign head of state who almost certainly attacked us…. That THAT guy is going to keep US interests safe.
• That a dude who didn’t realize his tweet calling for a boycott of Apple was going to reveal that it had come from an iPhone somehow knows more about hacking than 17 U.S. intelligence communities and a host of private analysts.
• That a guy who brags about grabbing women by the **** isn’t sexist and it totally wasn’t even a little sexist to go ahead and vote to make him the most powerful person on Earth.
• Repeat the last point for racism, xenophobia, ableism and every ****ty bigoted thing he has said or done. But it totally isn’t even a little bigoted that all this stuff wasn’t a deal breaker, and liberals are just being “hateful” to suggest it.
• That “the least racist person you’ll ever meet” appointed a white supremacist to a new White House position.
• That a person with an ego so frail that they take to twitter at the slightest criticism (be it from SNL portrayals or a Broadway musical with the audacity to hope that all US citizens would gain equal protection) is going to be an effective diplomat, and totally won’t have a nuclear power rattling its saber at him before he’s even sworn in.
• That negative three million votes is a “mandate.”
• That the problem with a widely diverse groups struggling against the bigotry of cis het white male lawmakers to enact policy that will not target and possibly help marginalized groups is that we are “elites.”
• That nuclear proliferation is a big competition and Trump can “win.”
• That the guy who not only has been conspicuously silent about the shocking uptick in hate crimes but has also demanded a list of the federal employees involved in combatting the rise of extremist groups (but won’t say why) isn’t going to be as bad for minorities as he’s being painted, and all “those people” are just making mountains out of molehills.
• That being cheered on by Nazis is not an inauspicious sign.
• That calling Obama racial slurs and racist epithets are just free speech, but pointing out when Trump is lying with facts should be cracked down on because it’s so hateful.
• That someone who hates taxing the rich and hates unions and hates regulations and hates bipartisan cooperation isn’t talking about the social hegemony of cis het white men when he wistfully looks to the past while invoking a promise to make America “great again.”
• That it’s too late to admit you’ve made a mistake and join us in our every effort to #RESIST

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Raithe

[Rosbjerg]

 

That the party that once used “pinko commie” as an insult to the left to insinuate that they were in league with Russia is now darned cool with those guys 

 

This is the funniest to me - it's an almost comically 'we've always been at war with Euroasia' situation.

[Gfted1]

That document should be renamed: "The Butthurt Manifesto"

[Wrath of Dagon]

So you guys are derailing the thread now, time to start "politics 2017".

[Gfted1]

[Gromnir]

 Because the studies¹ have been indicating that persistence (even the "I got a 'C' for not being busted with a weapon and showing up') was a better predictor of continued persistence than standardized test scores.

 

 

if that were the case in real life, as 'posed to a couple o' studies, then just as many kids from schools such as Gromnir's would be having success in university as would those from exeter.  we had typical bell curve.  we also had many kids be accepted to university.  we didn't go to our reunions, but our school, CVS (not the drug store) were part o' a study showing just how terrible were inner city schools at producing college graduates and working professionals.  resulted in massive changes. 

 

grades is important as it reveals diligence 'n such. universities do not discount grades. grades is still important.  many will claim grades is most important... while at same time providing median sat/act scores and acknowledging how negligible amounts o' incoming freshman score below a certain number on the standardized tests.  why? universities don't have any motivation to wanna fail students.  universities work very hard to increase diversity, and not simple racial.  get more students from diverse backgrounds has been a goal at most universities for decades.  let's not discount the studies which show how it is unfair to students to place 'em in universities where they is predictable (based largely on sat scores) gonna fail.  mere recognizing such studies got Scalia in trouble, but they is real and it is clear that while Universities don't wanna be hamstrung by such, they is behaving as if sat scores is still pivotal.

 

reliance on sat is not 'cause the folks who run Universities is dumb or obtuse. folks most likely to actual observe student success and failure at university is the ones still using sat.  just as we don't discount hurl observations 'bout standardized tests being an accurate measure o' student learning, we sure ain't gonna dismiss university behavior. standardized tests is crude, and woeful ill fitting for certain subject matter.  they do not reveal a student's capacity to learn. however, they do measure what students have learned, and they is still a mighty useful tool for Universities when predicting success.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Amentep]

I never said they weren't useful tools for Universities.  However (a) the current trend in Universities is to move away from strictly using SAT/ACT for admit decisions and (b) to include the HS GPA as a part of the decisions.  The university system here makes admissions decisions on a formula that uses HS GPA and SAT/ACT and does remediation using a similar formula that can also add a 'placement test' like College Board's ACCUPLACER or ACT's now defunct COMPASS.   This was modeled after, IIRC, Tennessee's model which in turn was modeled after another states.  I'd heard of multiple measures admissions / placement because of work done in that direction in California well before it was adopted here, with a lot of this being based out of the desire to work with Complete College America guidelines.

[Gromnir]

I never said they weren't useful tools for Universities.  However (a) the current trend in Universities is to move away from strictly using SAT/ACT for admit decisions and (b) to include the HS GPA as a part of the decisions.  

am not aware o' the major university which had previous ignored gpa, so...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

I think most schools did have minimum GPA, however beyond existing as a barrier ("you need X GPA to be admitted") or being used to crop the end off of eligible applicants the GPA was irrelevant.  The new models use GPA & HS GPA in a formula to calculate an score that is then used to drive admissions decisions and further to actually determine placement for collegiate work.

 

So a GPA 3.4 and SAT 1250 will not be the same as GPA 2.0 and SAT 1250 and may not be eligible to start in the same classes either.

[Gromnir]

I think most schools did have minimum GPA, however beyond existing as a barrier ("you need X GPA to be admitted") or being used to crop the end off of eligible applicants the GPA was irrelevant.  The new models use GPA & HS GPA in a formula to calculate an score that is then used to drive admissions decisions and further to actually determine placement for collegiate work.

 

So a GPA 3.4 and SAT 1250 will not be the same as GPA 2.0 and SAT 1250 and may not be eligible to start in the same classes either.

so gpa has been a factor.

 

also, the ca system has been in place since 1971.

 

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/index.html

 

top 9% statewide or local, and local is not taking standardized test scores into account at all.  is one reason uc had to open uc merced.  ca residents were no longer being able to attend uc schools in spite o' achieving 9%.

 

dunno.  most private schools is actual more flexible and willing to take a gestalt approach as they need not answer to statutory guidelines.  find a good candidate who not have ideal test scores or ideal gpa or some kinda other issue, but nevertheless impresses admissions, well then Private has always found ways to admit.  and the big state schools, such as texas and ca, frequent use similar to what we linked 'bove... and is almost always tethered to class rank... which is obvious dependent 'pon gpa.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

If I implied HS GPA wasn't (or worse, was never) a factor, than I misrepresented what I was trying to say.  What I was trying to say was that HS GPA is being used in a slightly different context by applying it to admissions and placement where it is part of a formula rather than a stand-alone and contextless criteria (even that is arguably an oversimplification see below).  Note that most of my experience in this is based on open-admissions programs (like the California Community College System) as opposed to selective admissions programs, like the University of California institutions.

 

Selective admission schools will end up adding a lot more criteria beyond HS GPA & SAT/ACT like essays, rigor of courses taken, recommendation letters, extracurricular activities, number of AP/IB classes taken, etc.  IIRC University of Tennessee looks at how hard your senior year classes were; Georgia Tech gets the HS counselor to fill out information about the HS so that it can weight to value of the HS information, etc.  Until recently, most open admissions programs didn't do that sort of thing with respect to admissions or placement decisions (locally a low HS GPA only 'might' keep a student out of an open admissions school) and relied heavily on SAT/ACT or a local placement test for most of their decisions.

[Gromnir]

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/freshman/profiles/

 

other than riverside, santa cruz and merced, the median gpa is better than 4.0.  gonna be similar in texas and ny and other states with major public university systems.  am suspecting this is part o' the conundrum for universities when utilizing gpa.  if everybody is getting good grades as kinda a participation trophy, they don't mean much. how does one distinguish students and determine likelihood o' success? 

 

we can't speak to open enrollment... at all.  we know community colleges exist, and if we were to advise a young person 'bout college in ca, we would much recommend spending first 2 years at a community college, and saving a whole lotta money. from having taken a few cc classes over the years, am recollecting one needs only have a pulse, proof of residency and enough cash to cover ever increasing tuition for admissions.  so am kinda confused 'bout what we are speaking o'.   

 

HA! Good Fun!