TU #195 US News 2024 rankings.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
The problem they are trying to solve doesn't seem like it would involve west expansion of campus, so I figured you'd just say no.(Not the answer I want to hear.)
But you can't even give me a semi emphatic no? That doesn't really reveal much.
😖🤷♀️
I can ask my contacts at TU and see what they know. At least 1 is very in the know in that area. And I'm not for TU building on any of the remaining green spaces on campus. There's something about the U, the new U, and the space between fraternity and sorority row. And c'mon the argument that the residence halls are too far from Kep and the 2 new engineering buildings sounds almost as whiny as the folks clamoring for parking garages near the stadium. It is no more than a 7 minute walk from anywhere on campus to Kep if you walk at a normal pace and don't stop to stare at your feet along the way.
I've been of the opinion TU should try to buy everything between 11th and 3rd, Lewis to Harvard. Of course there's some stuff in there, like the school, that's not going away but that's a good partnership for TU (at least used to be). I always wanted TU to build aa 9-hole golf course in that space as well
I've been of the opinion TU should try to buy everything between 11th and 3rd, Lewis to Harvard. Of course there's some stuff in there, like the school, that's not going away but that's a good partnership for TU (at least used to be). I always wanted TU to build aa 9-hole golf course in that space as well
More on testing from a TU professor. The interesting thing is that the focus seems to be entirely "we should test what we teach" rather than "we should test what predicts college performance", which seems to be the main driving force behind the Classic Learning Test, it seems to be anti-woke for the sake of being anti-woke, but without evidence that it actually predicts anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. @drboobay will be spending some time with his therapist now.
For true higher-ed diversity, we must break the testing monopoly
For true higher-ed diversity, we must break the testing monopoly
God forbid we have a test that actually tests grammar mastery, as well as the ability to read, comprehend and analyze a passage. Measuring text analysis rather than just comprehension is key.
Not to mention a test that is fully online, cheaper, delivers certified results in two days, allows unlimited re-takes, provides students with a comprehensive score report with suggestions on how to improve their score, and doesn’t soak international test takers.
Not to mention a test that is fully online, cheaper, delivers certified results in two days, allows unlimited re-takes, provides students with a comprehensive score report with suggestions on how to improve their score, and doesn’t soak international test takers.
For sure, I can't tell you how often I'm required to read and analyze Chaucer in my day to day life! I was a philosophy major, I'm a lawyer, my life is words, and even to me, this test seems hopelessly ivory tower.
@drboobay can do this more justice than I can, but you're describing a test creation approach that went away 50 years ago - a group of people sit around and use theory to decide what should be asked. It has been replaced mostly with "science" - building tests that are shown by data to actually measure things that are important, rather than what a group of people decide is important. That's what matters. Does this test actually correlate with outcomes that matter? Nobody knows. You say we should require testing bc it helps us make good decisions easily but also support a test that very well might not have any relationship with making good decisions?
The classical approach is interesting bc it goes exactly opposite the other main thrust of "conservative" approaches on education - job training. Does the education prepare you to do a job? Which is it we care about? Being anti-woke or training people to do jobs?
Let's just turn TU into a tech school. Seems like you were against that when Janet tried to accomplish that. Good god how is it an english lit degree can get you into so many different fields because it shows the ability to analyze, and not just spit out wrote answers.
How do you know the test is anti woke, it might be woke neutral, by not even dealing w/ subjects that are woke/anti woke. If you adhere to the anti woke maths concept, that probably doesn't include ANY subjects for you, though.
This test is optional, and likely can be taken in conjunction with other tests if one desires. What is wrong with another option that is better for some students who have a classically oriented educational background.
For a liberal you are awfully closed minded to a lot of things. I thought far left folks liked more options. Sounds liked you have a dislike for your philosophy major. As far as I have ever heard, a philosophy major is well suited, when continuing to a law degree. I've heard that from a multitude of friends who are lawyers.
Most degrees include information that is of no purely practical value. Why should this test be evaluated any differently than many college majors. You use skills learned in liberal arts all the time without even realizing it. Many majors don't spend half their time on 'job training'. They train you for a career. Especially a career in which your responsibilities are managing others.
I can't believe a liberal is poo pooing a liberal arts test. Usually it is the ultra conservative that does that. Maybe ultra conservatives and far left liberals aren't that different after all, like some out there are saying.
We are slowly losing liberal arts educations, and people like you aren't helping matters. That's a shame. Literature and philosophy are part of what raises us above the animals out there in society.
Signed,
The gadfly of annoyance
How do you know the test is anti woke, it might be woke neutral, by not even dealing w/ subjects that are woke/anti woke. If you adhere to the anti woke maths concept, that probably doesn't include ANY subjects for you, though.
This test is optional, and likely can be taken in conjunction with other tests if one desires. What is wrong with another option that is better for some students who have a classically oriented educational background.
For a liberal you are awfully closed minded to a lot of things. I thought far left folks liked more options. Sounds liked you have a dislike for your philosophy major. As far as I have ever heard, a philosophy major is well suited, when continuing to a law degree. I've heard that from a multitude of friends who are lawyers.
Most degrees include information that is of no purely practical value. Why should this test be evaluated any differently than many college majors. You use skills learned in liberal arts all the time without even realizing it. Many majors don't spend half their time on 'job training'. They train you for a career. Especially a career in which your responsibilities are managing others.
I can't believe a liberal is poo pooing a liberal arts test. Usually it is the ultra conservative that does that. Maybe ultra conservatives and far left liberals aren't that different after all, like some out there are saying.
We are slowly losing liberal arts educations, and people like you aren't helping matters. That's a shame. Literature and philosophy are part of what raises us above the animals out there in society.
Signed,
The gadfly of annoyance
Last edited:
He doesn’t like it because it’s marketed to home school and non-traditional, so called “classical” charter schools. So the teachers unions have told him not to like it. The same teachers that don’t like the SAT or any other type of objective standards/measurements.
It’s not anti-woke, it just has a policy that it won’t presume that certain authors or viewpoints are unacceptable as part of the test. It’s willing to provide text from both Marx and Adam Smith for students to analyze.
Such a test does little to analyze skills that I find valuable in employees in the tech / engineering fields. I care more about critical thinking, logic, the ability to assess systems of objects, the ability to find novel solutions to complex issues and creativity more than anything else, and analyzing a passage doesn’t quite assess any of that for me.
The thing that I do think should be taught and tested earlier to all people is the basic interpretation of contracts. (Not a full contract law course, just how to interpret the logic between a complex OR clause and an AND clause) Also the cause and effect behind parties making certain actions after they’ve made an agreement (defaulting etc…) I think it would serve a dual purpose of preparing students for a society that revolves around debt, and one where businesses rely so heavily on contract interpretation day to day…. And most of it is done without lawyers.
Last edited:
Meh. You are against something because it is unfamiliar. 40% of the exam is designed to assess mathematical and STEM reasoning capacity, beyond testing for basic mastery of mathematical skills, knowledge, and answer finding. Basically what you say you are interested in.
Dude, you need to get back on your Metamucil. So much of what you say is just generic twitter nonsense. "me disagree, call him closed mined liberal! I smart!" Right, buddy.
I think the test is designed to be anti-woke because the people who make the test say that it's purpose is to be anti-woke and to push back against "indoctrination". Pretty good clue. I'm fine with new tests, and actually think that finding new non-discriminatory tests would be great, but I think they should be validated with data and not based on politics. Either the test predicts meaningful things or it doesn't, we should know before using it to admit people, and nobody knows with this test.
I loved philosophy and am glad I got the degree. I don't even know what you're talking about not liking it, you're just spewing nonsense. I'm all in favor of teaching liberal arts and agree on the value of it (I've made a lot of money with my degrees). But that's an entirely different question than how to create an entrance assessment. I can't believe I have to specify that those are different things. And come on, even I think it's silly to admit people based on whether they can interpret Plato or Cicero.
Whoa, teachers union? What do they have to do with this? You guys are both just throwing out all the right wing boogeymen. You might as well say that Soros is behind it.
Why should home school or charter school kids get to take a test that doesn't predict how they'll do in college while other kids don't? If you're going to use the CLT, then you should use a test based on African American Vernacular English and street smarts for kids who want to take that test. If the goal is to give tests based on how you were taught rather than whether the test predicts anything, how can you say that one group gets their favorite test but other groups don't? The test should be validated and provide demographic information, the minimum basics for any assessment. Just because you like their politics doesn't mean they should get out of the standards applied to everyone else.
They are very much not overlapping circles. BTW.
I am not ignoring this.
Just too busy to give it due attention.
Just too busy to give it due attention.
Notice that I never said anything about Math. Not because it’s not valuable, but because it’s overemphasized at times for undergrad level occupations, especially in this day and age of the internet and AI.
Last edited:
Ok I cannot take seriously a writer who takes this as a given.
"they risk yet again discriminating against specific demographics of students."
Glibly equating differential outcomes and discrimination tells me this is not a serious person with any depth of understanding of the subject. No point in analyzing further.
Thanks for being ageist for the third or fourth time with me, that's enough for me to ignore you wholly. You want to give six levels of effort to appear non racist, but are fully ensconced in age discrimination. What a hypocrite. Several of your arguments don't hold water, but it's not worth discussing any further. No matter what your response, I'm through talking with you. You are not a gadfly, you are just an ass.
He has thrown ageist comments at me repetitively, and without merit. Doesn't matter what his reasoning is. He can be older and still practice ageism. Because he thinks he doesn't deserve ageist comments, but I do, does not excuse him doing so. Trump calls people fat, when he is overweight. Doesn't excuse the comments.
Just stating a likely fact as someone who knows chito and has met you, gmoney. You are entitled to your opinions and emotions of course.
I'm not going to lambast you for it, or hold it against you. I'd just like to know if you feel I am at least semi justified. I know there will be a semi bias because you are long term friends with Chito, and that's ok.
I am not following it all that closely. But he does like to provoke a bit.
I think he would probably verify "long term acquaintance" is more accurate by the way and suspect he agrees. Nothing pejorative intended.
The irony of you calling someone else an ass and also a hypocrite is truly just butter. FWIW, I don't think your problem is your age. The difference between us is that I'll admit that I'm an ass sometimes. I also tend to be a lot more thoughtful in the things I say, I don't generally just make random $hit up.
As drboobay said, I am fairly sure I'm older than you, and I also acknowledge that I'm not as sharp as I used to be (though a lot wiser and more strategic). I also have to work harder not to be set in my ways, we all have our times of shaking our canes on the front porch. Why deny it? If I don't recognize it, then how can I take steps to hold off the tide for as long as possible, or leverage the gains I've made over the losses? Oh also, stop trying to cancel me. Why is everyone so sensitive these days?
Last edited:
I'd say friend, to the extent you can be a friend without having seen each other in 30+ years. We interact, I value your opinion and points, we don't agree on everything but I think we share high level values and mores, I respect your priorities. That seems like being a friend, of the internet variety. Tho that is more from this board than anything from the good old days, if I can say that without being ageist.
Back to the CLT, I think one of three things will happen:
I'd put each of these at about a 33% chance. Back in the olden days, saying not to use a bad test wouldn't have been controversial but I suspect that is not the case anymore.
- the makers will not try to properly validate and assess the psychometrics bc creating a useful test isn't the real goal, I don't think schools should use it in this case;
- the test will have worse validity or psychometric properties than the SAT/ACT, I don't think schools should use it in this case (both 1 and 2 are basically using a bad test for political reasons);
- the test will be a little worse than the SAT/ACT but will end up being similar over time in validity since they are testing the same general thing, and have a very high correlation with the SAT/ACT. In this case, I think schools should be open to accepting it. If it's testing the same thing and is equally good but with a different format that some kids prefer, then we should use it, and we should be open to other new tests that are equally good. The one exception would be if it has other bad properties, like having a more pronounced discriminatory impact without better validity.
I'd put each of these at about a 33% chance. Back in the olden days, saying not to use a bad test wouldn't have been controversial but I suspect that is not the case anymore.
So these days, anyone can design a test or a survey or anything else specifically geared to get results you want, and frequently they do. Political polls are especially bad. Hell even ballots are purposefully designed to manipulating people into voting a certain way. The problem with these standardized tests you all are arguing about is many are designed to actually mislead and steer the taker into selecting a certain answer.
This is why you have to validate the test. Does the test score predict something useful like retention or 4 year GPA or graduation rate?
You can have a question "2+2=" with the right answered keyed to "libtards are dumb" but will the kid who scores high on that test have a higher 4 year GPA or graduation rate? Probably not (though maybe at the schools who use this particular test).
My point is we shouldn't use a test unless/until it is shown to predict meaningful things that are relevant for admissions. I'm surprised how controversial that is. Without that, this test is just affirmative action for homeschooled kids.
I disagree with your comments, but they are certainly valid concerns. Most of those concerns are addressed on the test’s website which has extensive information on test content and validity.
Yeah, all other things being equal, we should try to make it as easy as possible for people to apply to college, especially kids who are on the fence and otherwise end up not applying at all. But the test should work, in a real sense, not in an ivermectin sense. Hopefully schools have smart psychometricians who evaluate the validity info and aren't pushed into going one way or another based on outside influences and are able to evaluate whether the validity data are real or just smoke and mirrors.
edited
Who said the test shouldn't be evaluated as such?
I would assume that any standardized test had been evaluated by years of metrics studying scores, related to performance in college. Otherwise, why would you use it as a standardized test? That defeats the purpose. You just seemed to be making assumptions, before it was evaluated. The way I took it, is that you didn't like it without having seen any evaluations. I didn't look at anything but the article, but my assumption was that it was a test in progress, meaning the questions and evaluations were not complete.
Last edited:
Harvard reverses on public statements made the last several months and will no longer be test optional in 2025, citing internal research and a joint study with Brown. Cliff notes: if you believe that testing is culturally biased you are missing the point that essay evaluation, letters of recommendation and extracurriculars are even more biased. Testing at least identifies are larger group of disadvantaged students to recruit from.
Once you add a human into the evaluation process you have a whole other level of measurement calibration needed and set of inconsistent biases at play from person to person.
We use human raters to evaluate officer candidates in police and fire on interactive assessments, and it is a very complex and labor intensive process to do it right. Everything from the exercise design to the rater training requires careful thought and preparation for accuracy.
It's kind of inevitable to involve human evaluation but to even think human decisions would be systematically unbiased is silly.
I have no idea what any of you are talking about. But ole' LEC gonna rubberneck. That's how he do!
The thing that's been the most educational for me in this thread is that my assumption on what schools use the SAT/ACT for is wrong - I thought they just used the normal score to give kids with higher scores a better chance of getting in than kids with a lower score, which would result in fewer people from disadvantaged backgrounds getting in. But people at these top colleges are smart, they have come up with much more creative uses. Using the normal test score as a floor and then "local context" scores as the admission criteria is interesting and actually results in more people from disadvantaged backgrounds getting in (for as long as that's legal) since a kid with a lower normal score can be rated more highly than a kid with a higher normal score.
I think that's why we're seeing schools reverse course on test mandatory, they are also learning from Yale, Dartmouth, etc.
I think this does mean that a new test (not the goofy CLT) would be useful since requiring test scores means some kids not applying who would otherwise. The SAT/ACT could probably be half as long and achieve the floor/local context goals while also reducing the number of kids who opt out, and maybe changing the format, too. What they're predicting is more basic than what the SAT/ACT are designed for. Kind of like Yale taking IB/AP scores.
You say it this way and everyone's like "well yea, of course" but you say "implicit bias" and people lose their $hit and start suing.....
Another way to look at it is the measuring stick. Every person is a different measuring stick! It takes a ton of work to get and keep everybody calibrated the same way, or purposefully.
Similar threads
