Black market schools

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quick question.

If there are 1000's of independent schools, how can parents and employers objectively tell which one is better without some kind of standardized testing?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't. It's a subjective choice. Based on whatever is important to whoever is making the choice. It's called freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is important to most parents is getting their child into the best school possible. There may be a handful of schools famed for there specialities or general achievement, but most schools are fairly anonymous. Say, for example, their child shows a gift / interest in maths. How do they know which school has the best maths department? As parents are usually free to choose any school, tests or no, freedom of choice is not the issue, it's access to unbiased information enabling them to make an informed choice.

What's important to the employers is having an easy way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Companies don't give a [censored] about freedom, they would prefer easily referenced empirical standards.

I'm not saying standardized tests are a good thing, I agree with most of what Misfire's written above, but unless you can think of a better way of rating students and the schools themselves, I think their here to stay, at least in some form. Pragmatism will always defeat ideology.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quick question.

If there are 1000's of independent schools, how can parents and employers objectively tell which one is better without some kind of standardized testing?

[/ QUOTE ]

OH NOES TOO MANY CHOICES WE MUST IMPOSE A CHOICE TO SAVE YOU FROM THE NIGHTMARE!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is imposing what on who now? Parents and employers can choose to ignore the results and make any criteria they want for a prospective school or employee.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the crap that ETS and the College Board and GMAC use to sell their illegitamate tests. Correlation =/= causation. <font color="red"> Strawman. You don't understand the difference between predictors and causation. I never said that scores CAUSE success, just that they are good predictors, and they are.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me where I indicated you did. Your implication this whole time (until the last post where you conveniently switched topics from objectively measuring results to reliably predicting the future) has been that these tests would be an objective tool for measuring the success of one's (grade school) education -- that successful education causes better SAT scores. I can demonstrate that is not the case because those without knowledge of the subject matter can beat the tests. <font color="blue">you show me where I switched. I never did. Perhaps the time you spend learning how to beat tests should be spent learning how to read and interpret. Also a logic course would help immensely. the ABILITY to beat a test without knowledge does not imply that a significant number of students are actually doing that. Again the statistics show significant predictive ability both in college grades and persistence. Unless knowledge itself is unimportant for college grades and persistence, the facts prove you wrong </font>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> The statement that correlation =/= is also woefully incomplete, but makes a nice sound bite. Correlation is indicative of an underlying relationship and cause for further study. If A is highly correlated and appears to be a cause of C, until a factor B can be found that is causative of both, it is reasonable to assume that A is a cause of C. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I've demonstrated B. Coaching (B) can also cause SAT scores to rise (C), calling into question the idea that high SAT scores are the result of educational success (A).

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">you have only demonstrated (actually claimed, since youve provided no support) it is possible, that doesnt mean its happening at a significant level </font>
I'll bet money average number of assists in field hockey correlates nicely with college success, as does the number of oxford sweaters one owns. <font color="red">and if they do they are valid PREDICTORS.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, I'll accept your argument that SAT scores, rice-eating habits, field hockey stats, and oxford sweater collections are all "valid" predictors of college success. What a good selling point. <font color="blue"> I didnt say that. reading comprehension problem again. </font> What was your undergrad preppy clothes score anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
</font> Fallacies are fun! <font color="red"> Yes, your strawman of replacing prediction with causation is fun to refute. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

And your shift from the SAT indicating past educational success (causation) to predicting future educational success (prediction) was very well played as well.
<font color="blue"> there was no shift in my posts. </font>
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> And I make my living interpreting and applying statistics. Can standardized test scores be improved with coaching? Yes. Using your soundbite, does coaching unfarily inflate standardized test scores, or is it the additional focused study and better understanding of the topic (ie the education that the tests are measuring) that improves scores?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't teach the actual topic, only how to avoid having to understand the topic to find the right answer, which in fact DOES negate the test's value as an objective measure of what a student has learned about said topic. If I can answer your geometry question without applying the Pythagorean theorem, you have not successfully (or objectively) tested my ability to use it. <font color="blue"> and what percentage of students do that. Clearly not a significant enough percentage to negate the value as a predictor </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't pass my 10th grade geometry final if you gave it to me today (it's been 14 years since I've done a proof). But on the GRE I look like a math genius because I know how to get around the test. These tests are not objective in the least. <font color="red"> hyperbole clearly refuted by their predictive value </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Their predictive value (like that of oxford sweaters) says nothing of their ability to objectively measure quality of education which is exactly what you advocated using them for.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="blue">You are only correct if college success is not dependent on quality of education, which is highly unlikely. Otherwise if college success implies higher quality secondary/primary education (if it doesnt provide another explanation), AND SAT scores implies a higher likelihood of college success (which studies support) THEN SAT scores imply a higher quality secondary/primary education. Fill out a truth table</font>

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Say, for example, their child shows a gift / interest in maths. How do they know which school has the best maths department?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a person graduating from university has shown a gift/interest in actuarial science, how do they know which company has the best actuarial department? Do we need the government to mandate that all companies have an actuarial department that meets minimum government standards so that the graduate is not at risk of being duped?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Say, for example, their child shows a gift / interest in maths. How do they know which school has the best maths department? As parents are usually free to choose any school, tests or no, freedom of choice is not the issue, it's access to unbiased information enabling them to make an informed choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of outlets which would provide such information. I can get info on almost any product or service I want -- I don't need the government to provide it. You think if there were independent schools, there would be no reporting or rankings available on these schools? Interesting. Because for universities and private schools, all those reports and rankings already exist.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say, for example, their child shows a gift / interest in maths. How do they know which school has the best maths department?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a person graduating from university has shown a gift/interest in actuarial science, how do they know which company has the best actuarial department? Do we need the government to mandate that all companies have an actuarial department that meets minimum government standards so that the graduate is not at risk of being duped?

[/ QUOTE ]

I largely agree re the ability to differentiate and choose schools based on aptitude in specific areas of interest. It would become somewhat more difficult but not impossible. Of course there is nothing stopping that from happening in public schools and is done, perhaps not as much as it should be. New York has had "magnet schools" based on aptitude for decades, including science and the creative arts.

Interesting that you should raise actuaries though. Actuaries take a series of ten standardized tests. Ability to pass those tests is an extremely signficant predictor of success as a consulting actuary, a profession that requires a very broad base of knowledge and abilities. Thus it is clear that standardized tests CAN be designed that indicate educational aptitude accomplishment or both.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say, for example, their child shows a gift / interest in maths. How do they know which school has the best maths department? As parents are usually free to choose any school, tests or no, freedom of choice is not the issue, it's access to unbiased information enabling them to make an informed choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of outlets which would provide such information. I can get info on almost any product or service I want -- I don't need the government to provide it. ou think if there were independent schools, there would be no reporting or rankings available on these schools? Interesting. Because for universities and private schools, all those reports and rankings already exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about govenments? Private companies would be ideal for the task as long as they had the same base measurments. If you have been told a product is 4 feet long, it's important that their idea of 4 feet and your idea is the same.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their predictive value (like that of oxford sweaters) says nothing of their ability to objectively measure quality of education which is exactly what you advocated using them for.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="blue">You are only correct if college success is not dependent on quality of education, which is highly unlikely. Otherwise if college success implies higher quality secondary/primary education (if it doesnt provide another explanation), AND being a certain race implies a higher likelihood of college success (which studies support) THEN being a certain race implies a higher quality secondary/primary education. Fill out a truth table</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is imposing what on who now? Parents and employers can choose to ignore the results and make any criteria they want for a prospective school or employee.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOT requiring something is not an imposition. I am not imposing anything on you if I do not require you to take a test. I am imposing on you if I do.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting that you should raise actuaries though. Actuaries take a series of ten standardized tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an actuary which is why I picked that profession.

[ QUOTE ]
Ability to pass those tests is an extremely signficant predictor of success as a consulting actuary, a profession that requires a very broad base of knowledge and abilities. Thus it is clear that standardized tests CAN be designed that indicate educational aptitude accomplishment or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but there is the rub. They're not really standardized tests. They're specialized tests designed by actuaries to filter out anyone that doesn't meet the actuarial profession's concept of "actuarial". Of course they are a "successful" predictor of success when you measure success as being "actuarial" in the same way the tests are designed to pass "actuarial" people. People write the exams voluntarily to gain access to the actuaries' club under the actuaries' club rules. If they think the rules are stupid, they don't write the exams. No such freedom is afforded to public school entrants. They must pay and attend or pay and not attend. The case of actuarial exams is an example of how private education works, not support for public education!