The Glade 4.0

RangerDave:

Except, that's not what I'm doing at all. I quoted Aizle's statement. I demonstrated that each of his examples uses the metric of "sameness of outcome" without regard to prior inputs. I've not once debated the merits of his ideas; rather, I'm pointing out that his examples don't express the opinion he states he possesses.

That said, you if you think his statements comprise "opportunities", then we'll need have a long discussion on what opportunity means. After all, a trial by jury is an opportunity; sameness of sentence is an outcome.

_________________

The reason what you are discussing is outcome based is because your stated end goal is to improve the results to a level of sameness.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Accumulation of knowledge and the application of that knowledge has increased, due to the efforts and research of some members of soceity. The educational level in general has not experienced nearly the same growth, and some could successfully argue, educational levels have gone backwards as reliance on that technology to accomplish tasks, rather than knowledge, has increased.

However, I'd like see some proof that even in the last 40 years the level of education in this country, and the abilities of HS graduates has increased during that period, considering that time frame should capture the majority of the progressive movements to establish, or increase, a baseline.

Hiring minimums contradict this assertion.

_________________

The English language consists, by varying measures, of somewhere between 475k and 1M+ words, inclusive of roots, derivatives, jargon, slang, medical/technical terminology, etc. Recent estimates place the average native English speaker's vocabulary between 12k-25k words, depending on education and other factors. Contrast this against estimates of Shakespeare's vocabulary, placed at 66k words (from a smaller language set, of course, which works out to a greater percentage of the language, but we can ignore that). If you read the entire collected works of Shakespeare, you receive exposure to in excess of 30k discrete words.

Your contention thatbears no meaning. The English language, as described above, contains words of great precision and great accuracy (those last two conditions possess a difference, do you know what?). I doubt your vocabulary contains such words. Perhaps your daily life only requires you to know words that convey approximately your meaning. Do you know the difference between the right word and the almost right word?

I wrote the preceding two sentences in E-Prime. Can you identify the characteristics of that?

In other words, what you don't know about the English language vastly outstrips what you do know.

_________________

So what you are telling me is that you wrote something that you don't understand. Here it is again.

Now let me bold the portions of it that you might want to examine more closely.

With that foremost in your mind, I will require you to corroborate that assertion.

_________________

Like everything, I'm sure it will depend on where you set the goal posts.

For instance it would be interesting to see what level of success a high school graduate in 1960 would have if they were given a modern computer.

Can you use a slide rule? That said, as much as I hate standardized testing, anyone with serious familiarity with the SAT will note that the following chart indicates our students know less and can apply less than students from the 1960s.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/ ... 09_144.asp

_________________

Nope. Which is another perfect example.

Out of curiosity, are you infering that knowledge of how to use a slide rule is somehow indicative of a better education?

In some ways ... yes. That said, you mentioned that you believe there is a correlation between educative quality and technology. A slide rule is a perfect example of a valuable tool that requires better conceptual understanding than modern replacements.

_________________

I did. It's a basic function of people of below-average intelligence. So no, you won't require me to corroborate anything, since you're just slinging bullshit and acting like a pedantic ***.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So does that logic continue? Is knowing how to use an abacus even better?

I understand what you're saying. I can appreciate that in order to use a slide rule correctly one needed a bit more understanding. However, I believe that it's not necessarily true that using modern tools indicates that you don't have the conceptual understanding. The other question that comes to mind is that is modern tools allow someone to get to the practical answer more easily and perhaps make up for a lesser ability in conceptual understanding, is that necessarily a bad thing?

Actually what I said was there was a correlation between amount of required education and technology. Quality is outside of that equation.

As you just demonstrated in your response to Khross, that is a false statement. If the amount of education required to function (ignoring quality that you did link earlier) you would know how to, and understand the use of, both the computer and slide rule. All you have done is demonstrated that one "amount" of knowledge was supplanted by another, not a general increase in the amount.

Well considering that my response to Khross was not attempting to demonstrate what you mention here, obviously I didn't demonstrate that.

Interesting. Actually with respect to Mathematics, the test scores are basically the same. Written skills have certainly dropped.

I'm curious, do you believe that the SAT covers and tests everything that is taught in school? Additionally, I wonder how the test has change over the years.

Doesn't matter if you intended to demonstrate it or not, you did, and your own answer to his question undermines the position I quoted from you.

This romantic notion that people on average must be smarter because technology has advanced is a myth.

That's curious... they took the original scale mean and made it match the current scale mean, assuming that the mean value between the different time periods are equivalent measure of the level of education/knowledge.

What's even better is that if you look at the original tests, the scores were dropping anyway. This also doesn't account for the fact that tests after the 96-97 school year were significantly easier and the number of 1600s on Verbal/Math went up despite the addition of the 800 point Writing Test.

_________________

I have not once mentioned that people today are smarter, nor infered that technology was the cause.

What I've stated is that the reason why people today need advanced education to be able to go out and get a good job is because the world is a much more technical place, which requires specialized knowledge that isn't part of the K-12 curriculum.

Being smart or not has nothing to do with it.

That's a myth as well. The majority of job-related specialized knowledge is still developed independently of the education currently required by law. More to point, the requirements for your average college degree have declined in the last 40 years. So, no, that's not actually true at all.

_________________

I think you're being intentionally obtuse, here, since you seem to understand the point he's making:



But to give a serious answer to your question, an abacus and a slide rule perform different mathematical functions (though yes, it is possible to add and subtract with a slide rule, albeit in a circuitous way). You may as well ask if it's better to use a toaster than a blender. That said, using an abacus at least illustrates the concepts of addition and subtraction better than simply punching in "3 + 5" in a calculator. As well, because most abac..abaci? abacuses?...use denominations (decimal or otherwise), they also arguably require a better understanding of polynomial number systems (... ax^3 + bx^2 + cx^1 + ex^0 ...)


I don't believe he ever said it was. Of course someone who punches "3 + 5" into a calculator may understand the concept behind it, but it is no longer necessary that they do. He's just refuting your claim that required education correlates with technology. The slide rule and the abacus are both counter-examples of common, low-tech instruments that require more education to use than their higher-tech counterpart.

Which brings us to:



Well...



Incidentally, even if educational level/quality is rising and technological levels are also rising, that doesn't really establish anything. Under those circumstances, you could just as easily say that educational level correlates well with the number of seconds since Jan. 1, 1970.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Ahhh... so when you said:


You mean education levels as in grades completed, or degrees needed.

However, while I appreciate the clarification, it is still an inaccurate statement if we are to also infer that general education of the typical high school student is equivelent, which is not the case, and the additional years spent earning advanced degrees were actually spent learning advanced topics, not rehashing or doing remedial work to catch BS/BA grads up to HS levels of understanding.

So my claim was that education correlates with how technical and complex society is, not any one given piece of technology.

For example, let's look at becoming a mechanic. Consider the technical differences between a 1967 Mustang and a 2010 Mustang. Today's cars have ECMs, anti-lock brakes, navagation systems, traction control systems, satellite radio, air-bags, CD players, etc. Those are all specialized technologies that didn't exist back in the 60's that mechanics need to understand.

Well it's both really. Yes there are additional grades/degrees needed, but that goes hand in hand with additional knowledge.

And I disagree that the entire time spent in advanced degrees is spend rehashing or doing remedial work. Some might be, depending on the specific student but it's not true of all BS/BA students.