|
Sarion posted:Yeah, I think the last time it was brought up in this thread was as an example of crab mentality. I don't think there was a study linked. Actually, I think it might be last-place aversion, and I find some studies, including one on the Occupy protests.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:I had to copy the "I will not cheat" paragraph in cursive for the GRE. It was the most stressful part of that test. I hope they keep that thing around long enough for today's pre-teens to take it. Eventually the submissions ought to become hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:For the most part, studies of the effect of homework on kids' academic growth boil down to this: In elementary and middle school, homework has basically no positive effect (and, in many ways, a negative effect, since it takes time away from play and other enrichment opportunities). In high school, where kids start being able to really figure things out on their own, homework starts to have an effect (but not a hugely strong one). I'd support a movement like this. I'd like to see kids in schools a bit longer - maybe even something like 9 to 5. I'd like to see less take home work, because it can lead to confusion and more time with teachers in things like study halls and "academic after hours". So yeah, makes perfect sense. If I had my way the only things kids would really do outside of school is assigned reading because that, to me at least, makes sense. You don't need to be on campus to read "Catcher in the Rye". This all goes out the window in college, though, when it's time to buck up and be responsible. Then again, I'm an academic elitist who thinks we have too many people in higher education that neither belong, want, or need to be there and that we're watering down what it means to have an undergraduate degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
sicarius posted:I'd support a movement like this. I'd like to see kids in schools a bit longer - maybe even something like 9 to 5. I'd like to see less take home work, because it can lead to confusion and more time with teachers in things like study halls and "academic after hours". So yeah, makes perfect sense. If I had my way the only things kids would really do outside of school is assigned reading because that, to me at least, makes sense. You don't need to be on campus to read "Catcher in the Rye". College is a lot harder if you never learned how to study on your own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Deuce posted:College is a lot harder if you never learned how to study on your own. Not arguing that it isn't. I am absolutely for improving all levels of education. If that makes people more prepared for college, that's better. I also think it would make college less of a "necessity" as it's perceived today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:I had to copy the "I will not cheat" paragraph in cursive for the GRE. It was the most stressful part of that test. When did you take the GRE? I took the GRE in 2009 and the general test was entirely on computer with absolutely no writing by hand whatsoever and the psych subject test was entirely multiple choice on a scantron sheet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:I had to copy the "I will not cheat" paragraph in cursive for the GRE. It was the most stressful part of that test. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
I actually instructed my students NOT to write in cursive.  I'm sorry but block script is so much easier for me to read. It's gotten to the point that I not only write in block script, but I write in all capitals. It may be slower, but it's 100% legible at all times. Teaching cursive definitely seems like a waste of time versus teaching typing and computer skills nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
sicarius posted:I actually instructed my students NOT to write in cursive. But how will people copy "I will not cheat" on the GRE / SAT? If you don't mind me asking, what do you teach?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:But how will people copy "I will not cheat" on the GRE / SAT? I was teaching Political Science as a T.A. for three semesters. I had my own classes though, despite I was only tagged as a T.A. I had plenty of oversight, and my students did well on tests written by other professors. I only taught Intro to PSci and American Gov't and Politics. Nothing complicated, but I did make the students and AG&P read Democracy in America by DeTocqueville.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
sicarius posted:I was teaching Political Science as a T.A. for three semesters. I had my own classes though, despite I was only tagged as a T.A. I had plenty of oversight, and my students did well on tests written by other professors. I only taught Intro to PSci and American Gov't and Politics. Nothing complicated, but I did make the students and AG&P read Democracy in America by DeTocqueville. I've had a few teachers recommend that book (studying PoliSci). You're an economics junkee, right? Any suggestions on what to read to get a basic understanding? For content: my FB has filled up with, "Binders full of Women". A nice break from the usual, "Obama done broke 'Merica" macros.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:I've had a few teachers recommend that book (studying PoliSci). You're an economics junkee, right? Any suggestions on what to read to get a basic understanding? Yeah, one of my undergrad degrees is in economics. What sort of economics do you want? The dry stuff about Supply and Demand curves or more the theoretical? Hard numbers or a more socioeconomic survey? If you're asking for PoliSci stuff - I have a TON of recommendations, among them Democracy in America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Yeah, one of my undergrad degrees is in economics. What sort of economics do you want? The dry stuff about Supply and Demand curves or more the theoretical? Hard numbers or a more socioeconomic survey? Anything that gives a better understanding of current economic issues. I wish I had a better understanding on what each party is pursuing and what academics and policy makers are pushing for. Mostly asking as you're a self-described centrist with a lot of knowledge in economics. Content: I'm tired of seeing my future brother-in-law post messages on FB on how hard he works and all liberals want to do is steal his hard earned moneys. He works for his dad in the exotic car appraisal business, works five hours a day, shows up to work in unwashed clothes at noon, has his mom make him lunch everyday, and gets to go on free trips everywhere. Oh, and gets paid in cash. Privilege much? Oh, and I get to hear him reference to any black person as the N-word, and when I get irritated he says, "Hey, just joking. Don't be so sensitive."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Anything that gives a better understanding of current economic issues. I wish I had a better understanding on what each party is pursuing and what academics and policy makers are pushing for. Mostly asking as you're a self-described centrist with a lot of knowledge in economics. That seems like you want something in modern American politics. You could start with something, though dated, by Thomas Frank titled What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. It specifically talks about things like people voting against their economic interests, why liberal fiscal policy generally works for the majority, and how the right shift is damaging to American politics. It predates the Tea Party however, so that's a notch against it. Nothing else is really standing out. Let me hit up my bookshelf and professors after fall break and I can probably bring you some more solid suggestions. Just got this recommended to me regarding the warping influence of the modern right - though I have not read it - The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History sicarius fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:When did you take the GRE? 2005. The test itself was on computer and the writing portion was typed, but the pre-test check-in fill-out-paperwork portion had me copy the "I will not cheat" paragraph in cursive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:2005. The test itself was on computer and the writing portion was typed, but the pre-test check-in fill-out-paperwork portion had me copy the "I will not cheat" paragraph in cursive. That's retarded. I'm pretty sure that if you get to the point of taking the GRE you probably know that cheating is wrong and it would be sufficient to simply give your signature after reading a disclaimer prohibiting cheating of various types. Honestly, I've never cheated but I'd almost want to try if they were dicks and made me copy that bullshit in cursive before I had to take an exam with two essays like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
sicarius posted:That seems like you want something in modern American politics. You could start with something, though dated, by Thomas Frank titled What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. It specifically talks about things like people voting against their economic interests, why liberal fiscal policy generally works for the majority, and how the right shift is damaging to American politics. It predates the Tea Party however, so that's a notch against it. I am neither a centrist nor do I have a degree in economics, but I was under the impression that What's the Matter with Kansas has some pretty serious flaws. It's been years since I read any of it, but I do remember being very taken with the theories presented, until I took a methods class and read Bartel's What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas?. Frank wrote a pretty lengthy response, but at the time I thought the criticism brought against his data/methodology was pretty sound. So uh, read that one with a grain of salt I guess? But anyway, to help Mitchicon out, here are a few polysci economic books that might be good at explaining some socioeconomic and political stuff simply (albeit from a more liberal point of view): Robert H. Frank's Falling Behind: Musings on Inequality  IT'S FREE Sam Pizzigati's Greed and Good ALSO FREE Robert B. Reich's Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life The incomparable duo of Hacker & Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class Jared Bernstein's Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed? (And Other Unsolved Economic Mysteries) is a short read that explains stuff in simple ways. Most of these have a few years on them, but they're good for
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Logan 5 posted:I am neither a centrist nor do I have a degree in economics, but I was under the impression that What's the Matter with Kansas has some pretty serious flaws. It's been years since I read any of it, but I do remember being very taken with the theories presented, until I took a methods class and read Bartel's What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas?. Frank wrote a pretty lengthy response, but at the time I thought the criticism brought against his data/methodology was pretty sound. So uh, read that one with a grain of salt I guess? Thank you, all of these seem to be good reads. I'll have to start on them soon (reading Guns, Germs, and Steel and Banks' Culture Series right now). Only thing is, I want to be careful not to operate in an echochamber and would like to read some pro-neoliberal economics books as well. Oh, I'd love to go off on him but her family is pretty conservative and I'm the first guy they've liked (the veteran part helped). She's pretty liberal herself and has worked a lot in behavioral economics. Heck, she even knows Elizabeth Warren on a fairly personal basis. Edit: More content Mitchicon fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
Currently debating someone who says virtually nobody read the Obamacare act before passing it. Any info to counter that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Currently debating someone who says virtually nobody read the Obamacare act before passing it. Did he/she read it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Did he/she read it? He just meant lawmakers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:That's retarded. I'm pretty sure that if you get to the point of taking the GRE you probably know that cheating is wrong and it would be sufficient to simply give your signature after reading a disclaimer prohibiting cheating of various types. Honestly, I've never cheated but I'd almost want to try if they were dicks and made me copy that bullshit in cursive before I had to take an exam with two essays like that. And you still don't have to write it in cursive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Did he/she read it? I read it, all of it nonetheless. People never believe me when I say that I did though.  They want to argue with someone who doesn't know what the gently caress the law is about and scream about the things the republicans made up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
Also one of the guys arguing with me says the Department of Education, War on Drugs, TARP, and farm subsidies are all unconstitutional. Then I see his profile pic is he and Ron Paul. So I'm just going to drop this argument as it will go nowhere. Or just post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Currently debating someone who says virtually nobody read the Obamacare act before passing it. Lawyers read that stuff. It was a pointless claim from the right that it was "too long" so many pages. This has no bearing on its substance at all. Its been a few years, plenty of time for its opponents to read it, and the arguement is still "nobody read it"? You'd think by now they would have ctrl-F 'death panels' Length has no bearing on substance, and people did read it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:I read it, all of it nonetheless. People never believe me when I say that I did though. Hah, or state what they know to be the truth about the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Currently debating someone who says virtually nobody read the Obamacare act before passing it. I personally read both the original version passed by the House and then the later version that passed the Senate and the House. Done.  But really, the idea is silly because of how laws are written. The guy essentially thinks the Bill just showed up one day and they voted one it.  In reality, what happens is committees and sub-committees all write and modify it. It passed through dozens, if not hundreds, of different committee meetings where Congressional members on both sides of the aisle wrote, proposed, and voted on various changes and additions to the legislation. PPACA was especially broad because it fell under so many different Committees. What's more, it's also silly to assume that Congress sits and reads every page of every bill that comes before them. Especially since many laws really just modify other laws, so you end up with sections of the bill that are things like: "Amend section <BLAH BLAH BLAH> of Title <BLAH BLAH> to replace '$350' with '$500', and replace 'and' with 'or'." Do you know what the Bill just did from reading that? Nope. You have to go look up the existing law to see what those changes do. And it's a very time intensive, and annoying process. Usually there's context around it to give you an idea what it's trying to do, like maybe increasing grants to Nursing students or something, but you still have to cross reference it to be sure. Anyways, where this is going is this: members of Congress have staff, groups of people whose jobs it is to review the legislation and inform them of what it's doing. The point being that you don't need members of Congress locked up in their offices pouring over the text of the Bill in order for them to know what is in it, and to be able to make an informed decision about it. Between writing the drat thing and their staff, there's no reason to expect that they don't understand it, at least in a broad sense. The whole "didn't read it" thing is just a way to attack the legislation as this big conspiracy to destroy America because no one knows what they passed into law. When, in fact, "reading it" is not a requirement for "understanding it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
It's as bad of an argument as the idiotic, "all legislation should be less than X pages!" argument. It completely ignores the reality of dealing with 200+ years of legal language and "plain text" being an easy mark for lawsuits and loopholes. It's a simple Pollyanna black and white worldview that would be completely wrecked on it's first casual meeting with reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Not to derail, but a friend linked me to https://www.pragcap.com a while back. He also linked me to some other articles on modern monetary theory. I read over some of it, but was wondering what others thought of pragcap, etc. It seemed a pretty decent resource, but I'd like to hear others opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Anubis posted:It's as bad of an argument as the idiotic, "all legislation should be less than X pages!" argument. It completely ignores the reality of dealing with 200+ years of legal language and "plain text" being an easy mark for lawsuits and loopholes. Exactly. Part of my job when I worked in my Congressman's office was to read this poo poo (in fact, I helped with review of the HCB since I was there summer 2009). Bills written in plain text would lead to years and years of court suits debating the meaning of words like "reasonable," "immediately," and "circumstance."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Old college roommate made a mildly dumb facebook status; however, the first comment was too easy to coax a response from me:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Don't Genies want to be out of their homes, though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Anubis posted:It's as bad of an argument as the idiotic, "all legislation should be less than X pages!" argument. It completely ignores the reality of dealing with 200+ years of legal language and "plain text" being an easy mark for lawsuits and loopholes.  " is a lot less reading than it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
rscott posted:I'm trying to remember the last time I had to write anything in cursive besides my signature and I'm coming up blank. I was in the Navy for six years, and on all official logs you cannot write in cursive, it must be print. Not that I'd ever written much in cursive after about fourth grade or so, but if anything got me off cursive forever it was being prohibited from doing so for over half a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I was in the Navy for six years, and on all official logs you cannot write in cursive, it must be print. Not that I'd ever written much in cursive after about fourth grade or so, but if anything got me off cursive forever it was being prohibited from doing so for over half a decade. But could you dot your "i's" with hearts? In the AF we could. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Don't Genies want to be out of their homes, though? It's a cold, cold world out there for Genies without degrees. There is no unskilled Genie job market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Not just that, but anyone who complains about the length of a statute hasn't actually read one. They're double-spaced, have huge margins, and have even more white space around section headings. That's not to see they can't be long or dense, but a "500 page law!111!! This too. The first time I downloaded one of the early revisions of PPACA to look at it, I was blown away by how much white space there was. Every page is just so... empty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Sarion posted:In reality, what happens is committees and sub-committees all write and modify it. It passed through dozens, if not hundreds, of different committee meetings where Congressional members on both sides of the aisle wrote, proposed, and voted on various changes and additions to the legislation. PPACA was especially broad because it fell under so many different Committees. What's more, it's also silly to assume that Congress sits and reads every page of every bill that comes before them. Especially since many laws really just modify other laws, so you end up with sections of the bill that are things like: I remember reading about a project one guy was doing to keep US laws updated in a source control DB. poo poo like this is why I'm totally in favor of such an idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Not just that, but anyone who complains about the length of a statute hasn't actually read one. They're double-spaced, have huge margins, and have even more white space around section headings. That's not to see they can't be long or dense, but a "500 page law!111!! What size font? 13? 12.1? 20?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Not sure if this has been posted but I just got it from a relative:quote:Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler Not sure whether to  or 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:58
|
|
