I'm fine with these kinds of tests, but I'd agree that some people rely too much on the results.
This as well:Strelnikov said:Standardised testing also provides an objective, non-discriminatory measurement of whether or not a person meets certain minimum standards of knowledge and competence.
Now, is standardised testing done correctly? Most of the time: no. I think standard tests should cover the general basics, not higher more specialised aspects. Also, grading can be a problem. I think, as a general rule, standardised testing should have pass/fail grading system or at least fewer grades. Even if you have more grades, their importance is limited and the weight assigned to them should be lowered to prevent teachers from teaching the test only.
Standardized testing isn't unreasonable but it's done poorly. Arguably the educational system in the US is done poorly. We need a lot more focus on how to live well rather than what to know. But it's a lot easier to get people to agree on the facts that should be known rather than the philosophies that should inform a well-rounded life.ultracrepidarian said:But if they can be taught how to feel healthy, secure, to introspect.. taught how to relate well with others, to see ourselves as a working together, rather than competing, it'll set the frame-work for all other information or schools of thought to be better absorbed and, utilized.
Great tool to teach students to min-max everything and only do what's rewarding. Hell of a worldview and value system to teach the young.Like the title says, I'm wondering what you peeps think of this concept. Imo, I think it's a shitty idea because you can't evaluate a students entire level of education and career potential with one test. Imo, the test is designed to homogenize society and turn peeps into robots. It's also bad for teachers cause forces them to teach to the test and can put their careers in jeopardy.