We're looking for a remote Full-Stack PHP Developer to join our awesome team. Check out all the details here and apply now! 👷♂️
Do you think education systems should use multiple choice exams?
GrandmasterD wrote:
That's ******ed because it's way more useful to know how to actually derive (a + b)n rather than knowing the formula by heart.
^_^ I have to deal with this lovely specimen of a teacher for 3 more years. Oh, did I mention that if you try and tell her that she;s being a ***** and making no sense she goes in to a mode of hysteria and screams at you insinuating that you're a dumb piece of ****?
@nameless, I guess it's just a personal thing. I remember a lot of useless things too... The only exception being that they're not numerical in nature xD
So, suggesting that 45% shouldn't pass assumes a lot about how hard the exam is, guys. If, as a teacher, I knew that 45% was considered passing, I'd make my exams pretty darn hard. Maybe I'd expect people to get a bunch of questions wrong, or maybe the questions themselves would simply take a lot of time to answer and I couldn't reasonably expect people to finish them all in the time allotted. I don't know how I might actually work around it, but if 45% is the pass point it's pretty damn obvious that exams are going to be balanced around 45% being the pass point.
I don't disagree, although as GMD notes it's nearly impossible to pass exclusively through luck; maybe one student in every few million will do it, but there's more than one exam in any class and one lucky pass won't cut it.
Still, an exam of entirely multiple choice questions is only really good at testing certain things. Primarily, whether or not students have memorized facts or are able to produce certain rote skills, and whether or not students are good at taking multiple choice tests. For basically every class I can think of, these are not enough to determine whether or not the student is learning, so other exam formats will also be required.
The second best bit of writing advice I ever got was that you should never use two words where one will do. There's always a way to say what you're trying to say with fewer and simpler words. "Brevity is the soul of wit" and all that. This isn't to suggest that you shouldn't use big words; sometimes a big word happens to be the right word for a situation. But you shouldn't use big words unless they're the right words.
Also, there're a ton of great words that aren't terribly big or highfalutin'. The key to truly affective (and also effective) writing is to use great words. EDIT: Ah, I just remembered that this is cultural. So, uh, although I know I'm absolutely right about how native-English speakers like their language, this might not be good advice more generally. Just keep in mind that I'm American and can only really talk about what Americans view as good writing.
But also don't use big and complex words just for the sake of it. When I read or hear people using big words for the sake of using big words, it often comes off as pretentious. (Yes, I'm guilty of this myself.) And then they'll use a word wrong, so they seem both pretentious and not as smart as they think they are.
XeresAce wrote:
I think it doesn't matter which method you use as long as you stick to multiple types of questions. An entire test made out of multiple choice questions would be a bit unconventional considering the fact that it's possible to pass it just by having good guessing luck :p
I don't disagree, although as GMD notes it's nearly impossible to pass exclusively through luck; maybe one student in every few million will do it, but there's more than one exam in any class and one lucky pass won't cut it.
Still, an exam of entirely multiple choice questions is only really good at testing certain things. Primarily, whether or not students have memorized facts or are able to produce certain rote skills, and whether or not students are good at taking multiple choice tests. For basically every class I can think of, these are not enough to determine whether or not the student is learning, so other exam formats will also be required.
XeresAce wrote:
Also, some extra rant... I absolutely hate it when I have to explain my choice of words to my professors... LIKE FFS YOU FINISHED UNIVERSITY TO NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS A HIGHSCHOOLER IS USING?! I've been told I have a high "level" of writing compared to my peers, and I get as much complaints for it as I do compliments. Apparently it's not necessary therefore I shouldn't use it. smh.
The second best bit of writing advice I ever got was that you should never use two words where one will do. There's always a way to say what you're trying to say with fewer and simpler words. "Brevity is the soul of wit" and all that. This isn't to suggest that you shouldn't use big words; sometimes a big word happens to be the right word for a situation. But you shouldn't use big words unless they're the right words.
Also, there're a ton of great words that aren't terribly big or highfalutin'. The key to truly affective (and also effective) writing is to use great words. EDIT: Ah, I just remembered that this is cultural. So, uh, although I know I'm absolutely right about how native-English speakers like their language, this might not be good advice more generally. Just keep in mind that I'm American and can only really talk about what Americans view as good writing.
But also don't use big and complex words just for the sake of it. When I read or hear people using big words for the sake of using big words, it often comes off as pretentious. (Yes, I'm guilty of this myself.) And then they'll use a word wrong, so they seem both pretentious and not as smart as they think they are.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
The second best bit of writing advice I ever got was that you should never use two words where one will do. There's always a way to say what you're trying to say with fewer and simpler words. "Brevity is the soul of wit" and all that. This isn't to suggest that you shouldn't use big words; sometimes a big word happens to be the right word for a situation. But you shouldn't use big words unless they're the right words.
Also, there're a ton of great words that aren't terribly big or highfalutin'. The key to truly affective (and also effective) writing is to use great words.
But also don't use big and complex words just for the sake of it. When I read or hear people using big words for the sake of using big words, it often comes off as pretentious. (Yes, I'm guilty of this myself.) And then they'll use a word wrong, so they seem both pretentious and not as smart as they think they are.
You don't understand my situation - I don't use big and complex words just for the sake of it, I use them to replace multiple words and (in some cases) entire sentences. It's exactly why I was acknowledged as the best essay writer in my class while maintaining an average that was about 200 words lower than my peers.
I rarely, if ever, use a term incorrectly in my own language. The problem is that some of my teachers' brains are so dry to the point where they can't understand simple things unless you lay it out for them. I mean, if it truly is a question of doubt considering my knowledge of said subject I'll be happy to explain but literally asking me "what does this word mean" or even worse, grading me incorrectly because they failed to understand ticks me off so much.
EDIT:
lifebaka wrote:
EDIT: Ah, I just remembered that this is cultural. So, uh, although I know I'm absolutely right about how native-English speakers like their language, this might not be good advice more generally. Just keep in mind that I'm American and can only really talk about what Americans view as good writing.
Nah, using "great" words applies to every language. It just so happens that great words are abstract in my language so apart from the teachers that are interested in literature, everyone tends to avoid them and starts using entire sentences to explain a thing that could've just as easily been explained with a single world.
Just out of curiosity, would you consider the world "phantasmagorical" needlessly complex? :'D
jhoijhoi wrote:
45% is normally the pass if a lot of people did poorly - so like graded scaling; this is university though. In high school 40% would be a D, which isn't a pass.
lifebaka wrote:
So, suggesting that 45% shouldn't pass assumes a lot about how hard the exam is, guys. If, as a teacher, I knew that 45% was considered passing, I'd make my exams pretty darn hard. Maybe I'd expect people to get a bunch of questions wrong, or maybe the questions themselves would simply take a lot of time to answer and I couldn't reasonably expect people to finish them all in the time allotted. I don't know how I might actually work around it, but if 45% is the pass point it's pretty damn obvious that exams are going to be balanced around 45% being the pass point.
True. My country is no better though, because we use the 1-10 system (10 being the highest) and you basically require a 6 (or 5.5 since they round it) to pass. Then my German tests required us to answer 75-80% correctly to score a 6. I really don't see the logic in that.
XeresAce wrote:
I think it doesn't matter which method you use as long as you stick to multiple types of questions. An entire test made out of multiple choice questions would be a bit unconventional considering the fact that it's possible to pass it just by having good guessing luck :p
I don't disagree, although as GMD notes it's nearly impossible to pass exclusively through luck; maybe one student in every few million will do it, but there's more than one exam in any class and one lucky pass won't cut it.
Still, an exam of entirely multiple choice questions is only really good at testing certain things. Primarily, whether or not students have memorized facts or are able to produce certain rote skills, and whether or not students are good at taking multiple choice tests. For basically every class I can think of, these are not enough to determine whether or not the student is learning, so other exam formats will also be required.[/quote]
Agreed. Multiple choice exams are great to do halfway a course, to quickly poll the students' knowledge.
lifebaka wrote:
The second best bit of writing advice I ever got was that you should never use two words where one will do. There's always a way to say what you're trying to say with fewer and simpler words. "Brevity is the soul of wit" and all that. This isn't to suggest that you shouldn't use big words; sometimes a big word happens to be the right word for a situation. But you shouldn't use big words unless they're the right words.
Also, there're a ton of great words that aren't terribly big or highfalutin'. The key to truly affective (and also effective) writing is to use great words. EDIT: Ah, I just remembered that this is cultural. So, uh, although I know I'm absolutely right about how native-English speakers like their language, this might not be good advice more generally. Just keep in mind that I'm American and can only really talk about what Americans view as good writing.
But also don't use big and complex words just for the sake of it. When I read or hear people using big words for the sake of using big words, it often comes off as pretentious. (Yes, I'm guilty of this myself.) And then they'll use a word wrong, so they seem both pretentious and not as smart as they think they are.
Indeed, just don't waste people's time, keep it nice and simple. However, there's nothing wrong with using "big" words to set a certain tone; you don't want to make it look like you think that your audience is composed of a bunch of morons.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
it's the same in high school and college here, though 7 point scales aren't usually used in colleges. A 60% is the lowest grade you can get and still be passing, no matter what. And honestly, that makes way more sense. If you can't retain more than half of the information you were taught for a test, you don't deserve to pass it lol.
Here you need to know about ~40% of the total information to pass (in high-school, at-least). The logic behind it is that some students simply suck in some areas while they excel in others, therefore everyone should be given the chance to shine in their respective areas without being held down by potentially unnecessary subjects for their future career path. I don't know how to explain this system other than en example so:
35+ points is a D (pass), 35-65 is a C, 65-90 (in some cases 95) is a B and 90-100 is an A.
XeresAce wrote:
You don't understand my situation - I don't use big and complex words just for the sake of it, I use them to replace multiple words and (in some cases) entire sentences. It's exactly why I was acknowledged as the best essay writer in my class while maintaining an average that was about 200 words lower than my peers.
I rarely, if ever, use a term incorrectly in my own language. The problem is that some of my teachers' brains are so dry to the point where they can't understand simple things unless you lay it out for them. I mean, if it truly is a question of doubt considering my knowledge of said subject I'll be happy to explain but literally asking me "what does this word mean" or even worse, grading me incorrectly because they failed to understand ticks me off so much.
Been there, done that. I also skip quite a bit of steps when doing maths compared to most, or simply use other methods altogether. I don't have time for pointless ****, and I sure as hell am not going to treat the one who is teaching me this stuff as someone who needs everything spelt out.
XeresAce wrote:
EDIT:
Nah, using "great" words applies to every language. It just so happens that great words are abstract in my language so apart from the teachers that are interested in literature, everyone tends to avoid them and starts using entire sentences to explain a thing that could've just as easily been explained with a single world.
Just out of curiosity, would you consider the world "phantasmagorical" needlessly complex? :'D
Yes it does, the average IQ is 100, and this means that the average person doesn't like to be intellectually challenged.
Also, if it fits the sentence and context, then there's nothing wrong with that word.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
A 60% is the lowest grade you can get and still be passing, no matter what. And honestly, that makes way more sense. If you can't retain more than half of the information you were taught for a test, you don't deserve to pass it lol.
Basically the assumption is, you've got into university. I don't think college over there is the same as uni here (I'm not sure), but passing university level courses is already WELL above the average for people to accomplish; in fact, only ~20% of Aussies graduate with Bachelor degrees (the necessary qualifications for high-end jobs, like teachers, lawyers, doctors etc). The people who get 60% are doing a fine job, around a Credit.
Edit: Also, if you're so smart, why didn't you go into college/uni? Seems like a near-photographic memory for facts, figures and formulae would do exceedingly well in tertiary education.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Also, if you're so smart, why didn't you go into college/uni? Seems like a near-photographic memory for facts, figures and formulae would do exceedingly well in tertiary education.
I went to college 4 years ago, as a Music Performance major, (with a lot of money in scholarships due to my score on the college entrance exam and auditioning for music scholarships), but I had an emotional breakdown the second semester (due to being in a very abusive relationship all throughout) wherein I nearly killed myself. I dropped out after the first year to help my mother (who had just been diagnosed with Leukemia) run her business because she was too sick to do it herself. Until about 8 months ago, I was still helping with that. At this point, I've started discussing it again, but it comes down to deciding on a degree and on a school.
You need to log in before commenting.
An example being I can remember names of people I haven't seen since elementary school, even if we were never friends, I haven't lived near/seen them in 10+ years, and I barely knew them then.