 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/09/2011 09:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Somehow, I read that literally the first time, and thought of all the
> charities that collect $X for every mile you walk.
LOL.
Actually, I was thinking... Our dance school really, really needs air
conditioning. Do you know what happens if you put 80 people in a room
with no windows and make them do strenuous exercise for 60 minutes? Let
me tell you: it gets *warm*, and most of all it gets *humid*. Not fun.
I was thinking, we could have a dance marathon to raise money to install
a cooling system. Something like "you pay me X for every Y seconds of
dancing I manage to pull off without dropping dead". We have several
dances that severely tax all but the fittest dancers...
...yeah, I'm sure it'll never happen. Nice idea though. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.09.2011 10:20, schrieb Invisible:
>> In some countries
>> students compete with every other student and the percentage of students
>> that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you meet a certain
>> level.
>
> This is The Real WTF.
>
> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
> the grades only compare you to your classmates. Well guess what?
> Employers aren't interested in whether you're better than your
> classmates or not. (You're probably never going to see them ever again
> anyway.) They're interested in whether you're capable of doing a given
> job. A relative grade doesn't tell them that; an absolute one could.
A relative grade does ok, provided the candidate employees provide
information on which school/university they visited.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is The Real WTF.
>>
>> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
>> the grades only compare you to your classmates.
>
> A relative grade does ok, provided the candidate employees provide
> information on which school/university they visited.
Ideally, a grade B should be a grade B, regardless of where you got it.
(Obviously there will always be a slightly subjective element to
teaching and grading methods, but we should try to be as objective as we
can.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.09.2011 12:41, schrieb Invisible:
>>> This is The Real WTF.
>>>
>>> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
>>> the grades only compare you to your classmates.
>>
>> A relative grade does ok, provided the candidate employees provide
>> information on which school/university they visited.
>
> Ideally, a grade B should be a grade B, regardless of where you got it.
> (Obviously there will always be a slightly subjective element to
> teaching and grading methods, but we should try to be as objective as we
> can.)
I didn't contradict that fixed criteria for a grade are superior to
variable grades; all I said was that non-fixed grades are also able to
do the job grades were invented for.
That aside, I don't think that there is such thing as "ideal" when it
comes to grades. They're just a kludge to rate a person's capabilities
anyway. Your math grade doesn't tell much about whether you'd make a
good accountant; your native language grade doesn't tell much about
whether you'd make a good news reporter; your informatics grade doesn't
tell much about whether you'd make a good system administrator, database
engineer or software developer.
Actually, an employer's primary concern may often be stuff that's not in
the grades at all: Soft skills. Are you good at communicating with
others? Are you good at motivating yourself/others? How do you perform
under pressure? Are you good at cooperation (teamwork)? Are you good at
competition (marketing strategies)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/20/2011 5:27 PM, andrel wrote:
> all functionality. What happens is that a very competitive person gets
> the top position by playing it hard. Everybody knows he got it that way
> and not by being the right person for the job. Then nobody wants to work
> with him (seldom a her) and nothing gets done.
Even if the person who gets to the top is not competitive, there is
competition involved, it's just not as overt. That person got there
either because he forced his way to the top (not necessarily because of
competition, per se) or because he performed better in relevant areas
and was awarded the job...
If you're destroying your competition, or stacking the odds in your
favor by cheating, you are being anti-competitive. At that point, you
are not competing, you are simply following your whim. But, it does
appear outwardly as overt competition.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/20/2011 10:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> I think competitiveness is part of human nature. Competition to find the
> 'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to continue.
>
I would argue that it goes far beyond human nature....
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/21/2011 3:20 AM, Invisible wrote:
> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
> the grades only compare you to your classmates. Well guess what?
> Employers aren't interested in whether you're better than your
> classmates or not. (You're probably never going to see them ever again
> anyway.) They're interested in whether you're capable of doing a given
> job. A relative grade doesn't tell them that; an absolute one could.
One may be qualified for the job, and is fully capable. But the other
may have better qualifications. It *is* relative in the real world. But,
I do agree that grading should be based on a fixed criteria. Grading is
a means of checking to see if the student has learned what was taught,
and what areas need more work.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/21/2011 3:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
> No, that's "cooperation". "Competition" is where you disregard everybody
> else and beat them out of the way by any means possible so that you get
> what you want.
But dealing with competition and exposing children to competition is a
way to apply being fair and just. What you describe as competition is
actually self-centeredness, and probably just plain antisocial. Being
competitive means doing your best, not to bring the other competitors down.
I suppose there's two kinds of competition
healthy competition: Do the best you can, train hard, practice your
skill, and in the end, someone will finish on top.
unhealthy competition: Do whatever it takes to win at all costs,
including sabotaging your competitors, cheating, or eliminating the
competition.
You're correct in your assertion that you've observed a lot of what I
would consider unhealthy competition.
.. BUT, by not being exposed to competition, someone may lean more
toward unhealthy competition, rather than learning how to be competitive
without being brutal.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with Mike R
On 20/09/2011 6:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think that is something that contributes to workplace violence as well.
>
I’ve worked in some pretty rough and stressful environments and in more
than forty years have only seen or heard about three incidences of
violence in the workplace. The last two was when I was working offshore
and they had nothing to do with competitiveness. The first was when I
was messing someone about when we were playing cards (penny anti stuff)
and he pulled me across the table. Now he was someone who did not know
how to lose. I had almost forgotten about that incident as it was over
forty years ago.
Personally, I am not competitive but I can be combative. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/09/2011 12:09 PM, clipka wrote:
> I didn't contradict that fixed criteria for a grade are superior to
> variable grades; all I said was that non-fixed grades are also able to
> do the job grades were invented for.
Fair enough.
> That aside, I don't think that there is such thing as "ideal" when it
> comes to grades. They're just a kludge to rate a person's capabilities
> anyway. Your math grade doesn't tell much about whether you'd make a
> good accountant; your native language grade doesn't tell much about
> whether you'd make a good news reporter; your informatics grade doesn't
> tell much about whether you'd make a good system administrator, database
> engineer or software developer.
>
> Actually, an employer's primary concern may often be stuff that's not in
> the grades at all: Soft skills. Are you good at communicating with
> others? Are you good at motivating yourself/others? How do you perform
> under pressure? Are you good at cooperation (teamwork)? Are you good at
> competition (marketing strategies)?
Grades in hard subjects are supposedly proxies for soft skills. That's
supposedly why having a degree in philosophy is useful; it proves that
you're capable of working hard enough and staying focused long enough to
earn a degree. And supposedly that you have critical thinking skills and
so forth.
I still think philosophy degrees are pointless. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
