 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/21/2011 8:08 AM, Stephen wrote:
> 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. ;-)
Ditto. I was in an office with a couple colleagues discussing something,
what it was isn't relevant. I was sitting in a chair at a desk, and the
guy who usually sits at that desk told me to get out of his chair. I
chose to be a smartass and just sort of grinned at him and told him he
didn't down the chair. He then proceeded to slam me back against the
desk and was about ready to beat the crap out of me, except for the fact
that everyone else in the room had grabbed him and pulled him away.
Nothing about competition there. I chose to mess with someone I thought
could handle a bit of teasing, but turned out he couldn't.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:50:05 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 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....
I wouldn't debate that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:21:05 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 04:58 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.
>
> It is.
>
> So is cooperation.
>
> The trick is to find the correct balance between the two, IMHO.
On that, we agree. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:20:24 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Employers
> aren't interested in whether you're better than your classmates or not.
In many industries, though, they are - "top of your class" means
something depending on the school.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:08:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 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.
I'm thinking about the incidents that make it to the news - the person
who gets fired/laid off, goes home, comes back and shoots the office up.
> Personally, I am not competitive but I can be combative. ;-)
:)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:27:01 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Nothing about competition there.
Sure, I didn't say it was the only cause, I said it was a contributing
factor in some cases.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
