Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #4544 on Comments
Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Send mail to efdinthea
Invite efdinthea to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 27 Content: Peasant → Level 28 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress:
Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
im just like you, or you...or even YOU
What people say about efdinthea
How i feel playing any FPS...
someone somewhere made this
in case of an Emergency.
Mtg OC SLJPW
you have a week to prepare
it taste like metal
did you know?
10 helpful tips...
Germanic Germs Dump
latest user's comments
- gah i hate when that happens
19h ago on
One of those days
Good use of gah.
- you mean -K-itans
battle of titans
- goes to show how a little bit of a talent, a good blend of cgi…
Never forget Jurassic Park
get fucked EA
- partly also because there is no social standard for whats ok …
So who's next?
- anyone know how exactly Wikipedia "banned" a instit…
Even more facs
- thats not weird. State lotto's were made to generate revenue.
Even more facs
Yep, and I don't really have a problem with it. The problem is with people who think you have the jackpot and when you expect the split to be of the jackpot and not of the tax. People go to court a lot over this.
- yeah i always found this weird. its not just games really any …
get fucked EA
not weird, people keep rating things over others as time goes on so the scale goes up
Is that what the local catholic priest tells you?
It's similar to grading in school. Under 70 is failing, 70-79 Is alright 80-89 is good, 90-100 Is great
Since when is 60-70 failing? Even at my college, you only needed higher than a D if a course was a prerequisite.
Uni in England is actually pretty forgiving compared to that shit.
So under 40% is a fail and over 70% is considered flawless pretty much.
How can you be considered successfully educated if you haven’t even learned half of the material? Honestly, what they should do is have a much smaller load of material at once, but require a 90% to pass. That way, everyone would have a more thorough understanding of the material without actually making the classes more difficult. Of course, then it would probably take much longer to complete the curriculum, but I think that’s a satisfactory trade-off.
There's a bigger emphasis on ability over "hard work" tbh. You can coast by easily as long as you're not a complete retard. Personally, it makes things easier for me, but less intelligent folks who work hard get shafted so I think it's unfair overall.
We need to take different things into account here. Just because a test needs a 70% or a 90% to get a pass grade doesn't mean that is necesarily harder or more complex than getting a 40% in a different one. You also need to take into account that you will never be asked all the material in a single test so in certain situations a 40% means that you know the basis (or that's what I get, where I'm from you need a 50% to get a passing grade, but the way it works is that you either get incredibly lucky and study just what is asked on the test which is unlikely or you've studied and learned all the basis) and the rest of the questions are either advanced material that still needs to be tested. With your system you can't really find those who are really good and deserving of a very good grade.
I'm unsure if I've explained myself properly or not, I'm sorry if I haven't, I'm really tired and I don't know why am I not in bed yet.
The two main deciding factors in the difficulty of a test are the difficulty of learning the material and what percentage of the material must be understood to pass, so a test with easy material that requires a 90% may be equally challenging to a test with difficult material that requires 50%. If a person only needs 40% of the material that’s on a test, then the other 60% shouldn’t be on the test. The purpose of testing isn’t supposed to be to distinguish between the more and less intelligent students. It’s supposed to be a measurement of individual growth, to show the student and their teacher where they need to improve. The fact that it’s become a system for prospective colleges and employers to weed out the undesirable workers is really tragic.
A test that requires 90% to pass may or may not be as hard than a test that requires a 50%. Saying both are equivalent is arbitrary. And no, a test is not supposed to be measurement of individual growth, is supposed to measure if you've acquired knowledge and learned enough to keep going and the more knowledge a student proves to have, the higher the grade that should be given. So it's only natural that a student that proves to have a better grasp of the material has more opportunities than someone who doesn't, because even if it's not always fair (this is where projects and essay should play a role, and still isn't necesarily completely fair), we need to measure that somehow in order to distinguish those that do better than others. Becayse this is how this world works.
Okay, I don’t know how you missed this, but I’ve agreed with you from the beginning that the necessary percentage to pass isn’t the only factor in determining a test’s difficulty. I’m saying that the minimum passing score for a test should be 90% because, otherwise, it means the school is severely failing to teach its students. If that means reducing the workload on each test or spending more time going over the material, then so be it. And what the hell do you think individual growth means in the context of education? Because, as far as I’m concerned, it means the accumulation of knowledge. And of course those who progress more quickly should gain further opportunities more quickly as well, but that shouldn’t mean that those who take longer to progress should have those opportunities completely closed off to them. There are many who struggle with learning in a classroom setting, but excel at applying what they have already learned. They shouldn’t fall by the wayside just for the sake of standardization and efficiency.
Well technically 65 or lower was failing but D's might as well have been Fs. It wouldn't lower your GPA as much but you wouldn't "pass " the course of you had a D average
Every school I've been to.
I never thought about it like that. I always assumed it was rooted in an innate desire to be better than average, however, you bring up an excellent point.
The 70% or better grading systems in most schools may be what is actually conditioning this rating pattern & response.
Thanks for the intellectual fuel
- agreed which sucks for those out there that have legitimate cases
So who's next?
And make no mistake, there are a LOT of legitimate cases. What I think we're all struggling with is what we've all known for a long time- that hollywood is a cesspool that disproportionately abuses women and children for money- and then trying to reconcile that with this weird new social dynamic where we cast shame on other people to make us feel better about ourselves
partly also because there is no social standard for whats ok and whats not
- i have always fantasized doing this. i need to go to banks more often
Hostage taker meets martial...
Show Comments (0)