Both in the article itself and in a comment, you reference the college 1 to 4 gpa system, but this is off base. The 1 to 4 system is used for the overall course grade, not individual assignments. On nearly every individual course assignment in college courses (quizzes, tests, papers, book reviews, etc.) students can earn anywhere from 0 to 59. As noted by many others in the comments, there is a significant difference between a student who really tries to complete an assignment but does so very poorly (and thus earns a 50 or 55%), a student who submits work that only addresses a fraction of the actual assignment (and earns a 20, 30, 40%), and a student who makes no effort to complete an assignment (and earns-- really earns-- a 0). Nearly every college professor in every field recognizes these differences and grades accordingly. The 1 to 4 system is then applied when all of the individual assignments are totaled/averaged.
The Murfreesboro Post is pretty lame in terms of providing broad public notice, but it is how Rutherford County has provided notice for all meetings and all developments for five years. There was nothing unique about how the meeting about the Mosque building plan was advertised. So, logically, if approval of the Mosque plan is now invalid, hundreds of other decisions must also be invalid. But, the judge did not rule that the Murfreesboro Post is inherently inadequate, but-- at least according to news accounts thus far-- argued that because this particular proposal had broad public interest the County should have done more. This would mean the County, on a case-by-case basis, is to determine the degree of public interest beforehand (by what standards?) and follow one course with low interest items and another course with high interest items. This is clearly ridiculous. Either the Murfreesboro Post is adequate public notice or it isn't-- it can't be adequate for some proposals and not for others.
TNSC: You should do readers a service by clearly pointing out that yours is a choice advocacy group and that the Win-Win report is produced by the Friedman Foundation, another choice advocacy group. Neither your organization nor the Friedman Foundation is a research organization—both were formed with the conclusion already in place, and exist to advocate for that conclusion. There is a difference between research and propaganda. Research looks at evidence to form a conclusion; propaganda selectively highlights bits and pieces that comport with an already existing conclusion. You and the Friedman Foundation are firmly in the latter camp.
-1- From a review of the original Win-Win report published by the National Education Policy Center in 2009:
“But the report, based on a review of 17 studies, selectively reads the evidence in some of those studies, the majority of which were produced by voucher advocacy organizations… In truth, existing research provides little reliable information about the competitive effects of vouchers, and this report does little to help answer the question.”
-2- An update based on the new version: “New Win-Win Report on School Vouchers Still Not a Winner”
Gast: Reading comprehension, man, reading comprehension! The thread went like this: -1- Rogers said the media consortium review of Florida ballots concluded that Bush won under every scenario but one; -2- I responded that he had it backwards, that the report actually concluded that Gore won under every scenario but one; -3- You responded that what you "read" was opposite what I read; -4- I posted an actual summary of the report from 2001, showing that the report did in fact conclude that Gore got more votes under every system of what constituted "a vote" but one. So, no, no one was counting votes four months after the election; the media report had no impact on who was deemed the winner. The media consortium was formed to collect all the data in one place, review all of the ballots statewide, and make it public for historical record. And, yes, it apparently took them four months to collect and publish all of that-- which, of course, in no way changes the conclusion.
Gast: The difference is that you have ideology to give you all answers a priori, regardless of facts, and I along with most people enjoy actual reading comprehension. For instance:
"So, Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won... The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes."
Metaphor overload-- karma, chameleons, and changing spots all in one. Personally, I think a spotted chameleon (with or without a saffron robe) would be kind of cute.
ypxx: First, MTSU has the second highest admission standards and graduation standards in the combined TBR and UT systems, exceeded only by UTK. Second, if the problem is low expectations and performance, using ever more adjuncts-- who, given their pay, have every incentive to require as little as possible-- is hardly a solution. And, third, your attitude is the problem in all higher ed in the state, i.e., actual education is meaningless, everything is just vo tech.
The SouthComm Set
The City Paper |
LEO Weekly |
Medical News Papers
All contents © 1995-2013
City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation