Are tests there to use and exploit the children or to educate children?

[charlie cho]

I have no problem with teachers making their students apply their insights and knowledge into the outside world. No problem at all. Learn something, apply it. Learn Japanese phrases, go and speak to that Japanese person over there. I don't care if you suck, just go speak to him. Learn music composition, you force that student to write lyrics and chords that somewhat resembles a song. I don't care if he's good or not, I just want him to apply it. If he learns some python, I'll force the student to make a keylogging software out of scratch, make a simple program just to apply any knowledge he's learnt from books and videos. 

However, I've seen a clip from Krishnamurti questioning why schools make "grades" of students. I initially did not agree with Krishnamurti's assumption that grades "hurt" children. But he had a point. Krishnamurti asked this professor, "are grades and tests there to help educate the child? or to judge him then exploit him to work in some company?!" (I'm roughly paraphrasing here, I'm sorry) 

edit: this is what Krishnamurti says about testing 

I'm not against testing. I'm against the "way" in which students are being tested. Also, I'm against the "people" who are testing the children. I'm very much against incompetent people "testing" anybody. They don't have the right to test, and usually, the one in power aren't the elites, the one in power is the government, not the people who truly care to educate or learn themselves. The government doesn't care about education, do they. 

Constant assessment is key for the teacher to see the reality of his or her students, and constantly adapt to that reality. But is it truly to assess the student? Or is it to use him, exploit him, eventually experiment on a human being? 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by charlie cho

[Bobby_2021]

Just test their IQ in a comfortable environment. Give them enough room for intellectual stimulation. The children would do fine.

But the parents and teachers are suddenly triggered that some students outclass other students. 

Testing students have been made more difficult than it should be. 

One point that I want to be clear: Students must have adequate freedom to innovate inside the academic system. The system should get out of the way.

Acknowledge the legitimacy of IQ and don't suffer it.

[Carl-Richard]

30 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

But the parents and teachers are suddenly triggered that some students outclass other students. 

The one size fits all system is the problem. Completely outdated.

[charlie cho]

@Bobby_2021 Do you have high IQ? 

[Bobby_2021]

What a fresh video to see two men maturely discussing a topic.

https://youtu.be/-zRqzcvJxAU

With regards to testing, the main concern of his is rank ordering Students in a hierarchy. But some students naturally excel more than others, which leads to a disparity & an organic hierarchy. 

The key points is that STATUS should be eliminated from the hierarchy while encouraging different students to pursue result independent outcomes and just love what you are doing in an undisciplined fashion.

Eliminating status is idealistic, but completely missed these days everything is status based. A student scoring high is the result of privilege ,wealth, sexism racism, fascism etc.

Everything except IQ and talent. 

We can clearly see this trend among universities removing standardised tests and schools phasing out gifted programs. This is pathetic. 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The one size fits all system is the problem. Completely outdated.

Sadly this isn't going to change anytime soon. As more green people get into power everything is looked upon through the lens of race, status, power and wealth.

Celebration of unique abilities of children is perverted into mere explanations of class privilege.

Freedom of kids, including free speech will be further restricted. There is a good chance that my kids won't be attending universities. 

[Bobby_2021]

24 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

@Bobby_2021 Do you have high IQ? 

I plan to take a formalised IQ test by the beginning of next year. Will answer you after that. 

I don't want to answer based on speculation of informal internet IQ tests.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

One more point about tests is that it's inherently competitive and going to involve comparisons. I do agree with JK that it shouldn't lead to exploitation.

But you also have to accept that fact that we live in a competitive and exploitative reality, where high IQ is a necessity for vast majority of the tasks.

A test can be done to evaluate two things : Either memory or IQ or a combination of both.

Every written test is directly or indirectly is a measure of these. In my observation, descriptive type tests where you are required to write any number of words tests your working memory; your ability to hold things in your brain. Retention; Remember;

Objective type tests (mcqs) test IQ, spatial reasoning and also some working memory. You need to remember some things to effectively solve IQ problems.

Other than this there is nothing that is actually measurable. Creativity isn't strictly measurable. Work ethic, discipline cannot be measured.

Only these two things can be measured and they can be measured with reasonable accuracy. 

These days people ar quick to dismiss IQ and propagate crap like EQ as being better than IQ lol. There is no way around this problem.

If educational system cannot test IQ (which they don't these days) corporations will be forced to take up that role. It's not even their job to be honest. There are so many problems like this of not conducting adequate Testing.

What you bought up is a serious problem that enough people are simply not paying attention to.

[charlie cho]

@Bobby_2021 I am in no way saying competition is bad. I'm a competitive fellow myself. I love fighting. I practice jiujitsu, I coached basketball for teens. I'm a shell of myself when there is no competition and strategy. 

But, I'm totally against authority trying to exploit the children. Horrible way of coaching, and you should never even do that as a military general. 

One of the reasons the Nazi army were geniuses in their exploits of Europe was because of their philosophy of military strategy. Total responsibility is given to the leader. All is according to the situation, and the only one who can judge right from wrong (right being victory and wrong being loss) will be the leader of the subdivisions that exist on that front. Mission statements are given to each and every German soldiers to assess their situation and do what is important according to their mission statement. Auftragstaktik

Of course, since the responsibility is given 100% to each and every soldier to do the right thing, when critical moments come by, at such clutch moments, if they happen to waver, they will indefinitely fail because they have full responsibility. 

And did the Germans fail? Yes. Their exploits were too fast. They've scared France with a terrifying image Blitzkrieg, having each of their tanks move individualistically without orders from the high end command. Therefore, Blitzkrieg is fast, penetrating, terrifying to the opposition seeing their weakest point completely obliterated with speed, force, and sheer numbers on that one end. No wonder France surrendered in a few weeks. However, when Americans chimed in to attack Germany with England, what then? Courage is needed. But they wavered in the end. Blitzkrieg was effective, but in essence it was a strategy that required the soldiers to be able to assess the situation well and clear. France wasn't so much armed and ready. Of course the Germans can think clearly with easier forces like France. But with Americans, Russians, and the English? Now that is their real task and to prove their fortitude. Have they succeeded? No. 

Imagine Japanese planes attacking American fortresses in Hawaii. The Japanese air force was reputed to be the best of the best in skill. But once they arrive on the beach with their planes, they waver and perform only 20% of what they are capable of. 

Responsibility is tremendously humanizing. And this is why I believe Napoleon, Genghis Khan, and General Rommel were such effective generals. They gave full responsibility to their divisions. And of course, their failure and their success will be all of their responsibility. 

I'm no military expert myself, but we have to admit these generals understood strategy, and their tactics were tremendously liberal and free flowing for their times, which was what made them legendary strategists, competitors.

Even in competition, even in war, when the leader exploits his followers, they are bound to be defeated. Tremendous trust must be given to the soldiers in order to win the war. If the leader and follower is divided and not one, they will indefinitely fail against an enemy whose leader and follower is one and trusting each other.

I don't believe in exploitation through testing. If tests are given to exploit or create comparison, it only divides the leader and his followers, and this is just what makes failure in any army. Ironically, it only teaches the students how to be a bad soldier, a bad strategist! Every competent General or coach will know this. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by charlie cho

[charlie cho]

59 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

What a fresh video to see two men maturely discussing a topic.

https://youtu.be/-zRqzcvJxAU

 

BTW, the two men's conversation is amazing, I agree.

[Bobby_2021]

11 hours ago, charlie cho said:

 I believe in exploitation through testing. If tests are given to exploit or create comparison, it only divides the leader and his followers, and this is just what makes failure in any army. Ironically, it only teaches the students how to be a bad soldier, a bad strategist! Every competent General or coach will know this. 

Edited 10 hours ago by charlie cho

How exactly does exploitation happen in the case of testing students? Can you give something specific.

The idea of testing is to give the students and idea of where they stand, their abilities and the possibilities it would open up.

I don't think the war time scenario is strictly applicable here. Education is an individual game, every every individual has absolute authority to decide their own wins/failure.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[flyingguitarist]

 

On 27/05/2022 at 3:15 PM, charlie cho said:

 

 

 

 

Such a Mature , deep conversation i enjoyed it. 

[charlie cho]

19 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

One more point about tests is that it's inherently competitive and going to involve comparisons. I do agree with JK that it shouldn't lead to exploitation.

But you also have to accept that fact that we live in a competitive and exploitative reality, where high IQ is a necessity for vast majority of the tasks.

For a response to your question, well, I was only quoting you. I didn't say it, it's said right here

Edited May 29, 2022 by charlie cho