Things that make you go hmmmmm...

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

This is way, way better than Rut and Tony slinging mud, or W&S getting nasty. I'm gonna need more than popcorn to get the full value out of this one...



PS Jeff, thanks for the help!!

Hmm...peasants (and some middle-class slobs) eat popcorn, but pizza is only for the elite, right?

Ok, so I'm way late on the original topic, which, if I vaguely remember, is about the NFHS test. Our assoociation, in IL (same state as JRut), sets aside a meeting to go over the test every year. In IL, we need to complete the Part 1 test (open book), and turn it in by around Nov. 15th. The association meeting is usually before the state deadline. I would say most of the members have already done the test, and most of them already have their grades and answers back by the meeting. We go over each question, and there are discussions on some of the questions. It has never been implied, that I know of, that this was just a way of getting the answers. Are there some officials that use this meeting as a way to get the answers before turning them in? Probably, but not many. I would venture to guess the ones that do this are also not the top officials in the association, because the ones that want to be good also have the persistance and ability to go through the test on their own. I think the officials that take the short-cut of getting the answers without doing it on their own would be more likely to take other short-cuts in their game as well. And it will probably show at some point down the line.

Me, I go through the test beforehand because of fear - fear that I might miss or not know something that everyone else knows is obvious.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, so I'm way late on the original topic, which, if I vaguely remember, is about the NFHS test. Our assoociation, in IL (same state as JRut), sets aside a meeting to go over the test every year. In IL, we need to complete the Part 1 test (open book), and turn it in by around Nov. 15th. The association meeting is usually before the state deadline. I would say most of the members have already done the test, and most of them already have their grades and answers back by the meeting. We go over each question, and there are discussions on some of the questions. It has never been implied, that I know of, that this was just a way of getting the answers. Are there some officials that use this meeting as a way to get the answers before turning them in? Probably, but not many. I would venture to guess the ones that do this are also not the top officials in the association, because the ones that want to be good also have the persistance and ability to go through the test on their own. I think the officials that take the short-cut of getting the answers without doing it on their own would be more likely to take other short-cuts in their game as well. And it will probably show at some point down the line.

Me, I go through the test beforehand because of fear - fear that I might miss or not know something that everyone else knows is obvious.

Amen.

Also to piggy back on what you said, there is a group of officials that get together and we talk go over the test long before our local association does. We not only go over the answers, we give the reference and might discuss why the answer is true or false. Once again, this is an open book test. The test has to be completed this year by November 20 (according to the website) which is a week into the Girl's Basketball season and the first day of the Boy's Basketball season. It is not like the state is unaware that people could be going over the exam on some level. The test was made available online earlier this week, so that is two months to get the exam done. I do not have my new books yet and I am sure most officials do not, but if I wanted to complete the test based on what the new rules are and the POE, it is not hard to finish the exam.

Peace

[Ref_ Fred]

The test was made available online earlier this week, so that is two months to get the exam done. JRutlege

Where can the test be found, is it online?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ref_ Fred

Where can the test be found, is it online?

This is through our state, not to the nation.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Our assoociation, in IL (same state as JRut), sets aside a meeting to go over the test every year. In IL, we need to complete the Part 1 test (open book), and turn it in by around Nov. 15th. The association meeting is usually before the state deadline. I would say most of the members have already done the test, and most of them already have their grades and answers back by the meeting. We go over each question, and there are discussions on some of the questions.

Is this the meeting where Kurt-Whats-his-Name throws out any questions that can only be answered in old FED casebook rulings and therefore he feels don't apply to the state of Illinois?

[jbduke]

You know, Dan, I see some scary parallels between your charges of "elitist prick," and the way the POTUS recycles the same joke of standing with an advisor with a Ph.D. and saying something like, "I got C's, he got a Ph.D. Look who came out ahead."

BITS is expressing a very legitimate criticism of the disturbing trend in US education towards a test-based standard of education. He has not argued that "knowing stuff" is unimportant. He's argued that limiting the stuff we even try to know to what we think is going to be on the test is not the best way to do things.

He's not naive, and he's not an elitist prick. He recognizes that success, as defined by many people, can be achieved by studying to the test. What he and many others also recognize, though, is how critically deficient many such people are in being able to process and analyze information that comes to them in formats that they were not explicitly prepared for. One of the overarching goals of a liberal arts education is to ground students in the thinking skills necessary so that they don't need to ask whether something's going to be on the test.

Another side of the argument is that good teachers don't ask exam questions that require only a regurgitation of facts, equations, etc. One of the best math professors I had explained his assessment philosophy something like this:

"When an engineer is designing and building a bridge, do you think the contracting agent gives instructions not to consult any notes? Of course not. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't certain things he or she needs to have memorized in order to conserve time. I don't give 50-minute sit-down exams because there's not a whole lot of useful information I can glean from them. Sure, you might have all of your integrals memorized so that you can run through the small number of problems that I can reasonably expect you to be able to complete in such a short period of time, but so what? I can teach my 8-year-old daughter to memorize patterns just as well as you can. What I want you to be able to do is to be able to think critically, even creatively, to use the concepts you have hopefully learned here, to apply them in ways that you're not necessarily familiar or comfortable with. In order to do that, I have to presnent you with such challenges, and I can't reasonably expect you to do anything productive with them in 50 minutes.

So what's the answer? Take a handful of hard and novel problems home with you after class and bring them back in three or four days. If you haven't been practicing, if you don't have even the most elementary concepts mastered, then the exam, if doable at all, will take you forever, and you'll probably give up. This doesn't mean I'm trying to punish you; quite the contrary. The point of an exam should be to assess a student's progress. Not being able to do a test doesn't mean you're a bad person, or even that you can't do math. It means that you haven't put in whatever effort is necessary for you to get to the level of conceptual competency that is satisfactory to me. It's not necessarily even your fault. It might be mine. I might suck at this. But after looking at your exam, we'll have a better idea of where we are. With traditional exams, I could suck, and you could lack any ability to solve something that broke with the patterns you were accustomed to seeing, but you might be diligent enough to solve all of the problems perfectly and still leave us both in the dark. Useless."

BITS's commentary is simply a call to do better, and I defy you to claim how traditional testing models don't have loads of room for improvement.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by jbduke

BITS's commentary is simply a call to do better, and I defy you to claim how traditional testing models don't have loads of room for improvement.

First I'll thank you for the long article on how things work in college, and in particular engineering undergrad & post grad schools. And especially your explanation of what and how you learn in college is applied in the field of engineering. I certainly had no idea about how all that works, but is sure does seem complicated to me. I'm only exposed to this hi tech gee-whizz stuff when watching "How It Works" on Discovery Channel.

Having vented my sarcasm...your last sentence is kinda my point.

Schools generally are an extraordinarilly artificial place that have very little to do with real life, and higher ed is probably the most artificial. But you don't need to have a college degree to be qualified for something better than garbageman. Ask Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, David Geffen, Steve Jobs, Peter Jennings, Harry Truman, Stephen Spielburg, John Glenn, Ted Turner... In 2005 something like 12% of all CEOs in the US did not have a college degree. Something like 1/4 of the Fortune 500 wealthiest don't have college degrees.

I suppose you agree with BITS (and Camron) that these people are life's losers who can't cut anything more mentally challenging than serving up or cleaning off fries.

Sad to be you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I suppose you agree with BITS (and Camron) that these people are life's losers who can't cut anything more mentally challenging than serving up or cleaning off fries.

Naw, that's the Duke lacrosse team.

Bad Woddy, bad bad Woddy.....

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Naw, that's the Duke lacrosse team.

Bad Woddy, bad bad Woddy.....

Soooo....I called up google on the phone and asked the guy at the other end if he had any cute pictures of "bad dog". He sent me this in the mail...



No biscuits for either of us today...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Soooo....I called up google on the phone and asked the guy at the other end if he had any cute pictures of "bad dog". He sent me this in the mail...



No biscuits for either of us today...

A French poodle?

Must be 2 male dogs.

Yes, M&M, I know quite well that I'm going to hell.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Is this the meeting where Kurt-Whats-his-Name throws out any questions that can only be answered in old FED casebooks rulings he feels don't apply to the state of Illinois?

Kurt doesn't belong to our association.

I may have to defend Kurt-Whats-his-Name a little. He is in charge, at the state level, for boy's basketball. His duties include officiating, but it is not his entire focus. He is also not an official, so it doesn't surprise me that he may have answered Rut's question the way he did. (I mean, after all, how many "real" officials knew the answer?) It did surprise me that he answered it quickly without checking an interpreter, or directly with the Fed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Kurt doesn't belong to our association.

I may have to defend Kurt-Whats-his-Name a little. He is in charge, at the state level, for boy's basketball. His duties include officiating, but it is not his entire focus. He is also not an official, so it doesn't surprise me that he may have answered Rut's question the way he did. (I mean, after all, how many "real" officials knew the answer?) It did surprise me that he answered it quickly without checking an interpreter, or directly with the Fed.

We have no idea why the interpretation was given. I think it is very presumptuous who he talked to or did not talk to. The NF is a phone call away from the IHSA and we have many people that know people in the NF personally. It is not like no one from the IHSA sits currently on the NF Committee or does not attend NF meetings. I think many want people to believe what they want because he came to a conclusion that did not fit their opinion to a tee.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have no idea why the interpretation was given. I think it is very presumptuous who he talked to or did not talk to. The NF is a phone call away from the IHSA and we have many people that know people in the NF personally. It is not like no one from the IHSA sits currently on the NF Committee or does not attend NF meetings. I think many want people to believe what they want because he came to a conclusion that did not fit their opinion to a tee.

Peace

Ok, I'll certainly admit I jumped to a conclusion that he didn't check with anyone regarding the ruling. I was only going by the reasoning Kurt did a quick check of the most recent rule books, and, not finding a specific case, made a decision, just like some of us did on that play. However, since Bob J. found that case ruling, and given that there has been nothing to change that since, I would have to go with that case.

I'm also jumping to the conclusion that if Kurt knew about that case, he would agree.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm also jumping to the conclusion that if Kurt knew about that case, he would agree.

Yes, let's give him the benefit of a doubt and assume that's the case. To know the ruling and go against it would not say much for him.

Z

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Yes, let's give him the benefit of a doubt and assume that's the case. To know the ruling and go against it would not say much for him.

Z

But that's exactly what he did! Here's a post from the other thread that states just that.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I emailed Kurt and gave him all the information, including the 2000-01 Fed interpretation.

His response, in full:

"Thanks for the note. My interpretation is that the correctable error rule is the rule in question and not 4-14-2."