Things that make you go hmmmmm...
 

In the new rulebook, as usual, in the center you will find a 4-page colored ad...which I always take out. This year's ad is for Rawlings basketballs, specifically their "TEN"- their new 10-panelled ball. The blurb talks about how the NFHS, among other groups, have approved the "TEN".

That's fine, except.....

Three of the four pages show Tracy McGrady dribbling and shooting a "TEN". The only problem is that the "TEN" that he is using is <b>illegal</b> under NFHS rules. It's multi-colored, with alternating black and brown panels.

Stoopid me, but I can just see a coach holding that ad up and saying <i>"waddaya mean, my game ball is illegal? It's in the rulebook."</i>

My response... "Yeah coach, Tracy McGrady is in the rulebook as well and you can't use him either!"

..............:D

I'm somewhat jealous. I haven't got my book and/or exam yet.

Must be a regional thing.
 

The test is not available on-line in our state. I have already started going over the test. I do not have the books yet as well.

Peace

Say it ain't so Jeff. They aren't allowing you to take the exam online this year?

Nevermind...just answered my own question by logging in. The exam is already posted and I'm printing off the questions as we speak. Cool!

So where did you get the test you are going over? We used to get a study guide with about 350 questions. The test was made up of 125 of these questions. Last couple of years we got nothing except advice: "Study the rule and case books and the mechanics manuals."

JAR,

In IL, they send you the 100 question test with the rule book (Part I). Part I is an open book exam in IL.

The test that is provided for us is the actual test we have to pass. We can take it online or fill out a scantron and send it to our state office. It is also an open book test and we can review answers with fellow officials and our associations.

Peace

Some states require the NFHS Part 1 exam for certification; other states require the NFHS Part II exam. Some states write their exams now; some states don't write the same exam until December.

Some people scour the net for the exams and the answers so that they don't have to study when their own exam comes up; some people every year seem to provide these exams and answers early too because they don't consider it cheating. They're wrong imo.

Let's see if this year is any different. I doubt it but I can always hope.

Time to find a new windmill to tilt at, Don Quixote.

I actually look forward to the test every year because it forces me back into the rule book. By the end of the summer/early fall the rules begin to run together a bit (I celebrate the 12th anniversary of my 40th b-day next month...see different thread).

For example, my assignor called me at 11:00 AM this past Saturday asking if I could call a pair of youth rec games starting at noon (scheduling snafu with league). He ended being my partner. At one point I called a foul followed immediately by a T on the same kid who committed the personal. My partner (who has celebrated far more b-day anniversaries than I have, BTW) and I had a brief, somewhat comical converation as we tried to remember the order for shooting the personal and T foul shots. I don't even want to think about how ugly/embarassing this would have been if it had happened during a HS game.

Without the test, I wouldn't study the rules nearly as much as I otherwise do.

Well, I know it ain't really gonna make any difference. I keep hoping that maybe just one of 'em might feel just the tiniest pang of conscience sometime.

Guess not, huh?

Oh, well.......

What exactly do you mean by "Certification?" In our state we still have to pass the test. If you do not actually pass the test you will put yourself on probation that will make you ineligible for post season and possibly suspend your license if you do not pass the test two years in a row. I would call our situation as a kind of "certification." In my opinion the test is just a minor part of what we have to do before the season.

Peace

Well,
 

"Certification" in Oregon means that you first must pass Test 2 Closed book with a score of 75%. This means that along with other factors you are allowed to work Varsity schedules. Just passing the test DOES NOT mean you get a varsity game but failing the test means that you cannot work varsity games.

The next step is you must pass that Test 2 with a score of 95% to work a state level playoff game.

Of course getting a 95% does not mean you WILL get a playoff game it means that you are eligible.

Regards,

Tim,

In Oregon does your reference to the "Test 2" mean that your state makes their own test instead of using the NF testing process?

Peace

So something that is a requirement for postseason eligibility in your state can actually be written by another official or group of people from your association! That's really a wonderful system. :rolleyes: Doing it that way really allows the state office to find out which officials know the rules...NOT. :(

If one official doesn't pass the exam, do ALL of the people who helped him also fail? Perhaps the entire association should be put on probation?

I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Kurt is just going to select the people who agree with him on correctable errors. :eek:

Here in Vermont, we have a refresher test that we all 'take' and then there are several meetings throughout the state in November. We form small groups 5 or 6 and discuss the questions assigned to our group. We have to be prepared to defend our answers which are sometimes correct and sometimes not. The state interpreter conducts these meetings. I am guessing this is closer to what Rut is trying to explain than what you are trying to project what he is explaining.

So does anyone have any of these tests online? If so, can someone please reply with a link so we can all do some prep-work before the season starts?

thanks

If you're talking about the IAABO refresher test, then it is completely different.

The bottom line is that every state pretty much sets their own testing criteria. You really can't compare state vs. state.

My point was that it doesn't really matter what a state uses. If the officials in that state are getting their exam and answers <b>before</b> they have to write, then they are cheating- plain and simple.

I don't care if people discuss the questions and debate the answers in groups. That is highly instructive and a great learning experience.

I do care that this "test" is then used to determine postseason eligibility. In my opinion, that's just not proper.

These tests <b>aren't</b> prep work, per se. They are the actual test that is required to be passed for certification in some states.

If you needed to pass a college exam to get a credit, do you really think that exam paper should be put on-line and shared before the exam? Somehow, I don't think the university would think much of that idea.

uhhum, not quite right.

Agree....if the test is used to determine <b>anything</b>, it's not proper to have the exam and answers beforehand.

Actually, the post season requirement is 90%, not 95%, and it is open book according to the OSAA officials handbook.

The 75% is not just for varisty but all games requiring OSAA officails (JV included). Not passing the test by the deadline means NO high school games at all. For an official certified in the previous year, a score below 75% after 3 tries is dropped until the next season (again according to the OSAA handbook).

No, we use the test published by the NFHS marked "Part 2".

Nevada,

There are so many factors for playoff consideration. I really do not want to go into all of them. If you feel the test is that important, then I am sure your state makes you happy by the way they use them. In our state we are observed and where we live are huge factors in who gets assignments. Also the current system is basically a system that was created by the one and only Mary Struckoff when she was the over the Official's Department and long before Kurt was giving the responsibility parts of basketball. So if you want someone to blame, put in on Mary. Hell every old-timer in our state does, you might as well join the list. ;)

Peace

What about L-Sat classes or S.A.T. classes? They have sample questions too, correct? Why not for our tests then??

I also think all University courses should have mandatory sample tests available online for students to use as a study guide. This way, everyone can use these sample tests to study and learn from it. Think about it, the students still have to read, study, and remember the questions.

So if these <B>sample</B> tests can help students score higher on their test thus receiving a higher grade – then why not? This should be the same for officiating. We are all here to better ourselves. So if there are sample questions from the past, why can't we use it to study?

OFFICIATING, however is competitive, so I wouldn't be surprise why people choose to keep such info to themselves....it's just a cruel industry!

Brilliant idea. Because, after all, life is a neverceasing series of one test question after another. And if we can just remember all those questions on those sample tests, we'll all be wildly successful and prosperous.

But wait, my boss and my wife and my kids keep asking me questions that were never on any test I ever took in college. And then there are all the daily challenges and problems that we never talked about in class.

Good think I actually learned how to learn and think and solve problems instead of worrying about what questions might be on a test. I mean, I'd hate to end up like the complete ****ing idiots in the back of the classroom who were always asking, "Will this be on the test?"

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. After all, every society needs people to collect the garbage. :rolleyes:

These aren't sample questions that we're talking about. We're talking about the actual exam. Heckuva difference.

Perhaps someone should make a sample exam based on the questions that were on the actual exam. For example (I found this question in the IAABO REF SCHOOL PROGRAM),

"Official rules that the new retangular backboard must have padding along the entire bottom and at least 15 inches up the side"

Is this correct?

The answer is Yes. We can re-word the question and make it harder to answer by not asking a yes/no question.

"Retangular backboard must have padding along the entire bottom and at leasta minimum of ___ inches up the side."

I still need to refer to the rulebook/mechanic/case book to get the answer for this question. But there are no gurantee in which this question will be on the test. This question is simply just there to help study. So if such tool can help those who really wants to learn, why keep it away from us?

As a follow-up to my earlier post...the refresher test IS given to students taking the class as a study guide for the real test given in late November for prospective officials. But having the actual test ahead of time with answers readily available for the purpose of qualifying to become a certified official is cheating. Having the answers to the real test afterwards is helpful for the in season prep in pre-games, on drives to games, etc.

I guess the big question is: Do you want some guy who has no clue on the rules but can memorize a test on the floor with a whistle? [Or in the coach's box where he belongs. ;) ]

Somebody does.....IAABO.

They issue a refresher exam every year. I get it from a friend but I think that you can get it off the IAABO website also. I know that IAABO does post the answers on their site. I write it every year for exactly what it's called- a refresher.

Maybe you're being too harsh because you have deluded yourself into believing that tests in school are the same as the tests we see in real life. When your boss/wife/kid asks you a question do they lock you in a room & expect you to come up with an answer all by your self? I doubt it.

And btw, anybody who would say "every society needs people to collect the garbage" is a elitist prick. Sad to be you.

The guys that collect the garbage can make a lot of money with great benefits.

I do understand where you are coming from though. ;)

Peace

JRut:

Across the Mississippi the state of MO uses NFHS Part I in the "certification" process when you first register to become an official in MO. Then MO uses Part II as a refresher for all officials that is to be completed sometime in Jan.

We don't have different "levels" like IL does. Licensed, registered, certified is all the same. I think our official term is "registered".

To Simplify the MO process it's:

New guy:
$Fee
Part I (Sept ???)
State approved mechanics
State Rules meeting
Part II test in Jan

First 3 years:

$Fee
State approved mechanics
State Rules meeting
Part II in Jan

Therafter:

$Fee
State Rules meeting
Part II in Jan

A local association may have other requirements above and beyond.

http://www.bullochrec.com/Images/Cli...es/popcorn.jpg

doggone it, it's supposed to be a picture of some popcorn. Somebody help this poor old techno-clueless granny, please!

http://www.bullochrec.com/Images/Cli...es/popcorn.jpg

Here you go.

Peace

Thanks, Jeff. You can have some, too, if you don't mind the salt.

I love salt. I might have to change that down the road, but hey I am still young. :rolleyes:

Peace

In Indiana you have to pass NFHS Exam Part 1 to become registered...then after 2 years you can take NFHS Exam Part 2 to become Certified and then Professional after that. All are open book.

From what I've seen of the Exam the NHFS uses the same questions every year and just mixes them up alittle, rewords a few, and adds something on any rule changes.

So if you want a good study guide...get the last two years tests and use them. Most are available online.

Why do we go through this every year? Do people really, after reading the rule book a small amount of time, get less than a 90 on the test?? It's true/false...you can get 50% just by guessing. If you have ANY knowledge of rules and have at least opened the book, there is no reason this should be such a source of angst.

I totally agree. If you have been doing this more than 3 or 4 seasons your accumulated reading, knowledge, and common sense should carry you to at least an 80 without actually "studying".

I disagree with that statement. Not everyone is skilled at taking tests even those that involve true or false answers. Also many of the questions are not everyday, common sense questions. Most officials do not know the exact measurements of the lines, basketball or what the numbers are on the shirt are supposed to be. If the NF wanted to test real knowledge, they would stop asking true and false questions and trying to trick people with one word.

Also, all you have to do is study old tests and you will see the same questions asked over and over again. This is why the ARS program is so good.

Peace

True and False questions are BS - it doesn't require one to have that much knowledge. I agree with JRut - if this test is a placement test, then why not make it harder??? Then, we'll know who are actually qualify to referee at a higher level. Any fluke can pass a T/F test. I bet if the format of the test is multiple choice with 4-5 possible answers, half of you will not be able to get over a 80%. If the test is fill-in-the-blank, probably more than half of you will fail! HAHA! =)

BTW, did someone mentioned this test can be taking online at home?

And I'd bet that half of you newbies would be lucky to get over 40% on the same test.:)

How many years have you been refereeing, anyway? Not that it matters...just wondering.

1st season baby!!!! Woohooooooo! Hence, that's why I need all of you to teach me everything I need to know about officiating! =) It isn't that easy to take a multiple choice test, especially when you have to read 200 questions and over 1,000 possible answers. By the 50th questions of A1 pushing B1 and simultaneously B2 ran into A3, and both coaches moving out of the coaching box, someone is bound to misread a question or two and answer it incorrectly. Not to include your eyes and mind will probably be out of it after reading such boring materials.

Hey Jurassic, when was the last time you took a course at a University? Not that it matters, just wondering…

Iirc, I took various University and other professional courses to upgrade, stay current and just because I was interested until just before I turned 50. The last courses that I took were computer-related.

Btw, I always found multiple choice tests easy, as long as I did the proper studying first to learn the subject. Iow, they're no different than the current NFHS tests. Cheating works just as well, but I always thought that the cheater was just cheating himself. That's just me though.

The rules might be boring, but they're kinda necessary to know if you really want to be a <b>good</b> official imo.

You want to learn everything possible about being a basketball referee but you find the rules test boring?

Isn't that like saying you want to be a chemist but find chemistry boring?

The NFHS test isn't multiple choice, it's T/F, and there are only 100 or fewer questions, not 200. There aren't 1,000 possible answers. There's just one sentence for each item, and then you state whether that sentence is true or false. Most of the questions aren't "A1 pushing B1 and simultaneously B2 ran into A3" complicated. There are a few like that, but not many.

The test gives you a chance to feel that you know what you are doing when you're out on the floor. Knowing the rules is very, very important, and you'd be amazed how much you don't know that you thought you knew. Studying for the test, and then carefully looking up everything you got wrong afterward, is a great way to develop a solid grounding in the rules.

If you enjoy basketball, and want to move up in reffing, it's not boring or tedious at all. If you really can't be bothered, then don't bother stepping out onto the floor in stripes.

It's easy to study for the test, if you just find some tests from last year, and the year before. Answer about 10 questions, then check to see if they're correct. If they're not, look up the correct answers -- the official answer sheet gives references to the rules books that you can use to find their thinking. If you go through 2 or 3 past tests in this fashion, you'll do fine on the current test when you take it.

And if you really want to impress people, find the one wrong answer in the test. It seems like every year the powers-that-be get at least one of their asnwers wrong, and the administrating people have to tell you that such-and-such asnwer should be F, not T. If you are the person who can find that without being told, and show the references that prove your point, you'll get plenty of brownie points!!

The problem I have with the tests are their feeble attempt to trick you with one word. ie: "recommended" instead of "must be" and that kind of crap.

I would be much happier with the questions being straight forward and then they could use whatever format of answers they want.

I have always complained about the use of words to trick you into responding with an incorrect answer. Like most of you, I have taken the NFHS test (closed book in my board) for many years. But as my understanding of the rules became more solid, I discovered those words did make a difference in the context of most of the rules.

We get our tests back with a form that tells what questions we missed. After going back to the rule book to look up a miss, I have usually discovered I didn't know the rule as well as I thought.

The better you know the rule, the less chance of getting it wrong from some type of tricky wording.

Iaabo
 

Well,

Our board uses the IAABO test instead of the NFHS test, and it has the same problem of the questions not being clear. However, i can tell you that it does not matter how the question is phrased because if you know the rules then you will know the answer. They gotta make the sentence sound complicatd because otherwise, let's face it, everybody would have 100% on the exam.

The IAABO test in particular focuses very heavily on new rules followed by last year's new rules and then the rest. Just last year there were 4-5 out of 50 questions about the same new rule with the SAME situation just rephrased differently. If you get familiar with the test you are writing, especially like somebody suggested if you read old tests, you can recognize the patterns and score high easiy.

Rules as they are written in the book are fairly simple and straightforward. It's either a travel or it is not, it is either a foul or it is not. Hence, the tests can only be as difficut as the rues themselves. It's either true or false.

And let's not forget, if you don't know the rule when you have minutes to ponder about one situation how in the world can you judge the same situation on the court when you have a few seconds to make the call.

if you love refereeing then you gotta love the rules

peace

It's not a trick question if you know the rules. The specific wording is relevant and important. "Recommended" means there is a choice. "Must" implies no choice. Is a player who is fouled recommended to shoot the FTs or must that player shoot the FTs (excepting injury, etc.).

And that is my point. Life is all "story problems and essay questions." It in no way resembles college exams. But in every college class I ever took there was a group in the back who were constantly whining, "Is this going to be on the test?". Sadly it is a predictably mindless reaction to an evironment that places too much emphasis on the worthless ability re-profess what the professor has professed. The last thing we want our universities to do is further reinforce the notion that answering test questions is what's important. That's my issue with Mwanr1's statement.

As for being locked in a room and left to solve problems, of course not. And what's more, often those problems have no well-known answers. Not only does a person need the ability to solve novel problems, but also the ability to evaluate their solutions to see if they really are solutions. And never once has the answer to a real problem been:

D) A and B, never C.

And rarely in real life has guessing "C" when I didn't know an answer work out well.

As for being an elitist prick: Every society needs a healthy supply of skilled and unskilled laborers. If all of the computer geeks and garbage collectors took the month off, there's no doubt which group would be missed most. However, just because a job is necessary, and honorable, doesn't make it desireable. People go to college so they don't have to collect garbage to pay the bills.

It's good to be me. ;)

Ahhh...the ability to focus on the keys to success is a bad thing now. Interesting. I find in my real life job if you can't get what the critical factors are and focus and execute on them then you are ****ed.

Maybe your job allows you the latitude to spend half your time navel gazing. Good for you.

I did mention your views are those of an elitist prick, didn't I? Yeah I think I did.

Anyways...*going* to college don't mean sh1t. Even if you are you.

You gotta graduate. And you don't graduate unless you know what's gonna be on the finals. And the mere act of graduating doesn't mean you're better than a garbage collector or a computer programmer. It just means you had the ways & means & knew how to play the game.

The keys to success? It depends on whether you consider graduation to be the end goal, or a step towards the end goal. If you look at college as preperation for career and a fuller, richer life, then an attitude of "I don't want to have to think about this unless it's going to be on a test" is a pretty poor way to prepare.

If you're in a science/technical major, you have no way of knowing while you're in college which bits of knowledge will be important and relevant after college. So being unwilling to spend time on concepts that won't be on the test is doing yourself a disservice. Not to mention, the concepts tend to build on each other so you gotta know A to learn B, even if A isn't on the test.

If you're in a more liberal arts major, the only really useful thing it's going to teach you is how to think and learn. And if you spend all four years dodging the thinking part on the pretext that this or that concept won't be on a test, you're selling yourself short.

If your job is like most I've had, yes, you have to know what the critical success factors are. You also have to know what the unspoken success factors are. You also have to be able think, learn, adapt, sometimes tap dance, and generally do whatever it takes to deliver on the critical success factors. In a world where jobs and roles and responsibilities shift rapidly, the idiot who came out of college with the attitude of "is this going to be on the test," will soon find his job has passed him by. YMMV

As for being an elitist prick, so be it. I look at it as being a realist. But I guess that wasn't on the final. :cool:

So let's say you're taking a course in...I dunno...let's say music of the 15th century. But you decide you'll have a fuller,richer life if you focus on music of the 18th century. "Screw you Dufay and your parallel fifths!" you say, "Mozart for me!!"

That's a good way to prepare, right?

:rolleyes:

Puh-leeze. You have no argument. Maybe you should take out the garbage?

and BTW...I've never, ever taken an advanced science or engineering course without the instructor telling us exactly what's to be on the final.

Too much to cover my small minded friend. Too much to cover.

Wwwhhhheeeeeee---- eeewwwwwwww!!! I go out for groceries, and come back to find two of my favorite people tearing out hair, and poking out eyes!!

Jeff, now that I've got the hang of this popcorn thing, how about you join me in egging these guys on, eh? Anybody else? Don't forget that I bought it with salt....

I love salt. LOL!!!

Peace

You want fries with that?

No, it's more about being in the 15th century music class, not quite getting Dufay and his parallel fifths, and automatically asking, "Will this be on the test?" and using the answer as your only deciding factor as to whether or not you'll invest the time to try and understand the material.

I'm sorry to hear that your science and engineering instructors were forced to spoon feed you. I guess some people just can't cut it without that kind of pablum.

Most of the science and engineering courses I took had a significant final project rather than a final exam. There was no bull**** about "Will this be on the test?". You had to make it work. Period.

But then, maybe I went to an elitist prick kind of school. :p

LOL. No, I'm an elitist prick. I never flipped burgers. I worked in pizza joints. :D

Yeah, we were all a bunch of lazy dummies.

But we can all proudly say we aren't elitist pricks, even to this day.

(You can use your superior critical thinking skills and intellect to infer who, exactly, we are not like.)

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...

http://www.cusd.com/calonline/mathla.../0201pizza.jpg

PS Jeff, thanks for the help!!

Yawn.
- The elitist prick

Needs more pepperoni ;)

Good for you. You're at least as smart (and trainable) as my dog Woddy.

Here ya go, you earned it...

http://www.aplus-flint-river-ranch.c...e-biscuits.jpg

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

Ok, so I'm <B>way</B> 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.

Mmmm, I love these kind. And they clean my teeth.:D

I think the test should be on a monitor being animated and show real game situation and see if you can really identify when an infraction has occurred or not. The answer will then go right into a database and give you a score as quickly as you finish the test. let's get with the times.... Cheating is going to occur no matter where and when. It's just the cost of the technology.

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

Where can the test be found, is it online?

This is through our state, not to the nation.

Peace

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?
:)

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.

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.

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

Naw, that's the Duke lacrosse team.

Bad Woddy, bad bad Woddy..... :D

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...

http://data1.blog.de/blog/a/and-one-...dog%5B1%5D.jpg

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.

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. :)

:D <font = font>

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.

By giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am saying that he is so busy that he just brushed through the questions and answered them hurriedly.

However, he is one of the state's chosen interpreters so you would think that he would <b> make </b> the time to put a little time and effort into responses from officials who seek his input. :confused:

He is either making up his own rulings or not taking his job as an interpreter seriously and I am not impressed either way.

Z

You know, Dan, I'm at a near-total loss; but not so much that I can't respond with some snark of my own: maybe if you'd taken a few more courses that focused on reading and writing, you'd be better practiced in how to respond to arguments that are actually made, rather than simply to knock down strawmen and issuing baseless ad hominems. There's nothing in BITS's posts or mine that even implies that we look down our noses at those who perform very important jobs that don't happen to require higher education.

BITS's arguments were about test-focused education, and how much that can short-change students, whether they be students of officiating, food preparation services, or the applied sciences.

Yours is a relatively new (10 years or so) and extremely noxious strain of elitism, brought into vogue, ironically, by a cadre of philistines who have had every educational opportunity availability in this country. What is ironic about these arguments is that they're so often made by people who have advanced, but not terminal degrees. The argument made by these people is one that looks down on those who think there is more to life than figuring out exactly what you have to do to make money in this world, and scoffing at those who think that there might be more to a well-lived life than simply figuring out how to pass the Series 7 exams. What's interesting is that when you invoke those who occupy lesser-skilled positions in the economy to justify your outlook, you do so not do defend such people (whom you secretly look down on), but to attack those whose world view plays on your own intellectual insecurities.

I work with at-risk students, many-if-not-most of whom will be very fortunate if they can spend productive lives working in restaurants or on garbage routes rather than in prison. They don't have any of the advantages that I, and I suspect you had growing up. So don't you dare think for a minute that I'm unaware of those circumstances or that I would ignore them and think less of those who didn't have them.


You and your ilk are, as a general rule, bright and highly educated (which, on one level, makes your position quite silly). But it makes you feel better about yourselves to look down on those with more formal education than you have or who value a different kind of education from the one you got or value. Your strawman is found in your implicit claim that those who support liberal-arts education and those with PhD's look down on those who don't have them. My experience is that there are jerks in every walk of life, occupying every job possible. There are no more ahole PhDs per capita than ahole engineers; so park that argument in the landfill post haste.

:D

I'm not taking any sides here but since this thread reminds me of this clip...

http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=67&qid=573