Loaded words

[zsdersw]

Okay, so I'm glad to hear that we agree that the government should absolutely limit the types of words used in the formulation of their questions due to the impact that it might have on the students taking the test.

Who said anything about me agreeing with that? I don't.

This is not an area I think the government, at any level, needs to have any input in. It should be up to each individual school district to decide what they want/do not want in their tests... and they should exercise some common sense.

 

[PokerGuy]

New York City does not have an area where that speed is legal.

Where did it state in the question that the car was being driven in NYC? Also, does NYC not have any race tracks? If so, it could be there.

 

[zsdersw]

That's absurd, schooling is not designed to address such an issue. Furthermore, the tests are designed to measure the academic ability of each student equally. If the school district knows that certain areas will exert disproportionate effects on students, they should avoid them. This is just common sense.

Schools play a role in developing students emotionally, not just academically.

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't matter. You didn't say in which state this question was being asked.

There is no state in which driving 100mph is legal.

 

[fskimospy]

Schools play a role in developing students emotionally, not just academically.

Yes, my mother has been a teacher for 30 years. There exists no curriculum I am aware of that teaches students to deal with questions that evoke the traumatic obliteration of their home during standardized testing. Perhaps you can link some?

 

[PokerGuy]

It's this kind of idiotic thinking that leads to logic like "you can't include the word 'mother' in a question since some children don't have one".

The concept of trying to avoid concepts or words that could have a significant negative impact on the population taking the test seems logical, but then you have to factor in the PC idiocy that will take it to the level of idiocy, where just about any word or concept is bound to offend someone in some way.

 

[zsdersw]

There is no state in which driving 100mph is legal.

Any state that holds NASCAR races allows 100mph driving on the race track by race drivers during the race.

 

[dank69]

Doesn't matter. You didn't say in which state this question was being asked.

The thread topic is about what New York City is doing. The location of the car is irrelevant as the act of driving a car at 100mph is illegal in the area that we are discussing. Is slavery illegal in all parts of the world? Why do you assume that talking about slavery is talking about an illegal activity, but the speed of the car is not?

Because you are close minded when it comes to this topic. You have made up your mind and are not open to information that might persuade you to reconsider, as evidenced by this reply:

That's too bad, really. If he/she is *that* distracted that they can't answer questions to the best of their ability, their schooling has failed them before they even saw the test.

You seem to be incapable of rational thought regarding this topic.

 

[PokerGuy]

There is no state in which driving 100mph is legal.

Really? I'm quite certain there are race tracks in every state where driving 100mph is perfectly legal. Since you're trying to split hairs, at least do it right.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, my mother has been a teacher for 30 years. There exists no curriculum I am aware of that teaches students to deal with questions that evoke the traumatic obliteration of their home during standardized testing. Perhaps you can link some?

coun·se·lor   [koun-suh-ler] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who counsels; adviser.
2.
a faculty member who advises students on personal and academic problems, career choices, and the like.

 

[Mursilis]

Ugh... the facepalm just can't be big enough for these idiots. There is nothing wrong with not including words that are patently offensive or discriminatory, but this is another example of PC zealotry.

:thumbsup:

 

[zsdersw]

The thread topic is about what New York City is doing. The location of the car is irrelevant as the act of driving a car at 100mph is illegal in the area that we are discussing. Is slavery illegal in all parts of the world? Why do you assume that talking about slavery is talking about an illegal activity, but the speed of the car is not?

Because you are close minded when it comes to this topic. You have made up your mind and are not open to information that might persuade you to reconsider, as evidenced by this reply:

You seem to be incapable of rational thought regarding this topic.

That's what the story in the OP is about.. and even then the story also mentions Florida. It doesn't matter, though, because banning words like those mentioned is 100% stupid.

Do you think "dinosaur", "Halloween", "Christmas", and "hurricane" should be banned?

 

[fskimospy]

Who said anything about me agreeing with that? I don't.

This is not an area I think the government, at any level, needs to have any input in. It should be up to each individual school district to decide what they want/do not want in their tests... and they should exercise some common sense.

This makes literally zero sense. Your own article that you linked talked about the city's choice to limit the words used in the standardized tests that the city makes. It has nothing to do with what the individual districts under the city DOE do.

I know that people don't often read the articles that other people post, but you should at least read the articles you post yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Any state that holds NASCAR races allows 100mph driving on the race track by race drivers during the race.

/facepalm

 

[Mursilis]

While I agree that people are putting way too much thought into what words might be useful for test questions and that it's a waste of time, people's objections here are even worse.

This is not censorship in any way, and the idea that test questions should not be upsetting to students is a no-brainer.

Really? Upsetting is a world apart from offensive. I would definitely be against test questions that are clearly offensive ("10 crackers board a bus . . ."), but banning words like dinosaur, hurricane, and wildfire because they could be upsetting? That's a bit too far, IMHO.

 

[davmat787]

If a man is driving his car at a constant speed of 100mph how long will it take him to drive 100 miles?

Lil' Timmy lost his puppy to a speeding driver, so that question should be banned too.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? Upsetting is a world apart from offensive. I would definitely be against test questions that are clearly offensive ("10 crackers board a bus . . ."), but banning words like dinosaur, hurricane, and wildfire because they could be upsetting? That's a bit too far, IMHO.

Why is it too far? Do you feel that this limits the ability of test making organizations to make an effective test? If not, why does it possibly matter?

 

[xBiffx]

Oh geeze "http://religion.blah.blah." That's never going to be good. Should have stopped at just reading the link, but I didn't. What a bunch of nuts/zealots.

 

[dank69]

That's what the story in the OP is about.. and even then the story also mentions Florida. It doesn't matter, though, because banning words like those mentioned is 100% stupid.

Do you think "dinosaur", "Halloween", "Christmas", and "hurricane" should be banned?

I think some of the words should be banned but some seem a bit over the top. That doesn't blind me to the fact that this is the result of the litigious society we now live in. The city is just trying to protect itself and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Once you start going down the path of "could be upsetting", there is no limit to what "could be upsetting" to someone, and you get into PC idiocy, as evidenced in this case. Anything could be upsetting to someone, the standard should be things that are patently offensive or discriminatory to the entire community at large.

 

[davmat787]

Yes, my mother has been a teacher for 30 years. There exists no curriculum I am aware of that teaches students to deal with questions that evoke the traumatic obliteration of their home during standardized testing. Perhaps you can link some?

In the interest of continuing to split hairs (lol @ those arguing over the 100mph) why would a kid be taking a test if his home was just obliterated, during standardized testing? Also, chances are the school would be shut down due to the widespread devastation, lack of teachers, lack of water/power .etc.

 

[dank69]

In the interest of continuing to split hairs (lol @ those arguing over the 100mph) why would a kid be taking a test if his home was just obliterated, during standardized testing? Also, chances are the school would be shut down due to the widespread devastation, lack of teachers, lack of water/power .etc.

Is it possible his home was affected and the school was not? How long after the obliteration should the kid return to school? How long after the obliteration should it no longer bother the kid? What if the kid lost his baby sister in the hurricane?

 

[zsdersw]

I think some of the words should be banned but some seem a bit over the top. That doesn't blind me to the fact that this is the result of the litigious society we now live in. The city is just trying to protect itself and there is nothing wrong with that.

What level of absurd or "over the top" is not justified in attempting to "protect itself"?

 

[fskimospy]

In the interest of continuing to split hairs (lol @ those arguing over the 100mph) why would a kid be taking a test if his home was just obliterated, during standardized testing? Also, chances are the school would be shut down due to the widespread devastation, lack of teachers, lack of water/power .etc.

I didn't mean last week, presumably that sort of thing would stay with you a little while. A good friend of mine had her house burned down in the San Diego wildfires of 2003. She still remembers it quite vividly.

Regardless, these sort of arguments are pointless. Actually this whole thread is pointless. People are mad that NYC has given a list of words it doesn't want used to people that it pays to create its tests. Who cares.

 

[dank69]

What level of absurd or "over the top" is not justified in attempting to "protect itself"?

I think if you are not infringing on other people's rights it should be legal for you to put a warning label on the jars of peanut butter that you manufacture that reads 'This product may contain peanuts.'

Stupid? Definitely. Necessary? Unfortunately.