Loaded words

[zsdersw]

Come on.

You asked me to describe a scenario in which a government shouldn't have control over what goes in its tests. I replied any test that such a government requires all schools in its jurisdiction to take.

My gut feeling is that I don't care about the specific words. Seriously, any individual word on there I could care less about. I'm sure there are some that I disagree with and some that I agree with. The entire controversy is dumb in my opinion, because the city unquestionably has the power to control what goes in its tests, and the removal of these words will not impede the creation or function of them in any way, shape, or form.

Nice dodge.

 

[fskimospy]

You asked me to describe a scenario in which a government shouldn't have control over what goes in its tests. I replied any test that such a government requires all schools in its jurisdiction to take.

Like I said, that's just ridiculous considering the structure of education.

Nice dodge.

I'm lost as to why you think telling you 'I don't care about your question' is dodging it.

 

[woolfe9999]

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?

Exactly this. The cost of doing this is essentially nil, other than the tiny administrative cost of coming up with a list of words to avoid. What this really is is the school board covering their own asses more than trying to be "PC." The way they look at it, if there's the slightest chance a kid is upset by some word and tells his or her parents, then they have complaints and it turns into a major headache. The odds of it happening may not be that high, but the cost of avoiding the words is almost nothing. So they bend over backwards to avoid any word that has even a small chance of upsetting someone.

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

Exactly this. The cost of doing this is essentially nil, other than the tiny administrative cost of coming up with a list of words to avoid. What this really is is the school board covering their own asses more than trying to be "PC." The way they look at it, if there's the slightest chance a kid is upset by some word and tells his or her parents, then they have complaints and it turns into a major headache. The odds of it happening may not be that high, but the cost of avoiding the words is almost nothing. So they bend over backwards to avoid any word that has even a small chance of upsetting someone.

- wolf

I think you made a pretty good argument as to why doing this is a BAD idea, not a good one. They are furthering the notion that everything has to be crafted in such a PC way as to not possibly offend or irritate anyone, ever. That's just a dumb road to go down. Restrictions on words should be used judiciously and as little as possible, otherwise it will lead to the kind of idiocy we see in this example.

You bet next year someone is going to be complaining about some other word they were offended by, and you're going to be at it again.

 

[monovillage]

You don't pay them, I do. It's New York City's DOE.

We have our own Department of Education where I live, and while they're not as stupid as yours and they're not as big assholes, they still suck.

 

[fskimospy]

We have our own Department of Education where I live, and while they're not as stupid as yours and they're not as big assholes, they still suck.

Oh, well maybe you should make a thread about them, that sounds like it would be really interesting. Or better yet, be the change you want to see in the world and go start a campaign to eliminate yours. The people here in NYC will stick with ours just fine. Local government, yes?

 

[DominionSeraph]

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

Except on a race track you go nowhere, not 100 miles.

 

[bfdd]

Are you saying that the city shouldn't endeavor to make questions that do not evoke unpleasant emotions? This is silliness.

Education should not be censored, only those who wish to control the masses through educational enslavement would wish to censor any material, no matter how small of a deal, in education.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think you made a pretty good argument as to why doing this is a BAD idea, not a good one. They are furthering the notion that everything has to be crafted in such a PC way as to not possibly offend or irritate anyone, ever. That's just a dumb road to go down. Restrictions on words should be used judiciously and as little as possible, otherwise it will lead to the kind of idiocy we see in this example.

You bet next year someone is going to be complaining about some other word they were offended by, and you're going to be at it again.

Perhaps, but the problem you're describing doesn't originate with the people who are making this decision. It originates in society at large. They're just covering their asses because let's face it, if little Timmy whose house fell down in a hurricane is crying after seeing the word the next thing you know its on the nightly news and guess what, little Timmy's best friend little Billy died in the hurricane and how insensitive they are! In a perfect world, people should have thicker skins and they shouldn't have to CYA, but it isn't a perfect world.

 

[fskimospy]

Education should not be censored, only those who wish to control the masses through educational enslavement would wish to censor any material, no matter how small of a deal, in education.

Tests are not there to impart any new understanding or material to the students, they are there to measure what has been learned. Therefore, education is not being censored.

 

[zsdersw]

Except on a race track you go nowhere, not 100 miles.

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

Driving for an hour on a race track at constant speed of 100mph will yield a traveled distance of 100 miles, regardless of whether the start and finish points are 100 miles apart or whether the start point is the finish point.

 

[dank69]

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

Driving for an hour on a race track at constant speed of 100mph will yield a traveled distance of 100 miles, regardless of whether the start and finish points are 100 miles apart or whether the start point is the finish point.

Good for you! Even if your premise for this thread was comprised of 100% fail, you were able to win an argument over an entirely irrelevant point.

 

[cybrsage]

Except on a race track you go nowhere, not 100 miles.

According to you, if you walk 10 miles to work, then 10 miles back home at the end of the day, you did not go anywhere.

Your superiour intellect has failed you once again.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I think you made a pretty good argument as to why doing this is a BAD idea, not a good one. They are furthering the notion that everything has to be crafted in such a PC way as to not possibly offend or irritate anyone, ever. That's just a dumb road to go down. Restrictions on words should be used judiciously and as little as possible, otherwise it will lead to the kind of idiocy we see in this example.

You bet next year someone is going to be complaining about some other word they were offended by, and you're going to be at it again.

I agree. Considering that 50% of the country thinks that abortion should be illegal and that most of the other half would agree that it's a pretty distasteful topic it's common sense to stay away from that. But it makes no sense to avoid talking about birthday parties just because .1% of the population thinks they are wrong. I'm a Jew but I wouldn't be offended by a test question that involved a ham sandwich.

While this particular policy is trivial, the idea that people need to be completely protected from even hearing about things they disagree with completely turns the concept of freedom on its head and should be apposed as a matter of principle.

 

[monovillage]

I agree. Considering that 50% of the country thinks that abortion should be illegal and that most of the other half would agree that it's a pretty distasteful topic it's common sense to stay away from that. But it makes no sense to avoid talking about birthday parties just because .1% of the population thinks they are wrong. I'm a Jew but I wouldn't be offended by a test question that involved a ham sandwich.

While this particular policy is trivial, the idea that people need to be completely protected from even hearing about things they disagree with completely turns the concept of freedom on its head and should be apposed as a matter of principle.

well said.

 

[zsdersw]

Good for you! Even if your premise for this thread was comprised of 100% fail, you were able to win an argument over an entirely irrelevant point.

Your premise for your opinion of the thread is 100% fail.

 

[DrPizza]

I considered making a thread about this last week. There are a lot of people who are quite irritated that "evolution" and "dinosaurs" are on that list. (Particularly, science teachers.)

 

[cybrsage]

I can see not using the word Tornado in math class in a town recently decimated by a tornado...that would be just plain stupid. But not using Tornado in a town which has only seen them on TV is just as stupid. On the same note, putting a loaded question onto a test is also stupid, the examples of masters beating slaves show this nicely. Keep the questions neutral and all will be fine. Injecting social issues into math class, for example, is wrong.

 

[PokerGuy]

In a perfect world, people should have thicker skins and they shouldn't have to CYA, but it isn't a perfect world.

That's true, but by actually recognizing it and making it "official" with these lists you make the problem worse, and "the list" will just keep growing as every idiot out there who doesn't like something will demand that their words of choice get added to the list.

 

[fskimospy]

I considered making a thread about this last week. There are a lot of people who are quite irritated that "evolution" and "dinosaurs" are on that list. (Particularly, science teachers.)

Sure, but why does it matter? From my understanding these tests serve to evaluate how much a student knows about English and Math. The presence or absence of questions about dinosaurs, while annoying to me from a social standpoint, is pretty irrelevant.

If they were taking out dinosaurs from a science test I would be up in arms about it. Choosing to have a kid count crocodile teeth in a math problem instead of Tyrannosaurus teeth? Not so much.

 

[Moonbeam]

This makes me sick. I'm really good at questions about dinosaurs and Christmas.

 

[zsdersw]

The bottom line is that these words would only be considered "loaded" by idiots. Christmas? Halloween? Dinosaur? Christmas and Halloween are words that appear on almost every calendar ever printed. Dinosaurs weren't around when anyone who was, is, or could be a citizen of the United States was alive.

Justifying the banning of these words on the basis of things like master/slave beatings and the bleeding-heart gut reaction to natural disasters ("hurricane" is banned in FL, but "tropical cyclone" is presumed to be acceptable?) is nothing more than justifying the governments of NYC & FL appealing to the lowest common denominator. It's 100% wrong... and should be said so.

 

[polarmystery]

A backwards we will go,
A backwards we will go...
The earth is six thousand years old
A backwards we will go...

 

[dmcowen674]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...chools-ban-loaded-words-from-tests/?hpt=hp_c3

Divorce. Dinosaurs, Birthdays. Religion. Halloween. Christmas. Television. These are a few of the 50-plus words and references the New York City Department of Education is hoping to ban from the city’s standardized tests.

California avoids the use of the word "weed" on tests and Florida avoids the phrases that use "Hurricane" or "Wildfires"

"Dinosaurs" evoking unpleasant emotions? The New York Post speculated that the "dinosaurs" could "call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists.”

Young Earth creationists, or Biblical creationists as they prefer to be called, often point to dinosaurs in making their arguments. They say dinosaurs and humans roamed Earth together, citing legends of dragons and say the fossil record shows the earth is 6,000 years old, though few paleontologists and geologists share this theory.


At the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, the heart of the Young Earth Creationism movement, dinosaur models and exhibits fill the museum displays and gift shop.


============================
This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Their justification is nothing more than "we've done it other years" and "other states do it"... as if that makes it okay?

Cool

I'm originally from New York.

New York needs to become more like Kentucky. :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

A backwards we will go,
A backwards we will go...
The earth is six thousand years old
A backwards we will go...

I want to ride a Dinosaur to work.

At least it won't cost $5 a gallon to do so. :thumbsup: