Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 20:59:16
the schools were saying that they did not have enough buildings to house all the students. they did not have enough classrooms. many of the classrooms they had were substandard. not insulated. too cold. too humid.
they did not have enough teachers. because they would not pay them. so the teachers would leave. so they didn't have enough teachers for the classrooms.
so covid came and everybody is required to stay home.
and now covid is ending and they can't decide if they want the kids to be not attending or if they want bums on seats. that's their own wording and phrasing of what they are trying or aiming to accomplish. they are trying or aiming to keep the bums on the seats so as to keep crime rate down, apparently. less home violence if the kids are in school. less breaking and entering and so on if the kids are in school. if the bums are on the seats.
but when the bums are on the seats the kids get the chance to see the kids who are supposedly most clever who have been picked out to rule etc etc. and the kids get to see which kids can apparently get the right answers on the problems... they can see how they are getting the right answers... who is giving them the right answers. the grading schedule. who is grading. whether the grading is according to schedule. whether things are fair or whether instead of working to learn you realise that the job for you is over however many other people's dead bodies. apparently. that's what they are most keen on having you know.
the solution is to be clearer about the actual schools. so, as you would have prisons with the board or the mangement not being incarerated themselves... you would have members of the board on the public schools sending their kids off to private where they can do equestrian sports on weekends etc etc...
when they aren't being beaten with bed legs. there is always that, of course.
so the entire school cohort is marked, already. whether they are allowed to pass NCEA, or whatever.
the tests are a farce in thse parts. they are designed to scramble. only.
even at university... they would say that the mark or measure of a valid high end distinguisher question was the fact that the question elicited the correct answer in only a small percentage of students. that is to say, the kids at some school could get taught arbitrary rules like 'if you genuinely cannot distinguish between A and B on a multi-guess then always select the letter sequentiall prior' and if things are random otherwise... then they can elicit what it is that they want. a question they regard to be a high end distinuisher that is only answered correctly by the small percentage who were informed to answer in that manner or that way.
the meaning falls out. the value. yes. all of that. all of those things.
well, that' snot true...
let's be clear on what and who we are serving. who'se your daddy. who'se your god. what is the aim? the point? what is the end game, here? What is the natural final solution? What is maximal efficiency? How will we know when it has been arrived at? what is it all for, again???
There once was a Philosophy Professor at Waikato who argued that we were morally obliged to be nepotistic and preferentially help out and asisst people who were close to us rather than being fair and objective in various things. So then... what became of her husband? I think he was bullied out of completing his PhD with Otago... They never did get his PhD to external examiners. Apparently he has 'bi-polar' which means he is only suitable, now, to be a home-maker and always dependent on her and her salary for his way of life. So that is her... Um... Living her ethics and values. I suppose... I mean... I guess it's a slippery slope, to be fair. If you are allowed to bias for your 'friends' then why not just set yourself up as your own friend. In other words, ethics is really about serving you at the expense of everyone else... That's what ethics is or means. That's what justice and fairness is and means. It's about everyone being subservient to you...
What are her kids doing? I guess they are dependent on her for as long as she can get away with that...
That's then interesting, hey. Nepotism... That' sabout keeping your kid dependent on you. Right? Appointing them into positions that are dependent on you. It's about granting them freedom? It's about dependence on you...
Riiiight....
Clearly the final solution to any ethics problem...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1120689
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20220419/msgs/1120689.html