Attitudes towards votech education [ATTN: Boyish-Tigerlilly]

[Nephtys]

Let's try it from this angle. How do you know there is no evidence?

Because you have not provided it. Or are you asking your opponent to prove that your evidence does not exist?

If you want to make your argument, cough up evidence to support it.

[SirNitram]

Nothing in the phrase 'consistantly applied' indicates a single instructor. You are a liar if you think otherwise.

My God, it's like talking to on IPod with one song on loop. How many times do I have to dig this up for you, Nitram?

You don't need to play it even the second time, you need to actually think about more than the next creative dodge.

"The strength of reason behind an argument submitted in a paper can be graded just as objectively as the correctness of a multiple choice math question, given a consistently applied standard."

Which only matters in the context that this thread had become if it's more than just one instructor; indeed, most would say it'd need to be the majority, or at least the majority of instructors outside of pointless diploma mills.

Do you see anything in that sentence that pluralizes "argument," "paper," or "multiple choice math question?" Do you? No, because I didn't fucking pluralize them. Obviously I'm talking about a single assignment, which implies an individual instructor.

You want to backpedal any faster, you worthless shitstain? If you're arguing about one instructor, you wouldn't be sifting through thousands of things on Google Scholar for the one silver bullet you hope will win this for you.

If you meant this but failed to make that clear, fine, but you have basically produced a meaningless division: One good instructor in an educational system of how many? Two good instructors? The end result is that we get back to the Humanities being subjectively graded. Even if one individual is consistant they can still be subjective.

As can an instructor in any subject, humanities or not, if we allow for the grading formula. That's the fucking point. Let me rephrase it for you.

Yes, rather than admit you're working with a stupidly small sample purposefully designed to be unfalsifiable(Because if one instructor fails, you'll just move to the next), you'll repeat yourself and pretend I'm not paying attention. Keep it up.

Given a grading system specifying some reasonable measure of strength for an argument (it follows or it doesn't), an argument in a paper can be as objectively evaluated as a multiple choice math question. You start with the base arguments and work your way up the constructions to the thesis. Likewise, you start from question 1 on your SAT Math section, and work your way down to the end of the test. Get it?

As I said several pages back, in an idealized universe, this would be done. You would have to prove it's done both consistantly and objectively; I'd been setting the bar obligingly low so far, simply requiring a subjective but consistant reasoning throughout a meaningful percentage of the educational community.

Which is what? One good instructor? One instructor who utilizes a particular method consistantly? What do you think that will prove?

I'm looking for the methods themselves.

Ah yes, that's why you've leapt into holistic grading. Let me give you a hint: When a method is described as going 'beyond mechanical correctness to focus on the overall effect of the writing.', it is not objective. Same with the definition of 'looking at the paper as an entire document instead of distinguishing content from form.'

A paper from the Journal Of Engineering Education speaks on holistic grading, mainly as.. A method to improve communications, because it does not deal with the content, the facts, and so forth.

Or did your reply just now become one of those endless 'Oh, I agree, but..' statement I get from you?

I don't understand why you have a problem with me expressing agreement with some reservations. I don't particularly care. What gets me is your insistence on picking whatever bogeyman you want to beat up on and tossing him at me.

Please, I'm just pestering you to shut up until you actually can produce some evidence, though I'm having alot of fun with your laughable concepts of how absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense, or the wonderful amusement of you thinking digging for a single instructor will mean anything in proving your point.

It isn't less sane. As I said earlier, I suspect some humanities can be objectively graded. The question isn't can. As I said earlier, in an idealized universe, they would be. The question is are they. And there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

Let's try it from this angle. How do you know there is no evidence?

'I'm not winning. Damn. Okay, you do the work.' No, metavac. If there's evidence, it is your responsibility to put it forward.

[metavac]

Because you have not provided it. Or are you asking your opponent to prove that your evidence does not exist?

If you want to make your argument, cough up evidence to support it.

You obviously haven't read through the posts, so I'll summarize my argument for you in three words:

"I don't know."

What evidence do you require for me to establish that?

[metavac]

Which only matters in the context that this thread had become if it's more than just one instructor; indeed, most would say it'd need to be the majority, or at least the majority of instructors outside of pointless diploma mills.

No shit.

You want to backpedal any faster, you worthless shitstain? If you're arguing about one instructor, you wouldn't be sifting through thousands of things on Google Scholar for the one silver bullet you hope will win this for you.

Win what? The only thing I'm defending is the fact that "I don't know," moron. And where did you get the idea that I'm looking for just "one instructor" to establish anything? I've already pointed out that would amount to anecdotal evidence, the whole reason I'm not satisfied with the idea that humanities instructors can use objective methods to evaluate content.

Yes, rather than admit you're working with a stupidly small sample purposefully designed to be unfalsifiable(Because if one instructor fails, you'll just move to the next), you'll repeat yourself and pretend I'm not paying attention. Keep it up.

Christ, man. Keep up. The exercise above was to show you that 'consistently applied standard' referred whatever an instructor devised to grade an assignment. I'm researching whether or not instructors in general use such methods.

As I said several pages back, in an idealized universe, this would be done. You would have to prove it's done both consistantly and objectively...

Agreed.

I'd been setting the bar obligingly low so far, simply requiring a subjective but consistant reasoning throughout a meaningful percentage of the educational community.

As opposed to what? Setting the standard arbitrarily high such that even math and science instructors can't possibly achieve it?

Ah yes, that's why you've leapt into holistic grading. Let me give you a hint: When a method is described as going 'beyond mechanical correctness to focus on the overall effect of the writing.', it is not objective. Same with the definition of 'looking at the paper as an entire document instead of distinguishing content from form.'

If you know the answer, feel free to share it anytime. I'm not doing this to debate you or win anything. I'm doing this to address my own concerns and come to a conclusion.

A paper from the Journal Of Engineering Education speaks on holistic grading, mainly as.. A method to improve communications, because it does not deal with the content, the facts, and so forth.

Did you not read my description of my testing and its results so far? Where the fuck do you think I got the term 'holistic grading' from? And that particular article describes holistic grading as the consideration of all elements worth grading--content, writing, presentation, etc.--as a whole, not everything but content. If you're just repeating the experiment I've done already, great. You can see why it's useless. But don't act like you're holding an ace by doing the work I've already done.

Please, I'm just pestering you to shut up until you actually can produce some evidence, though I'm having alot of fun with your laughable concepts of how absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense, or the wonderful amusement of you thinking digging for a single instructor will mean anything in proving your point.

No, you're pestering me to dodge your responsibility to justify your claim that it's a fact that humanities courses are primary subjectively graded and mathematics and science courses are objectively graded." I don't hold that against you, I'm doing your legwork, and I'm doing it because I'm generally interested in whether or not that claim is a fact.

'I'm not winning. Damn. Okay, you do the work.' No, metavac. If there's evidence, it is your responsibility to put it forward.

Tell you what. Declare victory and I'll get back to you when I have something. I'm not playing this 'winning' game with you.

[Darth Wong]

And just so we're clear, I would never argue that the scope of ambiguity in the sciences or maths approaches that of the humanities. There is a meaningful difference between say an uncertainty between theory and measurement of the energy density of the vacuum at a precision of 10e-9 J and some uncountable scope of possible interpretations of a poem's meaning.

Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING OTHERWISE, moron? All of your arguments seek to dismiss the difference in objectivity between math/science and the humanities, and then you slap this disclaimer on your arguments just to forestall people accusing you of being a blithering idiot. So which is it? Do you concede that you do not in fact have any case whatsoever and that humanities is riddled with subjectivity, or do you continue to argue that there is no way to establish any such difference?

[SirNitram]

Tell you what. Declare victory and I'll get back to you when I have something. I'm not playing this 'winning' game with you.

Debates.. Which is what this is.. Are naturally competitive. One point stands, one falls, or it remains deadlocked. All I have asked is that you shut up until you have some actual evidence, as opposed to this compulsive 'Reply reply reply', reciting that you're looking, as if there's points for effort.

By the way.. The fact some universities apply completely different definitions of holistic grading(Some saying it is an amalgam of content and form, while some saying it doesn't matter, it's how you convey it) instantly torpedos it as a worthwhile avenue for your personal enlightenment on this issue.

I seriously wonder about you. You don't seem to grasp what debates are about, and seem offended that someone would engage you in one expecting the stronger position to stand tall at the end.

[metavac]

Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING OTHERWISE, moron?

Show me one post where I am, DW. I'm dead serious. One post. Is it so hard to believe that somebody has a narrow set of reservations on an issue?

All of your arguments seek to dismiss the difference in objectivity between math/science and the humanities and then you slap this disclaimer on your arguments just to forestall people accusing you of being a blithering idiot.

What the fuck? Since when did ambiguity become either synonymous or a measure of objectivity? What does one have to do with the other?

As for why I slapped on the disclaimer, here's what I've learn from my month here. If you want to make a point, make it as early, succinctly and comprehensively as possible. If I don't, then at best I force others to go round and round trying to clear up your remarks. At worst, I'm stringing them on needlessly and perpetuating a misperception for God knows what reason. Given my exchange with Durandal, I thought it best to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that humanities is as unambiguous as the math and sciences. I'm well aware that circumstances of different fields affects precision in study differently.

[metavac]

Debates.. Which is what this is.. Are naturally competitive. One point stands, one falls, or it remains deadlocked. All I have asked is that you shut up until you have some actual evidence, as opposed to this compulsive 'Reply reply reply', reciting that you're looking, as if there's points for effort.

What passed for a 'debate' on the substantive matter ended when I consented to doing your research for you; I'll get to that when I'm damn well ready. However, our issues aren't limited to whether or not objective methods of grading in the humanities exist. They also include your willful and continual revisionism in this thread--including but not limited to repeatedly asserting that my position is or ever was that 'the humanities are objectively graded'--and every single new bit of logic-chopping you attempt to use to avoid the empirical question of whether or not such standards exist.

By the way.. The fact some universities apply completely different definitions of holistic grading(Some saying it is an amalgam of content and form, while some saying it doesn't matter, it's how you convey it) instantly torpedos it as a worthwhile avenue for your personal enlightenment on this issue.

Some universities use different systems to grade math exams. Who the hell cares? The issue is whether or not these grading systems objectively address the content.

I seriously wonder about you. You don't seem to grasp what debates are about, and seem offended that someone would engage you in one expecting the stronger position to stand tall at the end.

Well, I'm not offended by the challenge and I enjoy debates. I don't having positions made up for me out of whole cloth.

[Darth Wong]

Show me one post where I am, DW. I'm dead serious. One post. Is it so hard to believe that somebody has a narrow set of reservations on an issue?

You said, in response to SirNitram saying that humanities are subjective:

Oh give me a break, Nitram. The strength of reason behind an argument submitted in a paper can be graded just as objectively as the correctness of a multiple choice math question

You're a fucking liar.

[SirNitram]

Debates.. Which is what this is.. Are naturally competitive. One point stands, one falls, or it remains deadlocked. All I have asked is that you shut up until you have some actual evidence, as opposed to this compulsive 'Reply reply reply', reciting that you're looking, as if there's points for effort.

What passed for a 'debate' on the substantive matter ended when I consented to doing your research for you; I'll get to that when I'm damn well ready. However, our issues aren't limited to whether or not objective methods of grading in the humanities exist. They also include your willful and continual revisionism in this thread--including but not limited to repeatedly asserting that my position is or ever was that 'the humanities are objectively graded'--and every single new bit of logic-chopping you attempt to use to avoid the empirical question of whether or not such standards exist.

'My research for you'? Oh how droll. Do come up with something original and that you can substantiate before you try this again, though, kid. I have never claimed you said the Humanities are objectively graded. I did not even require that in the evidence I would have accepted to concede, as I myself said. A subjective standard which was applied consistantly across a majority.. Even a slim majority.. Of credible institutions of learning would have been sufficient. So now you're just flat-out lying, and that's not surprising.

By the way.. The fact some universities apply completely different definitions of holistic grading(Some saying it is an amalgam of content and form, while some saying it doesn't matter, it's how you convey it) instantly torpedos it as a worthwhile avenue for your personal enlightenment on this issue.

Some universities use different systems to grade math exams. Who the hell cares? The issue is whether or not these grading systems objectively address the content.

Math exams may vary, but you won't find one that says '1+1=3 and here's why' is right because it's effective communication, ignoring content.

I seriously wonder about you. You don't seem to grasp what debates are about, and seem offended that someone would engage you in one expecting the stronger position to stand tall at the end.

Well, I'm not offended by the challenge and I enjoy debates. I don't having positions made up for me out of whole cloth.

I haven't, and no amount of your flat-out lying to try and make me seem like a bad guy will make that so. So please... Go away.

[metavac]

Show me one post where I am, DW. I'm dead serious. One post. Is it so hard to believe that somebody has a narrow set of reservations on an issue?

You said, in response to SirNitram saying that humanities are subjective:

Oh give me a break, Nitram. The strength of reason behind an argument submitted in a paper can be graded just as objectively as the correctness of a multiple choice math question

You're a fucking liar.

I'm a liar? I said "I would never argue that the scope of ambiguity in the sciences or maths approaches that of the humanities." I didn't say objective. In what world are 'ambiguous' and 'objective' antonyms? Goddamn it, it's even in the fucking post you replied to!

[Darth Wong]

I'm a liar? I said "I would never argue that the scope of ambiguity in the sciences or maths approaches that of the humanities." I didn't say objective. In what world are 'ambiguous' and 'objective' antonyms? Goddamn it, it's even in the fucking post you replied to!

So that's your defense? Seizing on the choice of words with no regard for the context this discussion takes place in? How pathetic. Subjective grading introduces more ambiguity by its intrinsic nature, fool. Remember, we're talking about objective grading, not just the English word "objective" by itself?

[metavac]

'My research for you'? Oh how droll. Do come up with something original and that you can substantiate before you try this again, though, kid.

Yes, my research for you. I refer you to your post here. See for yourself how the discussion evolved You'd have to be a real tool not to see not only that I'd taken a non-committal position, but you'd taken a committed one.

This has to be some kind of joke. An English Romantic course gave Meta trouble, so all Humanities are now somehow as difficult as Calculus and various science courses? Talk about extrapolating your own experiences into the world based on sheer fucking arrogance...

Pretty much everyone in this thread is relying on personal experience. I'm at least admitting it up front and reserving judgment.

Despite the fact that humanities courses are primary subjectively graded and mathematics and science courses are objectively graded? Stop being dishonest.

Don't throw around horseshit here.

I agree. Which is why I'm curious as to why we're all making broad claims without anything that could be remotely considered evidence.

So you're recanting your claim that the SAT scores are some kind of good measure? Good.

Quoted for your benefit

I have never claimed you said the Humanities are objectively graded. I did not even require that in the evidence I would have accepted to concede, as I myself said. A subjective standard which was applied consistantly across a majority.. Even a slim majority.. Of credible institutions of learning would have been sufficient. So now you're just flat-out lying, and that's not surprising.

The hell you didn't. From this post:

"Those making a positive argument(In our tangent, that there is a consistantly applied standard, as opposed to there isn't one) must meet the burden."

Then this one: "No. You are the one asserting, from the beginning, that the Humanities are just as hard as non-Humanities."

Then again here: "Because as much as you want things to be otherwise, there's no reason to beleive a theory that has zero evidence..."

And exactly what does your 'falsify this unsubstantiated belief if mine' requests for evidence have to do with you misrepresenting my position?

Math exams may vary, but you won't find one that says '1+1=3 and here's why' is right because it's effective communication, ignoring content.

No, in the arithmetic sense you wouldn't, but since you continue to pretend that content is ignored in 'holistic grading,' you feel free to raise foolish objections like this.

I haven't, and no amount of your flat-out lying to try and make me seem like a bad guy will make that so. So please... Go away.

You're either lying or not keeping up, whichever one is your call--the evidence to the contrary stands above. I don't think you're the bad guy, I think this is just the way you are. Whether it not it gets under my skin is my problem.

[metavac]

So that's your defense? Seizing on the choice of words with no regard for the context this discussion takes place in? How pathetic.

No regard? The issue isn't over whether or not humanities produces as precise a set of results as the math and sciences. Who cares? Nobody in this thread is complaining that a population genetics question has more built in error than mechanics one. Are we going to argue that population genetics is by that virtue not objective?

Subjective grading introduces more ambiguity by its intrinsic nature, fool. Remember, we're talking about objective grading, not just the English word "objective" by itself?

No shit. That has fuck all to do with whether or not humanities grading is objective. Ambiguity exists in some quantity regardless.

[SirNitram]

You continue to post for no reason other than to scream how persecuted you are, and yet still with no evidence. You're just upset because your attempts to locate some sort of holy grail of objective grading in Humanities keeps failing.

You know, perhaps I am wrong, but this wrongness blossoms from a fundamental flaw in my psyche: I cannot comprehend someone staying in a debate for any other reason than debating a point. If you can't substantiate the point you clearly would like to make, but cannot do so honestly, why are you still here? Why are you still posting against me?

[Darth Wong]

So that's your defense? Seizing on the choice of words with no regard for the context this discussion takes place in? How pathetic.

No regard? The issue isn't over whether or not humanities produces as precise a set of results as the math and sciences. Who cares? Nobody in this thread is complaining that a population genetics question has more built in error than mechanics one. Are we going to argue that population genetics is by that virtue not objective?

Subjective grading introduces more ambiguity by its intrinsic nature, fool. Remember, we're talking about objective grading, not just the English word "objective" by itself?

No shit. That has fuck all to do with whether or not humanities grading is objective. Ambiguity exists in some quantity regardless.

You're full of shit. In your own example, given a multiple-choice math question where the answer is 2, 4, or 8, only one of those answers is correct. How the fuck can the grading of such a question possibly be just as ambiguous as an English essay question?

[metavac]

You continue to post for no reason other than to scream how persecuted you are, and yet still with no evidence.

You seem desperate for me to feel persecuted. Get over it. It's not happening. And until you address the substance here, I will keep reminding you, by linking to this post, that I'm assuming your burden.

You're just upset because your attempts to locate some sort of holy grail of objective grading in Humanities keeps failing.

Trust me, Nitram. I'm not working overtime to fulfill your burden.

You know, perhaps I am wrong, but this wrongness blossoms from a fundamental flaw in my psyche: I cannot comprehend someone staying in a debate for any other reason than debating a point.

Then why are you? Do you want me to simply concede to your completely unsubstianted claim?

If you can't substantiate the point you clearly would like to make, but cannot do so honestly, why are you still here? Why are you still posting against me?

So basically, you called me a liar because I said you attributed to me the claim that 'objective grading in humanities exists' and then you go and do it again? Please.

[SirNitram]

Try harder, metavac. You can scream that you're doing my work, but no, you're not. Because absense of evidence, no matter how many times you scream otherwise, is evidence of absense. With no guidelines I could find that directed humanities at a signifigantly high level to grade on the same basis, a consistant standard, subjective or objective, is nonexistant unless someone produces proof otherwise.

Or were you stupid enough to think my point wasn't entirely based on the fact that nationwide curriculums that are enforced are pathetically rare, and even less often carry standards for grading?

You keep insisting you're not holding a position, just doing my work. My work was done the instant I checked to see if someone had altered the standards for a humanities degree on the national level. Because of what? Yep, no evidence that there's a standard.

What inventive bullshit will you come up with next? More on how multiple choices with one concrete answer is ambiguous?

[metavac]

You're full of shit. In your own example, given a multiple-choice math question where the answer is 2, 4, or 8, only one of those answers is correct. How the fuck can the grading of such a question possibly be just as ambiguous as an English essay question?

Mike, the word I used was 'objective.' Read the full passage:

The strength of reason behind an argument submitted in a paper can be graded just as objectively as the correctness of a multiple choice math question, given a consistently applied standard. We can round and round as to whether this actually happens in practice, but I'm not going to commit to anything until I see some actual research. And so far I'm turning up nil.

As early is that post post, I had already acknowledge that I don't know whether or not such methods for grading exist. As such, I chose to remain uncommitted until I've seen research on the subject. And I reported that my preliminary searches were turning up very little on the subject of grading in the humanities.

To summarize. Objectivity is not antonym for unambiguous and I'm not going to argue from ignorance. Why anyone has a problem understanding this when it's been spelled out clearly and repeatedly is beyond me.

[metavac]

Try harder, metavac. You can scream that you're doing my work, but no, you're not.

I've already proven that I'm doing your work. All you've shown is that you've repeated the steps I've taken.

Because absense of evidence, no matter how many times you scream otherwise, is evidence of absense.

Nitram. How many times did I say it? Once. It's a fucking idiom for argument from ignorance, which is precisely what you're doing. You perform no test, you simply default to the alternative.

With no guidelines I could find that directed humanities at a signifigantly high level to grade on the same basis, a consistant standard, subjective or objective, is nonexistant unless someone produces proof otherwise.

That's dicta. What's it's justification.

Or were you stupid enough to think my point wasn't entirely based on the fact that nationwide curriculums that are enforced are pathetically rare, and even less often carry standards for grading?

Who cares? Nobody's looking for a nationwide curriculum. Is there a nationwide math or science curriculum in the US?

You keep insisting you're not holding a position, just doing my work. My work was done the instant I checked to see if someone had altered the standards for a humanities degree on the national level. Because of what? Yep, no evidence that there's a standard.

Describe this test to me so that I may repeat it. Show me exactly what you did. Then I'll judge whether or not it's sufficient to dispose of the hypothesis.

What inventive bullshit will you come up with next? More on how multiple choices with one concrete answer is ambiguous?

There you go again, inventing new positions out of whole cloth. I dare you, Nitram. Go back and find one post where I claimed that "multiple choices with one concrete answer is ambiguous." Do it or shut up.

[SirNitram]

Try harder, metavac. You can scream that you're doing my work, but no, you're not.

I've already proven that I'm doing your work. All you've shown is that you've repeated the steps I've taken.

Why do you persist in this utter falsehood? Do you desperately need the 'Noble Centrist' illusion for your own mental state to continue, because you sure as hellfire aren't fooling anyone here.

Because absense of evidence, no matter how many times you scream otherwise, is evidence of absense.

Nitram. How many times did I say it? Once. It's a fucking idiom for argument from ignorance, which is precisely what you're doing. You perform no test, you simply default to the alternative.

I look for what evidence I would expect, IE, the footprint of a policy of coordinated and thus consistant grading basis, if the theory that such existed was true. It was not there. You just now blather on about doing my work like anyone, especially me, would beleive your lies.

With no guidelines I could find that directed humanities at a signifigantly high level to grade on the same basis, a consistant standard, subjective or objective, is nonexistant unless someone produces proof otherwise.

That's dicta. What's it's justification.

A policy of consistant, unified grading on the humanities would necessitate an implemented policy across several institutions.There is no footprint of this. Ergo, there's no reason to beleive otherwise.

Or were you stupid enough to think my point wasn't entirely based on the fact that nationwide curriculums that are enforced are pathetically rare, and even less often carry standards for grading?

Who cares? Nobody's looking for a nationwide curriculum. Is there a nationwide math or science curriculum in the US?

I care, because it would be about what's necessary for your desired theory to come out on top. There's no other groups with the clout to force this sort of consistancy.

And the question isn't the curriculum. It's how you grade. Or do you think universities freely allow teachers to decide whether to mark 2+2=7 as right?

You keep insisting you're not holding a position, just doing my work. My work was done the instant I checked to see if someone had altered the standards for a humanities degree on the national level. Because of what? Yep, no evidence that there's a standard.

Describe this test to me so that I may repeat it. Show me exactly what you did. Then I'll judge whether or not it's sufficient to dispose of the hypothesis.

So you can continue your falsehoods, bullshitting, and hoodwinking? Even throwing in a little more of your pathetic 'I'M DOING YOUR WORK!!!!' lie? Nah. Do your own work, kiddo. Heaven knows it could be useful.

What inventive bullshit will you come up with next? More on how multiple choices with one concrete answer is ambiguous?

There you go again, inventing new positions out of whole cloth. I dare you, Nitram. Go back and find one post where I claimed that "multiple choices with one concrete answer is ambiguous." Do it or shut up.

No. I will not shut up. I will of course point to your exchange with Mike, where you're a desperate little monkey trying to avoid any solid position, because you know it'll be knocked down.

How about you actually stop posting until you have some evidence, you semi-evolved peice of trash? Like you keep saying you will? Or will you continue your reflexive posting without point, because it satisfies some sick little need of your ego?